christian brueckner, christian b, christian brückner or in short cb, 28 june and later.

i was just looking what the reactions are at the moment, but i saw some strange ones, it seems it is not clear this trial has 3 judges; uta engemann, who is the lead judge of the team, timo schmidt and anke hesse are the other two.
there are also to lay judges called schöffen.

at the start one of the schöffen was changed, but the team of judges that worked the case this far will stay the same.

it looks to be a clear case of when you point a finger on another party, the rest of your fingers do point back to your own party.

a lot of comments been put out to the motions of the defense team, but that is why you have such teams, both parties in front of the court in this court and other german courts are equal. both sides have to look at keeping everything done by the book.
and it is up to the judges who is heard and when, and to try to find out first of all the truth and secondly if the defendant has a culpable role in it, and after that what punishment has to follow on that.

and it can be hard to keep in your mind, that the stories of victims are often very real and very harsh, but they will stay that, only it is not a given the defendant in a court is also the one who did that. it is up to the judges to find the answer to that.
and because someone is already known as a bad guy or girl, it does not mean it is the bad guy or girl in this specific case, or cases.

the victim testimony i itself is used as information, information that must be seen as a filter, or maybe even more to be translated into legal matter at first. so at first are there culpable activities in it, and next does the information can be used to guide the defendant in the role of perpetrator.

and most law systems do not work in what often is called an eye for an eye, it is when you do unacceptable things, you have to pay with your freedom for it. usually resting on the principle that what is done can never be truly become undone, and that makes it often hard to get if the price is indeed high enough.

in this trial there is also the 2004 rape case, besides the ruling against this defendant under the german law of punishment, the victim itself also has a civil claim made, usually such events are possible to a certain amount of damages. so in that case there are actually two verdicts to make. one on the state versus cb and a civil ruling on hazel b versus cb.

there seems to be made a myth in that case too, there is no expert opinion that made hazel b het testimony stronger at all.
this is mostly fed through one news outlet. the expert only brought the yes, it is possible to recognise blue eyes in less optimal light circumstances as blue eyes. others simply would look dark, i think that needs much more words, there are more eye colours than just blue and dark ones usually called brown eyes.

but the ability to see blue eyes does not implicate that this make a specific pair of blue eyes different and by that can be used to identify its owner. so even when hazel b noticed blue eyes, and by law of nature that is possible, the question if you can identify a specific pair of blue eyes is not answered at all. in europe it is hardly an unique feature.

the expert denied the options to describe eyes as piercing, or other declaration put to blue eyes as possible.
so what still stands is blue eyes, but not piercing blue eyes.

and there is only a few words out of this expert testimony, but only that it is not a habit of the medical profession specialized in eyes to study the recognition of eyes, but more in recognition of eye problems. from these words it seems at best there is a status quo reached, that can be translated as this expert cannot state you can recognise or not a specific set of blue eyes in a way , you could make use of it to identify a specific person.

there is been a lot of discussion and speculation done about how recognisable eyes can be. but it simply has no definitive answer. there are no features in the blue eyes of the defendant, that make them unique and by that can be used as part of an identification. and most blue eyes do not have unique features.

so it is impossible to reach into a conclusion that hazel b can be able to recognise this pair of blue eyes and by that identify to a high enough standard cb as her attacker.
at the same time it also means you cannot exclude cb. there is simply no answer to the question if cb could be recognised by his eye colour only in the case. and by principles of law, when in doubt, the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant.

and this does not mean there is anything to put doubt on the story of hazel b. her story about her experiences will keep standing as it is and was, but it can never be that because the defendant is a known bad guy, he did all put out to his name.
and taking another's freedom, when there is still doubt about the right guy is served. and it can not solve much feelings and emotions in the victim if the wrong one is taken out, instead of the true perpetrator.

and there is said in court that there must be 3 solved cases that are communicated but not studied by the prosecution with the same mo, as the rape cases, of 2005, 2004 and the two on the videos that are only said to have existed many years ago.

and it is a shame no media have picked on to that. the media have often much easier access to case files, and solved in portugal means the files must be open for viewing. 3 solved cases could mean that 1 to 3 different others have been around doing the same as the cases in this trial and the earlier on that landed cb in jail for 7 years.

it also means the prosecution in this case had not done their job, by german law they have to look into all and everything that not only can plead a defendant guilty, but in equality also for all and everything that pleads him not guilty. and the pj put them on the list. so the information would be easily available to the prosecution.

i think the defense team reserves more attention to the 3 solved cases in case the profilers gets in as expert witnesses, through motions about bias that most likely will only be one profiler, and by order of the court that can only be looking at the 2004 rape case and cannot use the 2005 rape case already with a conviction to the mo in the 2004 rape case now at trial.

so the picture that was put out to the public, of one single perpetrator that did all the ugly things the prosecution could find is at best a false one.

and there is no need to pick a side in any court case, it has by law already the one and only possible side and that is what the truth is. and that is for each case in its own right needed. court cases are never nice, they are always about unacceptable behaviour, but at the same time with that same question is the defendant in it also the one who did this.

and yes there is a party that function as the accuser, and there is a party to defend against that and the judges in this law system to be impartial to both and has actively to seek for the truth.

and motions of the prosecution or the defence are not to be called out as negative influencing entities, it is part of their job. the rules of law and the court are for everyone the same, and need advocated to keep in line. and motions are on very small matter that still is part of the full process. besides the judge, there are also other usually called chambers of knowledgeable people that have to reach a consensus about each motion. the outcome has to be simply accepted, or appealed against when possible, and that is asked from the judges and both parties on each side in a case.

but it is a shame there is no form of court transcriptions. we now have first to guess what is important for the sources, if they found the need to pick a side instead of the process, and also hope it gets quoted correctly, and nothing goes lost in translations by people who not understand much of the original languages and many who do not even understand how a court works, and a german court is not the same as any other. many sources seems even lacking the spirit to look it up.

i think there will be other motions of the defence team to get the opposite party changed, all because bias is indeed to expect.
and the position of the prosecution is a hard one, the obligation to bring the truth to the court, without pickling a side toi the defendant is harsh. but the prosecution indeed has the duty to look for all information that includes, but also excludes the same defendant, and also be the accuser.

the earlier motions to exclude the head of the prosecution because of bias was not granted, it seems had better outcome for the defence with the profilers. the first profiler did escape his hearing because of sickness somewhere in june.

but the words or better suggestions of the prosecution about keeping cb in jail for many more years always was stupid.
and even more from the prosecution side, because they usually only have at best half of a story, ad the defence gets that when charges are brought. but betting on the outcome of any trial is simply stupid. and you can talk a lot, but there is no such thing as a effective conviction outside the courts, it does not exists.

court is not a kind of religion, where the outcome is already a given. it is also not about story telling. it still will go back to the information in each story. it is not about believing, but much more as meeting the criteria the law dictates. and these are usually lacking emotions. it is much more about material substance than feelings.

and emotions or feelings taken from these stories are not bad to have, but the law is a entity that lacks them mostly. and most emotions and feelings are already covered, because all that is punishable by law is what is known in the law as unacceptable behaviour is used in that. that last bit is why law does change too, because the opinion of the people about what is acceptable or not changes over time too.

for me it is always hoping it ends with at least some truth or understanding of it. it is a fascinating trial because of all elements, that are not that often come together. so i am more interested in how it plays out under german law, but also the factual and technical stuff of how it is working. i do not think this trial ever is or was about these 5 cases, that is more the result of my own experiences in the field of working law. on details the law system still can be different at times from the one i am used too, but the thought processes under it are not.

the portuguese system is much more like the dutch system, but of course we share the mingling of the same invaders from historic times much more with them as with the germans.

still the question is, if this trial indeed still covers as a true german style process, i do not think that, it is quite far out of the known german character.

most of what is happening seems to been fitted together with the help of the odd bit of rope, some tesa tape and the odd paperclip and to often we have to fill in gaps with some fantasy, because nothing is there to show.

Without some documented bona-fide authenticated proof of any charges against Christian Brueckner for crimes past or present - I don't believe a word of it.

Even the current incarceration hangs on a single strand of hair - literally!

The world is bonkers, of that I'm in little or no doubt.

Old news but not necessarily good news - tomorrows bog paper?

Madeleine McCann prime suspect could walk free thanks to 'biased' judges

Officials believe the convicted paedophile and rapist abducted and killed three-year-old Maddie in May 2007, but so far he has not been charged.

Story by Rob Hyde
27th July 2024

Madeleine McCann prime suspect Christian Brueckner could walk free after German prosecutors failed to oust “biased” judges.

Officials believe the convicted paedophile and rapist abducted and killed three-year-old Maddie in May 2007, but so far he has not been charged.

Brueckner, 47, is currently on trial on charges unrelated to Maddie’s disappearance, accused of three rapes and sexual abuse of two children in the Algarve between 2000 and 2017. But attempts to have three judges dismissed for alleged bias towards him failed last week.

Unlike the UK where defendants in criminal trials are tried by juries, in Germany a panel of three judges decide the verdict.

In particular prosecutors objected when Judge Ute Inse Engelmann overturned an arrest warrant, ruling the court had not heard strong enough evidence from witnesses to keep him behind bars.

She also gave a strong indication he will be cleared of the charges. Concerns over what a judge said pre-trial was also dismissed. While Maddie’s case in the UK is being treated as a missing person investigation, German prosecutors in June 2020 surprisingly announced he was the prime suspect in her murder.

An acquittal would increase pressure on them to charge Brueckner. However, several key witnesses in the current trial would appear as witnesses for the prosecution in that trial.

He is nearing the end of a seven-year sentence for raping a 72-year-old woman in her flat in Praia da Luz in 2005 and could be out in the early part of next year.

It is the same Portuguese town Maddie disappeared from two years later on May 3, 2007.

Hans-Christian Wolters, of the Braunschweig Public Prosecution Office where the trial is being held, said: “We have to put up with it now and wait for the verdict. There will probably be a verdict sometime in the autumn. And if we take action against this judgment in the appeal, then we could have it examined as far as these claims of bias are concerned.

“I think there are some indications that there may not be a conviction of the accused, but rather an acquittal, and if there is an acquittal, then we would certainly criticise that.”

Brueckner’s trial is scheduled to resume on August 5. The Braunschweig public prosecutor’s office repeatedly emphasises the investigation into Maddie’s case will continue regardless of the course of the current trial.

Brueckner is accused of raping Irish tour rep Hazel Behan at knifepoint in her apartment in Praia da Rocha in 2004. She has waived her right to anonymity. He is also accused of raping a teenage girl in his Praia da Luz home and of raping an elderly woman in her holiday apartment.

He also faces child sex charges alleging he exposed himself to a 10-year-old German girl on a beach in April 2007 and an 11-year-old Portuguese girl in a playground in 2017.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1928840/madeleine-mccann-prime-suspect-case

well it is not up to thew media or the prosecution to throw out a legal resolution, and the question about bias in one or all judges is already answers with a no, they are not.

so that means the judges have ruled based on what the prosecution told us to be evidence, so we can simply deduce from that that this evidence is not so much evidence as is needed to throw the book at the defendant. and there is of course only one specific party in a court case that has to prove a case against the defendant by bringing on evidence the judges could base a guilty verdict on, and that part is called the prosecution, that has as it seems not delivered a proper enough job.

i mean it is not that strange that when you want someone convicted, you also have remembered you need to put out evidence.
and we seem the lucky ones who not had to spend all these hours in court, like mister hide, but from mostly his words that ende up in the uk media, there been a lot words spoken, but marginally ones who are reflecting on the 5 cases at hand itself.
i mean it is a bi harsh to convict someone because an old pal, of the same make and model, says he must have done it in another case that is not even part of this trial.

and with the backlash in casework in courts in niedersachsen you would think the prosecution would select people who actually can tell something about these 5 cases, and words alone can hardly be called evidence. certainly with the past of most witnesses, you would understand that the judges have at least a bit off want to see some evidence to back the things up.

and did mister hyde not think the press officer of the braunschweig prosecution had a need of a holiday too, the guy had even already a book of over a kilo to read, in english, without a lot of pictures. come on, give the poor guy some slack.
he must already be halfway his second ulcer because of all the cb travels he had to make.

at least it is known mister hyde has abilities in the form of a understanding of the german, of course he has no credentials as translator, but der hans can not fall back on his lesser capabilities in english this time.

when we look at what is brought on to knit the defendant to each criminal event in the 5 cases in this trial it is indeed very little. there are over 30 witnesses heard already, but if we look at what is the evidence that was presented in court, and that is what counts, the judges have to rule only about what makes it to the court, there is very little.

the rape case with a unknown woman aged 70 to 80 years of age, on a unknown date and time, in her holiday apartment, had just one single indirect witness.

the rape case of the girl of at least 14 years of age, in the small finca cb hired for many years, had 2 indirect witnesses.

the 2004 rape case of the irish hazel b.had only one direct witness.

the playground case in portugal in 2017 had only one direct witness.

the beach case of april 2007 had only one direct witness.

all direct witnesses are also the victims in these cases.

in total only 5 witnesses, two indirect, 3 direct.

for the first two cases we have just like the court only to imagine there ever been such video on a device, and about what is supposedly on them.

there is simply no direct witness, there is nothing else that could be any kind of evidence.

you can talking about something to many people simply not call evidence or proof that there was evidence. even when it was accepted as low grade evidence to the forensic evidence of a hair and a direct witness of the victim.
and dna is not evidence in its own, it needs a connection to the crime. still there are reasons that another expert can come with a different result of the identification of cb based on that dna result. also there are gaps in the chain of custody of the evidence.

in the 2005 rape case the judge accepted the testimony of the witnesses, because it was simply hard to believe they could make such detailed testimony up. and as the conviction leaned heavily on the forensic dna evidence, it was of lesser importance.

and there is testimony of the witness in both these 2 cases now in court, that he recognised at first that he was looking to some porn downloaded from the internet. this means this witness was known with such movies and the scenes. you can only recognise what you already have experienced. so by that it would be easy to tell about a story he saw outside this case and just placed it in it. all he had to keep in his mind was the scene of a cb who took of his mask, but there seemed to been remarks there was some discrepancy in how this witness recognised cb in the videos these both cases rest on.

the 2004 rape case has a direct witness in the form of the victim, the identification of the defendant as the offender in this case rest only on a unknown marking on the right leg, and blue eyes. blue eyes are told by another expert witness are to be recognised as eyes of a blue colour even in little light circumstances. nowhere is to find, that must mean you could recognise a specific set of blue eyes. no markings that agree with the description of the witness is found on this defendant.

there is no evidence presented in this court that supports this witness in the identification of the defendant as the offender.

the playground case has only 1 direct witness, it was very unclear in the reporting if this witness was in court, or testified through videostream from portugal. but it seems that this case was handled in portugal by the portuguese police in a way that would not be acceptable for reuse in a court under german law.

the other named and unnamed witnesses in this case, are no direct witnesses, only witnesses after the facts supposedly happened. all they can testify about is that there was a distressed young girl and a male figure that was said to be intoxicated by alcohol, or gave at least that as an impression. they had no knowledge about what did happen before arriving. so all they could declare was through hearsay.

the beach case also lacks in the identification of the defendant as the offender. again only the victim witness testimony was a direct witness testimony. something that is very common in cases with a sexual nature against the will of the victims.
this girl was not able to recognise the defendant from pictures of him over a 50/50 guess.
but this witness used the pictures and other material she found through the media on the internet and changed that to become more sure the defendant must also be the offender in her case.

many words about this case in april 2007 are out in the media, with multiple people outed as possible witnesses, but they are lacking in the reporting of thistrial to been showing up to testify in court.

the witness did not brought on unique features of the offender, and even together they cannot be seen as enough to only be the defendant based on that alone.

this is not written to call out victims that must have told lies, or to be mistaken, or that the crimes against them never happened. but much more from the common standard courts ask to reach from testimony. and the judges only can make use of what is presented before the court. besides the plain law, the spirit of that law, there often is also a lot of jurisprudence that will give boundaries about where to put the lines on testimony of witnesses.

it is needed because the human memory capabilities are not that great, and it is very easy to inflict false fact after something happened.
there also is a principle of law, that reflects on the defendant as still a party that is to be seen as innocent, there is not jet any conviction to the name, and when there is doubt, the defendant gets the favour.

this has no base in what a court believes, because courts do not believe, courts have to work with facts and information that can support the facts, and when a situation arises that ends up in a status quo, the favour belongs to the party whose rights are under pressure.

it truly is to put it on the scales and weigh it to each other, and when the scales show equal weight, it cannot be brought against a defendant. these virtual scales in the court must clearly put a finger to the defendant. so there are always 3 possible answers; a yes, a no, or an equal score.
and as the right to be seen as innocent is rated higher over the right to justice, what in itself in a criminal justice process is not a personal right, a victim is under law no party in court.
as it is usually the state, a ruler or the people who stand in for a victim, so the victim itself has no doings with the procedures itself, what must be seen as a form of respect for a victim of criminality.

there are witnesses used who can at best testify they were present after the facts, so at best it can be translating into there is a very high chance a crime did take place. but it does not put this defendant in it.

and that is often hard to get in still seeing both sides in a case, the stories of victims are often very harsh to hear. but even when there is simply a case out, and the prosecution starts against a defendant, it is still a very open question if it is indeed against the correct offender. and you cannot start to use or allow dirty tactics, or lower all boundaries about evidence etc. because the case sounds so bad for the victim.

even when the prosecution usually only starts a case that has a fair chance to be won, it is not a rule that this means, the prosecution only takes on cases against the guilty for sure defendants.

and cases usually already are been scrutinised at the end of a police investigation, then at the offices of the prosecution, in many countries there is in more complicated or larger or more important cases also a look into making certain boundaries, mostly technical things by a chamber or a investigation judge, but the endgame will happen in an court of law.

and the one who can have the biggest chances to overturn all the suspicion and technical works is always the defence team. in germany the defence team and the judges, at least the pro’s, not the lay ones, get a copy of all the prosecution wants the court to look into.
the defence has still to get the needed witnesses on the list of the court, but have more freedom to use motions during trials.

there is not much that can be called special in this trial. connecting it to other cases that still have no charges are simply noise. if there is a case in it, the prosecution has to follow that up. still the way it happened even through many witnesses during testimony, is actually something that can have influence on the opinion of the court. and that can never be a good thing. it can easily lead to bias in the judges, or no longer do their job by the rules.
each court case has to be worked and judged on its own.

and if you really look at the witnesses against the crimes listed for this trial, it can hardly be stated it is so clear based on the evidence and testimony spoken in that court, and that in the court is the only thing judges can look into, that this defendant must be the offender without doubt.

with as an extra how historic all case already are, so it can be more complicated for the defendant to present an alibi.

also there are already 3 facts out that do not show the investigation and the prosecution in the best light.

faking a reason to get access without a warrant, and take it so far into already take material as evidence. this is about the first raid on the old box factory terrein.
trying or at least even start to place taps on the phone in the hearing room, the defendant had to use to talk to his defence lawyers.
not looking into at least 3 cases that have in the opinion of the portuguese police an mo that equals the one the germans asked them to look for in their file archives. that search in portugal must have brought on 3 solved cases that are fitting. so there could be at least 1 to up to 3 persons who had been able to pull the ‘rape cases’off.

germany have its law about what qualifies as rape differently, most other countries seem to follow that same line in their own timing.
it is much more taken together as crimes of a sexual nature, without the permission of the victim, rape becomes with that simply a name of the past, but it puts a lesser crime of a sexual nature out now as if it was a rape trial from the past. and crimes of a sexual nature against people under the age of consent qualify also directly as before rape did.
the age of consent in germany is set still at 14 years of age. younger people are usually seen as simply not capable of making a deliberate choice in these matters.

it is also the spirit of the law, what can be explained as the true meaning why there is a law about it, that was changed with it. it is much more grown into no=no. so no consent means a no too.

this change in the german laws is why the 2005 case still is called a rape case, and handled under that same rules. the new law is gone away from the usually very implicit testimonies the victim had to give. or the points that needs clearing that are in itself in daily life not per se the most hard points in such experiences. it takes not all difficult out.

so by law there are no cases of rape in this trial, it is acts of a sexual nature against the free will of victims. and that was already happening in the 2005 rape case, that classified under portuguese law not under rape, but under german law did.

so i hope the moaning about it is actually on the wrong points of law.

because the differences in points of law, and the qualification of specific crimes between portugal and germany, the big question is, if the german rule to not extradite their own nationals, not make the burden on a defendant unnecessary harder. and what can play a role in that too, can be the differences in statutes of limitations on the specific crimes.

germany offers simply to bring their own nationals on to a german court ruled under the full implication of german laws. it is not something the defendant has a say in. both countries have the presumption of innocence in their basic laws, but we can call this not a level playing field for the defendant in such cases.
also there is a risk and in this affaire even more of what usually is called cop shopping, what means looking for all kind of parties of that order within reach until one says, we will take that case.

and if you look at how this case is handled there are many more points, that earn a lot of question marks, and that means this case is by that more important for the law and justice than for cb itself, it has a very big chance to end up for the european courts and for making it into law school and further use of the law because there are opportunities the will up to end up in an so called arbitrary arrest of law, because existing law is used in a unlawful way. it still is jurisprudence that always comes from earlier handled cases, and that are part of the explanation of the full working of a bit of law.

this is why you cannot accept leniency in courts, even if you do not like the defendant, the law itself need following in meaning and the spirit of it, because it will be used in just the next case. and leniency always can work to both sides.

it is more interesting to see what happens with the points of law, than the cases itself, mostly because they are much easier to find and follow, than the case report for each case in court itself.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to trust one single charge against Brueckner without compelling evidence - the word of a few previously convicted felons does not constitute evidence of any description.  One could almost think it a vendetta!

Whatever, the message is clear .... Brueckner is to be the newest, hopefully last, scapegoat to feature in the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.  How can the authorities ever hope to pin the tale on this particular donkey - they've got conclusive evidence which can't be divulged?  So why not proceed - ah yes, they don't want or need to rush, it's better to sew-up all the loose ends in preparation of a water tight trial.

Hogwash!

Doubtful they have any evidence, let alone conclusive.  A nearby phone ping and a heavy helping of hearsay, evidence does not make!

Thinking again of Hazel Behan's dubious witness statement/s and more recent court appearance, the compelling evidence appears to hinge on the 'piercing blue eyes' of Brueckner that she recalls with so much emphasis.  Admittedly, having never seen Brueckner in the flesh (heaven forbid) it's not possible to be decisive but from images seen over the past four years, of which there have been many, the eye colour looks more wishy-washy grey than piercing blue.  Features might change dramatically with the aging process but not eye colour.

Ms Behan is not a reliable witness, it is doubtful the incident ever happened - at least not as she reports.  It's amazing what some people will do for a fistful of dollars.

it took a bit of time, but the first words are out about the first day in court after the court holidays, it is unclear if there was something happening in the morning, but i copied the most important parts from the braunschweiger zeitung about the afternoon.

this expert harald dern, is a so called profiler from the bka.

The expert witness Harald Dern was questioned in the afternoon. A BKA spokeswoman outlined his CV as follows: "Mr Dern played a central role in the introduction and further development of operational case analysis in Germany, was the responsible case analyst in a large number of spectacular cases, and is the author of significant publications on operational case analysis." The importance of the Christian B. case and the urgent desire to clear up his possible offences are made clear by this top personnel appointment.

The indictment in the Hazel B. case against Christian B. is based in particular on the findings of Dern and his team. But even before his testimony, their work had been severely shaken: individual profilers had actively participated in investigations against Christian B. instead of merely advising investigators. At the request of the defence, the chamber had declared individual members of the Dern team biased and imposed strict limits on them: they were only allowed to provide their case analyses during the trial on the basis of the written verdict of the district court on the crime against Diana M. and on the crime against Hazel B. based on her testimony during the trial.

Dern, who seemed nervous at the beginning of his presentation, explained: Both cases involved entry-level rapists, "criminally very unusually competent offenders who proceed in a very targeted manner, with a high level of organisation." According to Dern, the perpetrators had brought their rape equipment with them to the crime scenes. Both women were surprised by them, tied up at gunpoint and raped several times.
BKA profiler is very sure: Christian B. is said to have raped Hazel B. just like Diana M.
In essence, however, the perpetrators were more concerned with their sadistic script: Namely to whip the helpless women, to torture them, to lull them continually into uncertainty about what might follow, to put them in fear of death without killing or seriously injuring them. Dern spoke of a "destructive ritual". This was the "central element" in both cases and, in his view, spoke in favour of "joint perpetration.”


The perpetrator, Dern continued, had revealed "what was important to him, what remained in his mind after the offence." The case analyst mentioned in a subordinate clause that he had analysed several thousand rapes. He described the perpetrator behaviour of Christian B. in the Diana M. case and the perpetrator in the Hazel B. case as "very rare", but he was unable to quantify this finding more precisely. However, the BKA profiler also admitted that he recognised many differences between the offences.
Is Christian B. really a serial rapist? There are also numerous points that raise doubts
It became clear from the questions from the professional judges that there were many question marks: the extreme age difference of more than 50 years between the two victims, for example, the different types of sexual assaults on the victims, the different whipping tools. Diana M. was blindfolded, but Hazel B. was not. Hazel B., on the other hand, is said to have been filmed by the perpetrator, whereas Diana M. was not, to her knowledge, filmed by Christian B. Dern spoke of "situational factors", varying from offence to offence and sometimes even depending on the form of the day.

translation made with deepl.

i take the last bit on its own;

The BKA case analysts are faced with a major problem: They categorise serious sexual offences in the international case database "ViCLAS" in order to make offences comparable - across national borders. However, the Portuguese authorities are not part of the network and do not feed their offences into this database.

before it was already made known, the german bka only was interested in cases that had a equal enough mo as known from the videos that are only known through the witnesses helge b. and manfred s.

that seems only to have resulted in the 2005 rape case of the older american lady near praia da luz, but they have not asked the files from the portuguese police of 3 cases, that the pj classified as equal enough to this mo, but these cases are solved.

so it is not only that portugal is not taking part in viclas, but also the portuguese solution was not accepted in germany.

if there are indeed 3 other cases, that are solved, it means it is not that rare, because there must be at least one , and at best 3 other offenders in like wise criminal activity.

what is new in this article is that it seems that the victim in the 2005 rape case was not filmed on video at all.

viclas is in origin a canadian system, and other countries can use it too, but it is not very clear how many countries are taking part now, in 2020 i can find only 9 countries that are working with it. it is not a free to use system for all who take part, it still seems to simply ask if others of the partaking countries have some cases with some specific specifics in their own databases.

they all simple use the same ways of what are the facts of certain serious crimes.

so it seems that portugal simply did exactly the same, but without this specific type of register, based on the facts the bka delivered. the way it is used here steers a bit into thinking there is a need for the german bka and prosecution to paint portugal as a sub standard country, only there is little reason for it, not with the show off by both in this case itself already have shown.
also it is not portugal that is in the seat as the defendant at all.

the next episode is on august 15th!

remarkable how silent the uk media is this week, i mean you can hardly expect the same guy having to write about more serious stuff. maybe used their holidays to reflect on a possible free guy, that was with so much effort already spoken an written guilty on all counts and some more.

there is another piece in the bz about the friend of the girl both at the time in june 2017 on the playground in portugal, but a bit to early on the day to be from today, and no court day was noted, so it could be from yesterday morning.

it was a testimony through a video stream from portugal, maybe the one that was not getting through on one of the earlier days.

More than a thousand visitors came to the snail festival, including the convicted sex offender Christian B.. Several bands played live music and there were stalls selling food and drink. At a late hour, after 1 a.m., which is probably not unusual for southern Europe, children were running around in a playground, including the witness. When asked about the incident, she recalled: "The man was walking from one booth to another, always looking at the children. I started to get suspicious." He is said to have wandered around there for half an hour. "Then he went to the slide, knelt down, dropped his trousers to the floor and masturbated," the witness reported.

The girls ran off in the direction of their parents, who were not watching what was happening in the playground. The men were immediately alerted and ran off. Christian B. is said to have tried to get away, holding a packet of cigarettes as if it were a mobile phone into which he was talking. When the men confronted him, he is said to have apologised: He had merely urinated in the playground. "Someone who has some manners doesn't pee in front of the children, he turns round," said the 17-year-old's father at the trial and remarked: "This man seemed far too calm for someone who had just been caught doing something."

In the statements made to the Portuguese police after the incident, it is noted that the older girl, when she came to the parents' table, is said to have said that the man had "peed" under the slide. The presiding judge Uta Engemann asked the witness: Could it be that the man had actually not satisfied himself? The witness ruled that out: "It was clear to me that he didn't urinate. If he had wanted to, he could have done it between the stalls and not facing us. And you don't move your hand when you urinate." Even when asked several times, she always stuck to the same statement about her observation at the time.

However, with two further sentences, the witness probably cleared up the entire accusation. She said that she had spoken to family members after the incident about what she had experienced. "That's how I realised what had happened to me. I only realised over the years that the man hadn't just urinated." Her playground companion at the time also made similar statements as a witness at the trial: That at the time of the crime, due to her age, she would not have been able to properly classify the actions of the alleged perpetrator and that she only realised later after talking to the family that she had been the victim of abuse.

It can no longer be ruled out that the family members may have talked the children into the abuse. This is probably also the opinion of the court: It had announced that it no longer saw any urgent suspicion for this charge - or for the four other charges. And thus, at the request of the defence in the ongoing proceedings, justified the cancellation of the arrest warrant against Christian B.

The children and parents did not know who the man in the playground was seven years ago. The stranger was taken into police custody in the next largest city, Portimão, and extradited to Germany a few days later. In 2020, it emerged that Christian B. was the main suspect in the "Maddie" case. His photo has since been published worldwide. Also in Portugal. During the trial, the witness said when asked that when she saw reports about the Christian B. case on TV and relatives spoke to her about it, she could remember it "well". She had been questioned by the Portuguese police in 2018. At the time, her statement was noted: "She couldn't recognise the man because the crime happened in the evening and she couldn't see his face well."

i agree there is a fair chance of placed memory by the families. and going by the mother who took part with the daughter, not this girl, but the other, that was quite dramatic and nice for the media, but not when a court is out for what did happen.

i have a bit different example from my own early years, where the child grabber never has existed even, but was just the frame of mind of some woman who liked to make up a good story. i still look different to an volkswagen beetle, but i was able to look into the old files many years later and spoken to one of the then much older officer. all that started out when there was a bit of trouble in traffic with a male in a car and a woman on a bike, no one got damaged in that proces, but the story changed in a few hours from a misunderstanding in traffic to a child thief , or child grabber was on the loose, only in soft whispering voices, but small heads have big ears as we say, and even we had not a clue what could happen, it simply must be something bad.

so yes such stories could be based on nothing, but by the talking of family and bystanders it results in no longer being able to know what did happen. at least for these both victims, there was not that much grounded into being feeling a victim.
so by the big story in the media, to a nothing to see. the adult witnesses , none of them could declare to have noticed anything, only grabbed a guy without having a clear idea what happened.

It is quite normal for families who live in temperate climes to be out latish at night with their children, usually for eating - but in a playground at 1:00h +?  Highly unlikely!

Is this the one that featured an off-duty police officer who, with the help of daddies to hand, wrestled the flasher to the ground and made an off-duty arrest?  The coincidences just keep on coming.

In this locale children's playgrounds are closed between 20:00/21:00h until the following morning, even the smaller not enclosed you would never see anyone after dark - not even open sports areas and tennis courts would you find anyone at 1:00h +, least of all children!



Seriously?

Still, why get in the way of a good story ....

yeah the same, but i have made already so much spelling mistakes in the name of the village, i just leave it out myself.

i am not fond of using such news outlets of just another country that seems to have still no role in the cases cb is in jail, under trial or suspected off. you can hardly escape it, because up to 4 years later cheap sources other titles love to bring it on. of course with some sauce of their own making to it.

and half of the time the people behind that title are not even seen in court at all, only playing they were. and as i have no problem to read the offerings of the ones who did take their seat at court days, it is easier to use them as the source.

but the uk has enough havoc on the home turf, so as usual there is no room for some sauced up stories. but i would not worry about it, they will refind the story when lost in others.

but the overal impression in the what i short cut to the 2017 playground case, was never a true case at all, with no victims, only made victims by adults who offered the backfilling in it, making it impossible to fins out what did happen and if something of that was criminal.

that the children been still up and around is indeed simply up to the culture, and not something that sounds as a form of neglect or asking for trouble. in my family it was simply the same, when there were festivities, all children were taking part, usually when one of us got to tired someone would put us up in a bit quieter space and we hardly noticed that we would be taken home, if we did, many times we would simply stay over.

and during summer holidays it was mostly the weather that decided bedtime hours, so in the higher summer temperatures it would be hard to sleep early, so that is a habit in the more southern countries i fully understand.

communal playgrounds can have 'closing times', usually because folks living around want some quiet time on their evenings too, or because it are no young children, but almost or just adult people just are looking for trouble. there is no law oir something that dictates bedtime. most playgrounds do not have something as closing hours at all.

but what happened there that evening, or night can not be established. and mister foreigner, drunk it was said, would be the typical food to the well known stories fed by xenophobia, something we are well used to ourselves. excellent bogeyman material.

both direct witnesses explained not to understand in the moment what happened, what is very normal for girls in the ages of 10, 11 years.
at best you could still translate it into indecent exposure, but that asks usually for an intent, and that can not be proven.
all you fill in the gaps still can only be from your imagination, and that never makes it to facts. so no yes, or no, but an inconclusive result at best.

it is not uncommon that parents or carers bring more harm to children who are the actual witnesses to all kind of not nice stuff.
usually it is well meant, but good intentions can actually make the children victims, they on their own never would become.

and for a court it is unworkable in this case, they have to work from the facts and not a history of a defendant, statical analysis, or just guess work. it was the media that wrote it into a promise of a sure conviction.

all the 5 cases seems to have quite a lack of proven identification of this defendant. what is the most important item. without proper identification it becomes a world that is a mix between beliefs and imaginations, that have no place in a court of law.

the adults and the police woman have seen nothing of any crime at all, they all entered the scene after the facts. and this was the only of the 5 that have an undisputed identification of cb. only the facts to call the event a crime is lacking.

With Brueckner's extensive crime rating, he probably knew to give the playground a deep forensic clean to remove any evidence of .... yuk!

Wonder if he used bleach to deep forensically cleanse?

well by the paper's trail is was more of a dry shot, but it is unknown if they said that in court too. but there are some other odd little things presented in the media , but not in the court, and the sad thing is, only when said in court it counts for real.

spots, flecks and other markings have been very popular in the media, but most of that was a dry shot too. and little shame about writing such crap, it is mostly still online.

and most nowadays are simply lucky the words spoken in a court are not copyrighted, because they still are damaging the original works of art.

i hope the defence will bring some nice motions about a lot of things that are said in court, like mingling cases in that are not part in any way of this trial. there is quite a lot that reach quite deep into the similar fact influences.

and i still cannot follow much in how the prosecution thinks in this trial, at least all witnesses they put on the list and already have spoken can hardly have said anything that could surprise them. all the preliminary work put into it, that usually means a question by the judges or through a motion of the defence team can hard to see as a surprise. and it is unusual to go to trial if you know there are surprises in your witnesses their answers.

from the 5 in this trial, the 2017 playground case seemed the most promising to reach a guilty verdict. but is is much weaker than ever could be guessed. this is also not a lower court, so very unexpected a prosecution brings a case like this on.

but it is still sad the english news has to come from a free to grab newspaper boy in spain. often not even taken the time to be in the court, but okay they do not handle over 2 words in german, but the results are maybe with that at best second hand with signs of wear and tear and a sauce of imagination. or just wishful thinking.

I'm no fan of the American profiler Pat Brown, too hysterical for my taste, I do however agree with her views on Christian Brueckner's alleged connection with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann..

Madeleine McCann: Police say emails link Christian Brueckner to disappearance | NewsNation Now



2 months ago

I can't recall the name of the bloke who made the claim about the emails, not interested enough to get lost in AI hamster wheels - but seriously?

He appears before a court of law as a witness (?) - allegedly, claiming to have seen emails that link Brueckner to serious child abuse (in particular Madeleine McCann) but he's not allowed to show the evidence or disclose the evidence - before a court of law ?!?

What a strange case this is, still I guess every head has it's price.  

It would be interesting to know who is behind the apparent set-up, whoever, not very professional or even clever is it?

yeah, that was a great turn of the lost in translations act. indeed some english nag was at the start of that, i cannot understand why you feel a need to be at the press tribune during a german trial , in german language in germany, if you cannotunderstand anything that is said.

maybe i look tomorrow at that video, but she often reacts from the pieces in the media, so the reality is, there are not even emails, they are whooshed at least some from the first months of 2007. all that was said and done was looking into cb his email and internet presence around 2007, or better all they got get, to lok for a connection to these cases in this trial, and possibly others too, at least that is the usual habit in all police forces, and also in connection to a case that is not truly a case against cb at all, because there is no arrest or charges against him, only loose talk to the media.

only there was no connection found to these 5 cases, so it would be hard to declare that in this court, what is not there, cannot be used. and the guy wasn't his name titus something did not say they found anything that linked cb to the cases at hand and the case of madeleine. only that they looked into it, and that results from other cases could not be made known in this court.
and that is not strange, because that would walk deep into similar fact rules.

also they had been found out that officers of the bka had travelled to portugal to speak with one of the ex groupies of cb, the female devision, and they got handed over a hard disk from a pc cb supposedly had used in or around 2007.

and that in itself is not exactly how it has to take place on territory that is not german, so they actually mingled in an still open investigation in portugal, well active in the portuguese understanding of course, and the portuguese have these nice bits of law that says police work is only to be handled by portuguese police, not germans, and taking possible evidence back home, could not fully be called that legal too.

yeah , i know not so gründlich und pünktlich as we are used from germans, but if you know them a bit better, it is from the same bucket as the tolerant dutch, or worse the polite brits. just some old days fairy tales.

and yes, the defence team made that known too.

but they had much earlier done an arrest on the undertaker that also is known as panickspatz or something on a kind of forum of bad boys. they looked through his internet presence too, and found old emails from and to cb. and clear signs of cp material.

from cb his own traces on the internet, they found he had tried to wipe clean his inbox, but forgot as it sounded some outbox, concepts and archived stuff with also the same cp stuff on it.

what is stranger is, that even if it could not assist in one of these cases, why it never was used in a trial on itself.
i get the idea that it is the same reason as why the cp stash from the old box factory raid never was brought to court against cb, because it seems there is a tendency to get such stuff in unlawful manners.

so besides not seeing room enough to keep a guy in a secure holding based on 3 sound convictions that have all strong element of sexual child abuse in it, all 3 german cases. the first two in the mid nighties, the ones he took leave to settle in portugal, and the 2015 conviction for the case around the child of that girlfriend in his kiosk time.

the bka and other police forces active, seems to been very fond of not playing it by the books, listening devices in a hearing room where client and lawyer speak to each other, unlawful access on the box factory terrein, and taking possible evidence from another country without consent of that country.

and that are sometimes called star detectives????

even the way it was said in the testimony with the use of madeleine mccann and murdercase can already count under the similar facts rules. it still is telling the judges, if you do not convict this guy, you left a murderer go free! at least it put them on the same bench as their witnesses. but at least that are just members of the public, but the professionals are hard to find in this case.

and indeed profiling is something that actually has to keep itself out of an investigation, it just works besides it, but it seems germany has no such experts, it are just police officers who had done some courses.

also even if this guy monday had the idea the 2005 rape case and the 2004 rape case had enough points in equality of expression and deeds, all they could use whas the material of only these countries who also make use of viclar, and world wide that are not so many. it is more a kind of software and each country that uses it keeps it in principle for its own casework, but they can ask each other for cases with an equal enough mo.

but these two cases are said to be only two out of a total of 5, so 3 solved cases that are equal enough , all on portuguese soil could never be used through viclar software programs, because portugal does not use it, most likely because their crime rates are simply to low to make it needed or in proportion in costs versus success.

and the testimony seems to have been more about the two cases itself, but not had cb as the offender in that testimony, it only will be convicted for the one, must let the judges think, he must have acted in the other.

still this testimony is all there truly is in the 2004 rape case, there is no sound identification and no other evidence that put it to cb his name. if you then have followed all rumour and bits around the conviction in the 2005 case, you can hardly get the idea that is a sound conviction, i do not like that. there are too many questions that simply needs cleared up.

because if cb is not convicted in the 2004 rape case, the defence would not wait even a day to react by using the testimony of her profiler, because if he could not be proven to be the offender in the 2004 case, by the expert testimony can be taken, he also was falsely convicted for the 2005 rape case.

i think there been around 3 or 4 times already a negative reaction, when the defence asked to reopen the trial in the 2005 rape case, but the bunch that has the say in it, only likes to do that when there is new evidence, so that it not from trying.

i still do not care at all about what will happen to the cb figure, but i like to see the law handled in a correct way.
i worked with quite a lot of different prosecution officers, but how the prosecution handles this case is not impressive.
there seems to be a frivolous use of the law taking place, and that is never a good thing.

legally it is still a very interesting event. it is very different if you get used to work with the law, because all that gets out lost the emotions and you work much more from the viewpoint that all in a case is simply information, emotions has little room in the law.

at the moment there are only two victims left in this trial, after the last testimony we can hardly call the both girls still victims, but i do not see points that could tell both other victims, hazel and joana are not truthful, and there is no need to follow upo in that deeply, but both cases have a problem with the identification of cb as the offender. so their stories are still standing, at least in my view, but there is nothing usable to put cb in the role of their offender.
and statistics and profilers are not proven evidence.

Will the real Christian Brueckner stand up and be counted..



So much for Artificial Intelligence!

Artificial yes, intelligent no ....

if you use the german vehicle christian b. or even all other ways to write it in full with a german word to it, you will find out, there are at least a handful of that name, but even more how many called christian with the last names in different capitals are part of court cases at the moment.

but christian b often leads to football in germany, they have at least one guy doing something with a ball, who's surname also starts with a b.

even more if you are looking out for early pieces about this one , just because there is not much who are in hurry up mode to publish anything.

what is more of a nuisance is that not even third rank publishing entities seems to found a way to mingle the names to something they already had on years ago.  so instead of news you scroll all over the selected page, but nothing to find.

so looking for news is in itself a course into how to find the ones who indeed publish new stuff. so i have not to click on these links anymore for other news too. it is never new, or original at all too.

i still liked the article, i forgot what news outlet, it was a uk one, that had strangely the name of the editor above instead of an author, and that piece made portugal an island. and you could only understand how such ai articles get mixed up. because i found already long ago, there seems to be indeed an island with also an ocean club, a different one.
and only when you have that kind of experience when knitting your own search terms together to let google do something useful, things can play you as a fool easily. it was even stranger, because that news outlet does make use too from a former geographic student that now plays detective, author or reporter, or both, without much success.

and it is of no help at all, not in cases the myths already fall too easily from the tree.

your example must be from one of the lazier ai bots.

tomorrow it seems wil be more of bka profiler dern. and by the braunscheiger zewiting there can be still 3 witnesses to get their time to tell their story.

and also christian riedemann who has to explain cb is a nasty guy and will be a nasty guy if kept on the loose, what must be hard to give such an opinion when it ended up the judges can not really say there is something proven.

the little news seems to be that helge b. on his second day in court indeed was telling lies in court, but the prosecution have little courage to put him on trial for it, in 2019 in the trial of the 2005 rape case. helge still had kept on he did not steel a car, and this round he said he actually did that.

and it looks like it that mr. dern is of the opinion if you are convicted for the one crime, that in his book is enough alike another one you have done both, so i expect what i missed last week, the defence about the 3 cases in portugal with that known offender, that was not cb.

with still so many days to go, it looks a bit low in people to fill all these days, but you never can no in this case.

and the braunschweiger zeitung also has a bit about the prosecution, that will fight an outcome that says that cb is not proven guilty in these cases.

her dern also had used a citation of a well known killer, such a shame the uk boulevard tabloids missed that fun.

i was looking through my own case notes again, and the story about woman being targeted and sexually abused in how it is told in this court was already out in the open media before helge b. remembered how to use a phone. he did not see in need of a translator when the guys from operation grange had a meeting with him in greece.

but it does mean we can hardly say this story was unknown until helge b told about it, it mounts up to his first idea he was looking at some downloaded stuff from the internet, by that i would get he knows likewise sources with like wise information.

so if helge b only was out to take out cb for some deals gone wrong and getting to old for keep on running, the material already was out there, just a bit composing and he was good to go.

did it happen by helge b his version, that can not be checked, but thew same problem rests on the story at told by the former gang mates of course, all people can do is believing helge b his tellings.
all helge b. would need if it was a made up story on his own making was seeing an interview in a pub somewhere in south europe that had the irish telly on, or left irish papers behind.

the judges in the case around the 2005 rape accepted the testimony of helge b and manfred s, because they sounded to detailed and good to have them made up. well when it was already a story, how hard would it be to make it your own.

it does not make the stories of the true victims in the cases in itself different, only hardly a brick to build this case to the name of cb. and with 3 solved case with enough corresponding elements in the 2 video cases, and the 2 rape cases , it can be very hard to call it an unique mo.

and helge b, and his former companion in crime and difficult circumstances manfred s. both had no problem to tell their lies in court, helge at least about a car he did not , and now did steal. manfred about contact he had not, but his phone said differently in that. both so much presented as the now good meaning guys, did not mind offending multiple courts of law.
so these parts of this saga becomes even weaker and weaker.

only dpa has a bit out, but mostly the same story from bka profiler dern, but only that the defence team does not agree on his work. what is said is not noted at all.

pretty quick but hardly to call news.

There is something very wrong with this whole history of Christian Brueckner's alleged criminal activities, I don't buy it.  Much of it, if not all, is delivered by way of the press and media which raises big question marks before you begin.  If you believe what you read, Brueckner spent most of his teenage/adult life ducking and diving the law, there must be a limit to the amount of times you can successfully evade justice surely?

All these tales of exposure and child rape but where is the evidence?  Add to that accusations of aggravated rape of adult women ranging in age from x to y to z, the list has been expanding since the name Brueckner first hit the UK headlines, now we have a lengthy list of misdemeanors spanning 20+ years across Europe but mostly dodging between Germany and Portugal.  If on the run so to speak, surely it wouldn't be that difficult to catch up with him?

The major problem appears to be the source of evidence that led to convictions and/or suspicions, all of which is by way of a variety of other felons Bruckner has encountered on his travels - you will know the names by now if you've been following this protracted saga.

One of the main offenders being a nomad by the name of Helge Busching, himself an ex-convict and proven liar swinging between selling his stories to the press and media and telling his stories to obscure arms of the law.  All managed in a very unusual way.

Before starting on a journey of discovery, it's essential that the two primary facets of Brueckner's history are entirely separated - his alleged criminal past in general and the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance, the latter being of no concern to the German authorities unless a crime was committed on German soil which facts tell did not happen.  Thus Madeleine McCann's case has nothing whatsoever to do with German law enforcement agencies.  As with any high profile report stories are largely embellished and repeated often enough to make them believable to the reader - age old tactic of deception and it works every time.

So reverting to fact, if we may, there is not a scrap of evidence to link the disappearance of Madeleine McCann with the name Christian Brueckner, why the pretense is there is a matter for conjecture but it can't be allowed to detract from the facts.  The proverbial spider's web has been carefully constructed to lure every bit of debris to be masterfully woven into a web of intrigue with one vital component missing, evidence!

Which brings you to the UK's prestigious law enforcement agent, The Metropolitan Police, who have assumed a position of superiority in the name of Madeleine Mccann.  Better positioned to interfere maybe as Madeleine McCann was a British subject with British parentage only holidaying in Portugal at the time of her disappearance but even then, the UK police and other tentacles were only assigned to assist the official Portuguese investigation, not presume to take the lead.  The Portuguese Judiciary were and still are the lead force investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

So going back to the Metropolitan Police, why did they (Operation Grange) think it their remit to send an officer over to Greece for a 'secret' top security meeting with Helge Busching to hear of detail that was already known worldwide from the mouth of a convicted felon and known liar with a penchant for selling his story to the press and media?

Would any self respecting official law enforcement agent be so easily taken in by a conman, a conman with a tale to tell after years have elapsed since the said crime was committed and not for the first time?  A conman with a tale to tell now dying from cancer, just like one of the previous 'prime suspects' Raymond Hewlett, history repeating itself per chance?  What exactly did Busching reveal in that soundproofed hotel room, that Brueckner said 'she didn't scream' and an alleged video showing Brueckner raping a woman or two, a video never seen by anyone but Busching and his partner in crime Manfred Seyferth?  A video so vital to a case against Brueckner that it mysteriously disappears off the face of the earth, never to be seen again.

Pull the other one!  At the risk of being accused of trying to stifle debate - I don't buy it!

And at the risk of repetition, apologies for not citing sources, the newly designed artificially intelligent internet renders that impossible unless you pay for the privilege and that I won't do. Yet another media report - to be or not to be, that is the question..

August 28, 2017

Scotland Yard is looking for the secret of British toddler Madeleine McCann in Athens after a witness contacted the team Grange. A Greek newspaper revealed that a German citizen living in Athens contacted “Team Grange” claiming he had information about the case as he was in nearby area when 3-year-old Madeleine disappeared from a hotel in Algarve Portugal in 2007.

According to Sunday newspaper To Vima, the 46-year-old German citizen has already spoken with detectives of Scotland Yard’s “Grange”, a team established in 2011 and assigned with the Madeleine’s case.

The meeting between the British detectives and the German took place in Athens a couple of days ago, the man reportedly gave critical information about the girl’s fate. He has been described as “important and trustworthy witness.”

(some text removed here as not relevant to witness)

cont...

New witness

Citing a memo prepared by the Greek Police on 18 July 2017, To Vima reports that the German national had contacted the Grange team last May the aim to help investigation. The Police memo was based on a briefing the Greek police representative in London had received by the Metropolitan Police of UK.

The 46-year-old had reportedly given to Metropolitan Policed “voluntarily and without any financial or other consideration, information about the case that has been cross-checked” and “he is considered a reliable source.”

Citing several police sources and documents, To Vima writes that the German national who has permanent residence in France was arrested in Igoumenista, North-West Greece, in 2011 for the transport of illegal migrants from Africa. A case was filed but he was set free. He was arrested again in Thessaloniki in 2015, when he returned to Greece for holidays. He was sentenced to seven years and five months imprisonment. He denied charges claiming he had helped the three hiking foreigners. He served his sentence in the prison of Chania, Crete, and from there he contacted the team Grange.

HE was released form prison a few weeks ago and he allegedly used a cell phone registered to a woman, national of a Balkan country, and resident of Agios Panteleimonas district of Athens.

The man had been banned from living the country pending 2nd degree trial scheduled for next month.

To Vima has reportedly contacted the man in the region of Fthiotida, Central Greece. He admitted to have talked with Scotland Yard detectives who had come to Athens in order to talk with him.

“I give important information for the case. On the day Madeleine disappeared I was also in the particular province in Portugal, in a neighboring area,” the German national told the newspaper. He claimed that he had contacted the local police back then but there was no further investigation.

“Now there is keen interest from Scotland Yard for the information I have, however I am not allowed to say anything to anyone else.” the man said adding that his cooperation with British police will continue in the coming days.

To Vima-reporter’s question about Madeleine’s fate and if he thinks she was still alive, the man replied, ten years have passed since then are a lot..”

yeah, that last one is the keeptalkinggreece article i remember, they used the article in greek in the greek newspaper, their sunday edition online too, with the first breaking news and exclusive talking mouth of helge b. that article is stioll out there, but it only escaped the english speaking uk media, maybe because it was in the greek language, and google had a harder time to serve you with outlandisch languages.

to vima simply learned about helge b, and the visit of guys from the english police from simply a memo with police news, that could be used by the media there.

so at least helge b. became small european news after he spoke to the police for the first time.

still the story is as amaral already found out quite on the flimsy side.

these cases are just raked together, must have been trump who brought them on that idea, at that time he was great into finnish raking, so the germans asked portugal to rake their archives for specific cases. and they did, but germany only wanted unsolved cases.

later more.. time for grub first.