This article was written in 2019 by Bettina Thoenes. Note, this is before CB was named as a suspect in the MM case. The journalist attended court every day and followed the case closely. Please read the passages I have highlighted.
December 17, 2019, 1:14 AM • Reading time: 5 minutes
By Bettina Thoenes
A 43-year-old man was sentenced to seven years in prison by the regional court.
A 43-year-old man was sentenced to seven years in prison by the regional court.
© Hendrik Rasehorn
Braunschweig. 14 years ago, a 72-year-old woman was robbed in her home. The 43-year-old denies being the perpetrator in the Braunschweig circumstantial evidence trial.
The defendant calls it a "purely arbitrary verdict." His defense attorney is arguing for acquittal based on the principle of "in case of doubt, for the defendant." The First Grand Criminal Division of the Braunschweig Regional Court, however, is convinced that the now 43-year-old is the perpetrator.
Fourteen years ago – in September 2005 – the man, who last resided in Braunschweig, is said to have attacked, tied up, beaten, raped and robbed a 72-year-old American woman in her home in Portugal.
In its ruling, the chamber followed the prosecutor's request: If the verdict becomes final, the 43-year-old must serve a seven-year prison sentence for aggravated rape in conjunction with robbery and extortion.
This total sentence includes a previous sentence of one year and nine months, which the Niebüll District Court in Schleswig-Holstein had imposed for trafficking in marijuana for the illegal drug market on Sylt.
Both proceedings revolve around the legal question of whether the defendant, after his extradition from Portugal to Germany, is still protected by the principle of specialty. This means that, after extradition, he may only be prosecuted in Germany for the crime for which the European arrest warrant was issued. In the defendant's case, this arrest warrant had been issued for another criminal case.
Meanwhile, the Braunschweig Higher Regional Court ruled that the principle of special jurisdiction for the rape trial was no longer applicable due to the defendant's interim departure to Italy. The 43-year-old takes a different view: "I am still under this protection," he emphasized. He should never have been arrested in Italy.
The Federal Court of Justice will have the final say on this matter.
Regardless of the question of guilt in this circumstantial evidence trial:
The expat, who claimed to have lived in Portugal from various jobs, was living in a house near the victim at the time of the crime. He paints a picture of himself as a helpful man with changing relationships with women, who has nothing to do with the masked perpetrator who allegedly took great pleasure in torturing and humiliating his helpless victim by beating her with a flexible metal object in September 2005.
But how did a piece of the accused's body hair end up at the crime scene? As an objective characteristic, the court considers the hair to be strong evidence. The accused argues, however, that the hair could have entered the 72-year-old's home through stroking the cat in front of the victim's house—which was on his way to the beach—or through inadvertent transfer while shopping or in a café.
And then, of all things, onto the bedsheet in the bedroom where the rape took place? The court doesn't believe that—especially since a DNA analyst serving as an expert witness in this trial declared the secondary transfer of body hair (unlike scalp hair) possible, but unlikely.
Investigators had only linked the seized hair to the defendant years after the then-unsolved crime: Acquaintances of the 43-year-old, who were part of the petty criminal scene, had reported to the police video recordings they had obtained. They allegedly showed the defendant in what they believed to be real rape scenes.
The video recordings have never surfaced; they are said to no longer exist. Did the former acquaintances simply fabricate the accusations to curry favor with the police, as the defendant claims? The defense attorney points out contradictions in the statements. "They are not credible."
The court sees no motive why the two would have denounced the defendant after years. "The investigation was initiated because of the rape of an elderly woman they described," the presiding judge recalled. Based on the suspicion, attempts were made to clarify whether such a crime had occurred in Portugal. The defendant's actions in the filmed scenes, as described by the two witnesses, were similar to the rape of the 72-year-old.
Taking all the evidence into account, the presiding judge stated, the court was convinced that the defendant, who already had previous convictions for sexual and property crimes, was the perpetrator.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is therefore a fact confirmed by a judge in a court of law that HB's evidence was instrumental in linking CB to the crime, and therefore without HB coming forward to the police with his claims of seeing CB on a video tape performing various rapes that the rape of DM would most likely have remained unsolved.
