If Brueckner is Never Charged.

[Eleanor]

Germany has the right to try him for the Maddie case ...I'm sure but can't be bothered to find where I read it so can't provide a cite

It isn't important at the moment.  I am not asking for a Cite.  Although they do come in handy now and again, as already witnessed on this Thread re that totally incorrect translation of The German Language which never said that The McCanns had done nothing to find Madeleine.

[Holly Goodhead]

It's very unusual for EU countries to extradite people; they tend to use EAW's. If Germany issued an EAW then it would have to mention the crime which he was wanted for. If it wasn't mentioned they were not allowed to proceed against him;

In general, a person surrendered may not be prosecuted, sentenced or otherwise deprived of his or her liberty for an offence committed prior to the surrender other than that for which the person was surrendered. This is the rule of speciality, set out in Article 27 of the Framework Decision on EAW.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52017XC1006%2802%29

I found this;

He is appealing the conviction while he is in jail for a drug trafficking conviction arguing that his extradition was unlawful as it was for the drug conviction and not the rape conviction.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8395677/Italian-police-set-trap-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner.html

As I understand it the conviction is based on CB's associate saying he appeared in a vid which seemed to depict him raping a woman but the vid was destroyed before law enforcement had a chance to view?

The forensic evidence is based on a single body hair found in the victim's bed said to originate from CB determined by DNA tests.  CB's explanation for this is that the hair might have been innocently transferred from petting the victim's cat.  An expert thought this was  an unlikely explanation.

Questions:

1.  I thought the victim was a tourist from US so how come she had a cat?

2.  Given the case involved a brutal rape it might be expected there would be further biological samples: semen, scrapings from the victim's nails if she scratched him in an attempt to defend herself, other body and head hair from CB?

3.  I read the victim did not want to be involved in the trial but could she not have identified him from photos and/or voice recordings?

4.  I assume he wore gloves given it seems numerous objects were handled and I haven't seen/heard anything about fingerprints?

5.  If the rape involved pre-planning eg the wearing of a mask and "torture" why such a lenient sentence of 7 years?

[Eleanor]

As I understand it the conviction is based on CB's associate saying he appeared in a vid which seemed to depict him raping a woman but the vid was destroyed before law enforcement had a chance to view?

The forensic evidence is based on a single body hair found in the victim's bed said to originate from CB determined by DNA tests.  CB's explanation for this is that the hair might have been innocently transferred from petting the victim's cat.  An expert thought this was  an unlikely explanation.

Questions:

1.  I thought the victim was a tourist from US so how come she had a cat?

2.  Given the case involved a brutal rape it might be expected there would be further biological samples: semen, scrapings from the victim's nails if she scratched him in an attempt to defend herself, other body and head hair from CB?

3.  I read the victim did not want to be involved in the trial but could she not have identified him from photos and/or voice recordings?

4.  I assume he wore gloves given it seems numerous objects were handled and I haven't seen/heard anything about fingerprints?

5.  If the rape involved pre-planning eg the wearing of a mask and "torture" why such a lenient sentence of 7 years?

You are not saying that The Rape didn't happen, are you.

[Holly Goodhead]

You are not saying that The Rape didn't happen, are you.

No.

[Holly Goodhead]

You are not saying that The Rape didn't happen, are you.

What if anything do you think about the points raised above? 

[Eleanor]

What if anything do you think about the points raised above?

Nothing at all.  I just think he is a very unpleasant man.

[faithlilly]

You come across desperate that CHristian Bruerbeck won’t be charged: why is that?

Don’t you think given his previous, plus the evidence they have so far makes him a prime suspect? Or do you think he should get away with it, even though you’ve no idea at all where he was that night? His phone placed him outside: he has no alibi...yet you roar that he’s not guilty until proven so. How do you think police find suspects before charging them? They’re not guilty until they’ve been to court.

Every single person I’ve spoken to have all said he’s a despicable, vile paedophile (and that’s been proven — he even pleaded guilty) so why are you trying to protect him? You’re very strange protecting a convicted paedophile...why is that???

Well I see Holly’s rule about posting that members are supporting paedophiles didn’t last long.

And why are you so desperate to see him charged ? There appears to be something of the [ censored word ] in your post. Surely a miscarriage of justice serves no one at this point ?

You appear to have missed my point re-Hewlett. He had a charge sheet every bit as horrific as Brueckner, was near PDL at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance, so we were told, and was a prime candidate for the crime.....expect it wasn’t him.

I would love to see Brueckner brought to book for the crimes he has carried out, who wants a dangerous paedophile on the streets. What I don’t want is the case to be taken to court and for there to be insufficient evidence to convict. That would be the worst of all possible scenarios.

If there is enough evidence the police would have charged him by now. There obviously isn’t....and yes he is owed the presumption of innocent....on this case. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think that he is a dangerous predator and the world would be all the safer with him behind bars....but for crimes he’s committed.

[faithlilly]

He's in prison where he ought to be.  They can argue until the cows come home for me.  But I wouldn't like to be him if they have to let him out.

And No,  I have no thoughts on him being responsible for the abduction of Madeleine McCann.

If they take him to court with insufficient evidence that is exactly what is going to happen.

[Eleanor]

If they take him to court with insufficient evidence that is exactly what is going to happen.

They aren't going to.  I would have thought that this much was obvious.

[faithlilly]

They aren't going to.  I would have thought that this much was obvious.

And if not, much like the parents, he will be owed a substantial libel payout from the tabloids.

[Eleanor]

And if not, much like the parents, he will be owed a substantial libel payout from the tabloids.

I would like to see him try.

[faithlilly]

I would like to see him try.

Why wouldn’t he ? If the stories they have printed about him are false he is entitled to be recompensed. Libel laws don’t just apply to good people. Ironically after the debacle Madeleine will be no nearer to being found and Brueckner will be a wealthy man.

[Eleanor]

Why wouldn’t he ? If the stories they have printed about him are false he is entitled to be recompensed. Libel laws don’t just apply to good people. Ironically after the debacle Madeleine will be no nearer to being found and Brueckner will be a wealthy man.

Convicted Paedophile, Rapist and Drug Dealer sues for Loss of Reputation.

[Mr Gray]

Why wouldn’t he ? If the stories they have printed about him are false he is entitled to be recompensed. Libel laws don’t just apply to good people. Ironically after the debacle Madeleine will be no nearer to being found and Brueckner will be a wealthy man.

Which stories are false?

[Vertigo Swirl]

He’ll need to be a rich man already to start a lawsuit against British tabs.  Perhaps it’s time for his defence team on here to start that Crowdfunder.