Christian Brueckner: To be or not to be

sure, but what timeline do you use, when there are 4, or even 5 of these around. 

not one of the produced timelines ever fits all that is told, said and found. they deserve the term fictional over factual. so they can not be used to set a stage of what really did happen when, or on that evening of may 3 2007 itself. 

there are hardly sturdy and sound marking points to use when you want to check another party with a possible role against it. and going there to use hearsay of other criminals would not make that all more clear. 

it is impossible to deduce from any timeline, they are made without the real intention of finding madeleine mccann. there is none who put her in the center. 

even their own version of reconstructing a timeline failed. it is on video even. 

it is impossible to reconstruct it, i tried it the usual way, just in my head, than used a lot of paper, even a good quality map, and in the end got so far to get the playmobil puppets and a large box of lego, and even with a lot of giving room for being honest mistaken, it never fitted. you can check over and over, i always think i muist have made a mistake somewhere, but it is impossible to use any of the given timelines as soon as you want to fit in the information from the statements. 

it becomes much easier if you allow yourself some jokers in the play, like not in 2007 existing phone masts, but in the end you still get to the conclusion the timelines are fake, made up because there must have been more important things in some people their lives, than a little girl called madeleine. 
i still do not see a cb fitting in any timeline. the amateurs have been so busy to fill the timelines, they forget to leave room for a third party. 

i do not think der hans will let this case that easily go, so i do think we get some more, and that means there still will be that connection to the name madeleine mccann. i now it sound like a big win for her lawyer, but it is only his first, he lost earlier on getting a miss trial and the supposed faulty use of the extradition papers. 
so it is only 2-1 at the moment.

@ onehand  - playmobile  figures and Lego , now that's dedication to the search 

Considering the Tapas 7 refused to return for a reconstruction so good old Kate and Gerry didn't have to ! Just Gerry directing his own " version of the truth " ! 

How many " versions " have we had so far I wonder ? 

Yet Kate knows more than we do , because she was there ! 

 " I know what happened wasn't due to us leaving them sleeping , I know it happened under other circumstances " 

Oh how I wish she'd tell us what those " other circumstances " are !!

well it was well before the 3d video got more common. we used it quite a lot before that. i was already to old when lego became the norm, i grew up with bambino and wooden blocks, and those little stick with glue together things. it was quite useful if you could not get to much near a place you planned a bit of short and fast action. 

it was always hard to get just those views you wanted to see. most pictures were just the usual paper illustration. hardly anything to see the lines you could use to get access within very little time. when all those people who tell they have been out and about, it is extremely unlikely there could be room to fit in a third party.
it was never only the tapas9, but also a lot of others passing by. 

i liked the video version with the music of laurel and hardy most, but they left all the others out.

to be true, the tapas9 had very little talent in criminal affairs. 

cb also is not that criminal mastermind at all. we know of his long list of crimes, because he was caught time after time. and convicted also. his escaping the system acts have been the easy part. they had the helge b. testimony from 2017 under investigation, they did ask for portuguese cases from the years he was in the area. they had a lucky time with a not that experienced lawyer to get him in on the 2005 case. 

this case has just to much shouters, and in silence the case is already solved in 2007.

at silent scope; why would hcw be wrong, or mistaken, it is a separate case, the one of the american lady had already a conviction. this a new one from the statements of the duo of witnesses. 

the text in your picture is unreadable, why not just give a link to it. 

of the about 5 cases without any link to madeleine mccann, two do not have dates, one a older lady, unknown identity, and a young lady, who is much younger, identity also unknown. and for both cases the dates are also not known. 

the description of the case of the young lady by mouth of manfred s. did get a lot of comments online, because she was described as very young, different statements between 14 and 16, but the age of consent under german law is 14 years, i never realized they never changed that bit. 

the same as it is possible to file a case against a unknown perpetrator, it also can be done from a unknown victim. criminal law is not about the victim, but an offence against the state or people, in most countries the victim has no active role, besides maybe and when possible that of being a witness. 

hcw has his witnesses, and some circumstances, none of that what has gotten out in the media is hard evidence, it still could be sprouted from the fantastical minds of two junkies and known criminals. 
it is just a bid to see how low can you go in court without sound evidence and facts, but even the case of the american lady was already very flimsy. 

i do not like it you reproduce a non expert internet opinion about dementia of a victim. it is the role of the defending lawyer to see to such things and it did not happen at the time of that trial. so there was no official diagnosis out and about. and as i did mention above, the victim has no separate role, other than being a witness in a criminal case. so even a official diagnosis would not stand anything in the way of a court case.

my personal opinion about that specific court case in germany is thin ice, but do not forget, cb had still the right to appeal against the outcome, he even could have brought on a lousy presentation by his lawyer, the moment you do not make use of these rights you agree with your conviction. it is not a one sided affair. he could even have challenged the judge. it was certainly not his first dance. 

again on personal note, i think with a better quality lawyer the verdict could have had a different outcome, but you never can bet on the outcome of any court case. and there are stipulations in place if the representation is incompetent. 

even if we look away of all the cases presented against cb because of the portugal connections, cb is still not a good guy. he never had showed the will to not harm others in his way of life. he had a bad form well before that. for me it does not feel right to drag victims of a crime through the mud of internet, because even if there is a chance the perp in their case was not cb, these people are still victims of crimes that are very damaging to them and usually take a heavy toll on the quality of their lives forever. 

the victims are not the prosecutioners, and there is no need to give them a trial by media. usually victims are already pretty tried and tested before there is a trial. 
and criminals do not need a hero status, they do not deserve that at all. they keep more than enough rights to protect them. 

being able to write down your full day to day active life on a calendar is usually not associated with having dementia. 
the human memory ability is graded as overall very bad, already well known for so called long term memory, and also short term memory is pretty recent given that same complement. 
it is up to the court to accept and declare a witness fit to testify. even if after a testimony is given there are reasons that make their opinion different, the court still can decide to scrap the use out of the trial. 
i agree hcw is quite unique in his presentation and behavior in the media, but you can not tell me the complete german justice system is incompetent as a rule.

where is the post from silent scope gone?

come on get real silent scope, look up the list of the cases they wanted to charge cb for and you will find there was another case with an older victim hcw was charging cb against, that piece is not about the 2005 case of the american lady at all. 

you can charge against a unknown perp, you can charge a named one with an unknown date and unknown victim. 

you are just mixing two different cases. 

i give you the press information, you are citing from, it is in german, as you know and understand well. 

https://staatsanwaltschaft-braunschweig.niedersachsen.de/startseite/aktuelles/presseinformationen/anklageerhebung-wegen-mehrerer-sexualstraftaten-gegen-den-verdachtigen-im-fall-madeleine-maddie-mccann-216151.html

these are 5 new and fresh cases, the case of the american lady from 2005 is a case already closed with a final verdict, even hcw would not think to bring that again. you would not find that 2005 case in this press information. 

you are just milking the wrong cow!

so it is you who are very much mistaken!

for others, the link gives the official press statement from hcw, please translate it if needed with the translating app of your choice. it is the full list of new cases hcw wanted to charge cb with, and these cases are the ones the braunschweig courts have declared themselves incompetent. they have no territory because cb by representation of his lawyer told the court, his as last accepted officially registered address was faulty, because he bought and owned a terrain, we know as the old box factory in another state within germany. 
he was not only owner of the terrain, but also lived there, even as we would see it as in a primitive way. 

so this spectacle has little meaning on older cases like the 2005 one with the american lady as a victim, to say it in simple terms, that case is done and dusted. no appeal possible, the verdict was finalized. like all his earlier convictions. 

legally you can not say cb can no longer be charged with these 5 cases, der hans can seek appeal, and there are even more appeals possible from both sides, even up to the european courts, well we know a bit how that works by now, because of the court adventures of the mccanns of course. 
or the competent court in the state of sachsen anholt accept it to work these cases under their jurisdictions, or the court that serves the arrival on airport frankfurt can do that. 

so actually it is only a legal battle for the time being, it means these case are standing still. all what now can happen is trow the ax, and stop all action against cb in these 5 cases on the list in the press statement, or seek appeal or a agreement with one of the other jurisdictions that can work the cases. 

it will have implications for the case of madeleine mccann with cb as suspect, because braunschweig would not be competent for that case in the same manner, with also the same escape routes possible. 

the incompetence of the courts of braunschweig means als that their can be no competence to do the investigation in any case against cb in braunschweig. it is not the same as cb is or was innocent, because it is not about guilt. it is only a technicality, legally it means court incompetent, the prosecution and police in that same district must be seen as incompetent, none can legally work these cases, but usually there are fixes possible to keep working these cases for the time being and until it becomes clear who can work these cases. 

it depends on manpower, budgets and the want to take the cases through the court stages, so braunschweig can ask because of time and money invested to get an exception, or an other competent state can just take over these cases.

my expectations, none of these cases have duration, all are pretty old and controversial, so it is not to be expected it got a quick fix. there is simple no need for it, it would not make a difference on the outcome in a court. so it can take easily a year if they only have to get to a conclusion about who is competent and if another court want the case done. and easily up to 5 years if it ends up the full way up to the european courts, again, these cases do not need a quick fix, so usually no need for a quick answer of the european court. 

the problem for germany is, cb is getting to around 3/4 of his active sentence, and can get paroled, but even if parole is not given, it is unlikely he still will be in prison when any of these cases can start. after this he just will be a free man, there is no way to keep him restricted without a court decision on at least a case against him.

cb can decide to leave germany, what is difficult, because he would give up the protection to be extradited to another country, like portugal, if their minster of justice has taken use of his right to declare some national importance on the madeleine case and by that lifts the statute of limitations. 
but germany has to do the whole get him back circus over again, with the usual legalities that go with an arrest warant and extradition. 

so only when der hans decides to rest with the incompetent declaration of his residing court, there is to say it is probably over. but still the state cb was to be seen as legal resident can decide to take cases against cb. 

so all in all there is reason to hoist a flag, bring on the fireworks, what in itself would also be very unrespectful to the victims in these 5 other cases that are on loose sand, they deserve their justice too!

so at least do not start new fiction by mixing up different cases, it is also not a declaration of innocence.

common silent scope, even in germany there is a rule of law you cannot be tried twice in the same case, and even der hans would not reopen a case they won. 

number one, is the case manfred s. was telling the world as being in his age range hinting on adult activities, and that must have told something in italian to cb in the video. helge b. told she was much older and spoke english. 

the 2005 case with the american lady as a victim became final in 2020.

her lawyer has already tried to reopen that one, or to get it declared void, but was unsuccessful. only when he gets the other case of the table, he can try to go for a declaration of incompetence of that same court in the 2005 case. 

i did look at twitter, and a lot is said over there about case dropped, this is not what is happened, it could happen that all the cases are getting dropped, but courts do not work in weekends. there is no definitiv answer, it takes its time. it is not that a bunch of officers in braunschweig are standing at the paper shredder or the copy machines, emptying out their desks. courts do not work in weekends. there isnot even a motivation on the website of the court.

all there is, is the declaration of incompetence of the courts in braunschweig to handle these 5 cases. publication by her lawyer.
you can not predict what the outcome will be for those 5 cases, you can say all other cases in the making by braunschweig against cb can also not be handled by the braunschweig courts. 
it is not a new thing, and there are solutions to be looked into. 

by points of law you can say, after that court decision was published there are at this moment no open cases against cb. der hans have some weeks to appeal, germany has not a very long period to do that usually.  

at the moment it is not about any earlier conviction of cb, and the 2005 case has such a conviction. 
all 5 cases on that list are new cases, der hans was asking for an arrest warrant, to be able to bring on charges. it is nonsense to get the idea you have to do that in a case that is already having a verdict. all 5 cases are new cases. the 2005 case is a earlier and very separate case of these 5.

also again, these 5 cases have victims, only in 3 of the 5 they are known by names. these people do deserve their justice. it is not okay to put a full party mode out when a serial offender escapes trial. in one of these 5 cases a group of young children became victims of cb, he was caught red handed. the other 4 cases he could have declared himself as being innocent. the court would have to decide and a court still can decide about that. only not the court of braunschweig

the handling of these case by der hans is not something that becomes the new german standard. even the 2005 case was not up to the usual standards of practice. 
it is always nice when it is clear someone was indeed the perp. and it is always good when people are made responsible for the things they indeed have done.

technicalities are just no declaration of innocence. yes, it had set free many criminals, you know the people you do not want to live near, or find on your own paths of life. there is very little reason to play it all around as if this cb figure is the hero. if cb is your hero, something is certainly wrong between your ears. 


so please silentscope, do not rewrite official statements yourself, case number one is a new accusation against cb, for a supposed criminal act, to a unknown woman of an estimated age, on a unknown time within a certain time frame, at a place unknown. 

case number one is resting on only spoken witness statements, as they have produced from their memory of supposedly seen video materials, on a day after cb was arrested and in jail in 2006. 
der hans has decided this is not the same lady as in the 2005 case, so another supposed victim of an criminal act. 

proceedings in courts with many unknown qualifications are not rare, most examples are found in war crimes, if you look at how the most law systems on the mainland are founded, names and dates are not that important, the important part is the criminal act that has taken place. 

the victim has no active role in these systems of law, because the crime itself is an act against all of us, to society, usually taken together as versus the people, or the state, the prosecution officer represents the people or the state. 
there is hardly any direct representation of the victim as a person. the victim is part of the society. a victim is not separated as another kind of human.

it gets a bit changed, like we have for just a few years room to let the victim, or a representation of the victim speak out in the court to the accused at the end of the trial. 

it is also the society, or better the representation of the society that makes the law. 

it does not matter if a victim is unknown to us, or the law, it is all about what criminal act had taken place. 
and it is also very practical, because the accused and the victims do often not know about the identity of the others. even when the identity of a dead body is never known, if there is evidence of murder, it will still be handled as the crime of murder. 

and it is not uncommon, when you caught someone red handed, they do not tell who they are, and it can take a lot of time to find it out, but they can not escape the law. it is getting easier to find out who such a person is, but it is not a deal breaker when it comes to law. 

if names and other facts like time, date and place are known, they will be part of the case files. there are rules and regulations when to use names of victims in public publications.

it is you, silent scope who has taken the liberty to put a name to case number 1 out of 5, and it still is you who are mistaken. the 2005 case of the american lady, there is no need to put her name out, is not part of these 5 cases, and is not the same case as number one in the statement of hcw. number 1 is in itself just another and unique case hcw his office wanted to accuse cb as soon as it the court pleased to get him permission to start a case against cb. 

so please, do remove the name of a victim from an much earlier case from your listings, it has no purpose at all, and it is even quite offending to re-use that victim her name in such a faulty list. the 2005 case has already a verdict. a final one.

i still agree that the 2005 case was not a high standard one from the side of the prosecution. but the court has already spoken. there is no communication made public about reopening at all. 
you need new hard evidence to get a finalized verdict taken down. but at this moment in time this case is silent and resting under that final verdict. 

and you could read in the media just like all others, that even hcw never has communicated he would reopen the 2005 case by his actions, but you could have read and hear hcw was bringing on 5 other cases against cb. 

so please stop to rewrite history. there are many old ladies in the world who can be victim of a crime, the victim in the 2005 case is not the only one. it is pretty common for serial offenders to look for and use victims of the same type and age group. 
accusation number 1 is another crime with a modus operandi that has a lot in common to the case of 2005, but to a different victim. 

hcw would not bring out an new accusation in the same case he already has a won in court. the 2005 case is already tried, has a verdict and a final one.  

silent scope it is up to you to prove that case number one on the listings of hcw is the same case as the 2005 one

i prove my point with the court number of the finalization of the 2005 case verdict, as to be found in the database jure in german. the number is; BGH 04.11.2020 6 StR 41/20 

the full court listings of procedure in the 2005 it to find in this link; 

https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=LG%20Braunschweig&Datum=18.11.2020&Aktenzeichen=50%20StVK%20418/20

statement of motivation by the court, in german; https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2020/2020143.html

so show me where hcw, as you stated, he included the 2005 case in his press communication about cases he served to the court of braunschweig. because he did not in the statement i have read. 

where in your citation is the hint to that 2005 case. 

it is only your deduction that their was no such case before the 2005 one, but that is not what is stated by hcw in his statement at all. 

this is the original german citation of case 1;
1. Zu einem nicht näher bestimmbaren Zeitpunkt zwischen dem 28.12.2000 und dem 08.04.2006 eine unbekannt gebliebene ca. 70-80 Jahre alte Frau in ihrer Ferienwohnung in Portugal in deren Schlafzimmer überrascht zu haben. Dann soll der maskierte Angeschuldigte das Opfer gefesselt und vergewaltigt haben. Anschließend habe er mehrfach mit einer Peitsche auf das Opfer eingeschlagen. Das gesamte Geschehen soll der Angeschuldigte mit einer Videokamera aufgezeichnet haben.


source; https://staatsanwaltschaft-braunschweig.niedersachsen.de/startseite/aktuelles/presseinformationen/anklageerhebung-wegen-mehrerer-sexualstraftaten-gegen-den-verdachtigen-im-fall-madeleine-maddie-mccann-216151.html


translation by deepl; 
1. at an unspecified time between 28.12.2000 and 08.04.2006, to have surprised an unknown 70-80 year old woman in her holiday flat in Portugal in her bedroom. The masked accused then allegedly tied up the victim and raped her. He then beat the victim several times with a whip. The accused is said to have recorded the entire event with a video camera.



the unknown time is established only before cb his portuguese sentance for the diesel theft. it is not known when this case has taken place, it could be before or after the 2005 case of the 72 year old american lady, it is just a complete different case, that has only the modus operandi in common with the 2005 case. 


there is nothing in the statement of hcw that give room to deduce it is about the 2005 case, only your mind makes it into that. for the 2005 case all is already known and been through the courts, the date, name of the victim, age and place of the crime, and even the crimes are already formulated in a court of law.


why can you not understand that there could be more cases with just the same modus operandi. but very different and unique in their own right victims. 


as far as we can know, case number 1, a crime against a unknown victim, on a unknown time and place, rests only on witness statements about finding/stealing, depending on the media they told their stories to, a video camera with tapes/film or other storing device containing evidence of such crimes happening with cb visible or by recognizing his voice in it. the video device or the storing devices are never be shown. 


most of case 1 is in the public domain by mouth of manfred s. look back at the sat eins docu about it. it is out and about everywhere. you can look by yourself and hear his own voice telling about a case, that was not the 2005 one, but another one. both witnesses have never ever stated they have seen the victim of the 2005 case on a device. 
in court of the 2005 case, the modus operandi of what is now known as case 1 in the press statement of hcw, was used to connect cb to the 2005 case.  the witnesses did connect cb to being able to such modus operandi, because they stated they had seen cb doing it on another video. 


there is never been a video or any device for storage or produce video material shown in tn court during the trial of the 2005 case. 


so yes, again i ask you, do show me your proof of case number 1 being the same case as the 2005 case with as a victim a 72 years old american lady. 


you have said nothing to prove hcw made a mistake with that at all. i do not have high regards of der hans, but i do not see him making any mistake as you present to us. 

the official press communication of the court itself about the latest developments;

for original german, just look here; 

https://landgericht-braunschweig.niedersachsen.de/aktuelles/landgericht-braunschweig-erklart-sich-in-dem-verfahren-2-kls-213-js-52790-18-15-22-vergewaltigung-sexueller-missbrauch-fur-unzustandig-221592.html

translation with deepl;

Braunschweig Regional Court declines jurisdiction in proceedings 2 KLs 213 Js 52790/18 (15/22) (rape, sexual abuse)
BRAUNSCHWEIG REGIONAL COURT DECLINES JURISDICTION IN THE PROCEEDINGS 2 KLS 213 JS 52790/18 (15/22) (RAPE, SEXUAL ABUSE)

In the course of the interlocutory proceedings in the above-mentioned proceedings, the Regional Court of Braunschweig examined, inter alia, the local jurisdiction pursuant to section 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) and, by order of 19.04.2023, declared itself without jurisdiction with regard to the indictment of the Public Prosecutor's Office of Braunschweig dated 05.10.2022 (see also press release of 12.10.2022).

In detail:

The 2nd Criminal Chamber stated that the jurisdiction of the Regional Court of Braunschweig was solely due to the place of jurisdiction of the last domicile pursuant to § 8 para. 2 2nd Alt. StPO came into consideration. The place of jurisdiction of the last domicile was exclusively determined for the case that the accused no longer had a current domestic domicile and the habitual residence was unknown or abroad. The accused currently no longer has a domestic residence, as he is housed in a correctional institution and his last habitual residence was abroad.

It is true that the accused was originally resident and also registered in the local district. However, in the opinion of the chamber, this is not relevant, since the accused - as he himself also submitted - established a new and thus last residence in Saxony-Anhalt. This was also supported by the fact that he was entered in the land register as the owner of a property there. In addition to various vehicles, the accused's personal belongings were also on this property. Two months later, he fled abroad. He kept the property.

After a comprehensive assessment of all the arguments presented, the chamber assumed that the accused had last resided outside of the local district and therefore declared itself incompetent.

The accused is currently in criminal custody in another matter. The Regional Court cancelled the additional arrest warrant of 18.11.2022 (see also press release of 28.11.2022). Against this background, the question of urgent suspicion did not have to be re-examined. The revocation has no influence on the further serving of the current sentence.

The order can be challenged by simple appeal pursuant to section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal would then have to be decided by the Higher Regional Court of Braunschweig.

Background:

§ 8 Place of jurisdiction of the domicile or place of residence.

(1) The place of jurisdiction is also established at the court in whose district the accused has his domicile at the time the action is brought.

(2) If the defendant does not have a domicile within the area of application of this Federal Act, the place of jurisdiction shall also be determined by the habitual place of residence and, if such a place is not known, by the last place of residence.