Christian Brueckner: To be or not to be

Busching according to his Scotland Yard Statement was never Friends with Brückner.

Brückner was a Friend of Michael Tatschl, an accomplice of Busching's.

crusader wrote:Herr Wolters could say with the evidence he had at the time, he was convinced Brueckner was guilty of the Murder of Madeleine. Aided and abetted by Scotland Yard.

He can be convinced by that, he would have known that it can't be true though had he read the PJ files, Amaral's books and so many other sources that already quite clearly concluded what happened many years before the name Christian B was first publicly associated with the Madeleine case.

MaxHeadroom wrote:If there are signs of the case getting closed, Fuelscher should already prepare a defamation suit against Wolters and Braunschweig public prosecutors' office. For four years, they have been trying so heavily to tie Brückner to the Madeleine case despite clear lack of evidence that his name will forever be associated with the case anywayrn Portuguese gynaecologist (he was not CB's lawyer at the time). He was appointed under the legal aid scheme. What about the other three lawyers? Who is paying them?  

How far does Fülscher's power extend? Fülscher tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to revisit the DM case, which was judged against common sense, without taking into account the evidence of a sworn Portuguese gynaecologist (he was not CB's lawyer at the time). FF was appointed under the legal aid scheme. What about the other three lawyers? Who is paying them?

The Kachelmann process commanded Fees of around €5,000 per Court day.

Johan Schwenn and partners Website explains the steps in English.

Remuneration for legal work can either be based on the statutory fee provisions of the Lawyers' Remuneration Act or on the basis of a remuneration agreement. The lawyer and client are always free to conclude such a remuneration agreement, but it is subject to certain legal requirements ( Section 49b of the Federal Lawyers' Code, Sections 3a to 4b of the Lawyers' Remuneration Act ). The agreement must be concluded in text form and must not be included in the lawyer's power of attorney. With a few exceptions, agreeing on a success fee is not permitted.

The decisive disadvantage of the statutory remuneration regulation is that it is economically advantageous for the lawyer, especially if a particularly large number of main hearing days have to be carried out. We would like to avoid such (almost always public) main hearings - where the defendant is required to be present - if possible. We therefore regularly do everything we can to avoid a court hearing by providing a written defense in advance. This saves our clients time and money.

For this reason, we usually conclude remuneration agreements with our clients. This is the fairest billing method for our clients and for us. Only the working hours required by the mandate are paid.

Source: https://rechtsanwalt--strafrecht-com.translate.goog/kosten/?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

FF is paid for by the State because CB has no resources. Would the other three lawyers work for free because this is a textbook case: a man accused by dodgy witnesses of having assaulted five imaginary or unidentified victims without any evidence; by proxy, because he could not be accused of the murder of Madeleine MC, despite 4 years of statements by an obsessional prosecutor which convicted him in a media court where there is no need to prove a crime in order to obtain a conviction ?

Herr Fülscher, and his Team are supplied by the Solicitors Office.

It is the Anwalts Kanzelei (Solicitors Office) that gets the Legal Aid.

Lawyers in Germany are not allowed to Work for free. This is regulated in the Law. 

(§ 49b Abs. 1 S. 2 BRAO) 
Source: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_brao/englisch_brao.html

Even 'No Win - No Fee' is not allowed as far as I am aware, although some Firms take a percentage of any Winnings when the chance of success is definite.

Friedrich Fülscher leads the Team of Defence Lawyers.

His Boss is Johann Schwenn, owner of the Lawyers Office. (Kanzlei)

His Contractual obligations to his Client do not allow him to speak about Confidential information unless his Client agrees to it.

JS and FF don't belong to the same law office : Schwenn's one is in Hamburg, Fülscher's one in Kiel.   Do you have any link about Schwenn still being part of the defense team ?

The defense lawyers of the suspect in the Madeleine McCann case have resigned. Lawyers Jan-Christian Hochmann and David Volke announced that they had informed the relevant investigating authority of this. They did not wish to give a reason for resigning their mandate.

The 43-year-old Christian B. is now being represented by the Kiel lawyer Friedrich Fülscher and the Hamburg lawyer Johann Schwenn. Fülscher told RTL/n-tv that his client does not wish to make any statements on the matter “at the moment”. “We ask for your understanding that we as defense lawyers also do not provide any information.”

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Source:https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/fall-maddie-anwaelte-von-tatverdaechtigem-legen-mandat-nieder-a-26d36bda-a318-4532-a5a4-00797d540b88

There seems to be no definitive current Information on whether Hr. Schwenn has laid down his Mandate recently.

For direct Questions: https://rechtsanwalt-strafrecht.com/kontakt/

Ok, but no media source mentions Schwenn as leading nor being part of CB's defense team after 2020. I asked Schwenn's law office over 6 months back but got no reply.

Hr. Schwenn probably reduced his Profile due to some Windows being smashed and some Graffiti being sprayed on his Offices in Hamburg.

Fülscher has also recieved all sorts of Threats, some of which he has brought Charges against.

Do you have a link for that, Silentscope ?

And a day later, after Clarke had sold this Exclusive piece to the gutter press across the world, and been paid handsomely for it, the Braunschweiger Zweitung said the whole thing was nonsense.
  
They let Clarke off lightly be saying he may have "over-edited" a subordinate clause.

But since Clarke speaks and understands no German, as he has admitted and demonstrated in his book where is digs and then falls head-first into a deep trench of his own making over the spelling of Brückner's name, it is more likely that he simply interpreted what he was told in a way most favourable to his own and his paymasters' agenda.


It is also highly probably that Clarke does not understand the different make-up of the German language, and the importance of the Subordinate clause structure which alters the main verb placing in the whole sentence.
Or as that would appear in German, "..the importance of the Subordinateclausestructure, which the placing of the main verb in the sentence, alters."



"Evaluated". A bit different from Clarke's conclusion

AnneCGuedes wrote:Do you have a link for that, Silentscope ?

Of course,

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Schwenn

https://www.shutterstock.com/de/editorial/image-editorial/vandalised-exterior-offices-on-pickhuben-hamburg-belonging-10678797d

https://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/vertrat-kachelmann-ullrich-und-ddr-spionagechef-paukenschlag-bei-maddie-star-strafverteidiger-schwenn-uebernimmt-fall-von-christian-b_id_12093374.html

https://youtu.be/6cdWZ8J2Vu0?feature=shared

Thank you for the "Schäm Dich, Schwenn", Silentscope, I had no idea of that.

The Press keeps what suits them Quiet.

AnneCGuedes wrote:Thank you for the "Schäm Dich, Schwenn", Silentscope, I had no idea of that.

Attacking a Barrister's office and grafitti-ing 'Shame on you, Schwenn' must be very, very rare. 
Usually it is the witnesses who are intimidated, or in Northern Ireland, the jury for terrorist offences. Herr Schwenn surrendered rather easily from defending Christian Brueckner and frankly, the language used and and form of attack are rather tame. 
Is lawyer intimidation prevalent, or viewed as an extremely serious crime in Germany? 
Someone really, really wants Bruckner to be charged of spurious allegations and by association, the killing of MBM.

@Cammerigal wrote:
Is lawyer intimidation prevalent, or viewed as an extremely serious crime in Germany?

A. This was the first time I have ever heard of it, although Lawyers, Private Detectives get Threats regularly, Physical Damage is rare.

The State seems to view these Threats as being part of the Job, just like Stuntmen being injured or Doormen being assaulted.

Lawyers for pedo-criminals are mistreated all over the world, because people don't understand that a lawyer is defending a human being, not this or that reprehensible act they are accused to have commited.

Even being proven Guilty in a Court of Law is no Gaurentee that you have been justly convicted.

Every Prison has at least one Prisoner who swears to God he did not do 'it'.

Whatever 'it' may be.

Strange that Herr Fülscher's BKA Profiler decided to call in Sick when he was due to give Evidence. Pure coincidence?

22 May 2024: On day 17, the head of the BKA's Operational Case Analysis (Profiling Section) was supposed to testify. 
The Federal Criminal Police Office compared the rape of Hazel B. with the rape of the 72-year-old American woman for which Christian B. was convicted. 
However, the Chief Profiler was absent due to illness. Christian B.'s lawyers file a motion for recusal - due to bias.

Source: https://www.braunschweiger-zeitung.de/niedersachsen/braunschweig/article405797055/braunschweig-prozess-gegen-christian-b-das-ist-bisher-passiert.html

The legal team defending Madeleine McCann’s main suspect, Christian Brueckner, is trying to have key evidence thrown out, arguing that German investigators violated international law by obtaining it.

An anonymous witness in Portugal handed over to German police Brueckner’s hard drive containing disgusting cartoons supposedly written by Brueckner.

Now Brueckner’s team is demanding that the Braunschweig Regional Court not officially admit the hard drive as evidence.

Brueckner’s lawyer, Friedrich Fülscher, said: “This is simply not permitted.” The German police cannot simply go looking for evidence in another country without authorization.

‘The Portuguese authorities were not even informed of this. It’s as if the German police simply went to England and started conducting a police investigation there and then confiscated evidence and took it back to Germany. It is outrageous!’ Brueckner’s team demands that the Braunschweig Regional Court not officially admit the hard drive as evidence

Email account inboxes were completely deleted during the first half of 2007, including around the time Madeleine ‘Maddie’ McCann disappeared.

Brueckner’s lawyer, Friedrich Fülscher, said: “The German police cannot simply go looking for evidence in another country without any authorization.”

Details of the hard drive were given in court yesterday by Titus Stampa, detective commissioner of the Federal Criminal Police (BKA), the German equivalent of the FBI.

In addition to the hard drive details, Stampa revealed that Brueckner had three email accounts.

Two of them were used to send pornographic photographs, including those of himself and his erect penis.

Stampa and his colleagues from the Federal Criminal Police (BKA) asked Microsoft Ireland in 2017 to try to secure access to the account, which after going through extensive procedures was finally granted to them in 2018.

Here they discovered that the inboxes of these accounts had been completely deleted during the first half of 2007, which includes the time when Madeleine ‘Maddie’ McCann disappeared.

But when they checked the accounts’ outboxes, they discovered that Brueckner had sent a multitude of files containing obscene photographs, including photographs of himself with an erect penis.

In addition, it also included several versions of two stories, the ‘Mother/Daughter’ story and the ‘Zofen story’.

The first is about a mother and daughter who are captured, transported in a van to a farm, tortured, and brutally raped.

The second is about children who decide to take revenge on a pedophile who has abused them.

The prosecution claims that they all found this story on a USB stick that was found during a police search in 2016 at the dilapidated Brueckner box factory in Neuwegesleben.

But the defense has consistently tried to prevent this story from being heard in court, arguing that the police search was unauthorized and therefore the evidence obtained there is inadmissible.

On Tuesday, the court heard police had informed colleagues about a dead dog at the Breuckner premises, prompting a police search.

Here, under intense interrogation by judge Ute Insa Engemann, police officer Katharina Schmidt, 47, admitted to having been on Brueckner’s premises without any permission.

And she even admitted that she knew that she was not allowed to be there, nor take photographs, nor send them to the police to start an investigation.

Taking all this into account, it seemed that the prosecution had no chance of revealing details of this story in court.

But instead, by focusing on Brueckner’s emails, the prosecution yesterday indirectly got the harrowing summary of these stories mentioned in court.

However, regarding the third email, Stampa said he was not authorized to discuss it because it concerned the investigation into Madeleine McCann’s murder.

Speaking outside the courtroom this morning, one of Brueckner’s defense team members, Phillip Marquort, said: “You have to remember that the file with this story was an RTF file, and these files do not identify the author.”

“So, regardless of what was written about what happened yesterday in court, these facts remain, and even Mr. Stampa admitted in court yesterday that they have no way of knowing whether my client wrote the story or not because the RTF files do not record the author.

Source: https://whatsnew2day.com/german-investigators-illegally-obtained-a-hard-drive-while-preparing-the-case-against-madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-his-lawyers-claim-as-they-try-to-have-the-evidence-thrown-out-of-cou/