“This oath means that we don’t have to cater to the views of the media and the defence and the prosecution or the table of regulars-in-a-pub.”

“We have to balance all the evidence presented to us.”

She said that Brückner’s case was impacted by speculation in the press.

“Everyone had heard about him in the Maddie McCann case. And they all knew that Brückner since 2020 was always named by the public prosecution office.”

“When in the media, a person is here described as a sex monster and a pervert, then it influences the witness.”

The trial was a fiercely contested battleground. The courtroom saw angry verbal skirmishes over 35 days of proceedings between prosecutors and the defence, led by Friedrich Fülscher, along with shouted interruptions by Ms Engemann.

Last week, Ute Lindemann, the chief public prosecutor, demanded a total of 15 years in prison for Brückner, and for him to be placed under preventive detention, whereby prisoners deemed to pose a danger to society are not released even if they have served their sentence.

Mr Fülscher, Brückner’s defence attorney, tried to dismantle the prosecution’s case in his terse closing plea on Monday, and showed solidarity with the judge, whom the prosecution accused of bias in favour of Brückner.

He said: “Last week, you attacked the professional judge, my colleagues and myself, polemically and personally for long bouts.

“You made it clear out from the outset that your closing statement was addressed to the public and not to the chamber.”

“You were particularly concerned with maximising damage to professional judges. Almost without exception, your criticism was unjustified and of a rarely low level. My colleagues and I will not stoop to this level today, rather devote ourselves to the actual purpose of these proceedings.”

Loading

Ms Engemann, who was born in the federal state of Lower Saxony during the 1960s, studied law at the University of Göttingen before starting her first judicial role at Brunswick regional court in 1993.

Her career took a controversial turn between 2005 and 2010 because of her association with Vaternotruf, a fathers’ rights organisation based in Berlin.

Vaternotruf was known for its outspoken advocacy of fathers involved in custodial disputes, often criticising what it perceived as systemic biases against men within family courts.

Ms Engemann drew fierce criticism from feminist organisations and legal professionals, who raised profound concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

She then officially distanced herself from the Vaternotruf organisation, but the issue has continued to raise questions about her neutrality.

By 2015, her career focus shifted to criminal cases, and she presided over a violent crime trial in Brunswick in 2017.

Brückner’s case went to trial early this year, with Ms Engemann triggering controversy by ruling in July that the evidence against him was so “insufficient” that the arrest warrant would be lifted.

It provoked particular concern that she made this announcement before the prosecution had finished giving its evidence.

As a result, the prosecution moved to have Ms Engemann removed on the basis that she was allegedly biased.

A prosecution motion for prejudice was filed at the 28th hearing and claimed that by making the previous announcement, she had hinted at a preconceived intent to acquit Brückner.

The prosecution now has the ability to appeal Ms Engemann’s verdict by taking it to Germany’s supreme court, the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe.

If this court rules in their favour, there will be a retrial using a different judge. Ms Lindemann already stated her intention to “take it to Karlsruhe”.

Meanwhile, Brückner still needs to serve the end of the sentence he was handed in 2019 for the brutal rape of Diana Menkes, a US national, in Portugal in 2005. He is set to be freed next year.

In court on Monday, Mr Fülscher said: “We are sitting here today to decide on the freedom and the fate of a human being. Mr Brückner, is accused of committing five serious offences, but the court of the main trial tells a completely different story than the public prosecution office has presented here.”

Alluding to Nazi Germany, he continued: “Our constitutional state is first and foremost that the respective offence and not the offender is at the centre of the proceedings.

“We no longer lock people up here because they have character deficits. That time is long gone in our history, thank God.”

Mr Fülscher began by criticising what he saw as inconsistent testimonies given by witnesses.

These included former petty criminals Manfred Seyfurth and Helge Busching, who claim to have seen videos of Brückner committing rape after breaking into his house in Portugal while he was in prison for stealing diesel.

Mr Fülscher attacked Busching as a “busybody and a liar” and accused him of lying about owning a Facebook account and showing a video of a rape to a British barlady who later refuted it.

He also hit out at Busching over his description of the rapes. In particular, Mr Fülscher said Büsching’s testimony gave three contradictory accounts of the offences.

Similarly, he said that Seyfurth’s testimony, in which he also claimed to have seen video of the rapes, was “of the lowest level” and “lacked a minimum degree of consistency”.

A report provided by Dr Christian Riedeman, the forensic psychiatrist, painted a grim picture of Brückner.

Dr Riedemann testified that Brückner falls into the “highest category of danger”, describing him as a serious threat to society.

She also revealed that he wrote disturbing stories with graphic descriptions and drawings detailing the rape of women and children.

This revelation further fuelled the prosecution’s narrative of Brückner as a dangerous and calculating individual.

Yet despite the damning psychological profile, the defence suggested there were several discrepancies between the alleged crimes in the current trial and Brückner’s previous convictions.

They argued that his modus operandi was different because of how he interacted with the victims and the language used during the attacks. The defence maintained doubt on whether he is the perpetrator in all the cases being brought before the court.

But throughout the trial, Brückner sat impassively – appearing gaunt and detached – and did not make any official statement before the court.