GUILTY Netherlands - Jos Brech, 55, wanted for murder, Vosges (Fr) winter 2018

[ZaZara]

Today is the eighth and probably last preliminary session in the trial against Jos Brech. The court will review the pre-trial detention and assess whether Brech will remain in custody until the substantive hearing of his criminal case, which begins on 28 September.

Conclusions:

Jos Brech blijft langer in de cel, uitstel rechtszaak en corona geen reden hem vrij te laten

Jos Brech (57) will remain in prison for the time being. There is still a serious suspicion of Brech's involvement in the death and abuse of Nicky Verstappen and of a shocked legal order and flight risk. Postponement of the trial until September and the circumstances in prison due to corona are no reason to release him, as his lawyer Gerald Roethof has requested.


BBM

 

[ZaZara]

https://www.1limburg.nl/jos-brech-tussen-vrijspraak-en-levenslang?context=latestarticles

Jos Brech: between acquittal and life imprisonment

Next week, the long-awaited trial of Jos Brech in the Nicky Verstappen case will begin. Every day we look ahead to one aspect of the case, Saturday will be the last episode. What will the verdict be? That could be anything between acquittal and life imprisonment.

"I wouldn't like to sit in the judges' chair. I don't envy them," says criminal law professor Lonneke Stevens.

Nobody can look into the crystal ball and know what the verdict will be for suspect Jos Brech from Simpelveld. That verdict is up to the court in Maastricht. Over the past few months, L1 has spoken to a total of ten experts who do not have the file at their disposal, but who are following the case with an above-average level of interest. Most lawyers have doubts as to whether Jos Brech will be convicted.


Lawyer Gitte Stevens: "What I am noticing, is that there is a lack of evidence at the public prosecutor's office. The facts charged to the accused find too little support in the case file and an acquittal follows. However painful that may be for Nicky's family."


Lawyer Paul Acda is also critical. "When there are so many black holes in a case, ambiguity, ignorance. We do not know how Nicky was killed and how Brech's DNA ended up there. In that case, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn from that uncertainty: acquittal."

Other experts express the hope that justice may prevail. After all, appearances are against Brech. Private detective John Vullers: "He fled abroad, did not come back for his mother's funeral, did not provide DNA after various requests. If you add all that up, it will eventually turn against him."
De Limburger's Ombudsman is also counting on a conviction. Ombudsman Huub Evers: "I expect the court to declare that the accused is also the perpetrator. And that, therefore, there is sufficient evidence despite the fact that there will be no answers to all the questions that remain."

The court in Maastricht has a difficult task ahead. Brech can be convicted while he may not have been the perpetrator. But it might also be the other way round: Brech is acquitted, but he is indeed the culprit. Professor of criminal law Lonneke Stevens: "There are many holes in the picture. I don't see the story. It will be a difficult decision. I wouldn't like to sit on the chair of the criminal judges. I don't envy them."


BBM



Trial starts on Monday, September 28.

 

[ZaZara]

Twitterfeed of crime reporter Saskia Belleman @SaskiaBelleman
https://twitter.com/SaskiaBelleman


The public prosecutors will read out the indictment first. The President says that people may leave the Chamber if things are shown that they do not want to see. "With the exception of Mr B., of course."

Jos B. is being prosecuted for kidnapping, sexual abuse and the qualified manslaughter of #Nicky Verstappen by suffocating him. Qualified manslaughter is a form of deliberate killing to cover up another crime.

If qualified manslaughter cannot be proven, he is alternatively charged with manslaughter. Qualified manslaughter is punishable by a maximum penalty equivalent to murder. Ordinary manslaughter is - still today - punishable by a much lower penalty.

The fourth offence for which Jos B. is suspected is possession of child *advertiser censored*.

I hear Jos B. say that he has been able to follow what the officer says. But he sounds far away and he sounds very soft.

Jos B. refers to a statement he allegedly made.

Jos B. leans forward and says he doesn't need an explanation of the indictment as far as child *advertiser censored* is concerned. He does have a statement that has apparently been put on video.

Jos B. does not speak easily in public, he says. Apparently a statement has been recorded for that reason. He repeats what he said earlier; that he has not read the file.

Judge: Why has he recorded a statement now and not before? "I refer to my lawyer. He can give a better explanation", says Jos B.

Judge: "But you are the accused. Your lawyer hasn't been there. Am I to understand that you say: first watch what's on the video?" Jos B.: "That's my statement from the beginning."

Jos B. confirms that the court should first have a look at the video with his statement. The public prosecutor gets up. The defence apparently announced on Thursday that it would like to submit two films: one today, and one on 5 October.

The Public Prosecutor says that Jos B. and his lawyer are trying in this way to put the court out of action, by avoiding an interrogation. "Apparently we have to do it with a statement." The Prosecutor wants to know how and when the films were made.

This is a very unusual state of affairs. But the court decides that we should first watch and listen to Jos B.'s video statement. Now let's hope that the technology doesn't let us down.

We see Jos B. appear on screen. Uncomfortably shifting in his chair. We hear nothing. We see him talking, but unintelligible.

The film lasts almost 12 minutes, we see at the bottom of the screen.

This is crucial. We all want to hear what Jos B. has to say. There is a feverish phone call to the sitting room.

Jos B. is sitting in front of a door with a round window in it. " I wish to make a brief statement...."

,,I have said before that I have nothing to do with the kidnapping, abuse and death of #Nicky. I have been walking around with a secret for a long time. The longer that took, the harder it became to do anything with it."

I'm not much of a talker. I'm introverted. Don't talk about myself that easily. I was very shocked at my arrest in Spain. "

No one could help me. Except my lawyer." His lips are a little shaky. He talks about his transport to the Netherlands, the interrogations. He doesn't look into the camera, but downwards.

"You end up in solitary confinement." He gets emotional, falls silent for a moment. Tries with all his might not to cry. That doesn't quite work. He talks about his detention in confinement, tries to control himself. His voice goes up.

"It is only when you come out of your cell for the next interrogations that you come outside. Always cameras, hardly any consultation with your lawyer. There you are."

He tells how he consulted his lawyer and decided not to say anything from that moment on. "So now I have decided to explain and I have a few reasons for that. "

"The parents have a right to know what I can tell them", says Jos B.

"It was a beautiful summer in 1998. I was outside for a while. Enjoying nature. Just like that day. I stopped at the edge of the forest to take a leak. My attention was drawn to something in the distance."

Curious as I am I went there. I saw something lying there, climbed over the fence as fast as I could. It was a child."

"I looked for breathing, checked if there was a heartbeat. I touched him by the clothes. He had died. I don't know how long I sat there. I didn't know what to do."

"To the police? But who would believe me? I had a past. My head was spinning, I didn't know what to do. At a certain point I felt that I was being watched. I left as soon as possible. Back home."

I did not report anything. Haven't spoken to anyone about it. Hours after that....nothing went on. I just didn't know what to do anymore. I went cycling to think."

"I thought, if you keep busy, I'll become calmer." He shakes his head. My thoughts stayed with that child. The media, the news. Boy missing."

He looks down, with trembling lips. "Then I cycled up the moor to report that I had found a child. Then it turned out that he had been found. The need to report that I had found him was then no longer there. I said nothing."

"I have made mistakes in the past. Wrong decisions. I can't change it any more, that's how it happened. I have used the right to remain silent for too long."

"Parents are entitled to this piece of the story".

We look again at the room, where Jos B. now says he found #Nicky in the morning. On the same day as he went cycling on the moor and was addressed by military police. "It's one big blur."

He told the troopers that he was going to deliver mail early in the morning because it was too hot during the day. He doesn't remember whether he found #Nicky on 10 or 11 August.

He was probably arrested by the MPs on Wednesday morning just after midnight, on 11 August. According to Roethof, the fact that he no longer knows this is the reason why he has remained silent so far.

The chairman is trying to find out exactly when Jos B. cycled to the moor to report that he had found the child. "It's one big confusion for me," says Jos B. At least it was still light when he found #Nicky, he says.

"It was at the beginning of the day," says Jos B. Where did he find #Nicky? There where we stood during the chimney, there at that fence". Chairman: "The spruce plot?" Jos B.: "Yes."

What did #Nicky look like when Jos B. found him? Jos B. falls silent for a long time. Says then: "Upper body exposed, red trousers on."

Was #Nicky externally damaged? Or totally undamaged? Jos B.: "Yes. I checked his breathing at his mouth. And I put my ears on his chest to listen to his heartbeat. I listened for a long time. He was dead."

How long did Jos B. listen if he could hear a heartbeat? "At least a minute," says Jos B. Did he feel his temperature in any other place? He wasn't cold," says Jos B.

Was he as warm as Jos B.? "I don't know." What was #Nicky like? Lawyer Roethof stands up, wants to cut short. The chairman doesn't like that. Roethof asked for a brief suspension. I haven't finished with your client," says the chairman.

Roethof insists on being able to consult with Jos B.. The chairman ignores him. "I will continue with your client." Now Jos B. does not want to say anything more. He wants to consult with his lawyer, he says.

The public prosecutor starts talking about the statement Jos B. would have written when he had been jailed recently. "That's the statement you just saw," says Jos B. Where is the written statement? "You'll have to ask my lawyer."

When was this video made? "A while ago," says Jos B. Roethof insists again that he wants to consult with his client. The idea for a film came up after the Public Prosecution Service announced that they were going to show a film. It is a good example to follow.

Jos B.'s statement was recorded last week, says Roethof.

The chairman decides to suspend the case after all. Until 10 to 11.

Jos B.'s statement raises all kinds of questions. If the moment he found #Nicky was the first moment he saw the boy, how did his dna get on the pants?

The boy was lying with his upper body bare and red trousers on, Jos B said. Then his dna would be on the pajama trousers. But that is not the case. We look forward eagerly to the rest of the day.


BBM

 

[ZaZara]

Crime reporter Saskia Belleman, continued
@SaskiaBelleman

The case is being resumed.

Jos B. is back in his seat. The Public Prosecutor continues to ask questions in response to the video statement.

Was Jos B. walking or cycling on the moor? "I would so like to help you by clarifying my statement. But we are talking about more than 20 years ago," Jos B. says.

Jos B. says he's tried to explain things before, "but it's been a long time, blurry. And I was panicking. One big chaos." He feels the Public Prosecutor's Office tries to catch him on points where he would contradict himself.

The technique in some of the rooms is apparently faltering... Jos B..: "It's all so vague. As much as I would like to help. Every little thing I say, or what I fill in, is going to be held against me. I also have to take care of myself."

Jos B. is afraid to burden himself. He is asked again how he went to the moor. On a bicycle, or walking? Or by car? Jos B.: You can get there by car. But I didn't have a car."

Jos B. had gone to the moor by bike, he says. "And from now on I want to invoke my right to remain silent again. I can't fill in things I don't remember."

The Public Prosecutor is going to ask questions anyway. Can Jos B. describe in more detail the place where he peeed when 'something' caught his attention? Jos B.: "That's the part on the edge of the woods where we also walked during the viewing."

He urinated by the trees along the path. "The thickest tree standing there." He could see across the field from there, he says.

Jos B. can point out the spot on the map later, he says. What attracted his attention? What exactly did he see? Jos B.:"There was nothing specific that I saw."

He ended up at the Christmas tree plot where #Nicky was finally found. What was the boy like? "That's one of those things I don't remember exactly. That's why I want to make use of the right to remain silent."

Jos B. doesn't want to answer the question of whether he moved the boy.

"My statement is on the video. That is my statement. And for the rest I invoke my right to remain silent," Jos B. says.

The public prosecutor: "Do we have to do it from now on with what you said in the video, or are you still going to answer certain questions? Jos B.: "I don't know what questions you're going to ask."

The Public Prosecutor is going to ask questions about the moment when the military police arrested Jos B.. The moment when Jos B. actually wanted to report that he had found a child. "But that was no longer necessary," Jos B. says.

He doesn't remember exactly what he said to the troopers, Jos B. says.

The judge asks why Jos B. waited until today to make a statement. "The parents were already entitled to a statement from the first moment you were arrested."

Jos B.: "You're right that it could have been earlier, me making a statement. But on the advice of my lawyer I have postponed it". Judge: "But you were in custody. I just don't understand it very well."

Jos B. remains silent for a long time. "It's what I said: the longer you walk around with a secret. The harder it is to do anything with it."

Judge: "You've been walking around with that secret for so long. Wasn't your arrest the time to tell your story? Why did it get harder? You could also think: "At last I can do the story I've been carrying with me for so many years."

Jos B..: "It became clear to me at the time of my arrest that I'd already been convicted without my saying a word. Through everything around it. By what was said about me. I was in restrictions and had no access to the media myself".

Why did he not talk to the court? "We've asked you a couple of times for a statement." Jos B..: "And I have."

What exactly caught his attention in the distance? Jos B.: "I don't know exactly. I looked into the distance and thought, there's something there. At least it was enough to make me curious. But what it was, I couldn't remember."

Who was he going to tell that he had found a child? " I heard on the news that the moor had been cordoned off, that there were police. I thought, I can go and report it."

What does Jos B. remember, the judge asks? "For the rest it's a big blur. I acted to see if there was anything I could do."

Jos B.: "I've been checking for a breath. And the heartbeat. I put my ear to his chest to listen to a heartbeat." And he "thinks" that with his ear against #Nicky's mouth he's been trying to find some breathing.

What else did he do? Another long silence. "I've been there...." Silence. "I've probably done something about his clothes. Straightened up a bit." #Nicky was lying on his stomach, says Jos B.

Jos B..: I turned him over. I don't know if he was lying on his stomach. Partly on his belly. I turned him over on his back." That was before he checked #Nicky's heartbeat and breathing, says Jos B.

That "probably" straightening of the clothes Jos B. did later, he says. "When I saw that he had died." What did he have to straighten? "The red pyjama trousers," he says. "Probably straightened them, cleaned a bit. Wiped leaves away. Something like that."

"I've been trying to lay down #Nicky properly," Jos B. now says spontaneously. "He wasn't lying on his back, he was lying upside down. One leg stretched."

The court asks "how far away" that was "something" that caught his attention. Jos B.: "About 30 meters or so."

But he doesn't remember what caught his attention, Jos B. says. The judge asks what he meant by the remark "that there was no longer any need" to report that he had found #Nicky. "He had already been found," says Jos B.

Was it not in the interest of the investigation to report how he found the boy? Jos B.: "If I look back on it now." In 2001, Jos B. was heard at length in this case. Then he said nothing.

He was afraid, says Jos B. Because he had touched 2 boys years earlier, the police had told him that they would know where to find him if something like that would happen again. "That scares you."

But he didn't know what had happened to #Nicky, the judge says. Why did you make the link with your past? Jos B.: "Because children were involved." Why didn't he report his find anonymously over the phone? "That didn't occur to me."

Judge: "To put it bluntly, you're not known as a child killer. Then why didn't you say anything?" Jos B.: "There was fear. In me. I didn't tell anyone."

Lawyer Roethof asked Jos B. questions. First about his fear to report that he had found a dead child. Were there any other fears?" Jos B.: "Whatever I said, I felt watched. If anyone had been there he might have seen me."

"But you had done nothing. Except felt if he was still alive. What were you afraid of," the judge asks. Jos B.: "I didn't want to be involved at the time. That's why I left. I panicked. I walked around for a long time without really knowing what to do."

He didn't confide in anyone, Jos B. says. "I've been thinking about it myself....". Judge: "Did you think I would rather not have found him?" Jos B..: "Yes, but I did find him."

He didn't realise at the time that reporting his find might have shed more light on what had happened. "I don't remember what my thoughts were at the time."

And at the time he did want to report his find, he didn't have to because #Nicky had been found, says Jos B. The feeling that he was being watched; does he remember from which direction that came? Jos B. doesn't remember.

Did he have the feeling that it was a human being, or an animal? "I think I assumed it was a human being," Jos B says.

What made him feel that he was being watched? Sound? rustling? Jos B..: "I wouldn't remember."

"If you're so into nature, then perhaps you knew whether you were being watched by a man or an animal," the judge tries again. Jos B..: "My feeling was that it was a human being."

Jos B. climbed over the fence in a different place than when he went to look. An easier spot. "The place I went over first had quite a lot of bushes, thorns."

He didn't wonder how #Nicky got there, says Jos B. "Not at the time." He then cycled straight home. A bike ride of half an hour, 3 quarters of an hour. His mother was at home, but he didn't tell her anything.

"I withdrew. Sat down brooding", Jos B says. He thinks it was still morning when he came home. He can't remember if he had lunch with his mother. Or had dinner in the evening.

In the evening he went to cycle around "to think". Only after that he went to the place where he had found #Nicky. Roethof warned: "You know what I said: don't fill things in." Judge: "If you don't remember, just say so."

During his bike ride he had 2 letters with him. "One had to be posted in.......". Long silence. He tries to describe the place in Brunssum where the letter had to go. Near Ollekebolleke where he worked.

After posting the 1st letter "I had decided to turn around and go to the Brunssummerheide". Where he ended up at the posting post office around half past one.

After that I cycled back to Brunssum", says Jos B. "I still had that 2nd letter. But I couldn't find the address and took it back home".

It was the middle of the night, says Jos B. And no, he didn't have to work the next day. "It was holiday."

"There was nothing more I could do. I couldn't do anything more for him," Jos B. says when asked why he didn't report his find immediately."

"You put him right there. You tidy up his clothes, sweep away leaves. It shows that you were concerned about the victim."
"There was no suspicion. So why didn't you report anything?" the judge asks. Jos B.: "I was afraid and panicked." He falls silent again.

"Fear and panic. Not knowing what to do," Jos B. once again describes his state of mind. He continues: "Wanting nothing to do with it. But it has happened. You did find him. A wrong decision, I just said."

It sounds as if he's sobbing and his voice is shaking a bit. How did he cycle home after he was found? Calm? In blind panic? Jos B.: "Like crazy." He doesn't know anymore if he met anyone.

The court appeals to him on what he said months ago: that he would come up with a statement "if everything is understood. By me." What did he mean by that? Jos B.: "I thought the whole investigation went in one direction. Evidence that I had done it."

It was only investigated whether Jos B. had done it, he confirms.

Lawyer Roethof asks Jos B. if what he said about the place where he did took a leak is something he remembers now? Or that he remembered where it was because he was at that place during the viewing?
"My idea is that it was where the thickest tree is now," says Jos B. But he can't remember peeing on that very spot. "By a tree."

How clear are his memories? Roethof asks. Jos B.: "It's to my best memory. And I try to make a logical sequence in it."

Jos B. has argued back what time he must have left home and when he found #Nicky? Jos B.: "There's certainly a margin. It was early in the morning."

It was light when he left, Jos B. says. He didn't turn on the light on his bike.

Is he saying that now because in August at a quarter to 6 in the morning it is always light? Or because he remembers it? Roethof asks. Jos B.: "I think it's a combination of what I think I remember and an attempt to sequence it."

After almost every question Jos B. is silent for a long time. "I don't know what I do remember. A lot of time has gone by. So then I don't know what I really remember, or what I filled in. Or now try to fill in."

The DA wants to show a map. We see it now. The place where the monument for #Nicky now stands, how the roads run around it, where a bench stands and where the spruce forest is where he found the child.

"There. That's about where I've been peeing," says Jos B. when the public prosecutor lets the cross slide over a bend in the road next to the spruce bush.

Why did Jos B. want to leave when he felt he was being watched? Fear crept up on me." What fear? Jos B.: "You're sitting next toh a dead child. And then the fear of being watched creeps up on you."

"I gave in to my fear and left," Jos B. says. But what exactly he was afraid of, he doesn't remember.

Break until a quarter past 1.


BBM

 

[ZaZara]

Crime reporter Saskia Belleman, continued
@SaskiaBelleman

The trial has resumed. Now counsel Roethof wants to consult with Jos B. "Getting a sandwich takes time".

The chairman decides to suspend the case again until half past two. Because Roethof did not prepare any sandwiches this morning.

The case has now been resumed once again. The Public Prosecutor would like to add some more photos of the places Jos B. talked about to the file.

Does Jos B. want to add anything else? "What's on the video, that's my statement. I know that for sure. I'd like to help, but I'm not sure whether they are real memories or interpretation. Did I have it properly on my mind at all at the time?"

He repeats again that his memory is "blurred." "One great chaos. Partial memories are of no use to us. I want to help clear things up," says Jos B.

Again he repeats that he doesn't know where his memory ends and the interpretation begins.

We won't see the 3D animation that the Public Prosecutor's Office has had made of the pants and the places where dna was found until tomorrow.

The court now starts discussing the facts from the beginning: the birth of #Nicky on 13 March 1987. The first child of his parents, a boy with many friends, later a sister and a big fan of Ajax.

In 1996 a summer camp in which #Nicky participated was not a success. He suffered terribly from homesickness, and didn't return the following year. In 1998 he tried again.

#Nicky and the other camp participants take the bus to the Brunssummerheide. On arrival they were told the camp rules. The first one: "Never leave the camp without letting people know where you are going."

And they were also told that they had to stay in the tent until 8 a.m. until reveille sounded. If they had to pee, it had to be done behind the tent, but then they had to wake someone in charge.

#Nicky belonged to the group called the 'Nightriders'. The children's tents were set up in a horsehoe formation. #Nicky's tent stood next to the staff's, with its back against a wooden fence of 60 cm high.

Jos B. was involved in the scouting at the time and knew the terrain well. He came there regularly for scouting competitions.

The day after the children arrived, they explored the terrain together with the staff. There were also people from Rolduc on the terrain and a father and his son were there with their tent.

It was warm in that August month. At 10 o'clock the children had to lie in bed and be quiet. In the Nightrider group this was not really possible. There was a quarrel. #Nicky fought and kicked, but also got a few. The leadership intervened.

That night from the 9th to the 10th of August peace returned to the tent. On Sunday 10 August, #Nicky was accused of stealing chewing gum from a group member. He offered to give the boy a guilder.

Just before bedtime #Nicky would have said he wanted to run away. A companion said that Nicky said that more often when there was an argument, but then he would come back.

On Monday morning around half past six #Nicky was still in his bed. He was awake. A companion who had to pee asks if he slept well. Nicky confirms that. At 6 o'clock he was gone, but a friend did not tell the camp leaders until 8 o'clock. Nicky had gone.

Searches were started. First by a number of camp leaders, then by many more people. The parents of #Nicky searched, the police, volunteers, city guards, inhabitants of Heibloem.

A number of people who searched along passed the spruce plot where #Nicky was found the next day. The owner of that plot walked past the firs on Monday evening. He saw a person on a mountain bike.

The mountain biker was 60 metres away from the spot where #Nicky was later found. The owner of the spruce plot did not check between the trees.

On 11 August, 2 policemen spoke with the father of #Nicky. He told them that his son was scared in the dark and would never go into the forest on his own. "Things will not end well," he said to the cops.

#Nicky had gone out of the tent to pee on the first night of the summer camp, but was told by the camp supervisor that he was not allowed to do so.

The small, disorganised searches yielded nothing. A search with police dogs also yielded nothing. A small plane was also used to search the area.

At a quarter past 5 in the afternoon, more than 150 people were searching, including inhabitants of Heibloem and ME [special police forces]. The nephew of #Nicky's father saw something lying in the spruce forest.

"It might be a leg," according to the nephew. They warned the ME. #Nicky was found. The searchers were sent back to the camp.

If Jos B. was peeing against a tree, he was standing with his back to the firs? the judge asks. Jos B. invokes his right to remain silent.

The nephew of #Nicky's father only saw something when he was almost standing with his nose on the fence, the judge says. Then what did Jos B. see when he was standing metres away? Jos B. doesn't want to answer.

"Numerous witnesses have been heard in the years following #Nicky's discovery, cars from the camp leadership have been searched, "witnesses have even been heard about witnesses," the judge says. Much was in vain, it did not yield a clear trail and no suspect.

Four witnesses provided more information. The judge tells of a cycling man with a barefoot boy in red pajama trousers at the back. The little boy jumped off the bicycle and let himself fall in the grass. "Well, come on," the man said, upon which the boyjumped back.

A second witness also spoke of a little boy "who pulled away from the man, after which they walked on". But she said nothing about red pyama trousers, nothing about bare feet.

The woman who saw the boy rolling in the grass said her memory was triggered by the photo of Jos B. after his arrest. Photos of #Nicky that were shown earlier had no meaning for her.

Another witness reported that on the night of #Nicky's disappearance, he had seen a man riding a racing bicycle, who seemed to be panicking. He drove like crazy and came out of a forest path. The witness had to swerve his car in front of him.

The witness described an approximately 35-year-old man with dark hair. Jos B. blinks his eyes while the judge reads the witness statement.

Jos B. fits the picture perfectly, the witnesses who saw the man racing on the forest track said after the press conference about the arrest of Jos B. That was the man they almost got on their car bonnet.

Can Jos B. still remember meeting someone? He invokes his right to remain silent.

The investigation following the discovery of #Nicky focused on a number of crucial questions, says the judge. What was the cause of death, what was the crime scene and had the boy been sexually abused?

On 12 August, #Nicky's body was examined by a medical examiner. Slight injuries were found. "Dubious" brown discoloration in the neck and a swollen right half of the face.

The eyes could no longer be examined because of the decomposition. On the fingers, #Nicky had spots indicating defensive lesion, the coroner found. The doctor thought that suffocation and internal injuries were the cause of death.

Decomposition was already more advanced during the autopsy. The soles of #Nicky's feet were dirty, but there were no injuries. Two toes had later been gnawed at by animals.

The red pyjama trousers were worn inside out. His blue pants were inside-out and backwards.

There was no cause of death to be indicated, but obstruction of breathing was not excluded, the pathologist observed.

All investigations into the cause of death could only take place by exclusion of certain causes. Brutal violence, for example, was ruled out. #Nicky had no broken bones and only superficial injuries.

None of the discolourations and injuries found were the cause of death. Nor could the earlier fight with his companions have been a cause.

The injury to the fingers that the hearing physician saw as a defensive injury was not. The "dubious" spots in the neck could also have been caused by the decomposition and the same applied to the swollen face.

A toxicological cause - poisoning - was also ruled out. Was there perhaps a fight-or-flight reaction? "Unlikely", the experts found. This is a rare stress-related cause of death. Rare in children.

#Nicky had no asthma, was healthy and had never had any serious illnesses other than normal childhood illnesses. The pathologist also found no evidence of disease. No asthma, no epilepsy.

The possibility of hereditary heart disease was also investigated. The parents were also examined for this. There was no evidence of it. The pathologist also looked for other heart abnormalities. There were no indications either.

A death as a result of an illness or heart defect could therefore be ruled out.

Was #Nicky strangled? Two experts did not rule that out as cause of death. But the NFI pathologist did not see any injuries to the neck. It could no longer be seen whether #Nicky had pointed bleeding in the eyes.

Was so called 'subtle smothering' then the cause of death, e.g. by a hand or pillow on the nose and mouth, or a bag over the head? That leaves no trace. But the pathologist also said that a child of 11 does not allow this to happen without fighting. Then there would be traces of resistance.

That subtle smothering is not excluded as cause of death, but nothing could be said with 100% certainty about this either.

The injuries that the experts did find were not fatal. In the pathologist's opinion, it was equally possible that #Nicky died from a natural cause and from an unnatural one.

Another expert concluded that there is no indication of natural death, given the age of the boy and the way he was found. As if he had been laid down in the spruce forest.

This expert found the smothering of the boy to be the most obvious cause of death. Does Jos B. know how the boy died? After a silence: "I don't know. I have said before that I had nothing to do with his death."

When #Nicky's body was found at 10 to 9 in the evening, the time of death was not known. Based on rectal body temperature, this is usually possible, but it has not been measured because of the trace evidence.

A lot of examination was not done at the time, in order not to disrupt the traces, the judge reads from the file. Details are mentioned about maggots, body stiffness, etc. which must be hard for the family to hear.

#Nicky's sister leaves the courtroom. It is also a really nasty part of the discussion of the facts, about green humming flies, eggs and maggots. You don't want to hear that about your little brother.

The conclusion of the entomological research - into insects, in other words - is that #Nicky died on Tuesday 11 August in a different place than where he was found.

#Nicky may also have died on Monday 10 August, but then his body was in a place that was not accessible to flies, the judge reads from the expert reports.

Short interruption. Until 10 past 3.


BBM

 

[ZaZara]

Crime reporter Saskia Belleman, final part for today
@SaskiaBelleman

The trial has resumed. It concerns the location of his death. #Nicky was found at 10 to 9 in the evening of 11 August in the spruce forest, lying on his back.

#Nicky would have been put there. That was deduced from his posture. There was a search for a possible towing trail, but no clues were found.

There was vegetation, including a dried flower and forget-me-nots, on #Nicky's pajama trousers and back. That has been investigated. The material did not come from elsewhere, but from the place where it was found.

If you walk you can only get the forget-me-nots at the bottom of the trousers. But the flowers were all over the length of the trousers, at the front and at the back.

The forget-me-nots are about 10 cm in height. So the body could have been dragged, or rolled, said an expert. The pathologist said that it could not be ruled out that #Nicky was killed on the spot. But that may also have been elsewhere.

#Nicky was lying in an unusual position, with legs stretched half over each other and an arm under the body.

The question then arises as to whether #Nicky was sexually abused. There was no semen found anywhere, not on his clothing, not on his genitals and not in his mouth. Minor damage to the anus was seen which could indicate abuse.

#Nicky wore his red pyjama trousers inside-out and his pants inside-out and backwards.

The anus was dilated. According to experts, this could have been due to penetration or post-mortem.

Could the damage have been caused by pressing when the stool was hard? One expert said not in 2001. This expert also said that the dilation was not caused postmortem. There are abrasions and a crack in the skin.

The damage fits anal penetration 24 hours before death, in a child who had already been used to penetration for a period of time, according to the expert. Dilation of the rectum to this extent is rare by nature, according to the expert.

Anal abuse is likely, but according to this expert it could not be proven beyond doubt. The "disorderly manner" in which #Nicky wore the clothing also indicates this, according to the expert.

This expert reported on the basis of photographs.

"Given the total number of symptoms, I am inclined to believe that the dilation was caused by anal penetration," said the expert. But he admits that it is mainly a strong suspicion.

A second expert said that normally a haematoma - a haematoma - is caused by anal rape. That was absent in #Nicky.

The 2nd expert stated in 2001 that the dilation of the anus is "a normal post-mortem phenomenon". A normal phenomenon after someone has died.

The expert also mentioned hard stools as an unlikely cause.

The experts contradict each other. And the expert who considers anal penetration probable also says that this is not undisputed.

Way to go for a court of law. Nothing is ruled out by the experts, but nothing is beyond doubt. Not about the cause of death and not about sexual abuse.

In 2013, the investigation was handed over to the Criminal Investigation Department for the East Netherlands. Once again, experts were consulted. They found the photos on the basis of which they had to make a judgement to be "of mediocre quality".

The experts who were consulted in 2013 found that the dilation of the anus was a normal post-mortem phenomenon.

Another expert said that sexual abuse was neither proven nor excluded. Has Jos B. sexually abused #Nicky, the judge asks? "I did not abuse #Nicky," Jos B. says.

The fact-finding is far from over. But the chairman thinks it has been enough for today. It has been an intensive day. Tomorrow we will continue, including the 3D visualisation of the pants with dna.


BBM

 

[ZaZara]

Twitterfeed of crime reporter Saskia Belleman
@SaskiaBelleman

Tuesday, second day in court

Good morning to you all! In half an hour the criminal case against Jos B., suspected of kidnapping, sexually abusing and killing 11-year-old #Nicky Verstappen, will continue here in the court of Maastricht.

Today the Public Prosecutor's Office presents a 3D visualisation of #Nicky's pants on which a lot of Jos B.'s dna has been found. It involves more than 20 traces of skin flakes, saliva and hair.

In his video statement yesterday and his answers afterwards, Jos B. gave a brief explanation of how his dna ended up on #Nicky. He would have "probably straightened the clothing of the dead child" after he was found.

Jos B. said that after looking for a breath and a heartbeat with his ear at #Nicky's mouth and chest, he straightened up the clothes a little and wiped away the leaves. But that doesn't really explain the large amount of dna on the pants.

Earlier the OM said that the dna was everywhere: on the inside and the outside and on the front and back. But we are going to see that today on the 3D visualisation.

The session is about to begin. Jos B. takes a seat next to his lawyer Gerald Roethof again.

The court starts on the criminal investigation of traces. #Nicky was found shortly after 9 pm on 11 August in a Christmas tree plot, almost 40 hours after his disappearance and over a kilometre from the tent camp.

#Nicky only wore red pyjama trousers and blue pants. They were both turned inside out and the child wore them backwards. Samples of the body were taken on the spot, with adhesive foil, among other things, to protect traces.

The garments were also taped with micro-trace film. It is not known if #Nicky was wearing more clothing when he disappeared. The 2 pairs of shoes he was carrying were still in the tent.

No semen was found on the clothes. A bit further there was an open spot in a corn field. Corn stalks had been cut off and snapped. In that field a tissue with sperm of an unknown man, a cigarette butt and a crown cap was found.

To date, that sperm on the tissue has not led to a match with dna in the national database. More targeted research has been done on 35 men, youth camp leaders, relatives of #Nicky and people with a moral past. This did not lead to identification.

A tissue with faecal traces of an unknown woman was also found. No relationship could be established between the place where #Nicky was found, the find in the corn field and the other tissue.

Investigation was also carried out into an alleged drag trail between the spruce forest where #Nicky was found and the maize field. But it turned out not to be a drag trail.

After November 2000 additional research was done. Soil samples were taken from the soil where the tent camp was located, from the forest path and from the spot where #Nicky was found.

On the soles of #Nicky's feet there was soil and vegetation corresponding to the spot where he was found. Botanical remnants of vegetation were also found on the pajama trousers where #Nicky was found.

The findings did not correspond to a scenario in which #Nicky would have walked through a corn field.

Further investigation of the traces was difficult. Saliva cannot be recognised as such, but the presence of a certain enzyme may indicate this, says the judge. And biological contact traces usually contain little dna. #Nicky

The Netherlands Forensic Institute reported on the further dna investigation. As in 1998, more than 10 years later no semen or blood was found. The pants were divided into 21 zones and sampled by the NFI. #Nicky

On the pants of #Nicky a biological contact profile of a - then still - unknown man was found. Besides this trace 17 other traces were found that could contain dna of this unknown man.

There were 15 biological contact traces on the pants and 1 on the pyjama trousers. Saliva traces were also found. The dna was entered in the national database.

There was also a trace of an unknown man named NN3. Most of it came from NN2. Both still unknown in 2008 and at that time not yet suitable for dna kinship research.

Most dna therefore came from the then unknown man NN2.According to the NFI the traces indicated 'intensive contact' between the man and #Nicky's clothing. But an innocent reason for the transfer of that dna could not be ruled out, the NFI concluded.

The NFI also investigated in 2009 whether the use of microspore film could have led to the transfer and contamination of dna. That was not the case, said the NFI.

Hair that was found on #Nicky was also investigated. Those hairs belonged to one and the same donor: NN2, a person still unknown at the time, or someone who was related to this person in the female line.

On 22 August 2017 the NFI again reported on - this time - research into skin flakes, found on the chest, arms and clothing of #Nicky. Again the trace pointed to NN2, but there were more donors.

From the start of the investigation in August 1998, persons who could be suspected of having had 'legitimate contact' with #Nicky were investigated through dna. Many persons could be excluded as donors of the dna traces.

These included #Nicky's tent companions, family members, camp leaders, but also members of the military police, police officers and all forensic investigators involved in the investigation into the death of the child.

Also from the staff of the morgue that transported the body, participants in the search and numerous other persons who stayed on the Heikop dna was taken and compared with traces found.

Even a deceased person was exhumed in order to check dna. It all came to nothing.

No comparison, no investigation, led to the identification of the donors of the dna found on #Nicky.

Of 2 donors whose traces were too small, nothing could be included in the dna database. However, the dna was compared manually with dna in the database.

On 19 May 2017 a third large-scale dna investigation was commissioned in the case. A total of 1150 men were asked to donate dna. One of these men was Jos B., but he never responded to an invitation.

He knew he had been summoned. Why did he refuse? Jos B. says he doesn't want to answer any questions. He told his sister that he would come forward and wanted to participate, but he did not. " I refrain from any comment," Jos B. says.

Not only did Jos B. not participate in the investigation, he even disappeared off the radar. On 10 April 2018 his sister reported her brother missing. Jos B.: "I am not commenting on anything."

Personal belongings of Jos B. were sampled in connection with his disappearance and also in connection with the investigation into the death of #Nicky. Jos B.'s sister brought some of the data carriers to the police that belonged to their brother.

However, the sisters of Jos B. refused to cooperate in the dna investigation. The police received a phone call from a man who had moved Jos B.'s belongings from France to Middelburg. Those belongings were confiscated. A hairbrush, handle of a razor.

In addition, dna was taken from other relatives of Jos B.: the brother of Jos B.'s grandfather, and his son.

The dna of the relatives was compared with the traces found on #Nicky and with dna found on Jos B.'s belongings. In June 2018 this turned out to be a match. NN2, the donor of most of the dna, turned out to be Jos B..

After the arrest of Jos B. in Spain, salivary mucus was taken and compared with the dna found on #Nicky. The chance that the dna belongs to someone else is less than 1 in 1 billion.

Was his suspicion that his dna could be found on #Nicky the reason why Jos B. refused to cooperate in the investigation? "I'm abstaining from commenting," it is heard again from the suspect bench.

Two dna traces in a mixing profile - originating from several people - found on #Nicky's pants came from a companion and from #Nicky's father.

But most of the dna came from Jos B. And the traces found indicated, according to several experts, "prolonged and intensive" contact. There are several conceivable actions that could fall under this heading.

But from the traces themselves, it was not possible to determine how and when they ended up on the pants.

20 dna traces of Jos B. were found on the pants of #Nicky and 1 on the pyjama trousers. These are biological contact traces and indications of saliva. In addition, 2 skin scales of Jos B. were found on the chest and 1 on the child's pyjama trousers.

There was also a hair of Jos B. on #Nicky's pants and part of a hair on the pyjama trousers. How did those marks get there? Jos B. wants to hold on to his statement of yesterday.

Jos B. says it is all still "very confused". He fears that if he "comes back to something" he will be called a liar. So he has nothing more to add to his statement of yesterday, he says.

The judge insists. How did those traces of Jos B. get on the pants? The statement Jos B. gave yesterday about it doesn't explain that dna on the pants. Jos B. continues to refuse to give answers. "I have nothing more to add."

The traces on the pants are still crying out for a statement, the judge says. Lawyer Roethof: "Do you mean that it screams for a statement from my client? Oops. Now the judge has to be careful, otherwise the lawyer may see this as bias.

Jos B.: "I'm not an expert on how those tracks get there. I have already made a statement." The judge insists on the clues indicating saliva. Jos B. continues to refuse.

"Do your sisters have anything to do with the case?" the president asks. The answer is no," says Jos B. "I was alone on the moor."

"I think I made it clear enough yesterday that my contact with #Nicky has been more than superficial. I touched him," Jos B. says.

Jos B.'s dna was on both the outside and inside of the pants. In places where you can expect cellular material from a possible attacker, according to the NFI.

"I wouldn't know. I did straighten his clothing. I don't have anything else to add," Jos B. says to repeated questions about how his dna got on the inside of the pants and on the waistband.

When asked by the court why he didn't cooperate in the dna examination, Jos B.: "There was no coercion behind it. It was voluntary. I first intended to cooperate. But as I said yesterday, I didn't want anything to do with the case."

Did he also advise his sisters not to cooperate? "I didn't contact my sisters," Jos B says.

"In 1998 I decided not to participate in dna research after all", says Jos B. "And I want to leave it at that". He also doesn't want to answer any questions about his journey from the Vosges to northern Spain. "I will refrain from commenting."

The prosecutor fires a barrage of questions at Jos B. Why didn't he tell his sisters where he was going? Why didn't he contact them when he heard that his mother was doing badly? Why didn't he take his phone with him?

Jos B.'s answer is always the same: "I refrain from commenting."

Short break. The OM is going to use this to set up equipment for the 3D visualisation of the dna on #Nicky's pants. We will continue at 11.20 a.m.


BBM

 

[ZaZara]

Twitterfeed of crime reporter Saskia Belleman
@SaskiaBelleman

Tuesday, second day in court, continued


The session is being resumed.

An image of a very small blue pair of pants with a white band appears on the screen.

The 3D visualisation only concerns the dna traces on the pants. Not the traces on the body of #Nicky nor on the pajama trousers. The Public Prosecutor's Office is not going to speculate about how the dna got on those pants. "That's what the closing arguments are for."

#Nicky wore the pants inside out and backwards. The Netherlands Forensic Institute made the visualisation based on the results of the dna tests.

The pants can be rotated in all directions on the screen. The Public Prosecutor's Office is now demonstrating this.

We now see the pants slightly larger in the picture and all have numbers in different colours with a # in front of them.

The DDA is still busy explaining how to explain the numbers, the colours and the other symbols on the pants.

There are 18 places on the pants that contain clues for saliva. The crotch was not examined because there was a skid mark there. It may contain the same enzyme as saliva.

A total of 52 samples were taken: for blood, saliva, contact traces. Not all samples showed a dna profile, says the Public Prosecutor. Eight samples that initially yielded nothing were examined again later.

In 2008 all 52 samples were examined again. A more sensitive dna method was then available.

To those 52 samples, 11 more were added. The image also shows cylinders. These are pieces that have been cut out of the pants for examination.

The Public Prosecutor is "not going to explain all the details, because then we will still be sitting here tonight". He limits himself to the general outlines. First the traces from which no dna profile has been obtained. Not even from the carrier. On 31 surfaces, 15 did not yield a profile. Not even from #Nicky.

The dna of #Nicky was mainly found on the inside and on the waistband of the pants. The dna found of Jos B. is now being visualised. Especially on the inside and waistband of the pants.

Again, this is not blood or semen, but traces of saliva and contact. The enzyme that can indicate saliva is also found in stools, says the Public Prosecutor.

There is no dna from #Nicky in the traces that indicate saliva. So it is not stool and the OM concludes that it must be saliva.

We are now looking at a fairly large part of the pants on which dna from donor NN3 was found in 2008. In 2016 that piece was re-examined. Suddenly donor NN3 did not show up.

We are now looking at an image of the pants that shows where Jos B.'s dna was: his profile was found in 24 samples. His dna was not excluded in 2 samples.

But in that number there were 3 duplicates, says the Public Prosecutor.

The visualisation is difficult to explain in words. You will get a still image of the presentation from me later on.

After correction it concerns 20 samples of the pants. In 19 cases it concerns Jos B's dna. In the 20th case he cannot be excluded, says the Public Prosecutor.

On 13 of the 31 surfaces sampled, dna of Jos B. was found, the DA says: at several places on the outside and inside of the waistband, on the front of the inside, left of the crotch on the inside, on elastic band of the pipes.

Jos B.'s dna was also found on the outside on the front of the pants. Both on the inside and the outside of the pants.

Then there was the ratio of the number of places where #Nicky's dna was, compared to the number of places where Jos B.'s dna was. There were relatively many places where both of them had dna, says the public prosecutor.

Lawyer Roethof asked whether dna belonging to Jos B. was also found on the lower body of #Nicky. The Public Prosecutor: "I have told you where the dna was found." That means that I assume that there was no dna on the lower body.

How did all of Jos B.'s dna get on those pants? "Yes, that's a question for me too," says Jos B.

Pause. Quarter past 1.

(...) that's the confusing thing about the still image we now have. Not only is Jos B.'s dna indicated on it, but that of several donors and the colours also indicate the examinations carried out in different years.

The still image of #Nicky's pants, indicated with numerical codes and colours where dna was found.

We have already asked the Public Prosecutor's Office for a still image on which Jos B.'s dna is specifically indicated, but we do not have that yet.


BBM

 

[ZaZara]

Twitterfeed of crime reporter Saskia Belleman
@SaskiaBelleman

Tuesday, second day in court, continued

The session has resumed. The court will talk with Jos B. about his personal circumstances. A fixed part of a criminal case. Jos B. attended a course in Technical Training and ended up in youth work through agogic training.

After the death of his father Jos B., as the eldest son, "had to take over a number of tasks from him. Jos B.: "I refrain from commenting." A few months after the death of his father, a grandmother died. Jos B. was 19.

In 1984 he went to work at a kindergarten in Klimmen. In 1985 and part of 1986 he was in charge, but he didn't do so well. Jos B.: "I refrain from commenting."

Apparently there are all kinds of rumours in the file about his performance, the chairman says. But Jos B. doesn't want to comment on anything. In the 1980s he also became active in scouting. In 1984 and 1985 he molested boys.

In 1985 he molested 2 boys of 10 and 11 years old. They were playing hide-and-seek in the woods near Wijnandsrade. Suddenly an unknown man crouched behind the boys. He said he thought they were lighting a fire.

The man said he was from Nature Conservation. He suddenly grabbed one of the boys. They got scared, felt threatened. There is another way," said the man as he touched the genitals of one of the boys.

The boy asked if he could go back to his class. He was allowed to. Then the man grabbed the other boy and touched him. "Yours is nicer," the man said. The boys panicked and ran away.

The boys were both wearing shorts. When the man let them go, the boys ran away. They were very upset." I was scared," said one of them. They described him as about 35, dark hair, beard.

The teacher told how the boys came running out of the forest in shock. They were crying. The teacher saw a car. The police stopped Jos B.. "I refrain from commenting," says Jos B.

He told the police that he had found out 4 or 5 years earlier that he was not at all interested in girls nor in men. He liked young boys.

Jos B. said that except for that one time he had never committed lewd acts with children. Later that day he told about an incident a year earlier. About children with a kite.

It turned out that he had indeed been reported a year earlier. It concerned a 12-year-old boy and a boyfriend, near Waalre. The report corresponded with Jos B. Who said that he could not remember whether he had committed indecent acts.

Jos B. said that he had spoken to the boy. He helped him to untangle the rope of the kite. He asked the boy to walk with him. He wanted to make love to him, Jos B. told the boy. The boy wanted to get away.

Jos B. put his hand in the boy's trousers and touched his butt. The boy was scared and panicked. Jos B. let him go and the boy ran off. He left his kite behind.

"I wanted to say I was sorry," Jos B. told the police. He panicked too.

The boys described a man with a beard. Jos B. shaved his beard. Did he do that more often? Jos B.: "I refrain from commenting."

Both the Riagg and the Parole Board wrote reports about Jos B. He had 3 intake interviews at the Riagg. After initially resisting behaviour, he cooperated and said he wanted to gain insight into his behaviour.

The Riagg got the impression of a stagnated development with Jos B., possibly already as a result of the death of his father. The psychologist saw no danger of repetition, but advocated in favour of Jos B.'s counselling.

It had happened to him", said Jos B. to the Riagg. And that he panicked afterwards. The Riagg recommended therapy. In December 1985 both cases were dismissed. Jos B. today: "I refrain from commenting."

In the Pieter Baan Centre, experts read Jos B.'s diaries and "significant quotes" were extracted from them. Jos B. was angry about that. He refused to cooperate further with the examination.

Jos B. felt that the PBC researchers were biased and took quotes from his diary out of context. These were apparently mainly quotes about children.

At that time he was already active at Scouting, especially with the Scouts. Age category 10-14 years. Regular competitions were organised at the Heikop, where #Nicky Verstappen had summer camp in 1998.

Jos B. was also involved in the organisation of the world jamborees for youngsters up to 17 years old. In that period Jos B. worked at the Ollekebolleke kindergarten.

The court tells about an incident in which Jos B. was involved. A boy who did not want to eat. He was forced to eat his own puke. Various leaders, including Jos B., were suspended.

Jos B. was angry about that. "They didn't even ask us what had happened." He switched to another department of Scouting, in Nuth. That was 1998. The year in which #Nicky Verstappen disappeared and was found dead.

The court starts talking about his meeting with the military police just after the discovery of the body of #Nicky. Jos B. said he was on his way home.

In 2001 Jos B. was heard as a witness. The police investigated his bike ride. He made varying statements about it: about the addresses where he was going to deliver letters and about what his final destination was.

The route he followed over the Brunssummerheide on the evening he wanted to report that he had found #Nicky was not a logical one. That's because while cycling he was thinking about what to do, says Jos B.

He told the MPs that he was on his way home. Via an illogical route, but he still had to post a letter, says Jos B.

In that period Jos B.: "I continue to like children, but I've learned to control my impulses."

On 10 and 11 August 1998 Jos B. slept late, he said during an earlier interrogation, it was holiday. He got up around 10 o'clock. Yesterday he said he got up early. What was it? Jos B.: "I refrain from any comment."

He said in 2001 that he was scouting at camp in Broekhuizen. And that he was not at the Brunssummerheide on 10 August. But that is not in line with what he said yesterday. He refuses to comment.

In the 80's Jos B. applied for the position of trainer at scouting. He was asked if he had anything to do with young boys. He agreed. But he had it under control, he said.

He didn't get the job and was asked to leave scouting. That was better for the children and for him. Jos B. wrote a letter in which he terminated his membership "because of family circumstances."

In response to all the questions he receives, Jos B. does not say he is invoking his right to remain silent, but: "I refrain from commenting."

In the 1990s, Jos B. worked at Ollekebolleke kindergarten in Brunssum. A mother reported that her 3-year-old daughter had told her that Jos B. had put his hand between her legs.

A conversation with Jos B. took place on 5 May 2002. After that he apparently didn't come back. He stayed away more often for a week, but this was longer," said a woman in charge. Never heard from him again," said the leader.

A doctor diagnosed red skin in the toddler's pubic area and a vaginal fungal infection. Jos B. turned out to be in Poland six months later.

Today's most repeated sentence: "I refrain from commenting."

Had he gone abroad for fear of the dna investigation that would come after the death of #Nicky Verstappen? "I am refraining from commenting."

The request to the Public Prosecutor's Office to obtain a still image of the 3D visualisation of #Nicky's pants showing exactly where Jos B.'s dna was, leads to nothing.

The Public Prosecutor's Office does not want to give this still image, "because this image has been carefully selected and actually shows all the traces. That seemed clearer to the case officers", according to the spokesman's response.

The officers will comment on the dna results during theclosing arguments. Thus the answer. And we, as journalists, think that this visualisation should clarify things. Not.

In order to avoid confusion: the image I twittered therefore shows all traces. Not only those of Jos B.

Fifteen-minute break.


BBM

 

[ZaZara]

Opvallende versprekingen B. tijdens strafzaak Nicky Verstappen

Also very significant was what Jos B. had on hard disks and on the computer that he used during his stay in the Vosges in his cabin. Tens of thousands of photos and videos, thousands of which were child *advertiser censored*. Images that were deliberately searched for with search terms such as 'schoolboy ******', or '7 year olds in *advertiser censored** '. He wasn't the only one who used that computer, Jos B said. Then he retreated behind his line of defence: "I refrain from commenting."

The case will continue on Monday 5 October with the hearing of forensic doctor Rob Bilo, who specialises in child abuse.


BBM


This is the final part of todays report by Saskia Belleman in the newspaper. I simply did not feel up to translating the tweets, the paragraph gives a good indication as to why.

 

[ElementalLaura]

Thank you @ZaZara for the updates!

 

[Legally Bland]

Thanks @ZaZara

 

[ZaZara]

Justitie maakt nieuwe beelden bij vindplaats Nicky

Prosecution wants to add old images to Nicky file

The Public Prosecution Service is doing everything in its power to refute Jos Brech's story that he stumbled upon Nicky Verstappen's dead body by accident in 1998. Among other things, the Public Prosecutor wants to add old images to the file.

According to a spokesman of the Public Prosecution Service, these are photographs and moving images.

The images, which were previously made on the Brunssummerheide, would refute Jos Brech's statement. During the trial, the accused told the court that he had found the body of Nicky Verstappen, but that he had nothing to do with his death. He stated that at that spot near the largest tree he was 'taking a leak', after which his attention was drawn to something in the distance. When he went to have a look, he found Nicky's body, according to Brech. According to the prosecution, it is impossible for the suspect to see the body from that distance, and the images would prove it.

It is up to the court to decide whether the new evidence can still be added to the criminal file. On Thursday 8 October the Prosecution will formulate the penalty they demand for the accused, Jos Brech.


BBM

 

[ZaZara]

Monday, October 5, third day in court.

Timeline of crime reporter Saskia Belleman @SaskiaBelleman

At around half past ten, the third day of the criminal case against Jos B., who is suspected of abducting, sexually abusing and killing 11-year-old Nicky Verstappen in 1998, begins in the court in Maastricht.

During the first 2 days the facts have been discussed and Jos B. has said via a previously recorded video statement that he found the body of #Nicky Verstappen in 1998 in a spruce bush on the Brunssummerheide. But he denies having anything to do with his death

He explained the discovery of his dna on #Nicky's body and clothing by saying that he " tidied up the child's clothing and made sure he was lying neatly there".

Essentially, he gave only brief answers to questions put to him following his video statement. What Jos B. says doesn't really explain the dna traces found on #Nicky's pants.

These dna traces consist of skin flakes, saliva and touch marks. No blood and no semen were found.

Today expert Rob Bilo will be questioned. He is a forensic doctor and an expert in the field of child abuse. But the case starts with some afterburners about the facts.

The session has begun. Jos B. is wearing a rusty brown jumper today and is listening to what chairman Van der Aa says about the course of events today.

The Public Prosecutor wants to ask Jos B. some more questions about the video message and what the suspect said during the hearing.

The Public Prosecutor wants to add some more material to the case file, including about the viewings on the heath. Lawyer Gerald Roethof objects. He thinks it is too late and calls the video commentary the prosecution wants to add "childish and degrading."

The court has not yet taken a decision on the OM's request and Roethof's objection. President Vd Aa wanted to begin by hearing forensic doctor Rob Bilo.

Rob Bilo sighs deeply. He has some difficulty with the stairs to the courtroom in combination with the mouth mask that is compulsory in court. He is out of breath.

Bilo is difficult to understand. Doesn't speak well into the microphone.

Bilo is questioned about his experience and is sworn in. He sits here at the request of the defence of Jos B.

Bilo has worked at the Netherlands Forensic Institute. Roethof wants to know how often he has been involved in investigations into sexual violence in children. In recent years not often anymore, according to Bilo.

Before he joined the NFI in 2008, Bilo was involved in the majority of minors' deaths as an external expert.

Rob Bilo has looked at the pictures of #Nicky in 2001 and on several occasions in the following years.

But the photos are of poor quality, Bilo says. Of course they are more than 20 years old. "The NFI does that a lot better these days."

" These are margins of hours, days, weeks", says Bilo when asked by lawyer Roethof whether the photos tell us when the injury occurred.

Histological research, that is research into tissues, was still in its infancy in 1998. If Bilo were to speak about this now, "I would consider myself a charlatan".

Roethof has no more questions at the moment. Mr President: There will not be many more moments, Mr Roethof." The Public Prosecutor may now ask questions.

The Public Prosecutor wants to know whether a histological examination is necessary in order to determine whether injury occurred before or after death. According to Bilo, statements can be made about injuries that occurred shortly before and shortly after death. A maximum of a number of hours before.

"We know a lot about what happens to living people, but it gets more difficult when someone dies," says Bilo. The oldest judge (in experience, not in years) is now asking questions.

Bilo wrote that his first insights about the case haven't changed. He wrote his first report in 2001. In it he took what the pathologist said for granted. Later he formulated more cautiously and saw the pathologist's statements as a hypothesis.

That had more to do with a different way of reporting than with other insights, says Bilo. Nowadays, experts can watch the autopsy. Unfortunately, that was not the case at the time, says Bilo.

At the time Bilo concluded that "possibly a large object passed the anus before Nicky's death". But he also said that the injury that was seen could have been caused by hard stools or by scratching and scratching.

Bilo says the Bayesian explanation for a dilated anus is "much more likely to be a post-mortem phenomenon, rather than whatever, such as penetration."

The Bayesian method is a method of probability calculation. Quite controversial in criminal cases.

"I would prefer the pathologist to sit here and answer your questions, so that on the basis of what he has seen, it is possible to pass judgment," says Bilo.

Bilo says his formulations have changed over the years, but his insights have not. The judge is still insisting on clarity about his conclusions.

The photographs Bilo was given to examine were of such poor quality that they hampered his investigation, he says.

"I would have liked to have had better photographs so that I could see what the pathologist described," Bilo says. He concluded at the time that there was no conclusive proof that #Nicky had been sexually abused.

Bilo stuck to his earlier conclusion that the open anus can be properly explained by death. But he also says this on the basis of the bad pictures.

Bilo says that at the time of #Nicky's death there were no forensic doctors like him who investigated injuries in young children. It wasn't until later that the insight came "that you shouldn't see young children as small adults".

If you see a discrepancy between what you see in the photographs and what the pathologist describes, I would write today that there is that discrepancy. That what the pathologist sees is not in the photographs," says Bilo.

In the case of #Nicky, there is indeed a discrepancy between what the pathologist describes and what can be seen in the photographs. That wouldn't happen now, Bilo says. Nowadays those photos would show everything a pathologist describes.

Most of the children who are sexually abused have no physical abnormalities at all, says expert Bilo. The physical abnormalities I've seen at #Nicky don't say anything about whether or not a child has been abused.

Hearing the expert is done. Prosecutor Mattheijs is still responding to Roethof's protest about adding documents to the file. "We are only now forced to do so by the statement of the accused last week. "

The report of the pathologists is in the file. One of them has died in the meantime. There are no plans to call the 2nd pathologist.

Short interruption. At 10:11 a.m. the Public Prosecutor's Office continued with the display of footage.


BBM

 

[ZaZara]

Monday, October 5, third day in court, continued.

Timeline of crime reporter Saskia Belleman @SaskiaBelleman

The case has resumed. The court has decided that the Public Prosecution Service may make the last-minute addition to the file. We are now going to watch a film and photographs. That is if the technology does not let us down.

....... a technician must first come to fix something. Apparently, he did not test whether everything works during the break.

We now see aerial photos of the place where #Nicky was found. The spruce bush where he was lying, the path that Jos B. followed and the tree against which he was urinating.

Jos B. says that the cursor is on the spot where he was peeing. We hear Roethof telling Jos B. not to say anything: "Shut up."

We are now looking at a picture of a thick tree. More than 22 years later. The public prosecutor asks whether this is the tree against which Jos B. was urinating. "I refrain from commenting," Jos B.says.

Jos B. has listened carefully to his lawyer. Just like last week, we hear him repeat over and over again: "I refrain from commenting." And Roethof raises a protest against the photo of the tree: "22 years later!"

We are now looking at a drawing on which each tree is inscribed. But Jos B. doesn't want to say anything anymore.

Jos B. said last week that "something" caught his attention when he was urinating. The public prosecutor asked if he felt something, smelled something, heard or saw something. Jos B. keeps repeating to every question: "I refrain from commenting."

We are going to watch a video that was broadcasted last Monday evening by the Dutch television channel Op1. We watch 6 seconds of footage, looking out over a corn field, with the spruce bush behind it. A researcher climbs over the fence.

According to the Public Prosecutor's Office it is evident that from the spot where Jos B. was standing, you couldn't see anything in the spruce bush.

The video is from Wednesday 12 August 1998. Roethof wants to see it again. From the subtitles we can see that Jos B.'s voice was part of the video. He says he didn't know what to do. "I have a past." But we don't hear anything.

The Public Prosecutor asks again if he saw, heard, smelled or felt anything? What triggered Jos B. to go and see? "I am exercising my right to remain silent," says Jos B.

We look at still images. The corn field, with a small deployment of the policemen investigating the spruce bush. Roethof says that you can see traces in the corn field if a human or animal has walked through it. "Not a pristine corn field."

We are now looking at a photo of the bush, a few metres from the fence behind which #Nicky was found. The picture was taken on the evening that #Nicky was found. It is already dark.

The public prosecutor zooms in. Suddenly we see something red shimmering behind a fir. #Nicky's pajama bottoms.

This is the photo. Behind the little spruce in the middle something red is shining. Only visible when zoomed in.

According to the Public Prosecutor Jos B. couldn't possibly have seen anything at a distance of 30 metres.

The court asks questions. Did Jos B. simply walk or run from the tree against which he was urinating to the spot where #Nicky was lying? To every question he now says: "I invoke my right to remain silent."

The court goes on to discuss the report of the experts of the Pieter Baan Centre. Jos B. was investigated in the PBC, but largely refused to cooperate.

Jos B. said earlier to have answered questions "out of politeness". He refused to grant access to his medical file and also refused to give permission for talks with family and friends.

The experts had to rely mainly on observations. Jos B. has a sullen look "through piercing dark eyes and grooves in the face", the experts wrote.

"I let what's going on here come over me", said Jos B. He put his things neatly in the cupboard, came across as accessible to others, made contact with his groupmates and played chess with others from time to time.

Jos B. generally kept aloof. Spoke occasionally, but often left questions unanswered. There was no easy contact, "he doesn't include the other in the conversation," according to the experts.

"I'm stuck here now and it may take a while. It doesn't look positive," Jos B said. And also that "character assassination" was happening. He said the police stopped investigating the discovery of his tracks and then ignored others.

Jos B. was angry that the experts took parts from his diary. "That gives everything a certain hue," he said. He feared an unfair trial because sections of his journal were taken out of context.

During conversations with the psychologist he was uncomfortable, shuffling back and forth. Large sweat patches appeared under his armpits. When asked whether he was attracted to men or women, he said: "Could be both."

Jos B. had never had sex with a woman, he also said. He looks rather pale during the discussion of the PBC report.

" I have learned to control myself. To go on living without it becoming an hindrance. It would gradually disappear," he said of the therapy he followed after previous sexual incidents.

Experts can't diagnose personality disorder, but they don't rule it out either. The experts do think there is a paedophile disorder and conclude that Jos B. showed years of avoiding behaviour.

After 1985 he no longer came into contact with the law because of a sexual offence. In 1984 and 1985 he was grabbing the pants of 3 young boys.

Jos B. did say to the experts that the police "rip everything out of context."

During the interview with the experts he mentioned his feelings for young boys, but he also said that he "had them under control." Whether he meant that this was an ongoing fight, or that his sexual drive had diminished, remained unclear.

Jos B. has been struggling with paedophile feelings since childhood, because he knows that those feelings are socially unacceptable, according to the psychiatrist.

He became active in areas that brought him into contact with what he longed for, but also what he feared, according to the psychiatrist: young boys. His scouting activities also brought him a new love: nature.

No indications of a mental disorder or a neuro-cognitive disorder, the experts concluded. They describe him as introverted, but a man who did engage in "meaningful activities".

So no disorders, but paedophilia that Jos B. claims to have "under control". The experts call his choice to continue working with young people both at home and abroad "remarkable."

The experts will refrain from commenting on the imputability of Jos B.

The experts assess the risk of repetition as moderate. But they say this on the basis that he has not come into contact with the judiciary since 1985.

Jos B. does not want to say anything about the report. Not even whether he has read the report.

The oldest judge asks him questions about the observation that Jos B. was very shocked by what he did in 1984 and 1985. And that this frightened him that it would happen again. Did he start working with young people to prove that he could control himself?

Jos B. continues to make use of his right to remain silent. The Public Prosecutor is pursuing the subject. Asks Jos B. questions about the techniques he apparently developed himself to control himself, such as meditation. Jos B. still doesn't want to say anything.

The cases from 1984 and 1985 were dismissed. This means that Jos B. has never been prosecuted for that and has therefore not been convicted.

Break until a quarter to 1.


BBM

 

[Legally Bland]

@ZaZara, just for clarification, I think I know the answer as Nicky was wearing pajamas, but 'pants' means UK pants (underwear), rather than US pants (trousers)?

And thanks for all the updates.

 

[ZaZara]

@ZaZara, just for clarification, I think I know the answer as Nicky was wearing pajamas, but 'pants' means UK pants (underwear), rather than US pants (trousers)?

And thanks for all the updates.

Oh dear. One of those tricky things. The bottom part of pajamas. Red pajama trousers and blue pants (underwear).

 

[Legally Bland]

Oh dear. One of those tricky things. The bottom part of pajamas. Red pajama trousers and blue pants (underwear).

Thank you.

 

[ZaZara]

Monday, October 5, third day in court, final part (1) of the day.

Timeline of crime reporter Saskia Belleman @SaskiaBelleman


The session is about to be resumed.

The Public Prosecutor stands to make a presentation.

The digital map made of the situation at Brunssummerheide after the viewing last year.

Arthur Hubers @Arthur_1Limburg

Just one more picture, homemade but otherwise the same as one of the maps the Public Prosecutor's Office showed earlier. Red the place where #nickyverstappen was found, yellow the place from where #josbrech stated that 'something' caught his attention.

Second map: the purple area is the moor. On top of it was the summer camp. The yellow area is where #Nicky was found, the spruce forest and the spot where Jos B was standing.

More pictures to come, I can only post 5 max at a time.

 

[ZaZara]

Monday, October 5, third day in court, final part (2) of the day.

Timeline of crime reporter Saskia Belleman @SaskiaBelleman

The recreated situation of the summer camp. On the left the tent #Nicky slept in.

The tent #Nicky slept in, at the edge of the Heikop.

The path that ran alongside the tent #Nicky slept in. That tent is visible between the trees.

The distance from the tent where #Nicky slept to the toilet building was 105 metres. From the tent to the fence separating the Heikop was 15 meters. From #Nicky's tent to a gay meeting place on a car park was 541 meters.

BBM