Suspected murder Els Slurink: never saw her | Inland

The court sees enough ‘serious objections’ to keep A. imprisoned for longer. In short, the DNA match is tough enough. At the request of the court, a further investigation must also be carried out into the DNA of a brother of the suspect.

Psychologist Slurink was killed in 1997 by a stab with scissors in her home in the city of Groningen. That is already 24 years ago, the public prosecutor cited. “Els Slurink has never been forgotten, however,” said officer Peter van der Spek. He referred to the continued attention for the matter.

Suspect A. was recently arrested after a year behind the scenes on the grain of justice. After a public campaign this year brought the case even more into the national news, A. was arrested. Years later, old DNA traces still led to him. The match via material from under a victim’s nail came about last January.

“That match was not an end, but a new starting point,” emphasizes the judiciary. The trail is seen as a ‘criminal trail’. “Els Slurink went to bed late, as usual. Presumably after watching the movie ‘The Godfather III’, which she rented for one day. “I also heard ‘ouch-ouch’ and thumping,” said a witness. The noise had ended abruptly. “The DNA traces present ask for an answer from the suspect, that was not received (during the investigation),” said the officer. The suspect says that he ‘never saw the victim in her life’, or even knew her name. “Because she took off her contact lenses and then usually washed her hands, the DNA probably got under the nails afterwards.”

Hemp

Justice suspects that the Iranian suspect is investing his money in Iran, at least he does not spend it in the Netherlands. He seems to earn a living from growing hemp. Justice asked him to be held longer, because there is a risk of recurrence. “It is highly flammable and uninhibited.”

Lawyer mr. Job Knoester of the accused has replaced the previous lawyer Plasman for only a week. He received the file ‘within an hour’ after registration, but has not yet had time to formulate his own research questions, he said at the hearing. “Innocent is innocent, until proven otherwise.” He calls the explanation surrounding DNA ‘premature’. “A DNA trail is not automatically a culprit trail. The whole year has yielded nothing concrete against the client. There is nothing outside of DNA that links the suspect to the crime scene. The track is also a mixed track. ”

Knoester: ,, A hundred fingerprints have been found. Not one of the suspects, what you would expect. DNA of a woman has been found under the left hand, why is that less burdensome, because we cannot find it? ” The counsel asked to release the suspect. In his opinion, some time is needed to study the file and formulate any research questions. “I’ll hurry.”

A next (direct) session can take place in June.

–