The Public Prosecution Service (OM) is convinced: Jos B. is the one who killed and sexually abused Nicky Verstappen (11) in 1998. The public prosecutor presented evidence for this last month and demanded 15 years in prison and TBS with forced nursing against B.
–
–
But how compelling is this evidence really? And does it meet the legal requirements? These are questions that a judge will consider. The Nicky Verstappen case is so complicated that several judges are needed to reach a decision. Not one person takes the plunge, but three judges must reach a joint conclusion.
–
–
The Nicky Verstappen case
The 11-year-old Nicky Verstappen from Heibloem disappeared on August 10, 1998 when he was at a summer camp on the Brunssummerheide in Limburg. A day later, his body was found less than a mile away.
The case seemed to remain unsolved for a long time, until the name of B. emerged from a DNA test two years ago. His DNA was found on Nicky’s underpants and pajama bottoms. After a manhunt, he was arrested in Spain.
–
–
The judges have had the time to reach a conclusion in the past month, explains judge and administrator at the Noord-Holland District Court Jan Moors. He himself is not involved in this case, but can tell us something about how the process works. He was a judge during the illustrious Wilders trial in 2011, a major case that also received a lot of media attention.
–
–
“Judges go to a meeting after a multiple session. This is called council chambers, because the meetings take place in the council chamber behind the courtroom. Then you go over each other’s point of view per fact. The first question is always: can, on on the basis of the file and the hearing, is it proven that someone has committed a fact? “, Moors explains to RTL Nieuws.
Discuss by fact
Then a circle is made. The secretary (also known as the registrar) may be the first to give and substantiate his opinion, but officially his vote does not count. After that, the youngest judge, with the least experience, may say what he or she thinks about the fact that is being discussed. Then it is the turn of the oldest judge, with the most experience, and finally the chairman has his say.
Moors: “It is important to know that this round is repeated for each fact. You not only share whether you think someone is guilty of a fact or not, but you also substantiate why you think so.”
–
–
According to Moors, council chambers can be a fairly complicated process. “Depending on how important a fact is, you can talk about it endlessly. It can be fierce discussions. Sometimes you also have to sleep over it or look up jurisprudence. Judges therefore often do not come again the same day in complex cases together, just a few days or a week later. “
Disagree with each other
But what if the three judges do not agree? Then there will be even longer discussions. “If they really do not agree, then a vote is taken. The majority then decides. Ultimately, judges in the chambers often agree, so it rarely comes to a vote.”
When the judges have made a decision, the clerk writes a draft judgment. In large cases it may happen that the judges also co-write this. “Important here is the way in which you write it down. You have to be able to motivate everything as well and understandably as possible,” says Moors. Subsequently, the youngest judge, oldest judge and the chairman check the draft judgment and it is pronounced in court after everyone’s approval.
–
–
What has been discussed in the chambers remains secret. “The four of you are sitting in a locked room. The door is not open, because no one is allowed to listen in. If a judge did not agree with the other two at first, the verdict will never show that this was the case. Colleagues do not know either. how the consultation went in the council chamber. “
Media attention
Frans Bauduin (74), a former judge and involved in the sex offense case against Robert M. in 2013, also says that large cases such as these can be very complex. “The judges took longer than the usual fourteen days to reach a verdict. That already shows how complicated it is to reach a conclusion.”
The case against Robert M. received a lot of media attention at the time, just like now with Nicky Verstappen. That puts extra pressure on judges, says Bauduin. “If there is a lot of media interest, the audience is in the room or the session is broadcast live, then you can feel it. You try to keep the pressure under control by preparing extra well.”
–
–
Furthermore, according to Bauduin, it is important to ignore all media attention as much as possible. “If there is a lot of attention for a case, everyone has often already formed an opinion about it. People are already convinced that someone is guilty or not. That could all be, but you are the judge and you have to do your job well. perform without being influenced. “
Attention creates pressure
Moors has also had to deal with issues that receive a lot of media attention. “That is not always nice. We are in the spotlight, but it is not about us.”
It also creates a certain amount of pressure, says Moors. “Not on the decision you make, because it will not change, but on the way you handle the case. A lot of media attention makes you even more aware of the importance that everyone must understand what is happening. But otherwise. does not change our work. “
Moors has had to acquit someone for lack of evidence, while he suspected that the person was indeed guilty. “That feels very annoying. You have a very strong intuition that someone did it, but the proof is not there.”
–
–
Still, he is happy that he lives in a country where people are convicted on the basis of evidence and not on the basis of intuition. “Although it feels uncomfortable, my intuition can also be incorrect. Much research has been done and it shows that it is almost impossible to estimate whether someone is lying or not. Even if you have been a judge for 20 years.”
–
–
How reliable is the evidence?
The Public Prosecution Service calls the DNA traces ‘the most important evidence’ in this case. It concerns 27 traces: hair, skin flakes and possibly saliva from Jos B. that was found on the underpants, the pajama pants and the body of Nicky. But how compelling is this evidence?
According to lawyer Paul Acda, who is not involved in the case but does give DNA training to colleagues, you should be careful with the suspicion that B. must have touched Nicky in those places. “It could just be that a detective has touched a spot with DNA, then went on to investigate further in the underpants and ended up there.”
The DNA can also be scattered during the securing of the underpants. “You don’t know exactly how the underpants were safeguarded twenty years ago. Nowadays, spores are safeguarded very differently because people know that you have to handle them much more carefully.”
He continues: “Are the underpants removed from the body and put in a forensic evidence bag? And how was the garment put in the bag? For example, if it was folded? Then DNA transfer may already have taken place. And that bag then goes into the car. , allowing DNA traces to spread further. For example, by sliding the bag back and forth while driving. “
–
–
