The third lawsuit about the art theft in the Drents Museum mainly revolves around an undercover operation by the police and the distribution of photos of two of the suspects: Bernhard Z. and Douglas Chesley W. Two lawyers want to question David van Weel, former Minister of Justice and Security, about this.
Z. and W. were arrested on January 29, a few days after the art theft. After they were arrested, police released their full names and photos. In an interview with NOS, Minister Van Weel said that the suspects had a choice: either tell where the loot is, or their full names and photos are published. Blackmail, according to Z.’s lawyer. “This implies that they know where the loot is. Then it is established that they are guilty.”
The Public Prosecution Service (OM) says that the minister used the term ‘suspects’ and has therefore not yet portrayed them as guilty. The court rejected the request to hear Van Weel. However, the Public Prosecution Service must explain the decision regarding the release of the photos and names in detail in writing. The court wants to know exactly who was involved in this decision and what role the minister played.
Both Bernhard Z. and Douglas Chesley W. were present in court, just like the third suspect Jan B. “My family is still bothered by it,” says Z. “The Public Prosecution Service goes way too far.” During his own lawyer’s argument, he urgently needs to go to the toilet. He also cynically claps his hands after the prosecutor’s argument and thinks the case lasts a few hours too long. Not much later he gets out of his chair and leaves the room. “This charade…” he says as he leaves the room. The other two sit quietly in the room the entire time.
The lawyers of the three suspects in the art theft in the Drents Museum also say they do not feel free to speak to the suspects. “We feel like we’re being spied on,” says one of the lawyers. “Is the AIVD listening in?” asks another lawyer.
The Public Prosecution Service cannot answer that. “No reasons are given for this by the lawyers, it is about their feeling,” says the public prosecutor. “As the Public Prosecution Service, we are not responsible for the AIVD. We cannot answer this, simply because we do not know.”
Three suspects are still in custody for the art theft. They are labeled by the Public Prosecution Service as main suspects and are said to have committed the robbery. It concerns W., Z., and B., who all come from Heerhugowaard. According to the Public Prosecution Service, they stole four art treasures from the Drents Museum during the night of January 24 to 25. This concerns the golden helmet of Cotofenesti and three golden bracelets. They have an insured value of 5.7 million euros.
Jan B. was approached by undercover officers and he allegedly confessed to these officers that he had committed the art theft. His lawyer disputes whether the entire undercover operation is useful for the lawsuit. “He has stated several times that he was not involved in the robbery. But when the pressure is increased, he apparently said to the left or right that he was the third person.” According to the lawyer, threats from the police were used as a means of pressure. His lawyer also says that B. was once forced into a car under pressure by the officers. According to the Public Prosecution Service, this was not the case.
The court allows the lawyers to interview B. undercover agents about an undercover operation in which B. was put in a car. Their supervisors may also be questioned.
In addition, the lawyer wonders whether the defense can do its job properly. “It has sometimes been made impossible for us to attend interrogations with our clients,” said B’s lawyer. “It is a basic right to have a lawyer by your side.” “The end justifies the means,” says W’s lawyer. “Everything is being pulled out.” He believes that justice deliberately crosses boundaries.
In interrogations with the police, all three suspects exercise their right to remain silent. “But he simply does not have the information,” said Z’s lawyer.
This is the third time that the judge has publicly considered the art theft. In May and July it was a pro forma hearing, now it is a preliminary hearing. A new pro forma hearing will follow in January. The Public Prosecution Service hopes to be able to deal with the substance of the case in March or April next year.
The investigation into the suspects has now been completed, but the investigation into the art treasures continues. They still haven’t been found. However, 5.7 million euros have now been paid out to the Romanian museum where the pieces were on loan.
In the video below we explain the case surrounding the art theft to you: