Charles Groenhuijsen thinks for the time being that Johnny de Mol is not very strong when it comes to the accusations against him by Shima Kaes. “Those injuries are real.”
The camp Johnny de Mol is looking for the media now that the shocking report by Shima Kaes has been leaked. The presenter has asked the Public Prosecution Service to proceed with his prosecution, so that it will soon become clear whether he has acted criminally or not. He gave an extensive response yesterday in his own talk show HLF8 and his lawyer Peter Plasman was at Op1.
‘Lots of evidence’
Peter Plasman was interviewed quite critically by Charles Groenhuijsen, who has the idea that Johnny is not very strong. “There is quite a bit of evidence,” said the presenter.
Charles continues: “I read the statement: ‘It goes without saying that Johnny de Mol looks forward to the outcome of a criminal case with confidence.’ That is a very neat formulation, but does it also say: ‘Johnny de Mol is innocent’, on behalf of Peter Plasman?”
Peter: “Ehhmm… Look, it’s always very difficult to ehhh talk about a situation that you haven’t been to yourself.”
Hesitating Peter
Oops, Peter doesn’t exactly put two fingers in the air at Op1. Charles: “But he keeps saying and you are his lawyer and he says again tonight on his own talk show: ‘It’s all not true.’ Is he innocent?”
Peter: “Whether he is innocent will soon be decided by the criminal court. That’s what he wants. (…) I was not there, as a lawyer I am checking whether I have any reason to doubt Johnny de Mol’s words. Then the answer is clear and simple no.”
A rather hesitant answer, comments Angela de Jong in Good Morning Netherlands. “Peter Plasman is a little less certain than Johnny de Mol about that ‘nothing was true’.”
‘Injuries real’
Charles then points out to Peter that Shima has included quite a few photos of her injuries with the report. “Those injuries are real. Doctors have looked into this in part and they have made statements about it.”
Johnny shouts that none of it is true, but Charles finds that very strange. “Then Mrs Kaes would have been mistreated in three different places, she says by Johnny de Mol, and in three cases that should have been done by someone else. Isn’t that a story that makes you think: really?!”
Peter: “You mention a number of things that are not at all certain and of which Johnny de Mol says: ‘This is the story from the other side and I deny that story.’”
‘Seems very to his disadvantage’
Charles: “Those photos are facts, the sound fragment is a fact, the text message is a fact. In addition to a denial, can Johnny de Mol also counter this with facts of which you say: that could bring the matter into balance. Because as you look at it now, it seems to be against Johnny de Mol.”
Peter: “Yes, but to the detriment of Johnny de Mol… If he himself says ‘I have been heavy-handed’ and ‘the relationship does not deserve the beauty prize’ and ‘I have been fucking hard’, that is different from criminal offences. Of course that is not to his advantage, because that is behavior of which he himself says: ‘It does not deserve the beauty prize.’”
rough performance
But that’s not the point, says Peter. “It’s not about the relationship between the two and how there may have been some rough handling from both sides. The question is: have criminal offenses been committed?”
Fellow guest Peter van Uhm, retired general, points out that it is not just about that: “It is also about the values and standards we stand for in the Netherlands. That is different from criminal offences. Sometimes you do things that are not immediately a criminal offense, but which you cannot do. That is of course also a question.”
Fragment
An excerpt from Op1:
