The fact that the crown witness was able to mislead the Public Prosecution Service and the judge in the case around the Marum swimming pool murder is due to “insufficient adequate information transfer” and a lack of knowledge at the OM.
That is the conclusion of a research committee that was established, after the Court of Appeal had been critically commented on the crown tritical trajectory in the case last year.
In 2012 Jan Elzinga was shot at a swimming pool in Marum in Groningen. His then partner Monique H. (44) from Hollandscheveld, her brother Marcel (42) from Nieuw-Roden and their mother Coby van der L. (62) from Roden were sentenced to fourteen years in prison last year.
The 59-year-old Johan L. from Kampen, who supplied the weapon for the murder, was previously sentenced to six years in prison. In the judgment, the court at the time took into account, among other things, errors made in the investigation.
One of the performers closed a deal with the Public Prosecution Service in prison for a shorter punishment and became a crown witness. Later it turned out that he had tampered with evidence. He was discredited by providing manipulated text messages to the Public Prosecution Service.
Because there was not enough consultations, misunderstandings arose about what exactly was investigated when the deal with the crown witness was created. In addition, the knowledge, experience and expertise on crown trigger processes are concentrated in some public prosecutors.