John van den Heuvel has had his lawyer write a letter to Johan Derksen to summon him for statements made in Today Inside. “A registered letter.”
The way in which John van den Heuvel acts in the fornication case against Marco Borsato is striking, because he is very fanatical. Why is he so deeply in the camp of Marco’s accuser that he even started arguing with Clarice Stenger live on TV last week? Does he have something to hide? Did he actually influence her?
Critical Johan
Johan Derksen was already critical of John’s role in this fornication case in May. “I believe that a journalist from De Telegraaf should not have access to official reports of Marco Borsato, because he trumpets everywhere that Marco Borsato will be convicted, ‘because he has read the official document’,” he said at the time.
Many critics find these final court documents not convincing at all, but John has based on them for years painted a certain image of Marco. “As a public prosecutor in Amsterdam, I would say: ‘Sir, come by and how on earth did you get that official report?’”
Into prison
And if John doesn’t say that? Then he must be taken hostage, Johan said then. That resulted in an angry call to his home address – the lady of the house answered – but eventually a barking letter also followed, the Today Inside mustache reveals in his podcast Greetings from Grolloo. Why is John so fanatical about this? Johan finds it suspicious.
Johan: “I always have my doubts about John van den Heuvel. I always think he is Peter R. de Vries light. He is so frustrated that Peter was a star and he was a curly-haired boy. He was so decisive in his pieces about Marco Borsato that I thought: he must have those official reports and how did he get them? I don’t hear that.”
Registered letter
So Johan said that in VI. “And a day later I had a registered letter from his lawyer that they did not accept that. Then I said: ‘Well, from now on I will be more precise in my statements and, if there are any problems, you can contact my lawyer and that is Royce de Vries.’”
Royce de Vries is the son of the late Peter R. de Vries. “And they hate them, because John was also not allowed to attend the funeral of Peter R. de Vries, because Royce de Vries prevented that. John has a mouth like a razor in this case, but I’m afraid that mother – I cannot rule that out – let John read those official reports.”
Partisan role
Johan thinks that is harmful. “For he has shouted from the first day: ‘Borsato is condemned.’ Now, I think it’s fine that a journalist is better informed than a colleague, but he has therefore played a very partisan role in the publicity surrounding this case. During all those years of preparation.”
Johan is not surprised if John had those documents from Nathalie T., the controversial mother of the complainant. Because nowadays it is fashionable if you want to harm someone… That she did not go to the police, but to someone from the media. Then someone is hanged a day later, so that mother went to John van den Heuvel.”
Directing role
According to the Borsato camp, John played a guiding role. “He advised them to go to the police and coached those people on what to say there. None of that is prohibited, but if a journalist really starts to play a role in such a case, then I find it dubious. I find it all dubious about him, because I find him such an annoying man.”
He concludes with a side note: “What he also made is the worst soap in history: around Gordon. He made that. That was a really distasteful product.”