The lawyers of the four suspects are also unanimous on appeal: the Public Prosecution Service (OM) has forfeited the right to prosecute by using statements from a lying key witness.
“He misled and deceived the whole thing, his statement was unusable,” the lawyers said. The matter should be ended immediately. If the court ignores this, too little evidence has been provided in all cases, the lawyers believe, and an acquittal should follow. Regardless, the suspects must be released as soon as possible.
On Wednesday, the Public Prosecution Service demanded a 20-year prison sentence for provoking the murder of Jan Elzinga in July 2012. That summer, 40-year-old Elzinga was shot dead in front of the swimming pool gate. In the eyes of the Public Prosecution Service, the victim’s in-laws are the ultimate clients. A 59-year-old man from Kampen is said to have provided them with a weapon. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison.
The four were arrested in July 2021 on the basis of a deal that the Public Prosecution Service had made with the previously convicted Willem P. The man was arrested as the perpetrator in 2012 after the murder in Marum, together with a gunman from Zwolle. P. served a prison sentence of almost 20 years, the shooter was sentenced to 15 years in prison. After several years of captivity, P. decided to open his mouth.
He convinced the Public Prosecution Service that he could prove that the victim’s in-laws had set up the murder for hire. For this purpose, he handed over text messages that he had had from prison with Marcel H. (42), Elzinga’s brother-in-law. The deal was approved and signed by the examining magistrate. And the Public Prosecution Service started a new investigation into, among other things, the in-laws.
Some of the text messages supplied by P. were forged, it turned out during the criminal trial of the four in 2022 before the court in Groningen. Not everything P. had stated was a lie, the judge noted. The Public Prosecution Service has produced more evidence through the new police investigation, which was started after the deal. All in all, the court in Groningen saw enough to convict the four of provoking Elzinga’s murder.
The fact that the highly illogical sequence of the text messages during the initial investigation by the Special Witnesses Team (TBG) did not set off any alarm bells is incomprehensible to the defense and completely unbelievable, the lawyers said before the court today. “At first glance at the messages, the defense immediately noticed that something was wrong with the messages.” Last Monday, public prosecutor Pieter van Rest was asked about this before the court.
Van Rest was responsible for the TBG team from February 2017 to the end of December 2022. He had to ensure that the deal with the key witness was done according to the law. The deal was signed under his supervision. The abuses subsequently came to light. Van Rest was no longer involved in that process at that time, but was still disappointed when he heard about it.
“We are talking about a key witness who deceived the Public Prosecution Service and deceived the examining magistrate. It is a shame for everything that the rule of law stands for,” said Wilko ten Have, the 44-year-old’s lawyer. Monique H. Ten Have received support from Justus Reisinger, the lawyer of Coby van der L. (62): “The lies of the key witness seem to have been covered up with the perjury case, but football continues as normal.”
The high penalties that have been proposed again are disproportionate, according to defenders. Willem P. was sentenced to almost 20 years in prison, thirty percent of which was taken off as a result of the deal. P. was still sentenced under the old system whereby someone can be released under certain conditions after serving two-thirds of the sentence. P. has not yet served ten years of his sentence.
Since July 2021, the portion of prior release has been set at a maximum of two years. This means that at least 18 years of a 20-year prison sentence must be served. The in-laws would unjustly be punished more severely than the lying key witness. And that’s not fair, the lawyers said. If a punishment does occur, it is realistic that the court will take this into account.
The verdict is on April 30.