Kirsten receives an apology, but no answers from the Public Prosecution Service due to an unjustified warning about the climate demonstration

Today, the Public Prosecution Service apologized to the seven people who had previously received an unjustified warning for their alleged participation in a climate demonstration at Schiphol. One of them is Kirsten Verdel, who was very surprised to receive the written pardon because she was not at the climate demonstration that day: “It really has to be different,” Kirsten Verdel tells NH Radio.

Photo: Campaigners at a GlobeAir-Cessna 510 Citation at Schiphol-Oost – GlobeAir

On November 5, 2022, hundreds of Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion activists were arrested during a demonstration at the platform at Schiphol-Oost. They demonstrated there against the use of private jets. Because a large number of the demonstrators did not want to identify themselves, the Marechaussee started an investigation into their identity. Ultimately, this was determined through social media and police data and people received a letter from the Public Prosecution Service with a warning.

Of the 175 people who received the letter, Kirsten Verdel, among others, claimed that she had never participated in the demonstration. Today she got it apology from the Public Prosecution Service: “It’s a lot of commotion, but the book is far from closed with these excuses,” says Verdel.

To view this content, you must accept cookies.

On July 24, Kirsten received a letter from the Public Prosecution Service stating that she had been present at the demonstration. “It said: we have registered you, you have committed a crime and this is a warning letter.” Kirsten was not there at all, she can prove this on the basis of her bank statements: “Based on that, I was able to find out where I was that day, namely at a bed specialist store to buy a pillow and an indoor playground. And that evening I attended a wedding with about 100 witnesses.”

‘Very strange’

Verdel wanted to defend herself against the written accusation, but could not find any contact details where she could lodge an appeal or objection. Kirsten herself contacted the Public Prosecution Service, which advised sending evidence to the public prosecutor. “I immediately thought: ‘This is very strange’. Why do I have to prove that I wasn’t there somewhere? That’s a reverse burden of proof.” She expressed her indignation about this on platform X (formerly Twitter), which also caused a lot of commotion among her followers and other readers. “It got a few million views.”

Doesn’t make any sense

Verdel received an invitation by email to provide an explanation to the Marechaussee, who had made the identification during the demonstration. During that conversation it was said that she was not a suspect, but a person involved. And that it was not an interrogation, but an interview. While her invitation email asked to bring evidence. “And during the conversation, a facial recognition expert was called in to see if the photos that had been taken matched me. Then I said: ‘If this is not an interrogation, why is a facial recognition expert sitting here announcing that he is going to make an identification? ‘. It didn’t make any sense.”

“Today I received a letter of apology but not the answers on how they identified me”

Kirsten Verdel, wrongly received a letter from the Public Prosecution Service

What bothers Kirsten most is that she still doesn’t have an answer to her question. “Today I received a letter of apology, but not the answer as to how they identified me.” Although the Marechaussee has indicated that the people were identified by liking a message from Extinction Rebellion, Verdel says he remembers nothing about this. “I can’t even remember if I liked anything.” Verdel also says she does not know whether she will now be removed from all lists. The Public Prosecution Service and the Marechaussee have promised in writing that she will be removed from all systems, but she still has doubts about that.

No satisfaction

According to Verdel, there needs to be more clarity about these types of identification processes, because they can unintentionally put people in difficult situations: “I have seen a lot of stories lately of travelers who are not allowed to board the plane or do not receive a certificate of good behavior. That must be prevented and processes really need to change. I have no idea how this happened and I want answers to that.”

Kirsten is not satisfied with the apology letter from the Public Prosecution Service: “It is apparently very easy for the government to end up on lists without knowing it or having legal protection. Fortunately, I have the knowledge and network to do more research. But a teacher or nurse doesn’t have time for this, man. I feel forced to do it, because who else does it?”

The results of the further research will be published at the beginning of October.

ttn-55