Lawyer Yehudi Moszkowicz has challenged the court in the Ruinerwold case. He argues that the youngest of the three judges is biased. In his eyes, she gives the impression that she already has an opinion on the matter. According to the lawyer, it appears from a question that the judge posed to suspect Josef B. that she believes that the children of Gerrit Jan van D have been deprived of their freedom.
Judges must be independent as long as a criminal case is pending. In the question posed by the judge, according to the lawyer, she seemed to find that the youngest six children of the family – who were never registered with the registry office by Van D. – were not free to come and go as they pleased. “They couldn’t leave because they had no papers,” the judge said.
She wanted to elicit an answer from Josef B. about the accusation from the justice system that he is partly responsible for the deprivation of liberty of the children, she said when Moszkowicz asked her whether that was her opinion or a factual statement. Court president Elly Läkamp cut the situation down and stated that her colleague did not have to answer the question. “And that’s why I avenge the entire court,” Moszkowicz said.
Josef B. did not want to answer any questions today, but nevertheless the judges have tried a few times. The question that the judge asked about what he thought of the situation in which the children found themselves, according to the judge herself, “came straight from her heart”.
Challenge room has to decide
Shortly afterwards, the court adjourned the hearing for lunch. At two o’clock the case would continue with the sentence from the Public Prosecution Service, but it did not come to that. Moszkowicz stood up and came up with his challenge.
The challenge means that the court cannot continue with the case today. There must now be a challenge room, consisting of three other judges. It must assess whether the court has indeed been biased. The challenge room will meet this afternoon. It is not yet known whether a ruling will be made today.
Deprivation of liberty and assault
In addition to deprivation of liberty between 1999 and 2019, B. is also suspected of mistreatment of the nine children. He would not have done that himself, but because he helped father Gerrit Jan van D. by renting buildings and bringing groceries to the family, he would have let the situation continue. The children have stated this.
Van D. lived as a religious madman and subjected his children to his self-invented faith, of which Josef B. (61) was a follower. The children were regularly abused and separated from the rest. Some were also abused. After the eldest three had fled the family, Van D. moved with the children to the remote farm in Ruinerwold in 2010.
Van D. believed he was the new Messiah and prepared the children for life in a new world. Outside influences made them ‘unclean’ in his eyes. That’s why he shielded them. Israel, the oldest of the six living in Ruinerwold, fled the family in October 2019, after which he asked for help in the village and the family became world news.
only suspect
Van D. himself does not have to stand trial, because he is unable to do so as a result of a stroke in 2016. The court dropped his case last March. Josef B., also referred to as the handyman of the family, is the only one on trial. He has always denied the allegations and sees the prosecution by the judiciary as a ‘witch hunt’.
This morning, the court read out the statements made by the children to the police and the examining magistrate. The youngest five at the time still supported their father’s views, the oldest four have stated incriminating. They said about Josef B. that he only did what Van D. told him to do and that the Austrian himself was also mistreated by the self-proclaimed ‘patriarch’.
B. did know that they were being mistreated and he also witnessed it, they stated. Moreover, he also participated in verbally humiliating them when their father did. The eldest four blame him for never seeking help for them and for allowing the situation to continue.