On behalf of Van Rest, two of P.’s telephones that he kept in his cell were examined. According to Van Rest, that investigation did not show that the messages had been tampered with. One of the telephone numbers could be linked to Marcel H. The other number could not. “That could not be linked to anyone,” said Van Rest. That was a prepaid number. Nothing came of the historical investigation of that telephone, according to Van Rest.
Under the watchful eye of Van Rest, the agreement was signed by the witness in December 2020. Then the malpractices came to light. “But then I was no longer involved in the investigation,” Van Rest said. Because the penalty reduction was final, it could no longer be reversed, Van Rest stated.
The public prosecutor is convinced that he acted correctly. “The scenario as described by the key witness is still the most obvious scenario. In my experience, we are still in the right place.”