On the last day of hearing in the criminal trial about the fatal Stint accident at the court in Den Bosch, directors Edwin Renzen and Peter Noorlander had the last word. They had prepared a statement that Edwin Renzen was going to read. The relatives did not want to hear this and walked out of the room just before the last words.
Still, the directors want to express their condolences. “We have listened carefully in recent days. We have heard what the experience has been like in recent years since the accident and what it has done. We sympathize with that.”
“At the same time, it has become clear in these proceedings that the criminal suspicion is a legal construct and does not provide a description of who we really are and how we have acted.”
They point to the lawyers’ plea. “It said what we wanted to say. And it was very important to us that after such a long period this was finally clearly expressed and heard.
On this last day of hearing, the Public Prosecution Service (OM) lashed out strongly at the defense. According to the judiciary, there is indeed a causal link between technical defects of the Stint and the accident in which several children died. According to the Public Prosecution Service, there is no question of human error.
The accident itself was again considered. That moment, as often happens, caused visible emotions among the relatives in the public gallery. The defense cited the report of expert Baan Hofman. According to Public Prosecutor Patrick Van Hees, that expert only looked at the very last moment before the collision and drew incorrect conclusions from it.
“The Stint no longer responded to anything,” says Van Hees. “The crucial moment is earlier: just before driving through the barrier.” According to the defense, witness statements show that the driver started braking in time, that this did not work and that she did indeed use the brake.
Once again the defense repeats that it really should be seen differently and that you cannot blame the two directors for this accident.
“If the Public Prosecution Service says: this is the only cause we can find, the malfunction in the engine controller, then that says a lot. That means that justice only looked for a cause and ended up with the directors. Then they must have done it, and that seems to us to be a dangerous conclusion,” says lawyer Geert-Jan Knoops.
“What was most telling for me: the Public Prosecution Service said ‘a technical defect has been ruled out’. That is not correct. It has not been proven, that is correct. It certainly could have been there. Take that sentence with you, because it says it all: it is possible, it was possible. If you cannot establish that beyond reasonable doubt, you cannot lock people up for 5.5 years, no matter how painful that outcome would be.”
Here you can read all the stories about the accident with the Stint in Oss.