Did Rob B. cut his girlfriend’s neck on April 10, 2000, or did she do it herself? New evidence suggests the latter. More than 22 years after the offense and fifteen years after his conviction, the court in Arnhem will decide today, after reviewing the criminal process, whether the case of the Rosmalense flat murder is a miscarriage of justice.
His retired lawyer Pieter van der Kruijs (73) was sworn in again to be able to defend B. again. Two weeks ago, the prosecutor demanded an acquittal: ‘It appears that major mistakes have been made here. I offer my personal apologies for that.’
Apologies from a prosecutor, that’s very special.
‘What I’m especially curious about: will all the judges involved who have ruined my client’s life also apologize to Rob? If only for their own peace of mind? They should be ashamed of themselves. Just like the public prosecutor, the police and the so-called experts in this case.’
You are angry.
‘A judge is supposed to be impartial. I have never seen such biased judges in my 45-year career as a criminal lawyer.’
What shows that bias?
‘By rejecting almost all my research wishes. By only starting from a perpetrator scenario in a reconstruction – then you already rule out suicide. By artfully creating an illogical hole in Rob’s alibi. By taking seriously counter-expertise from an expert who, to everyone’s shame, turned out not to be independent. Through tunnel vision. By failing to reopen the case in court shortly before the verdict when a new, exculpatory witness came forward. And by very selectively browsing the statement of that witness during the appeal. His words ‘Rob was fine that day’ were misused: with that the judges explained why the cut on the victim’s neck was so straight, while Rob has a tremor – continuously trembling hands.’
Rob B. himself cannot be interviewed because of his psychiatric disorder – he is schizophrenic and suffers from delusions. And that’s exactly why he was never believed, his lawyer says. ‘They thought: this man is insane, so we don’t have to believe him. But Rob was telling the truth all along: after a round of cycling he came home, found his partner on the floor in the hall of their flat, and at first thought: she passed out; that happened often. Because he stepped in from the light outside in the dark, he didn’t immediately see all the blood. When he saw it, he immediately called his sister, who called 911. Then Rob was arrested as a suspect.’
Have you ever doubted your client yourself?
‘Yes, very early on. I thought: cutting your own throat, that is almost impossible. But I was quickly convinced of Rob’s innocence.’
Why?
“He had a conclusive alibi: several witnesses had seen or spoken to him on his bike ride at the time of death. In addition, it was an arterial hemorrhage. Everything in the hall of their apartment was covered in blood except him. The used knife was under his girlfriend’s arm. She had attempted suicide more than once.’
An investigation by Gerede Twijfel – a project in which law students investigate closed criminal cases – showed that B. could not have killed his girlfriend. After a newspaper report about this, a new witness came forward in 2016: deputy general practitioner Ad Loonen had visited the victim shortly before her death. She asked him to cut something out of her neck, ‘rather forcefully’. According to Loonen, there was nothing in her neck and she was in a delusion.
This was a novelty, a new fact that might have led the judges to a different verdict had they known. The Advisory Committee on Closed Criminal Cases (ACAS) investigated the case, an attorney general of the Supreme Court ordered an additional investigation, and in 2020 the Supreme Court decided that the case should be reopened.
What do you think the Public Prosecution Service did wrong?
‘The public prosecutor was also strongly biased. She called the pathologist at home: he had to delete a sentence from his preliminary autopsy report, namely that the perpetrator must have been completely covered in blood. That was not the case with Rob.
‘The Public Prosecution Service also appointed a blood spatter expert with the knowledge of literally two weeks of training and zero experience. Moreover, it turned out that he was married to another incriminating expert in this case, without reporting this. When I asked for a counter-expertise against that blood spatter test, the examining magistrate called that blood spatter expert: do you know a counter-expert? Totally inappropriate! That expert then designated someone whom he himself had consulted for his own report.’
What do you think the police did wrong?
‘The detectives immediately said during the interrogation of B.: it is certain that the victim did not cut her own throat herself. But that was not certain at all, that was a lie. They also blundered: no fingerprints were taken from the cover in which the knife had been in the cutlery drawer. They also twisted the knife when making detective photos, so that it was full of blood and fingerprints could no longer be examined.
‘The cop who followed Rob’s regular lap did so at great speed on a geared bicycle, without stopping at traffic lights, the rectory and the Episcopal Palace, as Rob had done.
“Which is downright outrageous: Rob was interrogated for hours and not believed. And then at the end they say, why didn’t you go to your girlfriend’s funeral? That was a dirty question. First, he was incarcerated, and second, you never get permission to go there as a suspect. They just said that to taunt him. Then Rob went crazy, and that was used against him again: you see, he’s aggressive.
‘Rob was never believed, he was imprisoned, provoked and blamed for the death of his beloved. That would make you and I too aggressive.’
How is your client?
“He’s very emotional about this. He has been seen as a psychopathic killer for 22 years and treated like a pariah. When he was released from custody after three months, apartment residents refused to get into the elevator with him. He missed both his parents’ funerals. I’m getting emotional now too. He is psychologically wrecked, destroyed. Confidence in the judiciary among him and his family has fallen well below freezing point.’
How are you doing now?
‘I am still supervising the compensation issue. And then I’ll unsubscribe as a lawyer again.’