The OM sees Delano G. as the shooter. There is “overwhelming evidence” for that. Kamil E. was the driver, according to the Public Prosecution Service there is no discussion about this. But the OM does not believe that Kamil E. was otherwise completely ignorant. Co-suspect Kamil E. would have driven G. to and from Amsterdam and carried out several preliminary reconnaissance. There is premeditation, so murder, and not manslaughter, says the public prosecutor. Both suspects “have forfeited their right to freedom”, according to the Public Prosecution Service.
According to the Public Prosecution Service, the motive was financial. This is evident from chats in which the client suggests that they might get more if they do it right. It seems logical that De Vries was murdered because of his role as confidant of Nabil B., says the public prosecutor. He emphasizes that the murder of De Vries is an attack on the rule of law. To everyone who has a role in it. “Both G. and E. were fully aware of the assignment that had to be carried out,” said the public prosecutor in Amsterdam on Tuesday.
“One life is never worth more than another life, but there are circumstances that have an aggravating effect.” According to the Public Prosecution Service, there are no aspects in this case that lead to a reduced sentence.
The murder of De Vries was committed in broad daylight, right in the center of Amsterdam and within sight of terraces. According to the OM, the murder was intended to instill fear and terror. “We need to send out a crystal clear signal. Until here and no further.”
Motive unknown
A motive for the murder is unknown, but it is suspected that it has to do with the role of De Vries as the confidential adviser of the crown witness in the extensive liquidation process Marengo. “It looks like that,” said the officer.
At the start of the hearing, the chairman warned that the process could be shocking for those present, especially the relatives of De Vries, also because footage will be shown. Both his children, his ex-wife and his partner attend the trial. Peter’s girlfriend, his ex-wife, daughter Kelly and son Royce have all filed compensation claims. The damage of the loss suffered by the family cannot be expressed in money, says the lawyer of the de Vries family, Annemiek van Spanje. The lawyer says that the amount should be seen as a reparation for the damage suffered, and a means to hit the suspects in the wallet.
The relatives would like the suspects to look at them during the right to speak. Royce turns to the suspect, hoping to strike a chord. Despite the fact that he now knows that these men have “an unparalleled disrespect for life and that it will be meaningless.” De Vries’s partner will use her right to speak next week, during the second day of the criminal case. She had asked the court to explain her claim for compensation behind closed doors, but the court rejected that request.
Like you didn’t look at my father
Kelly de Vries does address the suspects directly. She looks at Delano G., “the way you didn’t dare to look at my father when you shot him from behind.” She wants to know what the motive is for the men: “For money? Because you don’t agree with him?” Kelly wants to give them a thought to ponder over the next few decades. But the children of Kamil E. and Delano G. will also have to move on with the realization of what their fathers have done, Kelly says. “At least I have a father I can be proud of. He will be said to be a hero.”
She cited a book by her father called A Murder Takes More Lives. She not only referred to her family, but also to the many relatives of a crime who assisted De Vries and also to the suspects. “Your son, Delano, your children, Kamil. Children who are going to be confronted with what you have done. You have that on your conscience too. My father will forever go down in the history books, just like you. But about my father they will write that he was a hero.” Peter’s ex-wife contracted post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the murder of the father of her children. Kelly suffered an acute stress disorder.
G. has indicated that he does not want to respond to the allegations. “No, I don’t want to say anything, sir,” he told the judge. E. again denied that he was to blame for the murder. “I didn’t kill anyone. I was just the driver.” Kamil E. also says that he has not received any money. “Only 100 euros for fuel and food on that day.” He would only bring someone from Rotterdam to Amsterdam. “That was my role. As for the phone found, the messages were not written by me.” The Public Prosecution Service has repeated on Tuesday that it has “all appearances” that Peter R. de Vries his role as advisor to key witness Nabil B. “had to pay with death.”
Third Occupant
Kamil E. adjusted his earlier statement in the court in Amsterdam on Tuesday. Not only he and co-defendant Delano G. would have driven from Rotterdam to Amsterdam, there was also a third man in the car. According to E. after G., this Polish man had got out and “had to do something.”
The 36-year-old E. did not tell about this man before, just like he also a Pole, about whom he said he did not want to say anything further “because he was not arrested.” Nothing can be seen on camera images of a possible third person. E. and G. can be seen frequently. It is clear that the prosecutor thinks that Kamil E. made up that Pool. “It seems to be total nonsense what he is stating about this.”
G. said nothing about a possible third man. “I invoke my right to remain silent,” he said. He has yet to comment on the allegations against him. G. is suspected of being the shooter. At first, Kamil E. was also silent. He still denies involvement in Peter’s death to this day. But the Public Prosecution Service sees it differently and considers both suspects to be “full co-perpetrators”, according to the public prosecutor. Delano G. has not provided an explanation for his fingerprints on the weapons and the gunshot residue on his hands. Not even today, says the Public Prosecutor. In addition, he matches the description of the shooter.
The Public Prosecutor talks about “abundant evidence” for which Delano G. has not provided any explanation. As far as the Public Prosecution Service is concerned, it is established that he was the shooter. According to the Public Prosecution Service, G. was the shooter. When asked by the court whether he shot De Vries (64), he replied that he invoked his right to remain silent. G. does not want to explain anything, E. does answer questions and denies involvement in the murder of the crime reporter. De Vries was shot on July 6 last year in the heart of Amsterdam and succumbed to his injuries nine days later.
Images
The court showed images of the assassination attempt on Peter R. de Vries on Tuesday. De Vries left the studio of RTL Boulevard on Lange Leidsedwarsstraat on 6 July last year at 7.26 p.m. and walked towards the parking garage further down that street, where his car was. Near the garage, barely three minutes later, he was shot multiple times. The images show that the perpetrator approached him from behind.
In other images, the gunmen are on their way to the site of the attack and can be seen fleeing. The escape route of the two suspects has been meticulously reconstructed on the basis of images from surveillance and highway cameras. And witness statements. At 7:31 p.m., he is said to have sent a message to an as yet unknown man who would have directed the assassination attempt from a distance. It states, among other things, that he shot De Vries “straight through his head and body” and that the victim is dead, “kk-dead.” The suspects Delano G. (22) and Kamil E. (36) were stopped by the police at an exit on the A4 within an hour of the attack and arrested.
In the car, among other things, the murder weapon (a converted alarm pistol) was found, and a cartridge holder with DNA of Rotterdammer G., the suspected shooter. A smartphone was also found in the car, which contained extremely rudely worded messages about the murder. There was communication with a hitherto unnamed person who is said to have controlled the pair. The detective is still investigating his role.
The OM sees Delano G. as the shooter. There is “overwhelming evidence” for that. Kamil E. was the driver. According to the Public Prosecution Service, there is no discussion about this. But the OM does not believe that Kamil E. was otherwise completely ignorant. Kamil E. does not deny that he was the driver. But otherwise, his statement is “completely unbelievable.” What the Pole says is at odds with all the evidence, according to the public prosecutor.
According to the public prosecutor, the telephone conversations between the suspects and the client give the impression that the suspects knew very well what they were doing. According to the OM, Kamil E. must have known for weeks who the target was, as witnessed by his preliminary reconnaissance. The evidence says a lot, if not everything, about the involvement of the suspects and the premeditation, says the public prosecutor.
All actions by Kamil E. before, during and after the assassination attempt indicate a close collaboration. They are therefore co-perpetrators of the murder of de Vries, according to the public prosecutor. According to the Public Prosecution Service, the motive was financial. This is evident from chats in which the client suggests that they might get more if they do it right. That Peter was murdered because of his role as a confidant of Nabil B. seems logical, says the public prosecutor. And emphasizes that the murder of De Vries is an attack on the rule of law. To everyone who has a role in it. “One life is never worth more than another life, but there are circumstances that have an aggravating effect.”
The public prosecutor briefly considers the compensation claims of the next of kin. He says that the suicide note that De Vries wrote before his death just in case, has touched the public prosecutors.
On June 15, the second day of the trial, the pleas of the lawyers of the suspects are on the program.