Seven cameras were discovered in a rental apartment on the Westwal in Den Bosch last August. The woman who lived there for a few months warned the police and he found the cameras hidden behind mirrors in the bath and bedroom and even one in the chandelier above the bed. Huurbaas Gúray S. (50) from Tiel was allowed to explain on Thursday in the court in Den Bosch how that was like.
A landlord that hangs cameras in his Airbnb must be the nightmare of every tenant. The phones and cameras were professionally hidden behind mirror glass and in a chandelier. Gúray S. had access to the images everywhere via the internet. A motion detector sent messages when there was activity in the apartment.
Even cameras in the bathroom
There was clear thought about every element. From a hidden space, cables ran to the different cameras and a glimpse mirror could even be looked in the bathroom.
S. had come to court to say that it was not all that meant. He had installed the cameras because the rental via Airbnb did not run well and he wanted to have a view of who rented. But when he started renting out the apartment to a woman for a longer period of time, he was ‘forgotten’ or he had ‘no time’ to turn off the cameras or to remove.
And so it went on the whole session. S. won his phone on the day of the declaration, because he ‘did not charge well’ and he happened to ‘take the meter reading’ that day. And that had nothing to do, according to him, with the fact that there was police in the apartment in the afternoon and that he could have seen that too. He also suddenly no longer knew the main password of his password manager.
Filmed for months
Two sides of the same story were clearly told in the courtroom. On the one hand, the negative suspect, who “hadn’t meant it all that way” and sympathized with the victim and immediately knew all the images without looking. And on the other hand the woman, who was filmed for months by seven cameras at the most intimate moments in her own house.
At one point she even got a relationship with S.’s best friend and she had sex with him in front of the cameras of S. but Gúray S. saw no problem in that, because he ‘never looked at the images, but immediately won’. He no longer has contact with the good friend.
The public prosecutor left no doubt that he did not believe anything at all of the defense of S. Gúray S. is a highly educated IT person who managed to sell his company well a while ago. He could have pulled out the plugs or put an end to the filming in another way, the officer believed. But S. did not. He let his professional cameras just run all the time until the woman found them with a detector purchased at the Mediamarkt.
Bags full of panties with names on it
S. firmly denies that he looked at the images if there was a sexual intention. But the officer did not believe that either. What did not help with the defense of S. was that, in addition to successful entrepreneur and family man, he had a double life with many contacts with other women. In his attic, about twenty panties were found in plastic bags and with names of women who had slept in his Airbnb. Many general nude photos and porn were also found on his equipment.
It also responded extremely carefully to the question of the judge whether S. does not need any help. Everyone could use some help, he found dry. And the public prosecutor always saw that pattern. According to him, it was a conscious strategy of S.
Big Brotherhuis
According to the officer, the woman who found the cameras was not the first and only victim of S. That is difficult to prove and S. was not on trial on Thursday, but the see -through mirror and the hidden space were already placed and built in 2020.
The man of Turkish descent has been in custody for almost half a year. And with regard to the public prosecutor, that is not all. S. deliberately made a huge violation of the privacy of the woman in his search for sexual tension. It was as if she lived in the Big Brother House, he outlined. He therefore demanded a prison sentence of two years, one of which was conditional with a probationary period of three years.
The officer also demanded a contact ban with the woman and S. is no longer allowed to rent apartments in his probationary period as far as the officer is concerned. He did not like to demand treatment, because S. himself thinks he is nothing wrong.
The decision in this case is on 27 May.