Suspicions

Before police investigating the rape and murder of Nienke Kleiss and attempted murder of Maikel Willebrand ‘discovered’ Kees Borsboom as a suspect, they believed that Willebrand was lying. The children had been playing in Beatrix Park in Schiedam. They were viciously attacked by a man. Kleiss tried to fight back, but the ten-year-old girl was no match for a homicidal Wik Haalmeijer.

Nor was the eleven-year-old Willebrand. He played dead and waited for Haalmeijer to go. Eventually he did and Willebrand sought help, which he received from passing cyclist Kees Borsboom – the man who called the police. The police did not believe Willebrand. The survivor – the crucial witness – was treated as their prime suspect. They thought that he had been too smart by playing dead.

His account did not fit the case-scenario that they had developed – a ridiculous one – so they thought that he was the perpetrator. It was absurd on every level. Willebrand was a child. There was no evidence that he had attacked his friend and there was clear scientific evidence that proved that someone else had been involved.

It was even thought by police that his injuries were self-inflicted. But then a coincidence occurred. Police discovered that their star witness Borsboom had exposed himself to a child – the child of a police officer. They decided that could not be coincidence. He becomes their prime suspect, but it was exactly that – a coincidence – a wretched one at that.

Miracle

The survivor was to all intents and purposes a defence witness, but Willebrand was marginalised. The surviving victim and therefore a key witness did not support the case hypothesis. Rather than admit that the hypothesis was the nonsense that it was subsequently proved to be, the victim/witness was marginalised and Borsboom was convicted in nearby Rotterdam.

Borsboom subsequently lost his appeal, but this was not the end of the story. Despite the indisputable evidence of innocence, he could have maintained his innocence to his dying day without being believed. It required a miracle and unusually it got one.

Both he and Willebrand would be vindicated by it. Wik Haalmeijer was arrested for two unconnected rapes. He not only admitted to those offences, but confessed to the Schiedammer Park crimes and insisted on DNA tests to prove his guilt. Nothing would induce him to withdraw his request. The DNA testing proved his guilt and also Borsboom’s innocence.

Outrage

Before police investigating the June 22^nd 2000 rape and murder of ten-year-old Nienke Kleiss and attempted murder of her eleven-year-old friend Maikel Willebrand ‘discovered’ Kees Borsboom as a suspect, they believed that Willebrand was not only lying about the terrible events, but was also responsible for them. They thought that he his account of playing dead to survive did not and could not ring true.

The investigators could not understand how a brutal killer could fail to kill him after brutally murdering Kleiss and also how an eleven-year-old child could be that cool under such pressure to outsmart the killer, but that is exactly what Willebrand did. He knew that he could not fight off a fully grown and vicious Wik Haalmeijer. He did as he was told while being attacked and then played dead.

It saved his life as Haalmeijer, believing Willebrand was dead, attacked Kleiss. After satisfying his bestial urges he left the Beatrix Park in the town of Schiedam – near Rotterdam – and allowed an innocent man to be wrongly convicted. Dutch society was shocked to the core by these crimes, but insult would soon be added to terrible injury.

Shocking

Willebrand’s account did not fit the case-scenario that the police had developed – a ridiculous one. They could not believe that the perpetrator that Willebrand described could have been so careless as to leave a witness to tell the tale. They also thought that no child could think that quickly and rationally in such horrific conditions, so Willebrand had to be lying and if he was lying, then he had to be the perpetrator.

But that was absurd on every level. Willebrand was just eleven-years-old. There was no evidence that he was capable of such depravity and brutality or was anything other than a normal child, whose childhood was ruined by the Schiedammer Park attacks and wretched investigation of those crimes.

There was no evidence that he had attacked his friend and there was clear scientific evidence that proved that someone else had been involved, but that was not enough to persuade police that their ridiculous belief that Willebrand’s injuries were self-inflicted was wrong. That required another unfortunate coincidence. Police discovered that their star witness Borsboom had exposed himself to a child – the child of a police officer.

They decided that could not be coincidence, so he became their prime suspect – another tunnel had opened, which led investigators away from the real perpetrator, Wik Haalmeijer.

Unconscionable

The Dutch criminal justice has a good reputation abroad. Even activists, when told about the now notorious Lynette White Inquiry as the battle to free the Cardiff Three was nearing its conclusion in 1992, defended it. They said that it was impossible for justice to miscarry in the Netherlands as badly as it had in the Lynette White Inquiry for example.

Their outrage was limited to a peace activist who had been sentenced to two weeks imprisonment for daubing graffiti in an American base after breaking into it. They insisted that this was sentencing him twice for the same crime and they were outraged about it.

This, they insisted, was the worst miscarriage of justice in the Netherlands at that time. But they were wrong. The Dutch system was capable of miscarrying as badly as it had in Britain – worse even.

Vicious

On June 22^nd 2000 ten-year-old Nienke Kleiss was raped and murdered in Beatrix Park in the small town of Schiedam, which is within easy commuting distance of Rotterdam. She fought hard for her life and left vital clues to identify the perpetrator, but her efforts were wasted by police and the Dutch criminal justice system for four years as justice miscarried twice.

Her eleven-year-old friend, Maikel Willebrand, with whom she had been playing, was also viciously stabbed at the same time by Wik Haalmeijer. Willebrand survived by playing dead only to be absurdly accused of having inflicted the injuries on himself to cover up his crime – the attack on Kleiss. It was an utterly ludicrous allegation and an unconscionable way to treat a child who had been the victim of a vicious attack.

DNA testing would play a large part in this inquiry. It quickly proved that Willebrand had been telling the truth that he had been attacked himself and had played no part in the rape or murder of Kleiss, but police were still not prepared to listen to him at all.

They only moved on from Willebrand when they heard about a coincidence regarding the man who then became their new prime suspect Kees Borsboom – the man who had helped Willebrand after the crimes by reporting it to the police. And even then they would not accept Willebrand’s account because the boy would not turn on the man who had helped him.

Fanciful

DNA expert Richard Eikelenboom, then working for the Netherlands Forensic Institute (FSI) developed the DNA protocols that were used in the Schiedammer Park case. He knew that Low Template DNA had produced important results, quickly realising that both Willebrand and Borsboom had nothing to do with the crimes, but he was not the Reporting Officer and Ate Kloosterman’s report was very selective.

Kloosterman told the judge that the ‘foreign’ DNA results on Kleiss’ shoe and fingernails had been deposited by a child at her school. Unknown to the court there were compelling reasons to reject that explanation. Kleiss had been playing in water just before she was attacked and the surviving victim had told police that she had scratched her assailant – time would tell that she had.

The results on the shoe and elsewhere were also the same – it would have required an incredible coincidence for all of those alleles to have been deposited at various locations innocently, but Kloosterman knew the significance of the results well or should have done. It was obvious that they had been deposited by one person and not by Kleiss’ classmates. They had the DNA of the real perpetrator – enough to eliminate the entirely innocent Borsboom, but selective disclosure prevented that from happening.