Case study document Simonshaven

Authors: Floris Bex, Hylke Jellema, Nadine Smit, Henry Prakken.

This document contains the information on the Dutch "Simonshaven" case. This case concerns the death of Jenny Lourens, who was violently murdered in a recreational area for walking and water sports near the village of Simonshaven, close to Rotterdam, on the 11th of August 2011. The trial court of Rotterdam convicted Jenny's husband, Ed Lourens, of murdering Jenny by intentionally by hitting and/or kicking her head and strangling her. The case went to appeal, and this is what this document is about, as we present (parts of) the prosecutor's and defence's arguments as made in the appellate court. Please note that in The Netherlands the appellate court decides on a case de novo, meaning that in principle the trial is done all over again after an appeal by either the defence or the prosecution.

Relevant documents

Please note that apart from the ruling of the trial court (1st instance) none of the below documents, or the English translation of parts of them, have been made publicly available.

·         Trial Court ruling 1st instance (in Dutch)

·         Prosecutor's arguments on appeal (in Dutch, partly translated).

·         Defence's arguments on appeal (in Dutch, partly translated)

·         Appellate court's decision (in Dutch, partly translated)

 

Trial court ruling (1st instance)

We start with the trial court ruling in first instance. Below, text in italics are comments and/or summaries by the authors of this document.

 

The suspect, Ed Lourens, is officially charged as follows.

 

He has on or around August 11th 2009 killed the person named Jenny Lourens, either alone or in conspiracy with others. This murder was intentional and premeditated, because the suspect (and his accomplice(s)) have intentionally and after calm deliberation (repeatedly)

(a)    (forcefully) hit Jenny in the head/in the face (with a heavy object and/or a firearm or an object resembling a firearm), and/or

(b)    kicked/stomped Jenny in the head and/or neck with a shoe-covered foot, and/or

(c)    choked Jenny by pressing her neck and/or throat

causing her death.

 

In its ruling of 30-11-2012, the trial court argues that the charge can be proven except for premeditation, and hence convicts Ed Lourens of manslaughter, giving the following motivation.

 

On August 11th 2009, a dead woman, later turning out to be Jenny Lourens, is found in a recreation area near Simonshaven. Her (ex-)partner, the suspect, called his daughter-in-law in panic shortly before. When the son of the suspect arrives on the spot with the daughter-in-law, they find Jenny in a pool of blood. The autopsy showed that she deceased as a result of violent crashing impacts on her head and face, as if she was hit several times with a heavy and possibly edged object. On Ed's shoes bloodstains were found, which on examination by the Dutch Forensic Institute (NFI) turned out to be of the victim.

 

Ed stated that he and Jenny were walking in the recreation area when a man jumped out of a side path and violently attacked them. The Ed ended up on the ground and when he stood up he saw Jenny lying on the ground as well. He grabbed her and screamed but she did not respond. He then called his daughter, walked to the road and stopped a car.

 

The police has extensively studied the scenario outlined by the suspect. Many witnesses were questioned who had that evening walked, cycled or travelled by car in the vicinity of the crime scene. However, no one has supported the reading of the suspect that a third party would have committed the crime, and other findings of the police do not support this scenario either.

 

After his first brief statements, Ed has explained almost nothing and has not given any details about the man who allegedly attacked them. In addition, the suspect also remains silent on other, less essential questions in the case, and all this while the suspect's own reading of the case raises many questions. It is unclear why he did call his daughter to say that there was something wrong with Jenny, but did not call the emergency number. It is further important that Ed, contrary to what he suggests in his statement, did not stop a car immediately after the telephone conversation with his daughter, but only about forty minutes later. This while several cars passed in the intervening period, according to the various witness statements. It is also notable that the suspect was only superficially wounded (three small cuts, the largest 1.5 to 0.5 centimetres) while Jenny was killed by brute force. Furthermore, the clothes of the suspect did not show any signs of a struggle and both he and the victim still had their money and jewellery after the attack. In addition, questions are raised by the fact that Ed, although the victim was very badly bruised and her face and head were covered in blood, said he saw nothing special about her after the alleged attack had occurred. It is also noteworthy that the suspect did not enquire as to the condition of his (ex-)partner until 2 hours after the first questioning had started. The accused was repeatedly questioned about these points and given the opportunity to clarify but has explained virtually nothing.

 

Given this, and given the aforementioned lack of any objective support for the statement of the accused, this statement lacks, therefore, any plausibility.

 

Moreover, the argument put forward on behalf of the accused that he physically cannot be deemed able to exercise violence must be rejected. Observers noted that in August 2010 they saw the suspect perform repairs on a car, carry a car-part and operate a car-jack. Furthermore, the trial court declares as proven an attempt of the suspect to inflict serious injury in May 2012, when he repeatedly stabbed his cousin in the shoulder, back and arm with a screwdriver.[1] In view of this, the trial court argues that that the physical condition of the suspect is not such that he cannot express himself violently. Even more so since the report of prof. Dr. F.J.G. Bexkens does not rule out that the suspect applied repetitive violence with hand and foot to the head of the victim. (to be clear, the trial court has left Drs. J. Boom's reports completely out of consideration now that the suspect has not been examined by him).

 

Because Ed was in the immediate vicinity of Jenny at the time she was violently attacked, Jenny's blood spatters from the victim were found on Ed's shoes, and because it cannot be established that someone else was even near the crime scene and that the alternative reading given by the suspect is in any way plausible, the trial court considers it legally and convincingly proven that Ed is guilty of manslaughter on the victim, Jenny Lourens.

 

In view of the above, all other defences are left out of discussion. This also applies to the defence that was made concerning the "shooting hands", as these are not used as evidence.

 

In addition, the trial court discussed two points that the defence brought up to argue for the dismissal of the case. These points, while being largely about legal specifics, have some bearing on the evidential part of the case, and they are summarized below.

The first point was that the prosecutor appointed a forensics expert, who gave a presentation at the Public Prosecution Service (without the defence knowing this) and who did not write a report on his findings. The defence argues that they thus had less information than the prosecutor, and that thus it was impossible to check whether the prosecutor in any way influenced the expert. The trial court argues that this does not hold, since there is no significant difference between the findings presented to all parties (on Nov 20th 2009) and the findings presented to the prosecutor only (June 2011).

The second point was that Ed Lourens was heard as a witness, not as a suspect, and therefore did not receive the appropriate cautions and did not had access to a lawyer. The trial court argues that when Ed was first heard by police, on 12 August just after midnight, it was not evident that Ed was the suspect, also given the fact that he said he and Jenny had been robbed. Furthermore, Ed also reiterated his first nightly statement after he was marked as a suspect (12 Aug 19:16), and later (18 Aug) again stated that his first statement was the one he would stick to. So the suspect stuck with his earlier statement after consulting a lawyer, which makes the first statement admissible even if it was obtained with Ed in the role of a witness rather than a suspect.

Appellate Court Decision

Page 26-46 of the decision of the appellate court - the part which is about the evidence and proof in the case - has been translated.

 

Evidence

The court bases its belief that the suspect has committed the proved counts on the facts and circumstances which are included in the evidence and which give reason for the statement of proof.

In those cases where the law requires additions to the judgement of evidence, or, applying article 359 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a reference of this, they will be added as an appendix to this judgement.

Unlawfully obtained evidence

The lawyer of the accused has during the hearing of the appeal - corresponding with the by him discussed and in the file attached pleading - argued that actions have been taken contrary to what is stated in Articles 61a and 62a Sv, given that that there was no order grounding the collection of the shooting hands.

To the extent that the court finds that the suspect was not seen as a suspect at the time the shooting hands were collected, it did not appear that the suspect - whether or not implicitly - has given consent for the collection. Police officers could, given the condition the suspect was in (injured, confused, and in shock), not assume that the suspect was able to make informed decisions. This should lead to the exclusion of the evidence containing all results that have been obtained by the collection of the shooting hands.

The court is considering the issue as follows.

As already considered with regards to the acceptability of the Public Prosecution in prosecuting the suspect, the court believes that the suspect was seen as a witness at the time of the collection of the shooting hands. The Articles 61a and 62a Sv were therefore not applicable when collecting the shooting hands. Furthermore, it has not been stated nor been shown that the suspect had, at any point, objected or wanted to object the collection of the shooting hands. It has not made plausible any other way that this has happened against his will. The court refers to what has been considered previously in this judgement. It has also not been made plausible that the suspect was confused to such extent that he was not capable to determine his opinion with regards to collecting the shooting hands. The court thereby takes into account that some time had passed between securing the shooting hands and collecting the evidence from them, and that there are none or insufficient indicators that the suspect was still confused at the time of the collection of the shooting hands. The court therefore argues that the collection of the shooting hands was done lawfully and that the results coming from this collection can be used as evidence.

The court rejects the defence of the lawyer that led to another conclusion.

Reliability of the witness statements

The defence has - according to the pleadings discussed at the trial on January 23rd, 2015 and attached in the case file - the view that the statements of the witnesses [witness 14], [witness 19], [witness 2], and [witness 3] cannot be used as evidence. The defence put forward the following.

Based on the viewing of the crime scene by the trial court on September 7, 2010, whereby attention was paid to the observations made by the previously mentioned witnesses, it cannot be excluded that the statements of the witnesses have been affected by what they have heard from the media about the crime or about the knowledge that at the specific location it happens more often that people park there car there to have sexual intercourse.

To the extent that the court considers that the previously mentioned witness statements can be used as evidence, the suspect's lawyer requested to question the witnesses [witness 2] and [witness 3] once more, as well as to view the crime scene whereby the court can decide for themselves whether the witnesses could have seen what they have stated.

The court is considering the issue as follows

It follows from the statements of [witness 19] which have been given at the police and stated to the judge that, when they cycled on August 11, 2009 around 19:45-20:00 via Zuidland in the direction of Simonshaven, they saw on a parking lot an (old) black Mercedes. [witness 14] then noticed a blond person sitting on the back seat behind the driver's seat.

The witness [witness 3] testified to the police that he was riding past his son's house on the Schuddebeursedijk on August 11, 2009, around 20:00, when he noticed a Mercedes on the parking lot. Two people were sitting on the back seat, and the witness thought they were having sexual intercourse. The back door on the driver's side was open.

The witness [witness 2] stated that when he was driving his tractor from his house on the Schuddebeursedijk in Spijkenisse towards the Bernisse Spuidijk on August 11, 2009, around 19:30, he saw a Mercedes on the parking lot. He saw a blonde woman on the back seat with a hand on each side of her. [witness 2] assumed that the hands belonged to a man who was having sexual intercourse with the woman. The door on the driver's side was open.

That the trial court during the crime scene visit, which happened on September 7th, 2010 at 16:00, concluded that it cannot be determined from the public road around and in front of the path leading towards the parking lot at the Bernisse Spuidijk, whether there is a person in the car or whether the door is open, and that it can only be seen that a person is moving around in the car, does not impact the previously stated witness statements. Thereby the court considers it important that the witnesses [witness 3] and [witness 2] and another made their observations from a different location than where the court visit was, namely on the Schuddebeursedijk going to the direction of the Bernisse Spuidijk. The time (and therefore assuming the light and shadow conditions) at which the court made their observations were also significantly different from the time at which the witnesses made their observations.

The court also considers that the witnesses made their statements shortly after the crime was committed, and that they do not differ in essence from what they have stated later in front of the councillor, and that their statements contain extensive details.

The court subsequently finds that the witness statements of [witness 19] and [witness 14] find support in those of [witness 3] and [witness 2].

Given the aforementioned, the court holds the opinion that what was observed during the crime scene visit by the court does not stand in the way of assuming the reliability of what it is the witnesses [witness 19], [witness 14], [witness 2], and [witness 3] have stated. The court therefore holds the opinion that the previously mentioned witness statements can be seen as reliable and therefore can be used as evidence.

The court rejects the defence of the lawyer of the suspect.

Given what has been considered previously, the court does not think it is necessary to interview the witnesses [witness 3] and [witness 2] again. Given that the need for this has also not been made clear, the court rejects the request to hear these witnesses again. For the same reason, the court does not think it is necessary to perform another crime scene visit.

Consideration of the evidence

The lawyer of the accused argued at the appeal hearing of January 23rd, 2015 - corresponding to the discussed and attached pleadings - that the suspect should be acquitted of the alleged crimes. He argued that the suspect has stated that he and the victim were robbed during a walk by a man who jumped out of the bushes, after which he saw the victim lying beside him when he got up, after he was apparently hit. This statement is plausible, or at least cannot be excluded beyond reasonable doubt, given some of the research findings which point towards the presence or (an) other(s) or match with the statement given by the suspect. It has also appeared that the suspect was physically not capable to exert the force applied to the victim, according to the lawyer.

The court considers the following.

A. Facts and circumstances

Based on the presented evidence and the discussed points at the appeal hearing, the court assumes the following facts and circumstances.

a. The crime scene

On August 11, 2009, around 21.09, police officers arrive at a parking lot located on the Schuddebeursedijk at Simonshaven. There, they find the suspect lying down behind a car. There are multiple blood spatters and blood smears on his face. He also has a wound on his forehead and is heavily shaking. Shortly after, the police officers find the remains of the victim Lourens in the woods on the path, about 100m from the parking lot.

It follows from the forensic examination of the crime scene that the victim was lying on the path in the woods that heads in a northern direction, located near the first intersection. She was lying on her back, with her body facing in a northern direction. The victim had a bloody face and was lying in a pool of blood which had originated from her head. There was also a visible injury on the neck of the victim where she was wearing a necklace. The investigation of the crime scene also showed that force was applied to her neck when she was alive, and that the victim died at the location of where she was found. Both near the head of the victim as well as on the forest path (about 10 meter away from the victim in a northern direction), 7.65 mm cartridges were found. Additionally, three cigarette butts were found closely together near the victim.

The autopsy showed that the victim died as a result of repeated external force on the body whilst being alive. The pathologist established the following injuries:

-        Impression fractures on the skull, as well as a crushed frontal and base of the skull. These have been the result of repeated external force applied to the head and face whilst being alive, which can fit with repeated beating with a heavy and possibly edged object;

-        Typical injuries to the extensor side of the right wrist, as a result of crashing violence whilst being alive (for example, hitting), presumably with an edged object;

-        A fracture of both top horns of the larynx and of the major horn of the hyoid bone, as well as accompanying bruises in the neck muscles as a result of compressive and/or strapping force onto the neck whilst being alive (as, for example, can happen due to strangulation).

b. Findings of further forensic examinations

Later that night, the clothing and shoes of the suspect were collected in the hospital and shooting hands were taken. Extensive further investigations were performed on this evidence as well as on traces from the body of the victim.

It emerged that gunshot residue was found on the skull of the victim, which, according to the expert, could be the result of firing a weapon in close proximity of the head of the victim or by contact (for example by hitting) between the head and a firearm.

On the face of the victim, distinctive V-shaped and linear configurations have been observed. Furthermore, at least 10 thin linear red skin discolorations in a parallel arrangement were seen on the right cheek. These findings have been interpreted as that they could have arisen because the object which was used to apply force to the face (such as a shoe or weapon) made an imprint on the body.

Further examination of one of the linear patterns on the face of the victim have showed that a similar scratch track can be caused, inter alia, by the point-like profile of the butt plate of a firearm or by the ribbed part on the slide of a firearm.

The police subsequently conducted further forensic investigations into the possible cause of certain traces in the face of the victim. In doing so, the police used a pistol of the brand FEG, on which a silencer can be screwed. Such a gun can, after mounting another barrel, be used to fire 7.65 mm cartridges.

This investigation has shown that the parallel scratches in the face of the victim show considerable similarities with the structure of a butt plate portion or of the bottom of the firearm selected by the police. The shape of the injury on the arm of the victim does also correspond to a projection of the barrel opening of that weapon. The conclusion is that the selected firearm, or another weapon that is similar in terms of size and looks, qualifies as the cause of the traces.

The two bullet cartridges found at the crime scene appear to be from the same brand, the same colour (brass), and the same calibre (7.65 mm). The bullet cartridges were provided with the production year code 1984 and 1985 respectively. The side of the shell casing of one of the cartridges showed an dimple, which could be the result of a malfunction during loading or unloading of the cartridge in a firearm. Both cartridges were both loaded at least once in a firearm. There is belief beyond reasonable doubt that they were loaded in the same firearm. On one of these cartridges, the DNA of an unknown male was found.

Gunshot residue analysis has shown that the samples taken from the hands of both the victim as well as the suspect contain so-called a-particles that show an almost certain relationship with a shooting process. Additionally, on the front of the trousers worn by the suspect that evening (as well as in the right pocket of these trousers), such a-particles were found, as well as on the lower half of his shirt.

On the right cuff, right forearm, and on the front- and back panels of the shirt of the suspect, various blood stains and spots and other biological traces were found. Contact- or smear traces of blood were also found on this watch. DNA analysis shows that a large part of the DNA profiles of theses traces match with the DNA profile of the suspect. However, another part of the DNA profiles matches with the DNA of the victim. More specifically, these are the DNA profiles from the stains on the right cuff of the shirt, on the trousers, and on the top and sole of the left shoe of the suspect.

It follows from the blood pattern analysis that the left shoe of the suspect contain blood spatters, which contain the DNA profile which matches with that of the victim, whereby the probability that the DNA profile corresponds to that of a random other person is one in one billion. The conclusion has also been drawn that the detected blood spatter fit with exercising at least one act of force in liquid blood such as 1) violence and 2) secondary-formed blood spatter as a result of splashing (passive) blood in close proximity of the left shoe (for example coming from an injury) as (the court reads: and) by exercising at least one act of force in liquid blood such as 3) exhaling liquid blood. It has also been stated that the wearer of the shoe has to be in an (unable to specify) relative close proximity of the source of the liquid blood at the time of the formation of the spatters. At the trial hearing, the expert indicated that a "short distance" corresponds to about 1 to 1.5 meters.

The NFI expert also conducted comparative DNA analysis on the three cigarette butts found in close proximity to the victim. The results show that all three contain a DNA profile which matches that of the suspect. The probability that a random person has a DNA profile that corresponds to the obtained profile is been calculated by the NFI expert as being smaller than one in one billion.

c. Witnesses at the crime scene

When the police arrived at the scene, they find, among others, witness Colleen Jansen at the parking lot. She is the daughter-in-law of the suspect and the victim. She stated that the suspect had called her multiple times that evening, what appears later to be at 20:20, 20:29, 20:34, and 20:42, and that he was very upset at those times. Eventually, de Jong understood that the suspect was in Simonshaven on the location where she and the victim often walk the dog. She then drove to Simonshaven together with Jack Lourens, the son of the suspect and victim. When they arrived, they noticed the suspect waving at the start of the parking lot. She noticed that the head of the suspect was bleeding and that he had a swelling on his head. After she got out of the car and took care of the suspect, he told her that a man had jumped out of the bushes who hit him on the head, and that he saw her mother-in-law laying on the ground after he woke up.

The witnesses [witness K] and [witness B] are also present on the parking lot. In short, they stated that they, when they were driving in a company car on the dyke along the pumping station towards the small ferry at Hekelingen, they saw a man standing at the parking lot who was waving, around 21:00. The man had a wound on his head. After they pulled over, they heard the man call "ambulance, ambulance". They called 112. The man was walking around being confused and panicking. Meanwhile, a dark blue Mercedes appeared and a woman got out who sat down on the ground next to the man. Another guy got out of the car who was very upset.

B. Other circumstances

Jack Lourens, a son of the suspect and the victim, stated on August 12, 2009 towards the police that the suspect and the victim separated a few months before this happened. The victim moved in with him, and the suspect moved in with the oldest brother (of Jack Lourens). Among other material, it follows from the statement of another son of the suspect and the victim, Fin Lourens, that the victim did not want to continue the relationship with the suspect and they agreed that they would break down their relationship slowly from mid July 2009. The victim was also dating other men. The brother of the victim, Felix Lourens, stated that the suspect knew that she had a relationship with a man named Ron.

Furthermore, some family members and friends of the victim and suspect stated that the suspect threatened the victim multiple times. He, according to the son Jack Lourens, had always said: "if anything happens, I will take you with me", and also said that he would ruin her. The brother of the victim, Felix Lourens, stated that the suspect always shouted towards the victim that "if you leave me, I will kill you". The witness Killiam stated that the victim had told him that the suspect put his hands around her neck several times, and on one occasion applied so much force that the victim had blue/black marks in her neck, as observed by witnesses.

It also follows from the statements of various family members that the suspect has been associated with the possession of firearms multiple times. Son Frank Lourens stated in 2009 that he knew for sure that his father owned a firearm a few years before this, and that is father had always had a firearm after he had been shot in his knee. Son Jack Lourens stated that mid 2008 he saw 3 loaded guns under the bed of the suspect, including a pistol. Jack Lourens stated at the time about the pistol that the handle had diagonal stripes. He also stated that he knows that the suspect had similar cartridges based on calibre and colour, as those that were found on the crime scene and that the suspect had these cartridges in his gun. The sister of the victim Franka Lourens stated that she had noticed a small black firearm in the trunk of the Mercedes of the suspect in the period mid-end 2008.

C. The statement of the suspect

The suspect stated to the police on August 12, 2009, as a witness, that he went for a walk with his wife in the woods of Simonshaven on August 11, 2009. They were walking arm in arm, she walked on the right side and he on the left, both carrying a cigarette in their hand. They were walking on the so-called Teerpad; a route that would normally take them about an hour while chatting. When they were heading back to the parking lot, a man suddenly jumped out of the bushes; the man did not say anything and just started randomly hitting around. The man was white, between 1.67m and 180m and a bulky stature, was wearing a dark-coloured baseball hat and did not have a beard or moustache. The suspect did not feel that he was hit by the man, but he did have to crawl up from the ground. His head was hurting and he noticed that his head was bleeding. He was also seeing stars.

After he got up, he saw his wife lying beside him. He grabbed her hand, but she did not respond. He did not see anything special on her. He subsequently called his daughter-in-law with his mobile phone and told her that an accident had happened or that they were robbed. After this he walked towards the road and stopped a car.

During the interrogation by the police on August 12, 2009 and to the judge on August 18, 2009, at which he was considered a suspect, he confirmed this statement that he gave while being a witness. In every interrogation that followed about the facts and circumstances, which include the interrogations during the hearing and the appeal the suspect invoked his right to remain silence each time and thereby refused to answer questions about what happened or provide a statement about this.

D. The court's ruling

a. Alternative scenario

The defence states that the statement of the suspect, described above under 'C', is plausible or cannot be excluded beyond reasonable doubt. The lawyer pointed thereby to several circumstances which can point towards the involvement of (an) other(s):

-        The map with the marks which was confiscated in the TGO Zaman and the encountering of the pit near the crime scene;

-        Finding the DNA profile of an unknown man on one of the cartridges found on the crime scene;

-        The police officers hearing sounds in the woods near the crime scene.

Possible involvement of Perry Sultan and/or Tom Seelen

As described previously, a map with marks was found during the search of the house of Perry Sultan in the case TGO Zaman. One of the marks was placed in the Simonsbos near Simonshaven, the location where the victim Jenny Lourens was found.

In response to this, as well as to the comparison with some other aspects in the cases in TGO Zaman and the present case (TGO Simon), further investigations were done into the possible involvement of Perry Sultan and/or Tom Seelen in the death of the victim.

In that context, on Thursday October 13, 2013, the police collaborated with military personnel in an investigation to understand the meaning of the mark on the map. A man-made pit was found during this investigation. Based on the marks, it was evident that a shovel was used and that this pit had the character of a hiding place.

In order to establish in which period this pit was dug, further research was conducted by experts of the NFI into the non-humane biological traces, which were found directly next to the hut or hiding place. This further research has shown that the pit was dug between the autumn of 2008 and the autumn of 2010. The observation of a food wrapper with an expiration date of "08/10/09" thereby suggests that the pit was dug before this date in 2009. However, this pit is not suitable for a long-term stay due to the water-permeable peat-layer and the relatively high groundwater level.

No traces were found in or near the pit which point towards the involvement or stay of Perry Sultan or Tom Seelen. No other leads have come to the surface that the mark was placed on the map by Perry Sultan or Tom Seelen in order to mark a crime scene.

Perry Sultan and Tom Seelen have been heard as witnesses in the current case by the judge. Both deny any involvement in the discussed crime and deny being present in the Simonsbos in Bernisse at that time.

Additionally, the DNA profiles extracted from traces found on the cartridges from the crime scene and on the clothes and body of the victims do not match that of Perry Sultan and Tom Seelen. It also follows from comparative DNA- and hair analyses between blonde hairs found in the home of Perry Sultan and the hair of the victim that the observed blonde hairs are not from the victim Jenny Lourens.

It was also investigated to what extent the metal pipe used by Perry Sultan and/or Tom Seelen in other crimes fits with the facial wounds observed on the victim Jenny Lourens. It was concluded that there is insufficient or no similarity between the wound on the victim (on the right cheek at the jawline and further up the cheek, and on the right lower arm/wrist) and the shape and physical properties of the specific metal pipe.

Further research shows that none of the phone numbers and/or IMEI-numbers, or any other number associated with the suspects Perry Sultan and/or Tom Seelen was linked to the cell towers around the crime scene of TGO Simon between 18:00 and 21:00 on August 11, 2009.

Lastly, the description given by the suspect about the robber, a white man with a bulky stature and a round face, between 1.67m and 180m, does in the opinion of the court not match that of Perry Sultan or Tom Seelen. Officer Borgsma describes Perry Sultan on November 18, 2013, as a southern-European, with a normal/slim/skinny posture and 1.72m in length. With regards to Tom Seelen, it follows from an email attached to the file by the lawyer on January 15,2015, that his description given on November 4, 2009, was: a white man with a normal posture and 1.82m in length.

Given the aforementioned, the court does not think it is likely that Perry Sultan and/or Tom Seelen were (or could have been) involved in the violent death of the victim Jenny Lourens.

Involvement of an unknown third person

A bullet cartridge was found on the crime scene containing a DNA-profile which does not match that of the suspect. Following this, extensive DNA-comparison analyses have taken place whereby the DNA profiles of many people including witnesses, family members of the suspect and as stated previously Perry Sultan and Tom Seelen, were involved. The DNA profile on the bullet cartridge was also compared the DNA profiles in the DNA-database of the NFI. None of these analyses have resulted in a match with the DNA on the bullet cartridge. It therefore has to be stated that the DNA-profile is from a, to this day, unknown person.

In contrast to the opinion of the lawyer, the court holds the opinion that the presence of this DNA profile on the bullet cartridge does on its own not contribute to making it more or less likely that the unknown donor of the trace was also at the crime scene, and even less that this person killed the victim. The court considers here that a bullet cartridge is not a spatially fixed object and therefore argues that the DNA of the unknown person could also have transferred during another time and at another place. The court also considers the fact that the cartridge was apparently manufactured in 1984 and that therefore there was a long period in which people (for example, during the sale or loading of the cartridge into the magazine) could have been in contact with the specific cartridge.

With regards to the rustling of the bushes that was heard by the two police officers near the crime scene while guarding this scene, the court considers the fact that the police officers heard this sound sometime after the crime had happened. Based on the timings before the police officers arrived at the scene and the work they did before they started guarding the crime scene, the court concluded that the police officers heard the sound at least an hour after the crime happened. The court also believes it is important that it did not become clear during and after that night what had caused the sound. Police officer Ridder states to the judge that she heard something move which was bigger than a rabbit. Ridder thought that there was a person there. Police officer Aaltens was also heard by the judge and states that it could have been the case that someone was lying there, or that an apple fell, or that there was a hog.

The thought that there would be an unknown person in the woods at that time is – even after a (limited) investigation with a thermographic camera – not confirmed by any other visual observation. The court therefore holds the opinion that it cannot be established that the rustling of the bushes was caused by a human. Other possibilities remain. Even assuming that there was a person in the woods, based on the results of the forensic investigation and the lack of any other visual observations, there are insufficient indications that this unknown person was involved in the crime discussed here.

Based on the above, the court holds the opinion that finding the unknown DNA profile on the cartridge and hearing the rustling in the bushes, either in combination and in relation to other results of the investigation, does not (or at least insufficiently) make it likely that (an) other(s) than the suspect (was) were involved in the crime.

b. The statement of the suspect

Based on the facts and circumstances established by the court under A, the court believes that there are multiple circumstances that require further explanation by the suspect:

-        Not notifying the emergency services or asking someone to do so.

40 minutes passed between the call to the daughter-in-law and the call to the emergency services. It requires an explanation by the suspect why he did not call 112 himself in the meantime, why he did not ask his daughter-in-law, who he called four times in this time span, to call the emergency services, and why he did not approach people passing by. The suspect did not want to answer any questions or provide any statements about this other than that he was doing something with his phone but that he was unable to call 112.

-        The presence of gunshot residue on the hands of the suspect, and on the front and right pocket of his trousers.
Established is that the wounds on the skull of the victim were caused by extreme force applied to the head whilst she was still alive, which fits with multiple hits with a heavy, edgy, object. Gunshot residue was found in the skull of the victim, which could have ended up there by getting hit with a firearm. Additionally, gunshot residue was found on the hands of the victim. Witnesses have stated that the suspect possessed firearms and bullets.
Based on this, the court believes that the observation of the gunshot residue on the hands and trousers of the suspect, which do not seem to fit with the scenario given by the suspect, require a further explanation by the suspect. The suspect, however, did not want to provide any further information about this or answer any questions.

-        Finding the three cigarette butts very close together and close to the body of the victim, all containing a DNA profile which fully matches that of the suspect.
These butts suggest that the suspect had been smoking three cigarettes on the location where the deceased body of the victim was found. It seems unlikely that he did this before he and the suspect were attacked, as, according to the suspect, they were walking back to the parking lot when a man suddenly jumped out of the bushes. It seems strange to smoke three cigarettes after the attack, because the suspect would have had to stand next to the heavily injured and bloody body of the victim, which does not fit with the statement of the suspect that he was extremely confused. The court therefore holds the opinion that the finding of the cigarette butts containing DNA of the suspect requires a further explanation by the suspect. The suspect, however, did not want to provide any further information about this or answer any questions.

Additionally, the court believes that the statements that were given by the suspect about several points were unbelievable or unacceptable, after these were undermined by witness statements or by other means.

For example, it follows from the statement by the suspect that they were heading back to the parking lot after a walk that would normally take them an hour. The body of the victim was found approximately 100 meters from the parking lot. It follows from multiple statements that the suspect and the victim drove to the parking lot in a dark Mercedes. The witness [witness 18] stated that he saw a dark blue car stopping on the parking lot on August 11 around 18:50, with an elderly man and woman who fits the description of the victim Jenny Lourens. The witness [witness 12] stated that between 18:50 and 19:00 that day he saw a dark Mercedes on the parking lot. Based on these statements, the court assumes that the suspect and the victim arrived on the parking lot before 19:00. The walk that the suspect talks about should have started around that time.

Multiple witnesses have however also witnessed activities in the car of the suspect on the parking lot after this time. Witnesses [witness 2] and [witness 3] have stated that they saw a dark Mercedes on the parking lot of which the back door on the driver's seat was open, between 19:30 and 20:00 respectively. They saw two people sitting on the back seat. Witness [witness 14] also stated that he saw a black Mercedes on the parking lot between 20:00 and 20:15. There was a person with blonde hair on the back seat who was not moving.

The court derives from these witness statements that the suspect and the victim were (possibly again) in the Mercedes at a time at which they were walking/walking back according to the statement of the suspect. The suspect, however, did not want to provide any further information about this or answer any questions.

The suspect also stated that he, after he was hit, stood up, saw his wife next to him, but she did not respond. The suspect stated that at that moment he did not see "anything special about her". Given the extensive wounds and the significant amount of blood that were observed on the victim, the court cannot classify this statement anything except unbelievable.

The suspect subsequently stated that he and the victim were robbed. In every-day speech, this implies theft by using force. It is however unclear if that is what the suspect had meant here. It is clear that no jewellery was taken from the victim although she was wearing some. The golden necklace and the bracelet from the suspect were also not taken. The suspect, while he was taken to hospital that evening, still possessed at least his phone and five notes of €50. The court holds the opinion that these facts make it unacceptable that a robbery had taken place with the aim of taking goods and money from the suspect and/or victim, and any other reason for a robbery by a third person is also not considered likely. The suspect himself stated that he would not know who would want to harm him.

c. The suspect's wounds

The court establishes that the small wound on the suspect, i.e. a small wound on his forehead of 1 by 0.5 cm and on the back of the thumb of 1.5 by 0.5 cm, are not in proportion with the extreme injuries found on the victim.

d. Physical capabilities of the suspect

The defence argued that the suspect was physically not capable to apply the force on the victim, since he has heart problems and emphysema. It follows from the statement of a son of the suspect, F. Lourens, that he can do anything anyone else can do if he takes his medication. The court thinks it is important that the suspect stated that he had taken additional medication on August 11, 2011. Police observers saw him lifting objects in a car company which weigh at least several kilo's. Additionally, the expert Prof. Bexkens reported on September 30, 2010, that the suspect, despite his evident physical limitations, could have repetitively applied force with his hand against the head of the victim.

Given this, the court assumes that the suspect was physically capable of applying force to the victim. The defence given by the lawyer which results in another conclusion is rejected.

 

e. Conclusion

The court derives from the evidence that:

-        The victim died on August 11, 2009, in the Simonsbos at Simonshaven as a result of repeated external force on the body whilst being alive;

-        Severe injuries were found on the face and skull of the victim, which fits with multiple blows using a heavy and possibly edgy object;

-        Additional injuries were found on the neck of the victim, which could be the result of strangulation;

-        The victim was in the Simonsbos at Simonshaven on August 11, 2009, together with the suspect;

-        The suspect was in close proximity of the victim when force was applied to her which resulted in her death;

-        Given the presence of gunshot residue on the skull and clothes of the victim, the characteristics of the injuries in the face and skull and the similarities of those characteristics with the injuries and traces that could be the result of beating with a pistol, as well as finding two similar cartridges near the crime scene, it should be considered most likely that the injuries on the victim are the result of applying force using a firearm;

-        Gunshot residue was found on the hands of the suspect, as well as on the front of his trousers and shirt, and on the right pocket of his trousers;

-        Blood of the victim was found on the right cuff of the shirt of the suspect;

-        The suspect was in the possession of multiple firearms at a certain moment before August 11, 2009, including a pistol with munition;

-        Given the description of this pistol by a witness, the pistol can be the cause of the multiple injuries found on the victim;

-        According to the same witness, the cartridges belonging to this pistol match those found on the crime scene based on colour and calibre;

-        The victim and the suspect had problems in their relationship and were not living together any longer;

-        The suspect knew that the victim was in touch with another man;

-        The suspect had threatened the victim multiple times in the period before August 11, 2009, where he had said things including "if you leave me I will kill you";

-        The suspect had squeezed the victim in her neck on one occasion before August 11, 2011 to such an extent that the bruises could be seen by others, and on another occasion in a remote location he did put his hands around her neck.

Based on the above the court believes that it is proven that the suspect committed the crime.

The court holds the opinion that this conclusion is supported by the fact that the suspect did not give any reasonable explanation for several circumstances, including those under D sub b, which are together with the facts and circumstances established by the court, are the reason for the evidence for the crime. The explanations that the suspect did provide are seen by the court as unreasonable.

The court believes that it has not become reasonable that (an) other(s) than the suspect would be responsible for the violence perpetrated on the victim, neither that the suspect has committed the crime with someone else.

Given the foregoing, the court believes that it has been proven lawfully and convincingly that the suspect has committed the crime [manslaughter].


[1] This was also included in the court documents and deemed proven on the basis of the cousin's statement that was supported by 3 separate witness statements.