Lawyer: "Not convincingly proven that Holleeder is behind murders"

Willem Holleeder's lawyers tried on Thursday to make it clear that the alleged victims of their clients also had conflicts with other criminals. According to his lawyers, seeing Holleeder as the perpetrator is too short-sighted.


Willem Holleeder's lawyers tried on Thursday to make it clear that the alleged victims of their clients also had conflicts with other criminals. According to his lawyers, seeing Holleeder as the perpetrator is too short-sighted.

It was Thursday the fourth day of the plea by Sander Janssen and Robert Malewicz. Holleeder's lawyers discussed the attack and eventual murder of John Mieremet and the liquidations of Kees Houtman and Thomas van der Bijl.

According to the Public Prosecution Service, these murders and attempted attempts were carried out on behalf of Holleeder, who, according to the prosecutors, also had a clear motive for this.

Janssen is surprised about the certainty of the judiciary. The OM did not mention the alternative scenarios for those who could be behind the murders in the requisite case. Neither was it specified how justice turned out to be the perpetrator at Holleeder.

Lawyer Holleeder points to conflicts in the criminal environment

Janssen pointed out, among other things, the high conflict in the criminal environment of the late nineties. On the one hand there was the duo Sam Klepper and John Mieremet and on the other hand the Serbian criminal Sreten Jocic. Klepper was murdered in 2000 and according to Janssen, everything indicates that Jocic is the perpetrator.

The lawyer also finds it plausible that the same Jocic is behind the attack on Mieremet in 2002 than Holleeder. "Honestly admitted," I cannot prove, "says Janssen." But assuming that Holleeder is behind it on the basis of only statements, that is not possible in my view. "

83

Holleeder is on trial for these crimes and they were committed here

Defense challenges the motive for the murder of Houtman

Janssen also does not see Holleeder's hand in the order for the assassination of Kees Houtman in 2005. Holleeder extorted Houtman and the conflict over real estate in Amsterdam that was brought forward by the OM as a motive, Janssen questioned.

Holleeder was irrevocably convicted in 2009 for extorting Houtman in 2004 for an amount of 1 million euros, but according to Janssen, crucial statements were missing in that file. The lawyer does not want to imply anything about the lack of those testimonials, but he finds it "remarkable".

Those statements meant that Houtman still had an account open and therefore had to pay. It is not true that Holleeder Houtman would have imposed a 'fine' because he wanted to buy property that Holleeder did not like.

With the alleged purchase of a building in Amsterdam's Scheldestraat by Houtman, money would flow to John Mieremet. And Holleeder would have considered that treason. "But that property was sold to a real estate company. So this conflict could not have existed," said Janssen.

See also: Holleeder insists: "No problems with Houtman and Van der Bijl"

Holleeder no reason to kill Van der Bijl

When it comes to the murder of Thomas van der Bijl, Janssen misses the motive for Holleeder. "Because Van der Bijl spoke to the police?", The lawyer wondered aloud. "But what was the danger in those statements? He held Holleeder responsible for the murder of Cor van Hout, but did not provide any evidence for this."

The lawyer told the court that Van der Bijl was arrested by the police a month before his death (in March 2006) because he was driving a bus containing 800 kilos of hashish. "And in total 40,000 kilos were seized," said Janssen.

Van der Bijl was released quickly, because at that time he had already agreed with the judiciary to testify against Holleeder. "And who says that the criminal gang behind those drugs did not think Van der Bijl talked about them with the police and was therefore released quickly?", Janssen asked.

See also: "Willem Holleeder said that Endstra and Van der Bijl would die"

The role of others than Holleeder cannot be excluded

The lawyer tried to make clear that a role of them as a client for the liquidation of Van der Bijl cannot be excluded.

An assignment that was given to Fred Ros via Dino Soerel, "but where Holleeder's name did not fall," said Janssen. "And so you have to do it as a court with only statements."

Friday's final day of defense

On Friday, the defense will respond to the suspicion that Holleeder was part of a criminal organization together with Soerel and Stanley Hillis.

Holleeder's lawyers will conclude with the request for acquittal.

See also: OM demands life imprisonment against Willem Holleeder

ref: nunl