How does the court view lying key witness in swimming pool murder ruling? | Crime

“I also understand that Jan’s relatives really hate us and feel hatred. I would probably have thought the same after all those stories. But please believe me, we have nothing to do with this.”

These are the words of Marcel H., one of the main suspects in this case. Together with his sister Monique, he is seen as the mastermind behind the murder of Elzinga, Monique’s partner. Their mother Coby van der L. is also said to have played a role in the murder.

Marcel H. summarizes well in his words how difficult this case must be for the court. Because it is known that the key witness in this case lied. But did he also lie about the involvement of Elzinga’s in-laws in the murder? Or are the testimonies actually sufficient for a conviction?

First let’s go back to 2012. On July 10 of that year, forty-year-old Elzinga was shot dead in front of the swimming pool in Marum in Groningen. Shortly afterwards, a suspect is arrested: Pascal E. This man quickly confesses that he was the shooter and that he did this on the orders of Willem P., the later key witness.

E. explains to the police that he shot Elzinga because he was told that Elzinga would abuse his wife. E. therefore pulls the trigger in the early morning for a total of 15,000 euros. Elzinga dies on the spot.

The in-laws are already in the picture as a suspect, but because P. remains silent, the Public Prosecution Service has too little to prosecute the three. That changes five years later. Both E. and P. have been definitively convicted of involvement in the murder when the latter decides to talk. He wants a deal as a key witness and identifies the in-laws as the ones who ordered the murder.

To reinforce his story, P. shows the justice department that he is in contact with Marcel H. This story later turns out to be only partly true. There is indeed contact between the two, but the messages in which H. admits his role in Elzinga’s murder have been falsified. P. put together the messages himself, but the judiciary did not realize this.

Only in 2021 will it become clear that the key witness lied. How should this be dealt with now?

According to the judges, the social interests and those of the surviving relatives outweigh the mistakes that have been made. “In a case like this, finding the truth must come first and not the negligence of the police and the judiciary,” is the conclusion.

The fact that there are more witnesses who testify about the role of the in-laws in the murder plays an important role in this consideration. Coby van der L. and her two children are therefore all sentenced to twenty years in prison. They appeal almost immediately.

The pressing issue surrounding the key witness is also central to the appeal. A difference with the trial in Groningen is that two new witnesses have emerged, both of whom declare that Willem P. is unreliable. These are men who were imprisoned with P.. In detention, P. is said to have told a different story about the murder of Elzinga and his own role in it.

It is also now clear that the key witness’s story was incomplete on several points. For example, P. had a file on Elzinga’s murder in his cell for longer than he claimed. Did the key witness use the file as a source for his statements? The in-laws’ lawyers think so.

How to deal with this now? It is an interesting question that the court will answer on Thursday. The ruling will take place at 1:30 p.m.

Curious about the background of this story? Then listen to the first episode of the new NU.nl podcast about this case. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app, such as Spotify or Apple Podcasts.

Om een vraag te kunnen stellen dien je in te loggen. Log in of maak binnen 1 minuut jouw gratis account aan.