Conviction or acquittal for incitement to the murder of Jan Elzinga: the court decides

Today is D-Day again for the in-laws of Jan Elzinga and their alleged arms supplier from Kampen. The court decides whether or not they ordered the liquidation of 40-year-old Jan Elzinga. The man was shot dead in front of the swimming pool gate in Marum in July 2012.

At the end of February, the Public Prosecution Service (OM) demanded prison sentences of between 12 and 20 years on appeal. Elzinga’s then girlfriend, Monique H. (44) from Hollandscheveld and her brother Marcel H. (42) from Nieuw-Roden heard the highest punishment demanded against them: 20 years in prison. Same as the previous conviction by the court in Groningen. Their 62-year-old mother Coby van der L. from Roden should have served 17 years. That is three years less than what the court in Groningen had decided.

According to the Public Prosecution Service, 59-year-old Johan L. from Kampen supplied the weapon and should be sentenced to 12 years in prison. The judges in Groningen at the time decided on a 7-year prison sentence. The Public Prosecution Service thinks that sentence is too low: “He is an important link in the murder plan.” The motive for the murder is still unclear. The relatives will never know why Jan had to die, the Public Prosecution Service said earlier. “This is a murder for hire. The most serious form of murder.” The man was shot from his bicycle in broad daylight in front of fellow villagers.

The four were arrested in July 2021 after a new police investigation into this murder case. At the time, two men were in custody, who had been arrested shortly after the murder in 2012. A man from Zwolle pulled the trigger and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. His direct client from Kampen was sentenced to 20 years in prison. During his detention, the latter decided to provide new statements and associated evidence in exchange for a substantial sentence reduction. According to him, the in-laws were ultimately behind the murder.

The newly provided evidence mainly consisted of text message conversations that he had had from his cell with Marcel H. During the trial in 2022 in Groningen, it turned out that some of those messages had been forged. Nevertheless, according to the court in Groningen, sufficient material remained for a conviction. And there was no unfair trial, the court ruled. The Public Prosecution Service also maintains on appeal that Marcel and Monique are the initiators.

Their mother is said to have paid the Kampen resident for the weapon. The man is said to have had no further involvement in the murder itself. The suspects’ lawyers maintain that the Public Prosecution Service has made so many mistakes that the right to prosecute has been forfeited. The Public Prosecution Service should never have made the deal with the previously convicted key witness. Or having to immediately pull the plug when it was clear that the material had been manipulated. The floor is now with the court.

After this judgment (the judgment), the parties can appeal again. Then they have to go to the Supreme Court. This assesses whether a lower court (district court and the court of appeal) has correctly applied the law in a ruling and whether the procedure has been followed correctly.