On the last day of the appeal, Jos Brech’s lawyer Gerald Roethof (suspected of abuse and killing Nicky Verstappen) did everything he could to undermine the DNA evidence in Nicky’s underpants.
However, DNA expert Kloosterman often had to answer Roethof’s theories with sentences such as ‘cannot be ruled out, but the probability is small’ or ‘I don’t know’. Justice concludes that Brech’s DNA could only have come there through ‘long and intensive’ contact and not through the actions that Brech describes.
Last week, Brech’s lawyer Roethof showed with a video how DNA ‘can move’ when clothing is touched and when a person is moved. A mannequin and ketchup were used in that video. Brech has always said he found Nicky (11) dead and turned over to see if he was still alive. He says he did not abuse and kill the child. Brech claims that because of his past history he did not dare to warn the police.
Pop with ketchup
Today DNA expert Ate Kloosterman received dozens of questions about the DNA traces in Nicky’s underpants, the most important evidence in this case. With his questions, Roethof tried to show that DNA traces can move (for example, because Nicky’s underpants were folded at the time) and wanted to know in detail during which actions and with how much force this can happen. Kloosterman often had to give the answer ‘that cannot be ruled out, but the chance is small’, or: ‘here my knowledge falls short’.
Kloosterman said about the doll and the ketchup that he has the impression that the people in the video are doing their very best to spread the ketchup. By using quite a bit of ketchup and folding the underpants in a way ‘as it certainly did not go then’.
The Public Prosecution Service is very clear about the video: “There are so many questions about it,” said Advocate General Gerard Sta. “Is ketchup then representative of DNA? Is the ketchup in the video edited? I could go on and on. The video is not to be taken seriously, of zero and no value.”
‘No activity research’
When Kloosterman was asked about a final comment, he said that he was surprised that no so-called ‘activity investigation’ has ever been conducted in this case, an investigation into the question of how DNA traces can end up in certain places. So: about the question of how exactly those DNA traces ended up in Nicky’s underpants.
These are the last efforts of a days-long trial in which lawyer Roethof tries to show that there is no watertight evidence against Brech and that Brech’s story (which he found Nicky, touched to decency and left) could also have happened. It is not yet known when the court in Den Bosch will rule.
The Public Prosecution Service (OM) has demanded 20 years in prison against Jos Brech on 15 November. The court imposed a prison sentence of 12.5 years on him last year, after which both the Public Prosecution Service and B. appealed.
Brech himself thinks the demand is unjustified. He says that in 1998 he went cycling, had to pee, saw ‘something’, and eventually came across the body of Nicky Verstappen, which was hidden in a plot of spruce on the Brunssummerheide. Nicky disappeared in 1998 during a youth camp and was later found dead. His death remained a mystery for two decades until Jos Brech came into the picture thanks to new DNA research.
Watch our videos about the Nicky Verstappen case in the playlist below:
Free unlimited access to Showbytes? Which can!
Log in or create an account and never miss a thing from the stars.
#Brechs #lawyer #betting #doubt #DNA #evidence #underpants #expert #chance #small