Member of Parliament Louis Bontes, a former police officer (photo right), recently asked the Minister of Justice Ivo Opstelten questions about an explosive document destroying Mr. Demmink’s alibi that he has not set foot on Turkish soil since 1986. In his answers Mr. Opstelten acknowledged that the document has been in possession of the Justice Department since november 8, 2013. But he refused to disclose the document and share it with Parliament. His excuse was that he won’t publish documents that are part of an ongoing criminal investigation.
His answers can be read here.
Note that Opstelten gives a vague description of the document without naming Mr. Demmink whose name is mentioned loud and clear in the document itself. The document is authored by the Turkish district attorney Selim Altay, who confirms that Mr. Demmink has been a suspect in a criminal investigation on charges of child abuse in Turkey. More importantly it points out the existence of a criminal file, involving more high level suspects than Mr. Demmink alone, that shows Mr. Demmink has traveled to Turkey on several occasions, among other dates July 20, 1996, which date coincides with the period that the rapes are said to have occurred. Unfortunately the document also proclaims that Mr. Demmink cannot be prosecuted anymore under Turkish law because the alledged crimes were committed too long ago.
In any normal investigation, you can’t ask for harder proof of Mr. Demmink’s false alibi, neither for a better source, in this case an official from the Turkish government. Note also that Mr. Opstelten does not dispute the authenticity of the document. He just keeps vague about it and refuses to offer it to public scrutiny. However, what he also keeps hidden is that this document is in fact a public document. It has been published before on several places on the Internet. For example it can be found here, including a translation to Dutch:
The original source is of course attorney Mrs. Adèle van der Plas, who furnished it not only to the Justice Department, but also to a number of journalists. She also refers to the document in her 2012 testimony before the Helsinki Commission in New York. Journalist Wim van de Pol writes:
Curious for a reaction of Altay I traveled in june for KRO Brandpunt to Istanbul with a copy of the document. In the company of a translater I was received in Selim Altay’s office in the enormous and heavily guarded Palace of Justice, situated in an outskirt of Istanbul. The Turkish flag in the corner and a portrait of Ataturk were silent witnesses to our meeting. When I showed him the document with his signature, Altay produced a friendly smile, saying: “I have no comment whatsoever on this. I refer you to my Head District Attorney”. But my requests for comments to his superiors also proved to be futile. Remarkable though is that neither Selim Altay, nor his superiors in Istanbul, contested the authenticity of the document or his signature. Nor did the Turkish embassy in Holland when I asked them.
The Dutch Justice Department acknowledged in a reaction that the document is authentic. It said it has asked for more information from Turkey, but has not yet received it. According to a spokesman for minister Opstelten it is therefore still not sure that Mr. Demmink was really in Turkey.
The travel dates of Mr. Demmink to Turkey are also confirmed in another official document by the governor of Istanbul, which is also in Opstelten’s possession. That document can be found here.
How do these documents relate to Mr. Demmink’s assurance that he has not been in Turkey since 1986? And how do these documents relate to Opstelten’s statements that nothing has ever been proven or will ever be proven regarding the guilt of Mr. Demmink, while he has long been in possession of evidence to the contrary, but at the same time withholds that evidence from our Parliament?
See Opstelten’s statements here:
In my humble opinion, the oddity of these events is not so much the conduct of Mr. Opstelten, who has profiled himself as a fierce protector of Mr. Demmink’s innocence, but more so in the conduct of our Parliament that accepts this behaviour. With the exception of Bontes, none of our MP’s dares to raise to the issue that the boss of our Justice Department for 10 years is most probably guilty of raping boys of minority age on frequent occassions. And they swallow the fact that the Minister of Justice keeps them deprived of evidence that points to just those facts.
Very strange, because our Parliament is up in arms to ring the alarm when pedophiles touch toddlers inproperly during swimming lessons, but prefers to look the other way when much graver accusations (with evidence) concern the boss of our Justice Department.
There is nothing that prevents Mr. Bontes to make these public documents available to Parliament himself and request a debate about them and the strange behaviour of our Minister of Justice, not withstanding the fact that this minister recently resigned because of another scandal in which he was caught lying to Parliament.