Corruption and Perjury of the Attorney General

The Requisitoir that demonstrates the Corruption and Perjury of the Attorney General of the Den Bosch Court of Appeal; a woman called Broek-Blaauboer.

THE PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE DEN BOSCH COURT OF APPEAL, BROEK-BLAAUBOER, CAN ONLY BE DUE TO THE FACT THAT SHE WAS ACTING ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE DUTCH GOVERNMENT IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO COVER-UP THE REAL CAUSE FOR THE DEATH OF SUZANNE.

The Prosecutor's Requisitoir (court pleadings) of 6 February 2001 and Comments:

Translation of the

Requisitoir of the Attorney General

Court of Appeal at ‘s-Hertogenbosch on 6 February 2001

This is an analysis of the Requisitoir that demonstrates the Corruption and Perjury of the Attorney General of the Den Bosch Court of Appeal: Mrs. A.E. Broek-Blaauboer

		Words of the Prosecutor given in italics
			Facts in the matter noted thus

Indictment or ‘Requisitoir’

In the criminal matter against Kevin Sweeney

Introduction

When the officer of justice began her indictment at the meeting of the court on the 11th October 1996 with the complaint: "Finally the case can be closed. Many months of research, by the police, by the investigating judge; many witnesses were heard on the request of the defence", she did not suspect that a few years later, on this day, at the meeting of the court the same could be said with even more reasons.

Now lying in front of us, besides the research and interrogations performed in first instance, is the extensive investigation by the investigating judge after the decision on the 3rd November 1997 of your court to refer the case to the investigating judge for further research.

Thus the dossier gained in size strongly and it is important to not be distracted by all the details, but to keep a clear picture of all the events that lead to and happened after the 17 July 1995 in Steensel.

The events on the 17th July in Steensel

The following can be taken as certain:

- Fire broke out on the night of the 16th - 17th July 1995 in the master bedroom of the building Eindhovenseweg 3A in Steensel.

After a sabotage call reached the alarm central station at 02:38 am, ...

The Attorney General makes no mention of the two policemen, and Suzanne's cleaning lady and her husband, who were at the scene between 02.47 hrs and 03.00hrs.

The Attorney General makes no mention of why the two policemen did not save Suzanne - but left the scene 3 minutes later at 02.50hrs.

The Attorney General makes no mention of the many witnesses at the scene between 02.00 hrs and 03.47 hrs.

... at 03:47 am fire brigade was called. (SIC) The fire brigade was there within 5 minutes. Inside, in the master bedroom, large smoke and heat development was diagnosed and that there was an open fire on the foot end off the bed standing in the room.

There is confusion not only in the mind of the Attorney General, but indeed all the prosecution officers and police about the exact timing of these events. The fire brigade was summonsed at 03.45hrs and they arrived at the house at 03.51hrs.

The reason for these lies by the Attorney General, and the police, was because they were trying to cover-up and obfuscate the actual events of the night.

The supplemental evidence presented by the Court of Appeal judges giving a variety of different times.

- In the dressing room, bordering the master bedroom, the fire brigade found the victim, later identified as Suzanne Davies. She was naked and was in a kneeling position on the ground, bend over forward with her head between her arms (frog position). She didn't show any signs of life.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies to cover up the actual events of the night:

Suzanne had to have been alive and indeed conscious, otherwise she could not have maintained a balanced 'kneeling position on the ground, bend over forward with her head between her arms (frog position)'.

If Suzanne had been unconscious then her muscles could not have maintained her equilibrium.

After she was brought outside, it was tried to re-animate her.

Presumably because there was a cardiac trace.

The paramedics arriving at the scene at 04.20 (25 minutes after Suzanne was rescued by the firemen) reported a cardiac trace and thus attempted re-animation.

After that fire many investigations were done, amongst them by the technical investigators and the laboratory of the court.

The ‘technical investigators’ are the same police officers that had fabricated and suppressed evidence and had perverted the course of justice.

The ‘laboratory of the court’ was the laboratory that did not find the labels on the melted plastic containers and which needed the ‘technical investigators’ to miraculously discover the labels 2 years later. Furthermore, this was the same ‘laboratory of the court’ that for 13 months suppressed the evidence that the bed clothes remnants were ignitable by a cigarette.

An autopsy was performed on the victim and a toxicological investigation took place.

However the many critical toxicology tests from 1996 were suppressed by the Attorney General’s officers and were not revealed to the Court of Appeal on the 6 February 2001.

Further, most of the pathologic and forensic tests (for example swabs of hands, feet, and skin and analysis of hair, et al) were also suppressed.

The toxicology tests done for the Prosecution in London were also suppressed by Broek-Blaauboer because these showed that there were no drugs or solvents or flammables (fire accelerants) present.

This revealed that the death of the victim was caused by smoke poisoning; a large part of the surface of the body was scorched and superficially burnt; ...

How was it possible that a victim with only 'scorching and superficial burns' had been in a ‘raging’ accelerated 'Flashover' fire as alleged by Broek-Blaauboer below?

... the time of death could not be found; ...

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies to cover up the actual events of the night:

Dr. Zwagers stated that death had occurred at 04.37 hrs.

... a blood test showed alcohol usage before the death, at a recreational level.

The post mortem blood tests also showed that there were no drugs in the blood, yet the Attorney General’s officers conducted several other series of secret blood tests and suppressed this evidence because the results of these tests disproved the prosecution’s allegations.

The Attorney General herself does not mention that the blood tests showed that there was no traces of ‘turpentine’ or other fire accelerants in the blood.

From the technical research the following are the most important observations:

Perceptions from the technical investigation:

- When the technical investigation started their research that night (04:30 am), they perceived a clear smell of turpentine

Apparently the Attorney General’s officers ‘perceived a clear smell of turpentine’ but only removed the melted plastic containers on the carpet, and did not take carpet samples, if indeed at all, until days or weeks later and after the carpet had been cleaned and removed from the room.

Strikingly, none of the other witnesses at the scene, including the firemen, reported the ‘clear smell of turpentine’.

Also strikingly, Suzanne apparently did not smell any turpentine the night before - otherwise why would she have slept in the room?

- All doors and windows on the ground floor were locked and there were no signs of forced entry

- The doors leading to the corridor from the bed and bath room were closed, ...

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The doors leading to the corridor from the bedroom and bathroom were not closed when the fire started as the soot patterns on the bedroom door demonstrates and the soot on the edge of the bathroom door and in the door jams of both doors.

as well as the windows and doors to the outside (the balcony door however, was not locked).

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The balcony door had been locked, but was opened by the firemen when they smashed the bedroom windows and opened the balcony door to vent the smoke from the room. It is clearly seen from the police photographs that the balcony door is wide open after having been opened by the firemen.

The door between the bedroom and bathroom was open.

- The light in the bedroom was off.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The police did not test the light circuit and assumed that the bedroom lights were off because the light switch near the bedroom door was allegedly in the off position. However the police did not verify or check the position of the second light switch in the bedroom.

- In the bedroom a plastic bottle of spirits was found behind the bathroom door;

- In the bathroom, in a corner, one plastic bottle of spirits, surrounded by five toilet rolls;

- On the floor of the corridor, close to the staircase a plastic bottle petroleum;

- The seal of these three bottles was not broken; ...

Interestingly and inconsistently, the Scotland Yard version (apparently written on the 3 May 1996, following a visit to the scene on the 28 February 1996) state 2 bottles of ‘methylated spirits’ and 1 bottle of ‘paraffin’.

Interestingly and inconsistently, the Technical Policemen’s version (apparently written on the 7 November 1995 from the report of the 17 July 1995) state 2 bottles of ‘methylated spirits’ and 1 bottle of petroleum or ‘essence’

- To the left hand side of the bed remains of a packet of cigarettes and a lighter were found; an ash tray was not found.

There were no ashtrays anywhere in the house. Suzanne smoked in secret as was attested to by her friends and staff.

Additionally:

- The alarm was deformed by the great heat: this deformation caused the sabotage call.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The temperature for the deformation of the plastic of the fire sensor was stated by the manufacturers as being 150ºC and not the 600-900ºC reproduced in the TNO tests. The actual sensor was blackened by the fire, but the interior and the sabotage microswitch was intact and undamaged. There is no evidence to show if the sabotage call was the result of the sensor or the circuit. The results of the electrical and electronic circuit tests that were done were suppressed by the police.

- An electrical or mechanical cause of fire could be excluded.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The results of the electrical tests of the electrical / lighting / power circuits, fittings and spotlights in the room were suppressed by the police and this indicates that the reason it was suppressed was because it showed possible causes of fire. Furthermore the electrical power points behind the bed (as shown in the suppressed police photographs) were exposed and could have clearly caused a fire.

- Research from carpet samples (1 - 11) taken by the technical investigators showed: In the samples 1, 2, 3 and 5 a relatively large quantity of crude oil could be found, most probably turpentine.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The ‘relatively large quantity’ refers to the alleged concentration on the carpet sample which was a few square centimetres. This refers to the parts per million concentrations.

Samples 1-3 were the spots where the melted plastic containers were found. The colour of the stain in this area shows that these containers did not contain a ‘crude oil distillate’. Within 20 cms. of these spots was a newspaper what was entirely unburned. Thus it is impossible that these containers container any crude oil products and more likely that they container liquids that prevented the fire from burning the newspaper.

Sample 5 was the place the melted cigarette lighters (containing petroleum) was found.

Identical traces of the alleged ‘crude oil distillates’ would also be produced by the carpet adhesive, carpet tape and carpet anti-stain treatment.

- In addition materials, originating from the plastic bottles or from a bottle and a jerry can, were found in samples 1, 2, and 3, which are the carpet pieces from the bedroom, near the bathroom door; ...

There is no evidence that the plastic remnants allegedly found by the police at these spots were there at the start of the fire. They might have been transported there on the boots of the firemen.

Furthermore, if as Broek-Blaauboer alleges, they were part of the fire, then why were they not consumed by the fire? Plastics used for bottles combust at a relatively low temperature.

- A turpentine fire can only develop through contact with open fire and leads to great smoke and soot development within a short time.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The Dutch Government Laboratory did not identify Turpentine, they identified a vague ‘crude oil distillate’. A ‘crude oil distillate’ can be anything from the results of burning plastics, to adhesives, to tar, or to any one of thousands of crude oil products.

If as alleged by the Attorney General, a turpentine file leads to ‘great smoke and soot development within a short time’, how was it therefore possible that the many witnesses whom were within 2 metres of this fire did not see or smell or feel the fire? How was it possible that this fire was not seen in a ‘short time’ but went unseen until 03.41 hrs.?

The technical research has then of course also lead to conclusions:

On the grounds of the findings named above, the found state of the fire and the results of the research done by the laboratory of the court, misters Velders, Albers and Van Meurs of the technical investigation came to the conclusion that the fire in the bedroom was intentionally caused by introducing and leaving behind an open fire. Turpentine was used in the act of arson.

A conclusion to which these witnesses held on until today.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

These are the conclusions of the policemen whom had fabricated the carpet sample evidence and had variously suppressed and fabricated a vast amount of other evidence over a period of many years. The team leader, Albers, refused to appear in court to be cross examined, sending instead a letter from his psychiatrist to say that he was mentally unwell. Thus it is unknown if he did actually ‘hold to that conclusion’.

If the Attorney General was so confident of their conclusions, why was the team leader Albers not produced in court to give live evidence?

A possibility offered by drs. Bijl in his report (of the 9th August 1995) should also be looked at, which is the possibility of an accident with a burning (forgotten) cigarette (the smoking in bed). Tests held with this assumption (30th August 1996) show that under narrowly defined and created circumstances in the laboratory bed clothes can be lit with a burning cigarette.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

Broek-Blaauboer knows fully well that every year in the Netherlands, and in every other country on the planet, there are thousands of bed (and other) fires caused by cigarettes. Indeed the Dutch government spends a great deal of money each year on advertising which warns the population about the dangers and causes of household fires - including smoking in bed fires.

The purpose for the Dutch Government Laboratory tests was to show the flammability of the bed clothes textiles remnants, not the method of cigarette ignition. The tests done were not designed to show the method of cigarette ignition as such tests are governed by mandatory Dutch, European and International test Standards and Methodology.

The tests proved that the bed clothes were flammable and could be ignited with a cigarette. This fact is common knowledge and is attested to my the thousands of bed fires around the world each year.

Only this possibility as the cause of the fire lead to the court's decision at the sentencing on the 24th October 1996 of not considering intentional arson as proven.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The decision of the court of first instance does not give this conclusion.

Now in higher instance, after study of the dossier, there are still several questions (amongst others concerning this possibility) left and additionally a supplementary report of the technical investigators dated 22nd October 1997 was sent in concerning sample number 3, at the meeting of the court on the 3rd November 1997, it was decided to refer the case to the investigating judge for further research.

- I indicate that until now I have only discussed the technical aspects of the fire; I will talk later about the other factors -

The reconstruction

In order to get a reply to the questions formulated by the court in the report of the meeting of the 3rd November 1997 the investigating judge engaged the centre for fire safety TNO. For this engineer P.B. Reijman was named as expert.

The fire tests arranged were not formulated to answer the questions stipulated by the court, but were designed to produce false and deceptive results.

The TNO organisation had never before conducted such fire tests and wanted to become suppliers of such tests to the Prosecution Service.

Reijman had never before conducted such fire tests before and was only a technician and not a fire expert.

The tests were specifically fabricated to provide a fraudulent conclusions and were not conducted in conformity with any of the recognised Dutch or international standards or test procedures.

As the questions named here could only be answered when the fire development of the bed is known as one of the in Steensel present circumstances, the choice was made for a number of reconstructive tests, in which the relevant part of the house in Steensel will be reconstructed in the architectural sense, such that the reconstructed part is like the house, as much as possible.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The reconstruction of the room did not in any way reflect the actual situation.

For example, the test room was hermetically sealed, there were no external windows or doors, there was no hatch above the bed and there was no roof attic, the furnishings and materials in the room were not reproduced, the conditions were not reproduced, et al. Thus all the critical factors of fire testing, namely ventilation, fuel load, and environmental conditions were falsified. This fraud was done on the instructions of the Prosecutor and Examining Magistrates.

The fire development of the bed is defined by the materials used and construction of the bed, the space, where the bed is placed, ...

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

There were no bed clothes, undersheet, sheet, pillows, duvet, duvet cover, bedspread, et al, on the bed as there was on the actual bed.

The test bed did not have a wooden base as did the original.

The mattresses were specially manufactured of fire resistant materials and were entirely unlike the 10 years old mattress on the bed.

... the presence of oxygen and the possibility of oxygen supply to the place of fire and the source of the fire.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The Prosecutor and Examining Magistrates took specific care to create false test conditions, for example:-

- The test rooms were hermetically sealed with 2 sets of air-tight sealed doors.

- The oxygen supply that would have come from the rest of the house was cut off.

- There were no external windows or doors.

- There was no hatch above the bed and there was no roof attic void above the bed.

Thus the following rooms, dressing room, bedroom, bathroom and a part of the hallway of the house in Steensel, were carefully reconstructed.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The Prosecutor and Examining Magistrates took specific care to create false test conditions, for example:-

- There were no furnishing, curtains, clothes, paper and packaging materials, et al, in the bedroom except a bed.

- There were no furnishings, wardrobes and fitted furniture, clothes, curtains, et al, in the dressing room.

- There were no furnishing, plastic shower cubicle, et al, in the bathroom.

The carpet in the bedroom and hallway were chosen after in-depth tests ...

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The Prosecutor and Examining Magistrates took specific care to create false test conditions, for example:-

- The carpet was not the same make or type as was at the house. The original make and type of carpet was available at the retailer, but it was specifically not used in order to produce false results.

- The ‘in-depth tests’ were designed to produce a false result. Why was it necessary to conduct ‘in-depth tests’ and simply not use the same make and type of carpet as was in the house?

... and the beds placed in the bedroom were identical to the beds present in Steensel at the time of the fire, being especially made by the factory for this experiment.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The Prosecutor and Examining Magistrates took specific care to create false test conditions, for example:-

- The bed and mattresses were made of fire resistant materials and the manufacturers admitted that there were not the same as the original.

- Further a padded, wooden bed base was not used as was in the actual situation.

- Further it is known that a 10 years old bed mattress is considerable more inflammable than a new mattress made from fire resistant materials.

The supplier of the security system in Steensel placed an identical alarm sensor in the reconstructed rooms and connected it.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The Prosecutor and Examining Magistrates took specific care to create false test conditions, for example:-

- The circuit from the alarm sensor, as found in the original configuration was not replicated. Only the alarm sensor was used and not any of the other circuitry.

For the different measurements (amongst others temperature) the necessary machines were placed. Different scenarios (1-4) were assumed and in the end the tests were carried out on the 23rd, 25th and 26th November 1998 in the experiment hall of the centre of fire safety. Seven experiments in total, some in subsections, were carried out.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The Prosecutor and Examining Magistrates took specific care to create false test conditions, for example:-

- The room test methodology did not conform to ANY of the mandatory test Standards (International Standards Organisation (ISO), ASTM, NFPA, et al)

- Furthermore, in that the test room was specifically doctored and falsified (as stated above) it was impossible that any tests could produce a valid result.

- Furthermore, even had the test room been correctly reconstructed, there was a less than 1 in 110,000 possibility that the tests would be valid. In that the room was not properly replicated, the validity of the tests conducted gave a vastly less than 1 in 110,000 possibility of them being accurate.

The tests 1, 4 and 5 concerned the possibility of cigarette burn in bed, tests 3 and 6 a fire caused by turpentine and test 7 concerned a partial investigation concerning the hallway.

Summary of the results of these experiments:

The results of the test 1a-1c, 4 and 5 showed that the bed could not be brought on fire with cigarettes. None of the nineteen cigarettes used lead to the development of open fire in the experiments.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The Prosecutor and Examining Magistrates took specific care to create false test conditions, for example:-

- There were no bed clothes, under sheets, sheets, duvets, duvet covers, pillows, et al, included on the bed. The testers simple placed cigarettes on the bare fire resistant mattress.

- The cigarette test methodology did not conform to ANY of the mandatory test Standards (Netherlands Norm, European Norms, ISO, ASTM, NFPA, et al)

- Furthermore, in that the cigarette tests were specifically doctored and falsified (as stated above) it was impossible that any tests could produce a valid result.

- Furthermore, the fire expert called these tests ‘a blunder’ because they were entirely falsified to produce fraudulent results.

The bed inflamed with methylamine pills in tests 1d lead to a different fire development than the more (intense) fire behaviour in Steensel. During the development of this fire in test 1d no jumping over of flames (‘Flashover’).

The situation found in Steensel clearly shows jumping over of flames (‘Flashover’).

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The actual fire situation showed that there was NO ‘Flashover’. The experts stated that there was no ‘Flashover’ and indeed it was impossible that a Flashover occurred as there were in the room curtains, wall pictures, newspapers, clothes, et al, unburned and un-scorched. In a Flashover the entire room is engulfed in flames, the windows are shattered and all the flammable material in the room is consumed. This did not happen in the actual fire, indeed there were newspapers, plastic wrapping, clothes, et al, that were not even scorched by the fire.

The experiments 3 and 6 showed that a fire initiated with the help of turpentine can very well lead to jumping over of flames (‘Flashover’) in the room of the fire.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The TNO tests showed that if a fire accelerant is used there is always a Flashover, however in the actual fire there was NO Flashover and therefore in the actual fire there was no fire accelerant used.

At the moment of the development of the jumping over of flames (‘Flashover’), there must have only been one fire between the bed and the doors to the bathroom and hallway. Therefore the bottle and the jerry can must have been damaged before the flames jumped (‘Flashover’).

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

This is impossible:

In the tests the police apparently did in 1997, where they melted a bottle and jerry can, it was discovered that these containers take over 35 minutes to melt when subjected to heat. [Police report of 21.10.1997]

In ALL the TNO tests done it was shown that the Flashover occurred almost immediately, between 3-5 minutes.

How then is it possible for the Attorney General to make this statement? How is it possible for the containers to take 35 minutes to melt BEFORE a Flashover that occurs within only 3-5 minutes?

The place where the bottle and jerry can were situated must have been the primary or one of the primary fire(s). The found and shown quantity of turpentine in front of the bathroom door was already poured out before the fire.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

If this site was the (or one of the) primary seats of the fire, how was it possible that a newspaper (De Telegraaf) was about 20 centimetres from this seat of fire and did not burn or scorch?

How was it possible that 5 litres (or more) of turpentine was poured at this site, but did not spread or effect or contaminate the newspaper 20 centimetres away?

How was it possible that 5 litres (or more) of turpentine was poured at this point and yet did not contaminate the concrete floor beneath the carpet?

How was it possible that (according to the Attorney General’s theory) that this was done 30 hours previously (on the Saturday) and yet the turpentine did not spread across the room, nor that Suzanne smelt the turpentine, or reacted to the jerry can that was there?

In all "open fire tests" a sabotage message from the alarm system was received shortly after inflammation.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

All the fire tests resulted in a Flashover and the heat at the level (ceiling height) of the sensor was therefore 600-900ºC. Thus the sensors in the test completely melted and destroyed the microswitch within the sensors.

In the actual fire, the microswitch was not burned, and can in the police photographs be seen to be intact. Further, in the actual fire the temperature at the same level did not reach 600-900ºC because the cotton curtains or the plastic curtain track fittings did not burn and were intact and those would have burned or melted at about 150ºC. Thus the temperature in the actual fire was only 16-25% of that measured in the tests.

From this it can be concluded that the fire in Steensel must have been initiated shortly before the received sabotage alarm, which would be about 10 minutes at the most

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

If the alleged raging and explosive fire occurred ‘10 minutes at most’ before the alarm sounded, how was it possible that this fire was not seen by the staff of the cafe and the patrons of the cafe who were outside the cafe a few metres from the room in which the fire occurred, or the other witnesses (2 policemen, cleaning lady and her husband, et al)?

Conclusion

In summary one has to conclude that the fire, like the one on the 17th July 1995 in the apartment on the Eindhovenseweg 3a in Steensel was with great certainty caused intentionally. Hereby means to speed up the fire, namely turpentine, were used.

On two, possibly three, spots turpentine was placed and inflamed by the perpetrator.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

There was no turpentine at the scene of the fire.

Why would an arsonist only light two or three spots of turpentine?

The Court of Appeal had alleged that 8 litres of turpentine was sprinkled throughout the room. Thus why would an arsonist specifically set light to a few spots on the carpet that were beside each other? Why would an arsonist simply not set fire to the newspaper that was 20 centimetres from the spots on the carpet? Or set fire to the large amounts of other paper packaging materials and clothes that were a few centimetres away?

The locations of the fires show a possible intentional blocking of the escape route by the perpetrator.

This is untrue as the balcony door provided an escape route on the other side of the room.

The fire in the night of the 18-17 July 1995 would not have occurred earlier than 02:28 am.

At this time the Defendant has left the house half an hour previously.

A clear conclusion.

A conclusion that coincides with the one of the technical investigation.

How do we have to see this conclusion as opposed to the conclusion of other experts?

The expert B. Postema, who was asked by the investigating judge to carry out a second expert opinion after instruction of the researchers of the technical investigators and who was also present at the reconstruction, has concluded that he agrees with the conclusion of deliberate arson.

Additionally he was convinced by the research and tests that the jumping over of flames was not caused or inflamed by the fire, yet that this fire development could only have been caused by a fire using means to speed up the fire. The fire development of the jumping over of flames fits into the development off a fire with turpentine. Therefore again a conclusion that connects to the other one.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies by repeating the lies of a corrupt Examining Magistrate and a corrupt 'undercover policeman' whom posed as an 'expert witness':

The investigating judge was the disgraced Examining Magistrate Ter Beek, who persuaded the Defendant’s lawyers to accept an independent expert. This ‘independent expert’ turned out to be the under-cover policeman, Postema, working for the Prosecution.

Why was it necessary for Ter Beek to hide the true identity of Postema when she proposed that an ‘independent expert’ should be appointed?

In the end at the request of the defence another expert, professor J.R. Barnett was designated.

He gave his opinion on the reconstruction to the investigating judge on the 2nd and 3rd November 2000 and came to the following conclusion:

- The reconstruction shows that the fire was possibly caused by arson.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The reconstruction shows that 'a' fire can possibly be caused by arson, the reconstruction did not show that 'the' fire was possibly caused by arson.

Fires have two possible caused, Arson or Accident. No true expert will exclude any of the two possible causes without proof to the contrary.

Thus the Attorney General requires the conviction of the Defendant on the presumption of guilt and not because the prosecution has proved its theories.

- The picture / development of the arson tests is not the same as the one in Steensel, but they are alike enough to be able to say that it is possible that the fire is caused by arson; ...

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The TNO tests of the fire scene do not vaguely resemble the actual fire scene. At the TNO tests there was always a 'Flashover' and at the actual fire scene there was NO 'Flashover'. Thus at the actual fire scene one can see all the unburned newspapers, clothes, et al, within 20-30cms of the bed.

The Attorney General is seeking to plead that if one photograph looks vaguely similar to another that this is proof or arson. This was the same logic applied by the disgraced Examining Magistrate Ter Beek who ordered Reijman and TNO to make the pictures looks the same. Ter Beek was removed from the case for suborning Reijman.

By the same logic, one assumes that if the Attorney General dispensed entirely with fire tests, but simply painted a fire scene that looked like the actual fire then this would suffice an expert to determine if it was an accident or arson.

- Too much turpentine was used during the tests as a result of which another fire picture regarding the damage of the carpet under the left bed developed (something Reijman had already talked about as well).

It appears that the entire basis of the fire tests was to produce photographs that might ‘look’ like the actual fire scene and therefore suggest arson.

What is remarkable was that no tests were done, in a normal (not hermetically sealed) room, with the furnishing as were in the actual bedroom, and not using Turpentine. It is clear that the entire basis of the tests were to produce photographs which sought to show any fire scene which the prosecution could then allege was arson.

Again a connecting conclusion.

As a critical comment on the tests regarding the cigarette fire he brought up that the cigarettes were not placed in the correct manner on the bed, but that on the other hand the test with the methylamine pill was correct, yet that more tests should have been done.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The Attorney General is suggesting that the entire basis of the scientific testing of materials and the Standards and Norms as mandated in every country is unnecessary.

If the TNO tests were not done in accordance with the mandated Dutch National or International Standards or Norms then they were invalid. They were invalid because they were not conducted in the correct or scientific or logical manner and they were conducted in a fraudulent manner.

The question of the test done with the ’methylamine pill’ is that this is one of the recognised method (Norms) of conducting such tests, whereas the other tests done by Reijman / TNO used fraudulent methods that would not be tolerated or accepted as valid by any of the Dutch National or International bodies that control testing Standards or Norms.

Also the expert J. Bijl of the N.F.I. (see earlier laboratory tests with the cigarette) does not fully commit himself about the burning cigarette as cause of the fire, but to the investigating judge he declares on 24 May 2000 that it is more likely that the fire was caused by open fire then by a burning cigarette, based on the behaviour of the victim and the fact that burning cigarettes do not often lead to fire.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

It is true that household accidents do not often lead to fire. Most people do not fall asleep whilst smoking. Most household fires that occur are extinguished by the occupants before they cause too much damage. Most household fire are not even reported. However in the Netherlands in 1995 there were 6,531 household fires were reported that had caused substantial damage.

The suggestion of the Attorney General that because burning cigarettes do not often lead to fire there are no accidental cigarette fires, is like suggesting that because car journeys do not often result in accidents that one can deny the existence of motor traffic accidents.

But how do we now need to explain those technical and theoretical possibilities of fire caused by smoking in bed?

On the basis of declarations and circumstances which are reproduced in the dossier we then have to come to the following picture:

- That Suzanne Davies, a sensible women, would lie in the dark in bed ...

The witness say that the bedroom lights were on.

The police did not establish if the lights were on or off as they did not test the circuit and did not verify the position of the second light switch.

People do sometime lie in the dark in bed.

... with a burning cigarette ...

It is impossible to smoke without a burning cigarette.

... and no ashtray ...

There were no ashtrays anywhere in the house and thus it would be necessary to use a piece of paper or a tissue - as people often do.

... on a warm summer night (15C), ..

People do smoke on warm summer nights.

... with all windows and doors being closed, ...

The house had been burgled a few weeks previously. It was prudent for Suzanne to lock the doors and windows.

... after having surrounded herself with large quantities of flammable liquids in bottles and a jerry can ...

It was not possible for Suzanne to clean without using cleaning materials, thus these materials had to be there.

The only containers whose contents are actually known were safely put away and unopened.

The containers that the prosecution speculate as containing ‘turpentine’ could not have contained turpentine as there was no environmental contamination evidence (apart from the fabricated carpet samples) that confirms their contents.

... in a short amount of time (between 02:15 and 02:28 am), in the most strategic places ...

Suzanne had been cleaning in the bedrooms and bathroom since 00.15 hrs (not 02.15 hrs.) - after her telephone call to her brother when she said that she was going to clean. Witnesses saw the bedroom lights on.

... in a not yet furnished house, ...

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The house was entirely furnished. New furniture had been purchased for the living rooms, the kitchen re-fitted, the bedrooms had been fitted with new furniture, the wardrobes in the parents and children rooms were full of their clothes that had been moved to the house the previous week. There were new curtains and carpets throughout the house. The kitchen utensils, crockery and cutlery had been moved to the house.

... which was cleaned by Mrs. Smets days earlier ...

The cleaning said that she had been house cleaning on the 12 July 1995, however the intruder alarm record shows that Mrs Smets-Mooren (User Number 4 on the alarm computer records) was there from 15.11 hrs to 15.15 hrs. This was apparently after the alarm installer had done some work in the morning. Is it the case that the 4 minutes she spent at the house was a sufficient period to inspect the house to determine and form an opinion as to what cleaning and re-furbish might have been necessary for Suzanne to undertake?

Furthermore, the cleaning lady had not been to the house after the moving of the furnishings on the 13 July or after Suzanne had been there (with a helper) on the 14 July to unpack and move the furniture into position, put up curtains, wall pictures, et al.

Furthermore the firemen themselves stated that there were paint stains on the stairs.

... and where nobody noticed the glue and paint stains on the carpet (except for one on the stairs ...

Clearly Suzanne noticed the need to clean and re-furbish as she made a note in her Diary of cleaning jobs than needed to be done. Further, there was a list in her Notebook of cleaning materials and items she needed to buy. This Diary and Notebook was suppressed by the prosecution officers.

Further Mrs Smets herself stated that she had bought some inflammable cleaning materials herself.

Why would Suzanne itemise cleaning jobs to do and cleaning materials to buy, and tell her brother that she was cleaning, if it was unnecessary to clean?

... and consequently fell asleep. This is a picture that attacks our imagination, let alone our logical intellect.

Almost all cigarette fires that occur in beds or upholstered chair occur when the person falls asleep. None of the persons involved wanted to fall asleep and set fire to the bed or chair, however this does not prevent such accidents occurring.

In addition Professor Dr. H.J. Klasen indicated in his report of the 28th September 1998 that with fire caused by smoking in bed different locations of the burn wounds are to be expected.

The prosecution witness’s evidence was in the form of a letter that did not produce any evidence to support this view. Further no explanation was made to account for the fact that the burns were, according to the Attorney General herself, only ‘scorching and superficial’. It is the case that raging fires in which a Flashover occur produce almost total third degree burns, and not the superficial second degree burns sustained.

By contrast Dr. Hertum produced over 60 pages of clinical notes and diagrams of burns victims that showed burns injuries similar those sustained. Those burn victims were injured in normal (that is, un-accelerated) fires.

The theoretical possibility of an accident caused by smoking in bed can then also be excluded and on the grounds of technical investigation that concluded on intentional arson with several fires one can only come to one conclusion, namely that in the night of the 16-17 July 1995 in the apartment at the Eindhovenseweg 3A in Steensel deliberate arson was performed.

Arson that had to seem like an accident.

Like an accident caused by a forgotten cigarette when smoking in bed.

This arson was thought off and carried out by the accused Sweeney.

Thus the Attorney General demands a conviction on the basis of the ‘theoretical possibilities’ and not of any standard of proof.

A chilly and sinister scenario that did and had to cost a young women's life. That means: murder. The primary accusation. How do I get to this?

Not from the statements of Sweeney himself. He denies it and I got dizzy from reading the back and forth of his statements. His selective memory is so obvious that it hurts in the eyes.

No, I had to take the evidence for this serious offence from other facts and circumstances, namely:

- In a plan made shortly before, the couple Sweeney-Davies decided to spend the weekend 14-17 July 1995 with each other, without the children. The visit of Suzanne's brother, Simon Davies, was postponed for two days later and the nanny Patricia McDaid was hired to look after the children in Belgium.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The ‘plan’ to spend the weekend together was made weeks earlier in June when Suzanne was in London and interviewed baby-sitters at the British Nursing Association offices in London.

Two weekends were planned well in advance, one on the 30 June and the other for the 14 July.

These are the same allegations made in the court of first instance and all this information is in the Attorney General’s police files and in this Broek-Blaauboer seeks to pervert the course of justice: See pages 179-182 and at 5.b)

After Sweeney had picked her up at the airport in Brussels on the 14th July, he went by himself to go shopping. He didn't want to take the children and McDaid along, despite a strong appeal to do so.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

McDaid said in her statement that the Defendant went shopping at 15.00 hrs., this is a lie.

In fact the Defendant had gone to the shops at 14.00 hrs and had returned by 14.25 hrs. This is known because the police have the telephone records that show that at 14.31 hrs the Defendant telephoned the British Embassy in Brussels and then again at 15.09 hrs. when the conversation lasted for some time and accounted for 313 telephone units.

McDaid said in her statement that the Defendant did not return from the shops until 17.00 hrs., this is a lie.

The telephone log shows that at 16.15 hrs. McDaid telephoned her boyfriend in London, after the Defendant had left his home, and that that telephone call lasted about half an hour.

The Defendant left his home to drive to Brussels just before McDaid telephoned her boyfriend. The Friday rush hour traffic meant that the journey took him until about 17.45 hrs to reach the hotel where Suzanne had already checked in. This time is known because at 17.45 the Defendant ordered 2 coffees from the hotel room service.

- The bottles and jerry can, which were found in the apartment in Steensel, originated from Belgium stores -

The police knew from the price labels on the bottles where they were purchased; and thus they conducted investigations at the store at which the cleaning materials were purchased and discovered that they were purchased on the 13 July 1995 at the ‘Superbois’ store and that the products were purchased by Suzanne.

The police suppressed this information.

The police also confirmed that the Defendants fingerprints were not on the bottles, but suppressed the identity of the person or persons whose fingerprints were found on the bottles.

See attached pages 186-187 overleaf: (and at 5. b)

In the evening the couple returned in two cars to Belgium

The Defendant returned home to check on his daughter (whom was ill with pneumonia)

Furthermore, the Defendant had a classic (and valuable) 1972 E-Type Jaguar which risked being stolen if left out at night. Thus the Defendant and Suzanne returned to the house to leave the E-Type Jaguar safely at the house and use Suzanne’s car [a Jaguar saloon].

On the 15th July Suzanne was already sent to Amsterdam by the accused. He wanted to follow later, he still wanted to do fly to Frankfurt for business (according to McDaid) or to look at Cd ROMs (according to the accused).

The Defendant had wanted to fly to Frankfurt on that day in connection with his CD-Rom business, however instead he and Suzanne had breakfast in bed and a relaxing morning and stayed at the hotel until mid-day. Is it suspicious for a married couple to want to spend time together in a five star hotel?

He did go to the airport Zaventem (to look at departure times?), but not to Frankfurt.

The Defendant did go to the airport, the hotel was the Zaventem Sheraton and was at the airport across the road from the terminal building. The Defendant went to the terminal because Suzanne had a post box at the Post Office in the terminal and she had asked him to collect her mail.

He hires a car at the airport and goes home (Belgium).

The Defendant had to hire a car because Suzanne has taken her car. Furthermore he hired a car because McDaid would use it to get to the airport on the Monday morning. The weekend cost of the car hire is about BEF 3000. Whereas, the cost of a taxi journey from the Defendant’s home to the airport was more than that. Thus by hiring a car at the airport he had use of it over the weekend and McDaid could return it to the airport on the Monday morning when she had to catch her flight back to London. This saved the Defendant the time and expense of returning the car himself and it saved him the cost of the taxi journey for McDaid.

McDaid said in her statement of 21 February 1996: “ At about 10.00 on the Saturday morning Suzanne telephoned me. [To check on the children] I told Suzanne that I had a problem with the children and that they had been hyperactive...”

The Defendant returned to his home to check on his children and to take them some cakes and sweets.

Is it suspicious for a father to want to check how a sick child was coping and to take his children some cakes?

There he gets changed.

Is it suspicious for a man to change into fresh clothes on a hot summer day?

McDaid sees him carrying things that he puts into the rental car, according to her.

McDaid could not see the Defendant put anything into his car because it is impossible for her to see the car, or the parking area, from the playroom.

She notices that he is agitated, which is unlike him.

McDaid had only spent a 1 hour drive with the Defendant (the previous day when he collected her at the airport) and she had from this draw conclusions of what he was like or unlike.

He leaves; nobody knows that he will go to Steensel.

Clearly the Defendant has to go to Steensel at some time during the weekend as he had to install the computer system that Suzanne and her brother planned to use on the Monday morning. In that Steensel is en-route from Belgium to Amsterdam the Defendant could have either used the spare time while Suzanne is shopping in Amsterdam, or cut short the weekend and do the work on the Sunday.

Is it suspicious that a man would wish to help his wife and her brother by installing a computer system for them?

At 16:19 that day the alarm in Steensel is turned off, at 18:53 it is turned on again. During that time he was in the apartment, the reason? His explanation for it is vague and messy.

There is nothing vague or messy about the installation of a computer network and the associated wiring. The police discovered at the house the computer equipment and the network equipment that the Defendant was working on and took photographs of the work he was doing.

In the meantime Suzanne, who already arrived at 15:00 in Amsterdam, called to Belgium (McDaid) because Sweeney still had not come to her. Only then McDaid found out that it was intended that Sweeney also went to Amsterdam.

Here the Attorney General, Mrs. A.E. Broek-Blaauboer, is again telling lies.

In the actual statement of McDaid [21 February 1996] McDaid says:

“- He (the Defendant) told me that his plan was join Suzanne in Amsterdam.

- He gave me a telephone number of where they would be [the hotel] in Amsterdam.

- Two weeks before he had given me the telephone number of the Apollo Hotel in Amsterdam and I recognised that that is where they were.”

That evening and night was spent by the couple in Amsterdam. In the evening of the 16th July, the following day, Suzanne and the accused both leave in their "own" cars (Sweeney in the hired car (Ford Escort), Suzanne in the Jaguar) for Steensel.

At 22:59 the alarm of the house is turned off, at approximately 23:00 a witness (Soetens) sees a man and a woman- Suzanne- coming out the door to the left of the front door of the house and sees that the man drives away into the Van Nunenstraat. The construction lamp above the drive way was not on then (it was on at 23:00). The car was parked far back, with the front towards the street. Because witness v.d. Wal thought that was strange, as there never was a car parked there, she had an eye on it until 02:10 am. When she was later woken up by the police, she noticed that the car was gone. At 02:10 am she noticed that there was a light on in the bedroom. At 00:15/ 00:30 a witness watched two people in the house walking upstairs.

At 04:30 McDaid awakens from a sound in [the house] and observes after that the accused is at home.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

McDaid actually says that she hears the Defendant running water in the bathroom. When the Defendant arrived at his home he had something to eat and some coffee and then he took a bath. In fact he had returned to the home in Belgium at about 04.00 hrs.

The travelling time between Steensel and Belgium is 1.50 hours.

The travelling time for the Defendant is over 2 hours

This all means that the accused had to have left Steensel between 0.2:10 and 02:30. Another obvious technical detail; the sensor of the construction lamp seems to have been turned so that it was turned on the bushes and not the driveway. The accused gave a very complicated explanation for this, where amongst other things climbing in the boot of the car was on the agenda. His departure from the house was also rather complicated - only in his view-, which happened via the patio door (which Suzanne was supposed to have locked after his departure).

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The Defendant left the house via the patio door as this was the nearest to the car.

Suzanne then locked the Patio door after the Defendant had left the house. The fireman who broke into the house after the fire opened all the doors and windows to vent the smoke and this fireman described in his statement how he had to turn the inside handle of the patio door the full 180º to release the door catch / lock.

This is therefore the proof that Suzanne was alive at the time the Defendant left the house and then locked up the house.

He did not have an explanation for the large quantities of flammable liquids found in his bedroom. The accused's story about the cleaning done by Suzanne, cannot explain such amounts anyway and the one about the lighter liquids I won't mention.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

There were no flammable liquids found in the bedroom.

The Defendant had not been in the bedroom for at least an hour before he left the house.

He was continuing to work on the computer installation which was in Suzanne’s office in an annex of the house.

However the Defendant did give full detail to the police regarding why Suzanne was cleaning. The police had suppressed the evidence given to them by the Defendant.

Concerning the reasons for Suzanne staying behind in Steensel he gives changing and unacceptable explanations.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

Suzanne stayed at the house because she was expecting he brother there the next day to work with her.

That same night Suzanne had telephoned her brother to confirm that he was coming the next morning.

She was going to train him on the computer system. It was Suzanne’s brother that stated that he was to go to the house with Suzanne on that Monday (the 17 July 1995) when he made his statement to the local Dutch police on the 18 July 1995.

There is no evidence that between 02:10 am and 02:30 am someone (one or several persons) was in the house; there are no signs of forced entry.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

There is considerable evidence that there were people at the house. One witness saw Suzanne speaking to another woman at the door. Another witness saw three men 'in T-shirts' in the garden of the house. None of these circumstances were apparently investigated by the police and the identities of these persons were not verified.

From all these facts and circumstances, coming forth from many interrogations and investigations, I conclude that on the 17th July 1995 in Steensel, Kevin Sweeney killed Suzanne Davies by arson. A clever arson attack?

Even though the accused was described as very intelligent human being in the report of the psychologist drs. Wallace of 17th September 1996, this intelligence could not avoid that he overlooked several factors. The man "obsessed with perfection" wanted to be too perfect.

But one things is clear: Suzanne Davies had to die. Why? What were the motives?

Here there can only be questions asked, like: Could he not bear that she possibly wanted to leave him (she always talked of that),

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

Suzanne’s secretary and friends said that Suzanne was very happy. On the 18 July 1995 in his statement to the police Suzanne father said that the Defendant was hard working, reserved and had given his daughter everything that her heart desired. Suzanne father said that he was very proud of the Defendant.

… was it because she wasn't a good mother for his children (and favoured her daughter Charlotte)?

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

At Suzanne’s request the Defendant had ‘recognised’ her daughter as his own and gave her his name. The Defendant had changed his will to give Suzanne guardianship of his daughters and to give Suzanne’s daughter an equal share (with his own daughters) of his estate. Suzanne had changed her will to give the Defendant guardianship of her daughter.

Do money motives play a role or is it possible a combination of these factors? Only Kevin Sweeney can answer that.

Again Broek-Blaauboer lies:

The Defendant had no debts of any sort and had at that time a substantial amount of cash savings in his bank. He had earned a sufficient amount of money in his employment and on average earned £120,000 p.a. after tax.

A man that is difficult to get to know. A man with two faces: on the one hand very friendly and attentive, on the other hand manipulative and very imaginative in the bad sense of the word.

This man took care of the fact that the surviving dependants of Suzanne Davies, the family, the daughter, were left behind with sorrow. I then ask the court not only in their name, but also in the name of society, who cannot tolerate that one person robs another person of their life in such a sinister way, after overruling of the previous verdict of the court, and after that to sentence Kevin Sweeney to fifteen years imprisonment. And to recommend arrest next to this punishment.

Mw. Mr. A.E. Broek-Blaauboer

Advocate general

September 2003/ Translation / Requisitoir of the Attorney General Court of Appeal at ‘s-Hertogenbosch on 6 February 2001