Perjury

The evidence given in Court by Johannes Marinus Martinus van Bokhoven, the Police Team Leader or Senior Investigating Officer was perjured; a few examples are given below:-

JOHANNES MARINUS MARTINUS ANTONIUS VAN BOKHOVEN

  Van Bokhoven had consistently lied, destroyed or suppressed evidence and fabricated evidence in respect of this case.  This continued in Court on 11 October 1996 wherein Van Bokhoven produced more perjured testimony:-

---  Example of perjury in Court on 11 October 1996: Van Bokhoven said:

- "Wij hadden de Engelse politie onderzoek laten instellen naar de personen Hobbs en Barton.  Deze personen zijn noch in Engeland noch elders in de werld gevonden."

In this respect Van Bokhoven has lied to the court as no attempt was made to locate these persons.

-    It must be stated that in the 200 hours that the Dutch police interrogated Kevin Sweeney not at any one point did the police suggest that the address or telephone number of these people were relevant.

-    It is indeed bizarre that the Dutch police asked the English police to try and locate two persons known to be in the U.S.A.  The person entrusted with this task by Van Bokhoven was Sergeant Goodley of Scotland Yard.  Goodley is being investigated by the Police Complaints Authority in England for corruption and also faces a number of criminal charges for perjury and fraud.

-    It is not known exactly why the Dutch police looked for Hobbs and Barton in England as they knew fully well that both were in the U.S.A.; notwithstanding, in September 1996 a telephone survey was done of all the Hobbs and Bartons listed in the London telephone directory.  It was revealed that NONE of these persons had been telephoned by the English or Dutch police.

-    The London telephone directory in question was produced to the court in October 1996.

-    A telephone survey of the "J Hobbs" and "T Bartons" living in California was done in December 1996 and it was revealed that NONE of the 132 'Hobbs' or 64 'Bartons' had been contacted by any police officer, or any other person, from England or Holland or elsewhere.

[413

[414

---  Example of perjury in Court on 11 October 1996: Van Bokhoven said:

- "To my knowledge there was no investigation done into the financial background of Suzanne Davies."

In this statement Van Bokhoven lied as he certainly removed from Suzanne Davies' house in Steensel all of her financial records, bank accounts, chequebooks, accounts, et al.  These records were apparently never disclosed or declared to the Examining Magistrate nor to the court.  The whereabouts of these documents and records are now unknown and the whereabouts of certain assets of Suzanne Davies are also now uncertain.  There must be a suspicion that Van Bokhoven or others have financial benefited from the disappearance and/or misappropriation of these records which give access to funds owned by Suzanne Davies.

---  Example of perjury in Court on 11 October 1996: Van Bokhoven said:

- "We did not ask the Danish police to conduct an investigation. They did it by themselves."

This statement by Van Bokhoven underlines not only a calculated perjury but moreover an attempt to hide from the court the destruction of evidence and the fact that Van Bokhoven was working for private parties with a vested financial interest in the conviction of Kevin Sweeney.

The Dutch private detective Stekelenburg was hired to induce and produce perjured evidence against Kevin Sweeney.  For this purpose Jan Stekelenburg travelled to Denmark (on the 16 January 1996) where he attempted to induce the friends and associates of Kevin Sweeney to produced perjured evidence.  When Stekelenburg failed in these attempts he visited the police in Odense, Denmark and there attempted to persuade them to conduct an investigation.  The Danish police refused to start an investigation and thus Stekelenburg left Denmark without any of the perjured evidence for which he had hoped.
 

[415

On his return to the Netherlands, Stekelenburg instructed and induced Van Bokhoven to use Interpol to get the Danish police to conduct an investigation. 

The Police Commissioner of Odense, Denmark, confirms this in a letter:-
 

[416

A journalist has alleged that Stekelenburg paid Van Bokhoven NLG.10,000 in cash to get Van Bokhoven to use Interpol to request the Danish police enquiry.  There is no other possible reason, apart from a bribe, for Van Bokhoven to engage in these illegal activities; unless of course Van Bokhoven was acting on the orders of his superiors and they had instructed him to pervert the course of justice.

On 2 February 1996, via the Dutch Interpol office, Van Bokhoven sent a request to the Danish police.  Reproduced below (and supplied by the Danish Police Commissioner) are extracts from the official records of the Danish police:-
 

[417

It will be noticed that is this Danish Police Journal entry not only is the request from the Dutch police stated (National Criminal Intelligence Service, Bureau Interpol, 46 Europaweg, Zoetermeer, Holland), but also the involvement of Stekelenburg:-
 

[418

On the reverse of the same Journal document as above is noted by Detective Ivan Stroem Olesen the date on which the investigation started (6.2.96) and the date on which the report/s were sent to Van Bokhoven (19.2.96):-
 

[419

On 15 February 1996 the Danish police sent Van Bokhoven the results of the investigation.  However because the results of the investigation were positive for Kevin Sweeney, Van Bokhoven and his paymaster, Stekelenburg, had to destroy this evidence.

It is now known that all these activities were known to all the Dutch prosecutors and examining magistrates (working on the case from the period 1995 to 2002) and each of them illegally suppressed this information from the Defence and the courts.

In order to cover his tracks and to diminish his involvement in this deception, Van Bokhoven then (in April 1996) 'officially' asked the Examining Magistrate for permission to conduct an investigation in Denmark. 

Here Van Bokhoven and the Examining Magistrate lied to the Courts by stating that no investigation had been carried out in Denmark. 

The dossier shows that the Examining Magistrate then 'officially' refused Van Bokhoven the permission to conduct a Danish investigation and thus Van Bokhoven, the Examining magistrate, and the Prosecutor had to destroy the report (which was favourable to Sweeney) ALREADY supplied to him by the Danish police.

Van Bokhoven, the Examining Magistrate, and the Prosecutor then lied to the Court when they denied that there was such an investigation undertaken.

MOTIVE FOR THE PERJURY BY VAN BOKHOVEN:

a)   From the very beginning of the investigation Van Bokhoven had suppressed evidence, destroyed evidence and fabricated evidence.  This began immediately after Van Bokhoven was instructed on the case by his superiors. Part of these instructions was to 'keep the Davies family on-side' and thus Van Bokhoven befriended the Davies family and did everything possible to meet their requests and to 'keep them busy' so that they would not question the Dutch authorities' version of events.  What else was the motivation for Van Bokhoven?

b)   Van Bokhoven and his team faced criminal charges for criminal conspiracy to suppress the evidence in respect of alleged 'hacking'.   Why did Van Bokhoven risk his career and act in this illegal manner? Clearly, he had been told to do so by his superiors in the Dutch government.

c)   Van Bokhoven has made considerable efforts, both illegal and unethical, to attempt to falsely have Kevin Sweeney convicted.  Time and time again evidence was suppressed, destroyed and fabricated.   What, apart from bribery, induced Van Bokhoven to undertake such illegalities? Clearly, he had been told to do so by his superiors in the Dutch government.

d)   It is clear that Van Bokhoven was not just motivated by the prospects of career advancement in his attempts to 'frame' Kevin Sweeney.  The evidence for this is gained from the ancillary activities of Van Bokhoven whereby he was regularly writing and telephoning persons in England in order to keep these people 'busy' and 'under control'. Clearly, he had been told to do so by his superiors in the Dutch government.

i.   Van Bokhoven was constantly (1995-2001) writing and telephoning the Davies family, lawyers, the press, and other parties in England:-
 

[420

ii.  Van Bokhoven sent many false and corrupt faxes to lawyers in England which were used by the English lawyers to mislead the English courts:-
 

[421

iii. During 1997 Van Bokhoven sent false and corrupt faxes to at least 4 different English lawyers plus other persons.  These faxes were used to pervert the course of justice in England:-
 

[422

iv.  Van Bokhoven has frequently since 1995 telephoned the English lawyers and provided false statements against Kevin Sweeney which these lawyers used in court:-
 

[423

v.  Van Bokhoven repeatedly telephoned the lawyers and provided them with details of the proceedings against Kevin Sweeney.
 

[424

vi.  Van Bokhoven also sold to the private detective Stekelenburg the entire Prosecutor's Dossier.  The examples of this is as follows:-

-    From September/October  1995 onwards Van Bokhoven sold Stekelenburg copies of the Prosecutor's dossiers.  This is specifically noted in the report/s produced by Stekelenburg:-

[425

vii. In January 1996 Van Bokhoven supplied to Thomas Davies documents from the Prosecution's dossier.  This included a copy of a 'Pre-Nuptial Agreement' which Van Bokhoven illegally supplied to Thomas Davies and which Thomas Davies subsequently gave to Stekelenburg:-

[426

It will be noticed from the statement of Somberg that Thomas Davies faxed Somberg a copy of the document on 16 January 1996.  This document was held by Van Bokhoven who supplied it to Thomas Davies between 13-16 January 1996 when the Davies family visited Van Bokhoven (and his family) in Holland.

Van Bokhoven also involved his wife in the scheme to ingratiate himself with the Davies family and keep the Davies family 'on-side'.

It is certain that Van Bokhoven was on first name terms with members of the Davies family. The fax below is from Suzanne's uncle (Robert Williams) to 'Hans Von Bokhoven':-

[427

viii.  THE PERJURY BY VAN BOKHOVEN CAN ONLY BE DUE TO THE FACT THAT HE WAS ACTING ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE DUTCH GOVERNMENT IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO COVER-UP THE REAL CAUSE FOR THE DEATH OF SUZANNE.