Klinkenbijl Home Background Contents Corruption Responsibility Violations Blackmail Bokhoven Velders Klinkenbijl Ter Beek Blaauboer Huurman

 

Perjury

PROSECUTION PERJURY IN COURT & MOTIVES

 

The evidence given in Court by Monique Klinkenbijl, Trial Prosecutor & Appeal Application was perjured; a few examples are given below:-

 

 MONIQUE KLINKENBIJL

 

  Prosecutor Klinkenbijl had consistently condoned the perjury, the destruction and suppression of evidence and the fabrication of  evidence in respect of this case.  In Court on 11 October 1996 Klinkenbijl produced not only a hysterical and unintelligible exhibition, but also embarked on a course of perjured testimony. 

 

The perjury of Klinkenbijl is not simply a re-hash of the perjuries of the Prosecution's officer.  Klinkenbijl actually invented her own perjuries for her testimony in court.

 

The perjured evidence of Klinkenbijl is written in her own handwriting in the notes she used for her testimony during the court hearing:-

 

 

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

 

-  "Suzanne heeft nooit voor Omniscience gewerkt.  Heeft nooit salaris ontvangen."

 

-    Here Klinkenbijl lied to the court.  The Prosecution's officers found the bank statements of Suzanne Davies at Steensel.  In the bank statements for Lloyds Bank was the first salary payment made to Suzanne Davies in June 1994.  Klinkenbijl and the Prosecution's officers then destroyed these bank statements in order to deceive the Court.

In Klinkenbijl's own handwriting:

[430

 

Klinkenbijl knew very well that this fact may have been later revealed and therefore in her Appelmemoire she changed her words, thus,

-  "Suzanne heeft nooit salaris ontvangen van verdachte."

[See: Rebuttal: 96.2]

Why did Prosecutor Klinkenbijl perjurer herself in Court?

 

 

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

 

-  "... alcohol gebruikt... van het tijdstrip van overlijden tussen de 0.9 en 1.7 .. hebben bedragen."

-    Here Klinkenbijl lied to the court.  Whilst in the autopsy less than 0.7 mg/mL was actually found and given that the Gerechtelijk Laboratory was induced by the corrupt Prosecution officers to invent an entirely impossible scenario about "theoretical maximum" alcohol consumption of 0.7-1.7 mg/mL, notwithstanding Klinkenbijl knew that the range quoted by the Gerechtelijk Laboratory was "0.7 - 1.7".  Yet in court she lied and stated the range of 0.9 - 1.7 mg/mL.  This was not a slip of the tongue as her the notes in her own handwriting testify,  furthermore in her Appelmemoire she states the correct theoretical range "0.7 - 1.7". 

Klinkenbijl perjurers herself before the court in order to deceive the Judges.

[See: Rebuttal: 11.2]

 

In Klinkenbijl's own handwriting:

[429

Why did Klinkenbijl lie in Court?

 

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

 

-  "Heet valt McDaid op dat verdachte niet slaapt en dat hij gerimpelde tenen heeft alsof hij in bad heeft gezeten."

-    Here Klinkenbijl lied to the court about the absurd story of the ‘wrinkled toes’.  Klinkenbijl had in her possession the report which had been produced by the Expert Pierre Radlett and in which the floor plan of Kevin Sweeney's home in Belgium is shown.    Klinkenbijl knew very well that McDaid's testimony was perjured in that it is impossible for McDaid to see into the bedroom in which Kevin Sweeney slept and thus her entire story was a fabrication.
 

 

[432

 

Klinkenbijl had this evidence in her file and she suppressed this from the Court and then in her evidence she lied in the court in order to deceive the Judges.

In Klinkenbijl's own handwriting:

[433

Why did Klinkenbijl deceive the Court?

 

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

 

-  "Als Suzanne's ouders arriveren, ziet J. Davies in de wasmand een laken met bruine vlekken erop en ook een nachthemd, bloes en badjas van Suzanne."

-    Here Klinkenbijl specifically fabricates evidence to say in the court.   In no statement did Jacqueline Davies ever state that she allegedly saw "a nightdress, blouse and bathrobe of Suzanne".    This evidence was notably concocted by Klinkenbijl out of maliciousness and corruption.   Thus Klinkenbijl perjured herself before the court in order to pervert the course of justice and deceive the Judges.

 

In Klinkenbijl's own handwriting:

[434

Why did Klinkenbijl deceive the Court?

 

 

MOTIVE FOR THE PERJURY BY KLINKENBIJL:

 

The motives for the perjury of Prosecutor Klinkenbijl is certainly because she had been ordered by her superiors in the Dutch government to pervert the course of justice and fabricate evidence against Kevin Sweeney. Furthermore, the motivations of Klinkenbijl was to manipulate the Davies family and produce a 'them' (the defence) and 'us' (the Prosecution and Davies Family) situation to keep the family in control and not asking too many questions about the actual circumstances of the fire.

i.   Klinkenbijl performance in Court of 11 October 1996 was exceptionally hysterical, irrational and dysfunctional. Did the words spoken in Court by Klinkenbijl reveal a person out of phase with reality? A psychological appraisal of the speech that Klinkenbijl made in Court might show a person with significant psychosis, or it might show that her attempts to obfuscate and pervert the course of justice in the case was due to the firm instructions of her superiors in the Dutch government.   At the end of the proceedings in Court on 11 October 1996 Klinkenbijl was heard to turn to the Defence attorney and call him an "arsehole" in public.

ii.  Klinkenbijl decision to continue with the case in November 1996 and apply for a re-trial was due to the pressure of her superiors in the Dutch government.

iii. There has been a continuous communication between Klinkenbijl and the Davies family to 'keep them sweet'.  Furthermore Klinkenbijl has instructed the corrupt policeman Van Bokhoven to supply letters and faxes to the Davies family in order to keep the family 'on-side'.

iv.  In a tape recorded conversation with an English tabloid journalist, one Yvonne Roberts, it was admitted that Klinkenbijl had been providing the Press with comment and information.

v.   In Court on 11 October 1996 the Defence presented a copy of an Affidavit from Suzanne Davies' Solicitors, Lightfoots of Thame  England, representing the estate of Suzanne Davies.  This Affidavit (dated 10 July 1996) confirmed that the estate of Suzanne Davies was in Trust and otherwise for the benefit of the children and therefore Kevin Sweeney had no motive as stated by the Prosecution.

 

-    The original of the document is held in the archives of the Defence attorneys in Amsterdam and copies were presented to the President and Sitting Judges in the Court plus a copy for Klinkenbijl.  There were no other copies distributed.

-    Following the court sitting in October 1996 Klinkenbijl had supplied the Davies family with a copy of this Affidavit and once the children's Trust automatically was vested in the children the Davies family used the Affidavit (fraudulently supplied by Klinkenbijl) in civil proceedings.   Thus here is proof that Klinkenbijl was acting under superior instructions to keep the Davies family 'sweet' and to divert their attention from the facts of the fire to financial issues:-

 

[435

 

 

[436

 

vi.  This letter from Boodle Hatfield, the solicitors of the Davies family, is interesting for a number of reasons:-

-    It will be seen that Klinkenbijl gave as early as February 1997 information to the Davies family and their solicitors that Kevin Sweeney was to face a re-trial.  This was not confirmed to Kevin Sweeney's attorneys until September 1997.  Why was it possible for Klinkenbijl to state this to the Davies family 7 months before?

-    It will be noticed that Klinkenbijl is helping the Davies family in respect of the 'Dutch estate'.  This is the matter of the alleged fraud of the insurance policy for the mortgage of Suzanne Davies.  Thus on the one hand Klinkenbijl tells the court that Suzanne Davies had committed a fraud in the mortgage (and that Kevin Sweeney was an accomplice) and yet Klinkenbijl supports the Davies family's claim on this insurance policy.  It is believed that Klinkenbijl has advised her clients (the Davies family) that the insurance claim against the UAP Insurance company was valid and that therefore the Davies family should pursue the claim, in Holland, for their own benefit.

-    It will be noticed that the solicitors of the Davies family have in their possession a copy of the Affidavit in question (the Affidavit given to Klinkenbijl in Court in 1996).

-    It will be noticed that the solicitors of the Davies family wish 'to take a statement from Rosemary Tansley'.  This person worked at Suzanne Davies' solicitors and the person who witnessed Suzanne Davies' Will.  The purpose of this was that the Davies family could be claim that Suzanne Davies was of unsound mind and thus the Will was invalid.  This opinion is exactly the opposite of the opinion of the Davies family in their statements before the Court and indeed contradicts the statements made by Klinkenbijl in court regarding the possibility that Suzanne Davies had committed suicide.

-    It will be noticed that the solicitors of the Davies family have exact knowledge of the forthcoming re-trail of Kevin Sweeney and that this trial would take place 6 weeks thereafter.   This information was given by Klinkenbijl to the Davies family even before it was known to Kevin Sweeney.

 

 

vii.  THE PERJURY BY KLINKENBIJL 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.