Amsterdam man convicted of killing girlfriend trying to break up with him

The District Court in Haarlem convicted 42-year-old Cetin K. for the 2022 murder of Angela de Beer. The 35-year-old and K. are both from Amsterdam. K. was sentenced on Tuesday to 20 years in prison.

He was accused of shooting the woman in the head during the overnight period between June 14 and June 15 in the Spaarnwoude recreational area. The victim was trying to end her relationship with K.

The court said K. killed the woman with a premeditated plan, and was therefore guilty of murder. K. made an appointment with De Beer on the evening in question and drove with her to a remote location. He had gloves, a firearm and ammunition with him. That indicates the presence of a plan, according to the court.

The court also took into account a large number of threatening texts that K. sent to the victim as evidence of murder. “I will never leave you alone, Angela, you realize that, don’t you, darling?” K. wrote in one of those messages. He said if she did not acquiesce to him, he would not allow her to be with another, according to the evidence presented in court.

De Beer called her parents just before she was shot. She was scared and panicked, and said that K. had a weapon with him. During that telephone conversation, the woman was standing in the ditch where the police found her lifeless body the next day.

De Beer was abused and terrorized for years in that relationship with the married man. The court also declared it proven that K. inflicted serious burns on the woman two months before her death during a stay in Turkey. The victim was tied up and doused with a flammable liquid.

K., a married father of four children, has always denied the murder. According to the court, there is more than sufficient evidence for all accusations. His DNA was present on a bullet found in his car, and also on a shell casing and glove found at the crime scene.

The Public Prosecution Service had demanded eighteen years in prison and mandatory TBS, a period of additional psychiatric treatment in an institution, because K. was diagnosed with a personality disorder. The court did not impose the TBS measure because it was not clear to the judges the extent in which the disorder influenced the crime.

It is also unclear whether treatment of the suspect would actually be useful, the court said. K. hardly cooperated in the investigation as it pertained to his psychological state.