Drents museum art theft suspects stay silent as lawyers seek minister’s testimony

The suspects in the art theft at the Drents Museum in Assen remain silent about their possible involvement. This emerged Thursday at the start of the preparatory hearing at the Assen court, attended by Douglas Chesley W. (36), Bernhard Z. (35), and Jan B. (21) from Heerhugowaard. The prosecutor emphasized that there is “an abundance of evidence” against the three in connection with the theft of four Romanian art pieces.

The suspects have been formally indicted. All three face charges for the theft of centuries-old art treasures on January 25, as well as causing an explosion and damaging the museum. In addition, B. and Z. are charged with stealing a getaway car in Alkmaar. The case is scheduled for a full hearing in March or April next year.

The stolen art treasures, a golden helmet and three golden bracelets, remain missing. “The disappearance of these items has a huge impact, and the suspects’ continued silence is a serious concern for the prosecution,” the prosecutor said.

Lawyer Nico Meijering revealed in court that his client B. was visited last Wednesday in prison by the Police Special Witness Team (TBG). The defense lawyers had only received an email and were not able to attend the meeting. “In my 38 years of practice, I’ve never seen anything like this,” Meijering said.

According to the police website, the TBG team gathers information on serious crimes and can shield both the details and the identity of a witness, even detectives and prosecutors may not know who the witness is. Meijering intends to question the TBG officer to understand the purpose of the meeting and also plans to speak with the handlers of undercover officers who put B. in a car and addressed him “in a manner that was far from friendly.”

The lawyers defending Z. also stated that they wish to question former Justice Minister David van Weel regarding the notable decision to release Z.’s full name and photograph.

Z. and W. were arrested on January 29. The next day, the police published their full names and photographs. Minister David van Weel, then responsible for Justice and Security, later explained that this measure was taken because the men refused to disclose the location of the stolen art treasures.

Z. perceived the action as blackmail, lawyer Micha Jonge Vos told the court in Assen on Thursday. The defense argues that the minister violated the fundamental principle that a suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Jonge Vos also intends to ask the former justice minister how much he had coordinated his interview with the Public Prosecution Service.

Ronald van der Graaf, W.’s lawyer, joined the request to summon Van Weel. He also noted concerns among the defense attorneys that they might be under surveillance by intelligence agencies. “You always feel watched. The AIVD and MIVD are not required to record their observations. How can you prepare a case if you cannot communicate freely with your client? It’s extremely challenging,” Van der Graaf said.

Earlier in the day, Meijering inquired whether the AIVD, the Netherlands’ General Intelligence and Security Service, had been engaged in locating the stolen Cotofenesti golden helmet and three golden bracelets. “Are we able to communicate fully in confidence with our client?” Meijering asked.

The Public Prosecution Service sees no reason to hear Van Weel. Prosecutors said the defense had provided no substantiated reason to suggest interference. Regarding the AIVD’s involvement, the prosecution declined to comment, noting it is outside their jurisdiction. The release of Z. and W.’s full names and photographs, the prosecutor explained, was part of a public information campaign to seek the public’s assistance in locating the stolen art treasures.

The prosecutors have not yet addressed the defense attorneys’ requests for investigation. The court will rule on all submitted requests at a later date.