Police lied under oath in 1998 villa murder case: documentary

A request for review on the Arnhem villa murder from 1998 was again submitted to the Supreme Court. The reason is the second season of De Villamoord, KRO-NCRV reported on Thursday. The documentary series would show that the leader of the police team lied under oath in court that his team accidentally encountered a group of men, nine of which were convicted afterwards. An earlier review request was rejected in April. The documentary series on NPO 2 starts on Monday.

In the Arnhem villa murder 23 years ago, a woman was killed and another woman was injured. The judge sentenced nine suspects to prison sentences ranging from five to twelve years. The conviction was based mainly on the confessions of two suspects, who also identified other men as involved. One of the confessing suspects later said that he confessed under heavy pressure from the police.

"The police and the judiciary have knowingly cheated, there is talk of perjury and forgery being committed," said lawyer Paul Acda, who represents six of the convicts. The documentary series highlights two separate tracks. Shortly after the murder, the team leader received information which he allegedly kept secret from the judge. In addition, a police officer charged with drug cases was active in the investigation into the villa murder. He worked with informants and paid them for information, former colleagues told the program makers of KRO-NCRV.

Police Oost Nederland and the Public Prosecution Service (OM) did not want to respond to the broadcaster and consider the case, after the previous decision of the Supreme Court, to be legally completed. The Supreme Court ruled in April that the sentencing judge thoroughly considered both the original, incriminating statement and the interrogation method of the police and there was no reason to do that again.

A Supreme Court spokeswoman said Thursday that a review request can be submitted at any time and multiple times. There are no limitation periods. A request for review can be submitted to the Supreme Court if new information presents itself, a so-called novelty that was not yet known to the sentencing judge.