Prosecutor asks for suspect's acquittal 28 years after campsite murder

The Public Prosecution Service (OM) asked the court to acquit Frank V. (59) of the murder of his stepfather on a Petten campsite almost 30 years after the fact. In 1995, the year after the crime, the court in Amsterdam sentenced the German man on appeal to five years in prison for stabbing his stepfather to death. The only evidence was V.'s confession to the police, which he later retracted.

Last year, the Supreme Court referred the case back to the Court of Appeal in The Hague. Legal psychologist Melanie Sauerland concluded after an "in-depth investigation" that there were "strong indications of false confessions" in this case. V. said that he confessed after being "psychologically terrorized" by detectives during his 14 interrogations as a suspect. He said the police fed him details.

"The reliability of the confessional statements has been affected to such an extent that they cannot simply be used for evidence," the attorney general of the OM explained his request for acquittal. "A conviction can no longer solely be based on that."

Peter Teschke, 41, was found stabbed to death at the campsite in Peten at 5:30 a.m. on 2 July 1994. The police initially suspected one of V.'s uncles, who was part of the German tour group. Later, suspicion fell on V. after he mentioned a dream in which he stabbed his wife's stepfather.

He confessed to the crime after several interrogations but later retracted it. After the court initially acquitted him, the Amsterdam court convicted him on appeal. The confessions were the only evidence because the murder weapon was never found. V. served three of the five years in prison.

Despite the request for acquittal, the OM found that this was not a miscarriage of justice. "With the file in hand, you could view the case differently, as was also apparent from the initial acquittal from the court and the conviction by the court of appeal."

The OM also does not think the police could be accused of "tunnel vision." "This is not the case to a large extent. We acted as was customary at the time. V. came up with the extraordinary dream and confession statement, which the police thought was specific perpetrator information. V. did not seem to be an illogical perpetrator. The times have really changed in that regard."