WARNING GRAPHIC St Maarten KPSM POLICE Rapist of 8 and 10 year Old Stepdaughters WITHDRAWS APPEAL

Warning Graphic St Maarten KPSM POLICE Rapist of 8 and 10 year Old Stepdaughters WITHDRAWS APPEAL

👀 A KPSM POLICE OFFICER CLICK BACK FOR HIS PHOTO

👀

The case concerns the suspect, born in 1992, who was sentenced by the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba on November 13, 2023 to five years in prison for assaulting his life partner and sexual offenses against two underage girls, including his stepdaughter. The conviction also includes compensation measures for the injured parties.

The suspect has filed an appeal, represented by attorney N. van Schaik, with two grounds of appeal. The second ground concerns the conviction of the sexual offence against one of the victims, [victim 1], who according to her statement was seven years old at the time of the act, while the conviction states that she was eight years old. This would result in an inconsistency in the evidence.

However, the Court found that the statements of [victim 1] and other witnesses, including her mother and sister, are consistent and relate to the same event. During the hearing, the suspect stated that on the day of the crime he was lying naked in bed and watching pornography when [victim 1] came in. The statements of the complainant and witnesses were considered credible and reliable by the Court, despite the comment about the age.

The first ground concerns the minimum requirements of proof for the second fact, in which the suspect allegedly forced [victim 2], his stepdaughter, to commit indecent acts. The defense argues that the evidence does not meet the requirements of Article 385 paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Sint Maarten, which requires that the statement of one witness is not sufficient for a conviction. However, the Court used multiple statements from [victim 2] and supporting evidence from her mother and grandmother to confirm the credibility of the victim.

The Supreme Court concludes that the means fail and that the evidence is sufficient to justify the conviction. It is noted, however, that the reasonable period for the verdict has been exceeded, which leads to a reduction of the imposed sentence. The Supreme Court annuls the Court’s verdict only with regard to the duration of the prison sentence, but rejects the appeal for the rest.

Original pronunciation
Content indication
Conclusion AG. Caribbean case. Abuse of life partner (art. 2:273 in conjunction with 2:277 Sr SM) and abuse of minor daughters of girlfriend (art. 2:199 and art. 2:201 in conjunction with 2:210 Sr SM). Failed grounds for 1. violation of the minimum proof requirement of art. 385 paragraph 3 Sv SM and 2. contradiction between the victim’s statement used as evidence and the declaration of guilt. Conclusion is to reject.

Pronunciation
ATTORNEY GENERAL

AT THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE NETHERLANDS

Number 24/00355 C

Session April 22, 2025

CONCLUSION

D.J.M.W. Paridaens

In the case

[suspect] , born in [place of birth] on [date of birth] 1992, hereinafter: the suspect.

1 Introduction
1.1 By judgment of 13 November 2023 (H 137-2022), the suspect was sentenced by the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba (hereinafter: the Court) for “Assault, committed against his life partner” in the case with file number 100.00055/22 and under 1 primarily “Committing acts with a person under the age of twelve that also consist of sexual penetration of the body” and under 2 subsidiary “Actual indecent assault, while the guilty party commits the act against a child that he cares for or raises as belonging to his family” to a prison sentence of five years, less time spent in custody. In addition, the Court ruled on the claims of the injured parties and, in connection therewith, imposed compensation measures on the suspect.

1.2 On behalf of the suspect, N. van Schaik, lawyer in Utrecht, has proposed two grounds of appeal.

1.3 I will begin by discussing the second ground of appeal.

2 The second remedy
2.1 The second ground of appeal complains about the declaration of proof of fact 1 primarily in the case with file number 100.00063/22. The ground of appeal complains that the declaration of the complainant used as evidence, stating that the incident took place when she was seven years old, is in conflict with the declaration of proof stating that the complainant was born on [date of birth] 2013. The latter would imply that the complainant was eight years old on the date of the offence.

2.2 In the case with file number 100.00063/22, the defendant was primarily found proven under 1 that:

“he on January 27, 2022 in Sint Maarten, with [victim 1], born on [date of birth] 2013, who had not yet reached the age of twelve at the time, committed acts that included sexual penetration of the body, having the suspect,

who pushed [victim 1] onto a bed and
who blindfolded [victim 1] and/or covered her eyes and then
put his penis in the mouth of that [victim 1] and
held the head of that [victim 1] and moved it up and down while that [victim 1] had his, suspect’s, penis in her mouth”.
2.3 The Court used the following evidence:

“3. Report of the statement of [victim 1] dated 2 February 2022 (Appendix 1), insofar as it contains:

I came home from work on Thursday (het Hof begrijpt: op 27 januari 2022). My 8-year-old daughter came to me. She told me that they were outside playing and when she went inside the house she saw [verdachte] watching porn. She told me that [verdachte] was naked and then he placed his penis inside of her mouth. I immediately went to him. I told him that my daughter had told me that he had put his penis in her mouth and he replied that he didn’t know what she was talking about. When I continued asking questions and got angry he said that he had on porn and she walked in on him naked. My daughter was present when he said this. I went back to my daughter and started asking her more questions but she shut down and didn’t want to talk anymore. My 11-year-old daughter told me that she was outside and when my 8-year-old daughter came back outside she told her that daddy had put his penis in her mouth. [verdachte] was present while I was questioning the kids. After [verdachte] was arrested my 8-year old daughter told me that she had changed her story because [verdachte] had told them to do so. She said that after I had left the house that he came back and told them that. I asked my 11-year-old daughter and she too confirmed that he did tell them that. So I asked the 8-year-old to tell me exactly what had happened, where [verdachte] was standing and all that. Then she told me that he had tied an orange bandana over her eyes and placed his penis in her mouth. Then he held on to the back of her head and was moving her head up and down on his penis. I do have an orange bandana. She said that when she would pull her head backwards that he would keep pulling her head back on his penis. I asked her if she was sure that it was his penis and she said yes because she could feel it in her mouth.

4. Transcript of interrogation of witness [victim 1] dated 4 February 2022 (Appendix 2), insofar as it contains:

Verhoor [slachtoffer 1] , geboren op [geboortedatum] 2013. “I asked him (het Hof begrijpt: verdachte) if I could go to the bathroom. After when I came inside, when I was done in the bathroom, he was standing, he pushed me to the bed. And then he covered my eyes and he put something in my mouth. And when he was done he went to the bathroom and take a bath.

5. Minutes of the 2nd interrogation of witness [victim 1] dated September 13, 2023, insofar as containing:

I forget his name. I have a terrible memory. It is complicated for me to remember. He was my mother’s boyfriend. He is now in jail. He did inappropriate stuff. With me and my sister [slachtoffer 2] . She told me one day. Who did you tell about the inappropriate things? Mommy and my sister. What do you remember? I couldn’t have seen anything cause everytime he would cover my eyes. I couldn’t have seen anything because everytime he took either a t-shirt or cloth and put it around my eyes I can’t really see. What did you tell her (mommy)? He was doing inappropriate stuff. And how old were you when this inappropriate thing happened? I was seven.

6. Minutes of the first interrogation of witness [victim 2] dated February 4, 2022 at 8:51 AM, insofar as it contains:

[slachtoffer 2] : All I know is about 1 time about my sister and stuff.

[slachtoffer 2] : She say she needed to use the bathroom. My stepfather open the door. And she say when she finish he told her to come, and he lay her on, on the bed. And she say he put his thing in her mouth. And then afterwards when I look inside. Because he had open the door after, and when I look inside, I saw her putting on her skirt. But she was supposed to put on her skirt in the bathroom.

[verbalisant 1] : Ok. What thing was she talking about? [slachtoffer 2] : His private part

[verbalisant 1] : His private part. Did she tell you that it was his private part? Or you think that it was his private part that she was talking about?

[slachtoffer 2] : She told me

[verbalisant 1] : who did you tell about what your sister told you?

[slachtoffer 2] : I didn’t tell no one

[verbalisant 1] : You didn’t tell no one. Ok you didn’t tell your mother either?

[slachtoffer 2] : My sister told my mother

[verbalisant 1] : When did your sister tell you about it.

[slachtoffer 2] : Right after, when I asked her why she putting on her skirt.

7. Minutes of 2nd interrogation (actually 3rd) of witness [victim 2] of September 13, 2023, insofar as containing:

Who is [verdachte] ? Somebody who did something to me and my sister.

[verbalisant 2] : Do you know if [verdachte] did it to anybody else?

[slachtoffer 2] : Only my sister.

[verbalisant 2]: Your sister.

[victim 2] : [victim 1] .

[verbalisant 2] : How did you know he do something to [slachtoffer 1] ?

[slachtoffer 2] : She told me.

[verbalisant 2] : What did she say?

[slachtoffer 2] : She said when we were outside because he had locked the on us when we were outside.

[slachtoffer 2] : That he lock the door on us outside cause I think he was cleaning and she asked to go to the bathroom and he let her in. And she said that he put something over her eyes and put something in her mouth.

[slachtoffer 2] : and afterward she, we saying why she taking so long and after she came out we see she button up her or putting down she clothes.

[verbalisant 2] : And then when she came outside, she was.

[slachtoffer 2] : It was like, I don’t know if she had a clothes on in the room, but she was like she had had shirt up and when she came outside she was like pulling it down.

8. The statement of the suspect at the hearing on appeal:

That day, January 27, 2022, I was watching porn and lying naked on the bed masturbating when [Victim 1] came in.

II had put the kids outside on the property because I was cleaning. The door was closed, I thought the door was locked.

[Victim 1] must have seen me watching a blowjob because the television was on and she walked past the television to the toilet. She came in, she saw what was on the television and what I was doing. I told her not to tell her mother anything.”

2.4 The appeal rightly complains that part of the complainant’s statement does not correspond with the declaration of proof. It does indeed follow from the other evidence and the declaration of proof that the complainant was born on [date of birth] 2013 and that she was therefore eight years old on the date of the offense (27 January 2022), while the Court used her statement for the evidence, which states, among other things, that she was seven years old at the time of the offense.

2.5 The author of the appeal believes that the suspect has an interest in this complaint in cassation, because this deficiency in the evidence makes it insufficiently clear whether the complainant is making a statement about the same event as the witnesses and the suspect, whose statements were used as evidence. I see it differently. I gather from the pleadings of the suspect’s lawyer that it was not argued in the appeal that the complainant referred to a different event in her statements (items of evidence 4 and 5) than her mother (items of evidence 3), her sister (items of evidence 6 and 7) and the suspect himself (items of evidence 8). In view of the minutes of the investigation at the hearing, the Court and the Advocate General also assumed that all statements related to the same event. There was therefore no discussion about this. It also follows from the reasoning for the evidence in the judgment that the Court held that all statements used as evidence related to the same event. That judgment seems to me to be entirely understandable in view of the investigation at the hearing and the content of the evidence. If, in accordance with this judgment of the Court, the redundant part of the complainant’s statement referred to in the appeal is disregarded from the evidence, the conviction is still sufficiently motivated. The suspect therefore has no interest in his complaint.

2.6 The remedy fails.

3 The first remedy
3.1 The first ground of appeal complains that in the case with file number 100.00063/22, the minimum standard of proof of Article 385 paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Sint Maarten (Sv SM) has not been met with regard to fact 2, subsidiary.

3.2 The defendant has been found guilty, insofar as relevant here, of:

“he in the period from March 28, 2020 to March 28, 2021 in Sint Maarten, by acts of God forced [victim 2], born on [date of birth] 2010, being a child whom he cares for or raises as belonging to his family, to tolerate indecent acts, which consist of the fact that he, the suspect,

brought and/or pushed his penis against/between the buttocks of that [victim 2] and and the facts consist in that, he suspected,
said to that [victim 2] “bend over” and “I want to fuck you”, or at least words of similar meaning/nature and
that there was a psychological, physical and mental superiority resulting from the suspect’s age and
that the suspect has abused the superiority resulting from the factual relationships as stepfather/caregiver of [victim 2] and (in doing so) has taken advantage of the resulting situation of dependency of [victim 2] in relation to him, the suspect”.
3.3 This declaration of proof is based on the following evidence (I will omit the footnotes):

“9. Minutes of the first interrogation of witness [victim 2] dated February 4, 2022 at 8:51 AM (Appendix 3), insofar as it contains:

Interrogation of [victim 2], born on [date of birth] 2010.

[slachtoffer 2] : In [a-straat] my stephfather sexually abuse me.

[verbalisant 1] : ok, what did he do to you?

[slachtoffer 2] : Well I went to the bathroom to bath. And then he told me to come, he say he was massaging me, but instead of him massaging me he put his private part in my bottom.

[verbalisant 1] : Ok, uhm Can you recall when that was?

[slachtoffer 2] : Uhmm, I think last year yes, last year.

[slachtoffer 2] : Before my birthday.

[verbalisant 1] : Who did you tell about what happened to you in [a-straat] ?

[slachtoffer 2] : my mother

10. Minutes of the 2nd interrogation of witness [victim 2] dated 4 February 2022 at 9:02 am (appendix 4), insofar as it contains:

[verbalisant 1] : Yes, Can you tell me again what happened to you in [a-straat] ?

[slachtoffer 2] : My stepfather. I was actually, first I was going to bath, when I finish bath, I was coming out of the room, he called me to massage me, but instead massaging me, he put his thing in my bottom.

[verbalisant 1] : What thing did he put in your bottom?

[slachtoffer 2] : His private part.

[verbalisant 1] : What do you call a private part then?

[slachtoffer 2] : The D word, uhmm.

Who is [verdachte] ? Somebody who did something to me and my sister. I was sick and I didn’t go school right. And my mom sent him to rubber me down, but before he rub me down he stripped me naked. Then afterwards I felt his private part on my bottom. And he massage you with what? With Vaseline. He just put on the Vaseline and then he rub me like this ( [slachtoffer 2] rub down the teddy bear showing). And what happened after that? I felt he was taking very long then I felt his private part by my bottom. In what position you was at that moment? I was on the bed and my back was facing him. I had on a dress. Where this thing happened? The bedroom. In my mother bedroom. When I turn my head I see that his pants was down. The massage was in [a-straat] . I was 10 or 11.

[verbalisant 1] : You could say it, it’s ok.

[victim 2] : his dick

11. Minutes of the 2nd (actually 3rd) interrogation of witness [victim 2] of September 13, 2023, insofar as it contains:

[verbalisant 2] : After this whole situation did you guys talk to anybody else about it, about what happened?

[slachtoffer 2] : My grandmother

[verbalisant 2] :You told your grandmother what?

[victim 2] : What happened in [a-street] .

12. Transcript of the interrogation of witness [suspect] dated February 11, 2022, insofar as it contains:

[slachtoffer 2] was staying with me last year. I had her from the month of April until July of 2021. One day [slachtoffer 2] told me out of the blue that she wants to live with me. She looked distant. One morning while dropping her to school I asked her who does hit her, and she said nobody oma. I kept asking her what happened to her and she then told me that she was afraid that [verdachte] hurt them. She told me that [verdachte] touched her. I asked her how? She told me that she was feeling sick a day and didn’t go to school and her mother had asked [verdachte] to rub her. She said while he was rubbing her he told her to turn around and go on her knees. That was on the bed. While she was on her knees he told her not so and told her to bring up her bottom some more. When she was bending over she turned her head and looked to the side and saw that he was pulling down his clothes. She asked him what are you doing and he told her I want to F. You. [slachtoffer 2] didn’t mention the bad word to me out of respect. I then asked her what he said he want to Fuck You. And she said yes. Then she said that she feeled his penis between her bottom touching to her private part. I then asked her did he go in you. She said no. [slachtoffer 2] was crying and getting uncomfortable. I then told her tomorrow I will take her to the doctor.

3.8 In the present case, the majority of the evidence consists of statements by the complainant (items of evidence 9, 10 and 11) and statements by others about what the complainant told them (items of evidence 12 and 13).From the statements of the complainant it can be deduced that the suspect told her that he was going to massage her, that he undressed her after which she was (at least partially) naked, that she lay on her stomach on the bed in her mother’s bedroom and that the suspect then pushed his penis between/against her buttocks. In addition, item of evidence 12 contains a statement by the complainant’s grandmother about, among other things, the complainant’s emotions when she told her grandmother about the abuse: “[victim 2] was crying and getting uncomfortable.” The Court also used a statement by the suspect as evidence (item of evidence 13). This statement states that the complainant was ill and that he then applied lotion to her. He states that she was partially naked, but was wearing her underwear and bra and that she felt uncomfortable.

13. Transcript of the interrogation of witness [victim 1] of 18 July 2022 by the examining magistrate, insofar as it contains:

OVJ: What did [slachtoffer 2] told you about the sexual attempts? W: [slachtoffer 2] told me that [verdachte] had rubbed her and put her in the position of a back shot and told her that he wanted to fuck her. She told me last year. OVJ: you came to my office after you wrote the letter and you told me that [slachtoffer 2] told you about the incident and that [slachtoffer 2] told you that she felt [verdachte] ‘s penis against her. Is that true? W: That’s when he put her in the back shot position.

[betrokkene 1] : when you said that he put her in the back shot position, he didn’t penetrate her? No, he didn’t. And that is what [slachtoffer 2] told me. She told me she felt his penis but he did not penetrate. She told me that she felt his penis by her ass.

14. The statement of the suspect at the hearing on appeal:

[Victim 2] was sick and I put some lotion on her. She was partially naked, she had her underwear and bra on. She felt uncomfortable.”

3.4 In addition, the judgment contains, among other things, the following grounds of evidence:

“[Victim 2] made several statements and consistently explained what happened to her: that during a massage the suspect put his ‘private part’, which she later referred to as his penis, ‘in her bottom’ or ‘on/by her bottom’. Her statements are supported by the statements of her grandmother and her mother, to whom [victim 2] told what happened. She told both her grandmother and her mother that the suspect did not penetrate her. [Victim 2] showed emotions to her grandmother (‘she was crying and getting uncomfortable’). The suspect, who denies the fact, also stated that [victim 2] felt uncomfortable during the massage. The grandmother took [victim 2] to a doctor. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers the victim’s statements credible, reliable and useful as evidence.”

3.5 Article 385 paragraph 3 Sv SM states:

“The judge cannot accept the evidence that the suspect committed the offense charged solely on the basis of the statement of just one witness.”

3.6 Art. 385 paragraph 3 Sv SM has the same content as art. 342 paragraph 2 Sv. The case law of the Supreme Court on art. 342 paragraph 2 Sv therefore also applies to art. 385 paragraph 3 Sv SM.Therefore, the following must be stated first:

“According to Article 342 paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court cannot accept evidence that the suspect committed the offence charged solely on the basis of the statement of one witness. This provision relates to the charge as a whole and not to a part thereof. It aims to guarantee the soundness of the decision on the evidence, in the sense that Article 342 paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits the court from reaching a conviction if the facts and circumstances put forward by one witness are isolated and are not sufficiently supported by other evidence. The question of whether the minimum requirement of evidence under Article 342 paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been met cannot be answered in general terms, but requires an assessment of the specific case. The Supreme Court can therefore not provide general rules on the application of Article 342 paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but can only provide some clarity on this matter by deciding on specific cases. It should also be noted that when assessing in cassation whether the minimum requirement of evidence under Article 342 paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been met, It may be important whether the judge of fact has further motivated his judgment that this is the case.”

3.7 In an earlier conclusion I already pointed out that, particularly in morality cases, the question often arises as to whether the minimum standard of proof has been met.After all, the facts in these cases usually take place between two people, which means that the only evidence available is often the declarant’s statement. In such a case, the judge must assess whether there is supporting evidence that satisfies the minimum standard of proof in Article 342 paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For this, there must be one or more evidence that supports (parts of) the declarant’s statement and can be regarded as a means of control for the soundness of the evidence decision and thus the conviction. The case law of the Supreme Court shows that the supporting evidence does not have to relate to the acts charged.However, there must not be too remote a connection between the sole witness statement and the other evidence.Evidence relating to the perceived emotion of the victim after the crime and evidence containing a statement by the suspect may, under certain circumstances, be regarded as supporting evidence.

3.9 The Court found proven that the abuse took place in the period from 28 March 2020 to 28 March 2021. The evidence shows that the offence was committed just before 28 March 2021. Item of evidence 9 states that the complainant was born on 28 March 2010 and that she stated on 4 February 2022 that the offence took place “last year” and “Before my birthday”. Her statement of 13 September 2023 (item of evidence 11) shows that the complainant was 10 or 11 at the time of the abuse. The doubt that this raises can be regarded as confirmation that the abuse took place around her birthday. Furthermore, it appears from the statement of the complainant’s grandmother (item of evidence 12) that the complainant stated in a conversation with her grandmother “out of the blue” that “she wants to live with me” and that the complainant subsequently stayed with her grandmother from April 2021 to July 2021. During that period, the complainant at some point told her grandmother about the abuse and expressed her emotions to her grandmother.

3.10 The appeal raises the question of whether the statements of the complainant in this case are sufficiently supported by other evidence. I believe they are. The statement of the complainant’s grandmother not only shows that the complainant was emotional when she told her grandmother about the abuse (“[victim 2] was crying and getting uncomfortable”), but also that the complainant told her grandmother “out of the blue” that she wanted to come and live with her grandmother and that she subsequently stayed with her grandmother from April to July 2021. Given what I noted under 3.9, it is plausible that the reporting by the complainant to her grandmother took place shortly after the abuse. The Court was therefore able to regard the statement of the complainant’s grandmother as supporting evidence.What further clinches this case for me is the suspect’s statement. The suspect confirms that the suspect indicated that he was going to massage her and that the suspect performed acts on the complainant while she was partially naked.

3.11 The author of the appeal notes that the evidence shows that the complainant’s mother “had asked [suspect] [the suspect, DP.] to rub her”, because the plaintiff was ill that day. According to the appellant, this means that the massaging cannot be regarded as an essential part of what the plaintiff says. However, the fact that the plaintiff’s mother allegedly asked the suspect to rub her in does not mean that the circumstances that the suspect mentions are everyday or innocent, as the appellant seems to think. The evidence shows that the suspect stated that the plaintiff felt uncomfortable about it. In view of the foregoing, I conclude that the defendant’s statement, contrary to what the appellant argues, also supports a part of the plaintiff’s statement that is important for the conviction.

3.12 In view of all of the foregoing, in my opinion there has been no violation of Article 385 paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Court’s apparent judgment that there has been no violation is not incomprehensible, despite the fact that the Court has not explicitly motivated its judgment in this regard.

3.13 The remedy fails.

4 Conclusion
4.1 The grounds fail and can be dismissed with the reasoning derived from Article 81 paragraph 1 of the RO.

4.2 I note ex officio that the Supreme Court will render judgment more than sixteen months after the appeal in cassation has been lodged. Therefore, the reasonable period as referred to in Article 6 paragraph 1 ECHR has been exceeded. This should lead to a reduction in sentence.Furthermore, I have found no grounds ex officio for annulling the Court’s judgment.

4.3 This conclusion leads to the annulment of the Court’s judgment, but only as regards the duration of the prison sentence imposed, to its reduction in accordance with the usual standard and to the rejection of the appeal as to the remainder.

The Attorney General at the Supreme Court of the Netherlands

AT

See the overview judgments on the application of Article 80a RO: HR 11 September 2012,
ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BX0146
, NJ 2013/241 m.nt. FW Bleichrodt, ro 2.2.5 en HR 7 June 2016,
ECLI:NL:HR:2016:1005
,NJ2016/430 m.nt. PHPHMC van Kempen, ro 2.5.1. See also HR 20 May 2014,
ECLI:NL:HR:2014:1167
,NJ2014/38 m.nt. B.F. Keulen. Regarding Article 385 paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Curaçao, see my conclusion of 17 December 2019,
ECLI:NL:PHR:2019:1323
, under 10. HR 27 June 2023,
ECLI:NL:HR:2023:946
, ro 5.2 in HR September 5, 2023,
ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1152
, ro 2.3. Reference is made to HR 13 July 2010,ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BM2452, NJ 2010/515 m.nt. M.J. Borgers. In that conclusion of 2 April 2024,
ECLI:NL:PHR:2024:356
, I have provided an overview of the case law of the Supreme Court on the minimum standard of proof in Article 342 paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. HR May 15, 2018,
ECLI:NL:HR:2018:717
,NJ2018/298 m.nt. N. Rozemond, r.o. 2.4. HR 5 September 2023,
ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1152
, ro 2.4 en HR 26 January 2010,ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BK2094,NJ2010/512 m.nt. M.J. Borgers, r.o. 3.4. See my conclusion of April 2, 2024,
ECLI:NL:PHR:2024:356
, under 9-10. Such statements by third parties cannot simply be regarded as supporting evidence. See for example HR 19 May 2015,
ECLI:NL:HR:2015:1247
. See HR 14 May 2024,
ECLI:NL:HR:2024:686
. The Supreme Court previously upheld a conviction in which the supporting evidence was that the mother of the complainant had observed emotions in her daughter six weeks after the offence when she first talked about the abuse, in combination with the finding that the complainant had stayed with the suspect on the date of the offence. See the conclusion of my colleague Lückers of 12 March 2024,

https://sxmnews.ai/from-bid-rigging-to-land-stealing-story-of-christopher-emmanuels-crash-out/

Judges
Dr. Prof. Mr. FW Bleichrodt

https://sxmnews.ai/from-bid-rigging-to-land-stealing-story-of-christopher-emmanuels-crash-out/

Judges
Dr. Prof. Mr. FW Bleichrodt

https://stmaartennews.ai/important-notice-financial-aid-st-maarten-recipients-issued-accessing-funds/https://sxmnews.ai/from-bid-rigging-to-land-stealing-story-of-christopher-emmanuels-crash-out/

Judges
Dr. Prof. Mr. FW Bleichrodt

Mr. MJ Borgers

dhr. present. dr. mr. PHPHMC van Kempen

Mr. Prof. Mr. BF Keulen
dhr. mr. N. Rozemond
Mr. FW Bleichrodt
Further investigation