Findings of the Investigation Committee Swimming Pool Murder

News article | 25-04-2025 | 06:00

Objective of the Research

The committee was tasked with reviewing the events surrounding the witness protection process in this criminal case (TGO Druppel) and drawing lessons for the future.

The committee conducted research through file studies and interviews with directly involved police and Public Prosecution Service staff. The committee also spoke with experienced prosecutors in the field of witness protection processes. Based on this research and the interviews, the sequence of events was reconstructed, focusing on the creation of the witness protection deal, the role of the witness in the criminal cases, and the courts criticism.

Findings of the Committee

Based on the research, the committee arrived at several findings:

1. Due to inadequate information transfer, misunderstandings and/or ambiguities arose regarding the investigative actions in the covert phase of the creation of the deal with the witness.
2. The knowledge, experience, and expertise regarding witness protection processes are highly concentrated in a few districts, as very few deals are made overall. There is also a lack of a clear and unambiguous operational framework.
3. It should be (organizationally) ensured that important conditions apply throughout the entire process: is there sufficient expertise, does the level of contradiction meet expectations, is there room for reflection, and is there adequate documentation? In this case, there was too little use of this. There was also insufficient oversight and guidance on the timeline.
4. The overarching control over the progress and content of the case was lacking. There was insufficient involvement from management in important strategic decisions in the investigation.

Recommendations from the Committee

The committee makes four key recommendations:

1. Recognize that a deal with a witness is rare in the Netherlands and that each deal has its own particularities. Combine procedural guidance with knowledge and experience from other districts to better anticipate risks and increase the success rate of sensitive processes;
2. Ensure that the internal guidelines regarding special witness processes are updated and supplemented. This will enhance the quality, consistency, and compliance of the practices concerning witness cases. This will not only improve operational efficiency but also contribute to better risk management and compliance;
3. Appoint a director (togadrager) for each witness protection process to ensure a consistent and effective execution of the entire witness protection process (from the covert phase to the criminal case in which the witness is introduced);
4. Assemble a pool of process directors and national experts so that the necessary expertise and management capacity can be quickly and effectively deployed in (often complex) witness protection processes.

Taking Action on the Lessons from the Report

The College is grateful to the committee for the report and adopts the recommendations.

‘As the Public Prosecution Service, we are always looking for ways to improve our work,’ says Guus Schram, a member of the College of Attorneys General. ‘A critical ruling in a criminal case is an excellent opportunity for that and has led in this case to clear and applicable improvement points in the use of a witness protection process. In this way, we continue to develop as an organization.’

At the request of the College, the national meeting of investigative officers, in which all districts of the Public Prosecution Service are represented, will follow up on the recommendations within six months.