The Public Prosecution Service is demanding a 22-year prison sentence in appeal for a 74-year-old man. He is suspected of ordering an assassination in Antwerp in 1993. In the night of May 8 to 9, the intended target, a 55-year-old man, and his 44-year-old girlfriend were killed. The prosecution is charging him with ordering the murder and manslaughter of the woman.
In 1993, the now 74-year-old man was already identified as the mastermind behind the assassination. That investigation hit a dead end until in 2006 Peter La S. testified about this murder among others. The testimonies regarding this and other assassinations were included in the Passage trial. The suspect, who is now on trial for the double murder, was in prison in the United States in 2007. His involvement in the murder in Antwerp could not be included in the Passage trial at that time.
Three other suspects have already been convicted for their roles in the murder in Antwerp. They were said to have carried out the assassination or been complicit. A fourth suspect died and could not be prosecuted.
After the now 74-year-old man served his sentence in the United States, he was extradited to the Netherlands to serve another prison sentence. The prosecution in the case of the murder in Antwerp was then resumed. The prosecution states that the 74-year-old suspect directed the three other convicted suspects and demanded a 22-year prison sentence in 2023 from the court in Amsterdam. The court acquitted the suspect, and the prosecution appealed that ruling.
Appeal
The prosecution states that witness testimonies indicate that the suspect is behind the murder and manslaughter. Four witnesses have independently testified that the now 74-year-old suspect had given the order to kill the 55-year-old victim. Based on the same testimonies, other suspects were previously convicted in the Passage trial by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. The suspect had a debt with the male victim, and the assassination was allegedly a way to get rid of that debt. As various witnesses testified, the suspect said that liquidating is cheaper than paying. The testimonies of the various witnesses about the involvement of the 74-year-old suspect are also supported by telecom data.
A theory raised by the defense that it was not this suspect but another man who was behind the order for the murder in Antwerp has been carefully investigated in the appeal by the police, at the request of the prosecution. Additional research shows, for example, that there were no phone contacts between this man and the convicted perpetrators. Not in the lead-up to the murder, not during the murder, and not after the murder. Moreover, there were indeed phone contacts between these perpetrators and the 74-year-old suspect. For that reason, the prosecution concludes that the alternative scenario proposed by the defense is not factually substantiated and is not plausible. The prosecution sees the 74-year-old suspect as the real and only mastermind.
During the hearing, the attorneys-general (prosecutors in appeal) reflected on the impact that the assassination still has. “The murder and manslaughter took place nearly 32 years ago. That is a very long time. But time does not heal all wounds. The sister of the female victim has indicated that it still affects her. Even after 32 years, the loss of her sister remains difficult, especially due to the manner in which she was killed. She hopes for justice and the conviction of the person responsible for ordering the murder.”