Dutroux- trial starts
Mke
By CONSTANT BRAND
Associated Press Writer
ARLON, Belgium (AP) - Belgium's public enemy No. 1 and three co-defendants went
on trial Monday on charges of kidnapping, abusing and killing young girls in a
mid-1990s crime spree that shocked the country - as much for the inept police
work as for the depravity of the acts.
Marc Dutroux, 47, his ex-wife and two other defendants sat silently during
selection of a 12-member jury and 12 alternates.
At one point Dutroux seemed to nod off. ``Your client is going to fall asleep,''
Judge Stefane Goux told Xavier Magnee, one of Dutroux' three lawyers.
The case deepened on the eve of the trial, when Dutroux said in a letter to VTM
television network that he was part of a criminal network with tentacles in
Belgian law enforcement. He said co-defendant Michel Nihoul, a 62-year-old
Brussels lawyer, played a key role in the wider organization.
Dutroux is charged with kidnapping six girls and killing four of them. The
girls, two of them just 8 years old, were abused in the cellar of a house owned
by Dutroux.
At the time the former electrician was free on parole for abducting and raping
young women, including one minor.
Dutroux is also charged with killing an accomplice, Bernard Weinstein, whose
body was found in a yard next to one of Dutroux's seven homes.
A parliamentary probe found that rival police units hindered the search for
Dutroux, who was finally arrested Aug. 13, 1996.
Investigating magistrates have bickered over whether he was a loner or part of a
pedophilia network. One magistrate was even removed for showing bias when he
attended a benefit event for the victims' families.
Criticism of law enforcement officials increased after Dutroux grabbed a police
guard's gun and escaped on April 23, 1998. He was arrested three hours later.
Security was clearly a concern Monday. Hundreds of police were on hand for the
start of the trial in Arlon, a sleepy southern Belgian town with a new
courthouse equipped with a bulletproof defendants' box.
The trial will likely run through most of May. In all, some 500 witnesses will
be heard. The case file stretches across 450,000 pages.
Paul Marchal, the father of one of the slain girls, 17-year-old An Marchal, has
long been unhappy with police work. ``I hope that the trial will bring out more
of the truth,'' he said outside the courthouse.
As details of the kidnappings, rapes and murders became known in 1996 - as well
as details of the poor police work - 300,000 people demonstrated in Brussels to
demand government action.
Particularly wrenching were the deaths of Julie Lejeune and Melissa Russo, the
8-year-olds who were taken June 24, 1995.
Police believe they starved to death in Dutroux's dungeon when he went to jail
for four months in December, 1995, for stealing a car. He told police he asked
his wife to feed the girls but that she had not done so.
Since divorced, Michelle Martin, 44, is accused of conspiracy in the
kidnappings. Nihoul, 62, faces charges of kidnapping. A fourth defendant, Michel
Lelievre, 32, faces kidnapping, rape and drugs possession charges.
On Tuesday, the prosecution will read out the charges and on Wednesday the
defendants will likely enter their pleas.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3808061,00.html
Profile: Marc Dutroux
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3522367.stm
Belgium's Shame Goes Global as Dutroux Trial Opens
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_1127575_1_A,00.html
nan
A related article, excerpt from
www.sra-ireland.freepress.free-speech.com:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SRA Missing Persons and Satanism The Irish press and media completely
ignored the satanic ritual murder connections in the Marc Dutroux
murders !
http://www.conspiracy-net.com/archives/articles/conspiracy/satanism/CNCf0007.txt
...disappearance and murder of children in Belgium , The Marc Dutroux
case
Paedophilia on a world wide scale
Belgium tries to erase the memory of the Dutroux murders and infers
that only Dutroux was involved .
On the 15th August 1996 , two Belgium girls who had been abducted in
previous months , were released from a dungeon under a house owned by
Marc Dutroux . Dutroux , an unemployed sexual deviant , had been
convicted in 1989 of raping five children. Shortly after Sabine and
Leititia were released , the bodies of two eight year-old girls, Julie
and Mellisa , who had been missing since 1995 , were found . It was
evident that they had been murdered in a brutal manner. A month later
,the bodies of two more girls , An and Eefje , were discovered , again
brutally murdered.
The investigating detectives soon discovered that there was a satanic
ritual connection to this case and it involved notorieties from the
very pillars of Belgium society. Stories emerged of exclusive sex
orgies where the rich and powerful watched "snuff" movies and there
was group participation in the sacrifice of babies and young girls .
The most astounding revelation of all came when witnesses named the
heir to the throne of Belgium, Prince Albert , as a participent in the
sex and child abuse orgies .
Soon , the Marc Dutroux satanic revelations exploded across the front
pages of national newspapers around the world ; for the exception of
the Irish press , radio and TV.I first became aware of the Marc
Dutroux case in 1996 when I saw a short two column article in a middle
page of an English national newspaper which is circulated in Ireland .
It was not on the front page and it would have been overlooked by most
readers in Ireland.
......................................................................
Here is the text of the original article in the Sunday Times December
29, 1996 - page 14
"Satanic Links to Belgian Murder Trial by Peter Conradi - "
"Brussels Satanic sects involved in bizarre rites including human
sacrifice are being linked by Belgian police with this summer's string
of grisly paedophile murders in which at least four children died.
Five witnesses came forward last week and described how black masses
were held, at which children were killed in front of audiences said to
have included prominent members of Belgian society. One investigator
said it was "like going back to the Middle Ages". The tentacles of the
sects appear to have stretched beyond the borders of Belgium, to
Holland, Germany and even America. The witnesses - several of whom
claim to have received death threats - say that young babies were
handed over by their parents willingly in return for money. In other
cases the victims were abducted. The witnesses, who are believed to
have identified the sites where the masses took place to the police,
said organisers had also photographed participants and threatened to
hand over the pictures if they went to the police. The investigation
centres on Abrasa*, a self-styled institute of black magic, whose
headquarters in the village of Forchies-la-Marche in southern Belgium
was raided by police last week. Human skulls were among the objects
removed from the run down building. Forchies-la-Marche is near the
city of Charleroi, where Marc Dutroux, the unemployed electrician
accused of the paedophile killings, was arrested in August. The bodies
of four victims of the ring were dug up at properties he owned - but
he is feared to have killed many more. Police have long suspected that
Dutroux, a convicted paedophile, was part of an international network
which abducted children, sexually abused them and then killed them.
Their activities appear to have been financed by the sale of
pornographic videos filmed by members of the ring. However the
revelation of a possible Satanic link has added a bizarre twist to the
affair, which has shaken the police and judiciary and plunged Belgium
into an unprecedented wave of soul searching over the past few months.
Investigators are still trying to determine the precise nature of the
links between the Satanists and the paedophile group. In a separate
twist, a Belgian newspaper claimed yesterday that A FORMER EUROPEAN
COMMISSIONER was among a group of JUDGES, SENIOR POLITICIANS, LAWYERS
AND POLICEMEN who attended orgies held in a Belgian chateau and
organised by Michel Nihoul, one of Dutroux's alleged accomplices. La
Derniere Heure, which claimed to have a guest list, did not name the
commissioner but said he "came with a girl, Josette, nicknamed JoJo,
the Bomb". Belgian police, using bulldozers and mechanical diggers,
resumed their search yesterday of disused mineshafts in Jumet, a
suburb of Charleroi, where they believe Dutroux and his gang may have
buried bodies. A team of 12 pot-holers has also been called in. "We
are convinced that we are going to find something interesting here",
said Guy Soumoy, a spokesman for the local police. Police first
searched the area, with its warren of abandoned mine shafts, two
months ago, after Dutroux suggested they look there. They returned
earlier this month after a further, apparrently more detailed tip-off
from Michelle Martin, Dutroux's wife and alleged accomplice."
......................................................................
When the Marc Dutroux case broke in August 1996 , it was immediately
labelled paedophile , but the Irish press completely ignored the
satanic allegations which were attached to it.
At that time I was unaware of the identical responses which were
coming from the press in other countries . I know now that many
newspapers , not only in Ireland , were deliberately decrying the
satanic connections to the Dutroux case . The fact that most of the
international press played down the satanic significance , makes one
suspect that there is some sort of concerted policy in these matters .
The next question is ; is there an international conspiracy of the
press?
In August 1996 the Marc Dutroux case exploded across the pages of the
press with revelations that rich and powerful persons from the Belgium
e'lite were taking part in orgies where babies and young women were
sacrificed on satanic dates.
Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Dutroux says he procured girls for
Belgian network Most of the Irish public are unaware of the satanic
allegations in the Dutroux case and the scandalous British child abuse
cases in Nottingham , Orkney and Rochdale . These cases were exposed
in the 1980s with their satanic allegations but there was little
coverage of these in the Irish press .
The result is ; the Irish people are unaware that there is a concerted
threat from organised paedophile groups which abduct women and
sometimes children for the purpose of ritual or satanic murder, as in
the Dutroux case .
Shortly after the Dutroux case developed in the press , the parents of
one of the missing Belgium girls , Mr and Mrs Marschal , were invited
onto the Irish talk show , The Gay Byrne Show (Gay "Born Again" Byrne
). Great play was made by Byrne of the fact that the Belgium police
were so corrupt and he claimed that such things could not happen in
Ireland .
The reality is there were more missing in Ireland at that time than
there were in Belgium !
Ireland , like Belgium , is controlled by rich e'lites who are
involved in devil worship.
In the discussion with Mr and Mrs Marschal , Byrne never once
mentioned or discussed the satanic connections to the Dutroux murder
case .
Those reported by the Belgium newspaper La Deurnier Heure to be
involved in these orgies included , a former EU Commissioner , judges
, politicians , police and lawyers..There was also a report that a
member of the Belgium royal family had been present .They were
reported to have attended the orgies at a Belgium castle organised by
Michel Nihoul , an accomplice of Dutroux.
Five witnesses who attended the orgies came forward and described how
young babies were offered up for sacrifice by their mothers whilst on
other occasions , victims were picked up at random .
After many years of research , since 1995 , I realised that there is
a profound connection between paedophilia and devil worship!
I am surprised that there isn't a wider acceptance of this fact
amongst the professionals who are caring for the victims .
Maybe I am wrong to think this but it is a pity it is not said more
often in their publications .
It could explain why so many priests are involved in paedophilia ; a
question which has not been posed in the Irish press .
King Albert and Queenie! Alleged paedophile!
Most people in Ireland and the UK still , foolishly and naively
believe that those who police and govern them are genuinely catering
for the interests of the rich and poor alike . Waken up! Times have
moved on !
We are no longer living in a post war era when the nazi evil has just
been routed and all is rosy in the world .
This is nolonger a welfare state and the status quo can no longer be
trusted or believed .
New tyrants have emerged who are preying on the innocent and the weak
and it will be only those who are wise and alert who will survive
For those readers who do not know of the satanic allegations in the
Dutroux case , there are links in the left column which will give them
a completely different perspective on this case .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
nan
A related article, excerpt from
Alan Hope
>A related article, excerpt from
>www.sra-ireland.freepress.free-speech.com:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>SRA Missing Persons and Satanism The Irish press and media completely
>ignored the satanic ritual murder connections in the Marc Dutroux
>murders !
>http://www.conspiracy-net.com/archives/articles/conspiracy/satanism/CNCf0007.txt
Are you associating yourself with this farrago of nutcase paranoia and
outright lies, nan? It's hard to see where your quoting stops and your
own comments begin. Some clarification, please.
I've followed this case closely since 1996. There's not a scrap of
evidence to suggest ritual and/or Satanic abuse. And while some
questions remain unanswered which could, from a certain optic, suggest
a larger context than only the four accused standing trial, I'll
simply remind you that we are dealing with a court of law, in which
allegations are made which it is possible to substantiate with
evidence, in the hope of obtaining a conviction of the persons in the
dock.
Other theories of events are always possible, but until they are able
to be supported by evidence likely to sway a jury, they have no place
in the court.
No such evidence exists in the case of the various people being
accused by lunatic sites such the one you cite. Furthermore, it being
a fundamental principle of the system of justice to which we both (it
may surprise you to learn) subscribe that an accused person must be
informed of the exact charges of which he is accused and, in addition,
be allowed the opportunity to confront his accusers, I consider it a
subversion of due process for you to retail such ill-informed and
mentally-diseased tittle-tattle here in the context of what is
certainly a flawed trial, but a trial nonetheless. You might in future
consider taking your reflections on the Dutroux case to such forums
as:
news:alt.whacked
news:alt.true-nuts or
news:alt.ideas.justice.half-arsed
where your standards of forensic analysis will no doubt be more in
keeping.
--
AH
nan
Get this! Excerpt from article
www.cnn.com/world9608/23/belgium.child/, author B.A. Robinson:
"These findings triggered a country-wide concern over the fate of
other girls who had gone missing in Belgium since 1990. At least 15
have vanished. 9 bodies have been recovered; 2 were rescued and 4 are
still missing."
"Dutroux was well known to police. He had been convicted of raping 5
children, and was released on parole after serving 3 years of a 13
year sentence. Although he was unemployed and receiving welfare, he
owned 7 houses and regularly received deposits of tens of thousands of
dollars in his bank accounts. Police had been tipped off in 1993 that
he was building dungeons in his cellar and intended to confine
children there. They had received many other tips subsequently,
including a 1995 story from an informant that Dutroux had offered a
man at least $3000 to kidnap girls."
Jesu!
Regards, from Nan
tinydancer
>
> By CONSTANT BRAND
>
> Associated Press Writer
>
> ARLON, Belgium (AP) - Belgium's public enemy No. 1 and three co-defendants
went
> on trial Monday on charges of kidnapping, abusing and killing young girls
in a
> mid-1990s crime spree that shocked the country - as much for the inept
police
> work as for the depravity of the acts.
>
> Marc Dutroux, 47, his ex-wife and two other defendants sat silently during
> selection of a 12-member jury and 12 alternates.
>
Thanks for keeping us posted on this case. The fact that those two little
eight year old girls starved to death is simply haunting.
td
Alan Hope
>Get this! Excerpt from article
>www.cnn.com/world9608/23/belgium.child/, author B.A. Robinson:
Unheard of. Never been in Belgium. He's working, as so many others do,
from a clippings file.
>"These findings triggered a country-wide concern over the fate of
>other girls who had gone missing in Belgium since 1990. At least 15
>have vanished. 9 bodies have been recovered; 2 were rescued and 4 are
>still missing."
Wrong.
>"Dutroux was well known to police. He had been convicted of raping 5
>children, and was released on parole after serving 3 years of a 13
>year sentence.
Wrong.
>Although he was unemployed and receiving welfare, he
>owned 7 houses
Wrong.
>and regularly received deposits of tens of thousands of
>dollars in his bank accounts.
Wrong.
>Police had been tipped off in 1993 that
>he was building dungeons in his cellar and intended to confine
>children there.
True.
>They had received many other tips subsequently,
Wrong.
>including a 1995 story from an informant that Dutroux had offered a
>man at least $3000 to kidnap girls."
Unreliable. Only came to light post-arrest in 1996.
>Jesu!
Yes, well you need to get your thinking cap on and stop dredging up
any old rubbish from any old site which you think is going to make it
look as if you know this subject. I've been on top on this case since
1996, and I will expose the rubbish you post for what it is. There's
no capital here for you, nan. I know this case inside out. I advise
you to move on and do your charlatan thing elsewhere.
You WILL be found out here. Move along now.
--
AH
nan
> nan goes:
>
> >Get this! Excerpt from article
> >www.cnn.com/world9608/23/belgium.child/, author B.A. Robinson:
>
> Unheard of. Never been in Belgium. He's working, as so many others do,
> from a clippings file.
Because you never heard of B.A. Robinson, he doesn't exist???
Listen, Mephisto Mond,
I submitted an article to which to you over-react and dismiss somewhat
hysterically, and then blame the contents of it on me! Get rational!
If you want to refute assertions in the article, direct yourself to
its frikkin author. There are many different accounts on this case
which agree with article's author. Among many critical questions is
the very long delay in prosecuting this case.
PLEASE NOTE: Just because YOU say something is "wrong" doesn't mean it
is wrong.
Your use of "charlatan" projects more about you than it does about me.
Don't bother to WARN me about anything EVER...PERIOD, you cowardly
SOB!
As ever, in full contempt for you, from Nan
nan
"Reports by Britain's highly regarded newspaper The Sunday Times gave
accounts of witnesses describing "Black Masses in which children were
killed in front of audiences including prominent members of Belgian
society". One investigator said "It was like going back to the Middle
Ages". This activity has been linked to Belgium's notorious child
murderer Marc Dutroux (who still awaits trail since his arrest in
1996) and France's "paedophile murder ring" which came to light at the
same time following many high-profile arrests. In an interview with
Dutch TV Dutroux refered to a "network with all kinds of criminal
activities" responsible for money laundering, multiple passport
identities and illegal off-shore banking. Documentation recovered by
police was signed by someone describing himself as the Egyptian God
Anubias requesting "presents" for the High Priestess of the Order, and
gave specific details of the age and sex the victims must be.
Britain's Scotland Yard crime squad also began major investigations
into organized ritual abuse and murder within the British Isles."
Source: www.geocities.com/newworldorder/
Mephisto Mond aka Alan Hope,
I didn't write the article.
I summit the excerpt and its source for those interested in the case.
I am researching the Dutroux, et al, case and trial.
If you want to refute anything in the article's above excerpt then
direct yourself to its author, or to the UK Sunday Times' editor and
bitch to them about the free press.
from Nan
Alan Hope
>I didn't write the article.
Weasel.
>I summit the excerpt and its source for those interested in the case.
You'd serve them better if you posted something with a grain of truth
in it.
>I am researching the Dutroux, et al, case and trial.
Like hell you are. That's like the man up to his neck in sewer shit
claiming to be researching public sanitation.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>PLEASE NOTE: Just because YOU say something is "wrong" doesn't mean it
>is wrong.
Nevertheless, everything I noted as wrong is, in fact, wrong. Try to
exercise some critical sense, will you?
--
AH
nan
Mephisto Mond,
It is NOT enough for you to assert "wrong" - you must support your
assertions with contradicting facts and documentation. That old
"cite, please" stuff applies to you.
Why don't you apply YOUR critical sense and refute the article(s) with
something more substantial than "wrong"? You've said elsewhere no one
knows the case better than you. Well then, prove it. In the
meantime, I am scanning various news and investigative reports on the
case and its background as well as the trial.
Do you ask (demand) that I do not post excerpts and references to
these various articles? Do you believe I'd be applying "critical
sense" by suppressing these articles according to your will? Jesu!
You are overly reactive about this.
If you are holding out for a copyright on your great expose, let me
know then.
I'll respect that.
from Nan
nan
Alan Hope
>It is NOT enough for you to assert "wrong" - you must support your
>assertions with contradicting facts and documentation. That old
>"cite, please" stuff applies to you.
On the contrary, you're the one who is retailing, for example, the
ludicrous claim that members of the Belgian Royal family took part in
scenes of Satanic/ritual abuse with the deaths of children. It's
incumbent on you to substantiate the claim, or agree with me that in
the absence of the slightest scrap of evidence, it has to be laughed
out of court. If you're not prepared to take ownership of the
allegation, then why are you arguing with me?
>Why don't you apply YOUR critical sense and refute the article(s) with
>something more substantial than "wrong"? You've said elsewhere no one
>knows the case better than you. Well then, prove it. In the
>meantime, I am scanning various news and investigative reports on the
>case and its background as well as the trial.
You're asking me to refute an allegation which is not substantiated by
a shred of evidence? Isn't that a little illogical? If I were to
allege that you suck on goat-dick, would you feel yourself obliged to
prove otherwise?
>Do you ask (demand) that I do not post excerpts and references to
>these various articles? Do you believe I'd be applying "critical
>sense" by suppressing these articles according to your will? Jesu!
>You are overly reactive about this.
I'm saying that you should consider the source of what you're posting,
and make a judgement of the likelihood it's even slightly true, based
on that. As you move from the top to the bottom of the Internet
food-chain, you may have noticed that allegations become
correspondingly more outlandish. Websites on the underbelly of the Net
have no need, obviously, of such details as proper sourcing, or
corroboration of statements. They can say what they like, and for that
reason they do.
You'd like to pretend it has nothing to do with you, that you're only
reporting second-hand, but of course you select the information you
report just as anyone does. You know perfectly well that the stuff
you're posting has no credibility. And unless you're going at your
"research" in a very strange way indeed, you'll already have
discovered that the allegations with which you desire not to dirty
your hands are not repeated by what most people would consider to be
reliable sources.
>If you are holding out for a copyright on your great expose, let me
>know then.
>I'll respect that.
No such thing. But you're posting rumour, tittle-tattle that's long
been discredited, and made-up rubbish. You really ought to be aware of
that. So why are you doing it?
--
AH
nan
> nan goes:
>
> >A related article, excerpt from
> >www.sra-ireland.freepress.free-speech.com:
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >SRA Missing Persons and Satanism The Irish press and media completely
> >ignored the satanic ritual murder connections in the Marc Dutroux
> >murders !
> >http://www.conspiracy-net.com/archives/articles/conspiracy/satanism/CNCf0007.txt
>
> Are you associating yourself with this farrago of nutcase paranoia and
> outright lies, nan? It's hard to see where your quoting stops and your
> own comments begin. Some clarification, please.
If the international community and its print media are concerned about
implications of "satanic ritural murder connections", then their
rightful concern is being rightfuly expressed. If there is a wider
international network of paedophiliac murdering/torturing ghouls out
there, then it matters very little if they are referred to as sadistic
child raping maniacs or satanists practicing ritual murders of
children. The means and net results of their atrocities is what
counts.
Clarification: I have no COMMENTS or no OPINIONS on the credibility of
details of this case. I am merely submitting a variety of news
articles and investigative reports. I do wonder about your extreme
reaction, however.
Cripes, are you ever defensive about it: "...nutcase paranoia and
outright lies..." Hey, Buddy, that makes me even more curious! Your
reaction falls into the big "deny&lie" category. Furthermore, you
cannot taint me because you defame the sources.
>
> I've followed this case closely since 1996. There's not a scrap of
> evidence to suggest ritual and/or Satanic abuse. And while some
> questions remain unanswered which could, from a certain optic, suggest
> a larger context than only the four accused standing trial, I'll
> simply remind you that we are dealing with a court of law, in which
> allegations are made which it is possible to substantiate with
> evidence, in the hope of obtaining a conviction of the persons in the
> dock.
>
Yeah, yeah, after 6 or more years of delay and the convenient deaths
of witnesses and investigators, and the mistreatment of a living
witness - treating as if she's crazy - well it seems a gerry-rigged
trial.
> Other theories of events are always possible, but until they are able
> to be supported by evidence likely to sway a jury, they have no place
> in the court.
>
> No such evidence exists in the case of the various people being
> accused by lunatic sites such the one you cite. Furthermore, it being
> a fundamental principle of the system of justice to which we both (it
> may surprise you to learn) subscribe that an accused person must be
> informed of the exact charges of which he is accused and, in addition,
> be allowed the opportunity to confront his accusers, I consider it a
> subversion of due process for you to retail such ill-informed and
> mentally-diseased tittle-tattle here in the context of what is
> certainly a flawed trial, but a trial nonetheless. You might in future
> consider taking your reflections on the Dutroux case to such forums
> as:
I have no "reflections" on the Dutroux case other than a very recent
interest in it. For some reason, not a very elusive reason, I will
trust my own reseaching the matter over your ODD protestations. This
infamous case is of international concern and its deplorable handling
has grave implications of cover-up. Never mind the horrific tragic
deaths of at least four children.
My (!) standards for forensic analysis??? I'll leave forensic analysis
to ****Maggie - she's great at it!
You are funnier than you can possibly realise, Mephisto Mond.
from Nan
nan
> nan goes:
>
> >I didn't write the article.
>
> Weasel.
>
Strange and wicked are you, Ole Mephisto.
> >I summit the excerpt and its source for those interested in the case.
>
> You'd serve them better if you posted something with a grain of truth
> in it.
Well, you just tell *them* what are lies and what are not, eh?
Remember, you cannot prove a negative.
> >I am researching the Dutroux, et al, case and trial.
>
> Like hell you are. That's like the man up to his neck in sewer shit
> claiming to be researching public sanitation.
I'm not? Yes, I am. You just cannot stand the idea of it so that is
why you hurl insults at me instead of backing up your assertions with
facts.
You are a dirty old man playing such a dirty old lame game, Mephisto.
It has ever been so...from Nan
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<nnr940145e179i5tu...@4ax.com>...
>> nan goes:
>> >A related article, excerpt from
>> >www.sra-ireland.freepress.free-speech.com:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >SRA Missing Persons and Satanism The Irish press and media completely
>> >ignored the satanic ritual murder connections in the Marc Dutroux
>> >murders !
>http://www.conspiracy-net.com/archives/articles/conspiracy/satanism/CNCf0007.txt
>> Are you associating yourself with this farrago of nutcase paranoia and
>> outright lies, nan? It's hard to see where your quoting stops and your
>> own comments begin. Some clarification, please.
>If the international community and its print media are concerned about
>implications of "satanic ritural murder connections", then their
>rightful concern is being rightfuly expressed.
But the site you quoted is by no stretch of the imagination a
representative of the "print media" of the "international community".
It's a nutjob website, like so many others.
>If there is a wider
>international network of paedophiliac murdering/torturing ghouls out
>there, then it matters very little if they are referred to as sadistic
>child raping maniacs or satanists practicing ritual murders of
>children.
So long as we dismiss any concern for accuracy, you're quite right.
What difference does it make if the ME says the deceased died of
gunshot wounds or an attack of the Vapoures? He's just as dead.
>The means and net results of their atrocities is what
>counts.
Nonsense, of course.
>Clarification: I have no COMMENTS or no OPINIONS on the credibility of
>details of this case. I am merely submitting a variety of news
>articles and investigative reports. I do wonder about your extreme
>reaction, however.
But you're not submitting a variety, are you? You've submitted one
cite, from the very edge of sanity. The case has been covered, in
recent days, by a very wide spectrum of media. Yet the one submission
from you comes from the lunatic wing. What kind of researcher begins
her researches with the least credible sources?
>Cripes, are you ever defensive about it: "...nutcase paranoia and
>outright lies..." Hey, Buddy, that makes me even more curious! Your
>reaction falls into the big "deny&lie" category. Furthermore, you
>cannot taint me because you defame the sources.
I wonder why on earth you would imagine I'd be defensive. Do you
suppose perhaps I'm a Satanic ritual abuser?
I'm territorial, if anything. I've invested a great deal of time and
effort over more than seven years in becoming acquainted with the ins
and outs of this case, and it galls me no end to have people like you
waltz in and throw down the first piece of hysterical bullshit she can
lay her hands on, most of which is inaccurate, most of which has been
debunked, and most of which continues to be retailed by the ignorant
and sensation-seeking, in this case you.
I happen to feel it's important to get the facts right. Feel free to
dispute that issue if you care to.
>> I've followed this case closely since 1996. There's not a scrap of
>> evidence to suggest ritual and/or Satanic abuse. And while some
>> questions remain unanswered which could, from a certain optic, suggest
>> a larger context than only the four accused standing trial, I'll
>> simply remind you that we are dealing with a court of law, in which
>> allegations are made which it is possible to substantiate with
>> evidence, in the hope of obtaining a conviction of the persons in the
>> dock.
>Yeah, yeah, after 6 or more years of delay and the convenient deaths
>of witnesses and investigators,
One witness has died, and no investigators at all. There are no
suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of Gerard Vannesse
(qv). The list of dead people you seem to have come across includes no
witnesses or people of importance to this case -- other than the
victims, of course.
>and the mistreatment of a living
>witness - treating as if she's crazy - well it seems a gerry-rigged
>trial.
Regina Louf, who I've met on many occasions, and interviewed, and with
whom I'm on perfectly cordial terms, has not been mistreated, other
than the fact that her allegations have not been substantiated. They
have, however, been investigated by five separate jurisdictions. One
book, by a journalist, was rather unkind to her. Another book, by
three journalists, went to the other extreme.
Nobody of any importance has treated her as if she's crazy. She
continues to go about her business (the grooming of dogs) unmolested.
Short of taking her evidence at face value, in the absence of
corroboration, I wonder what more you think could be done?
>> Other theories of events are always possible, but until they are able
>> to be supported by evidence likely to sway a jury, they have no place
>> in the court.
>> No such evidence exists in the case of the various people being
>> accused by lunatic sites such the one you cite. Furthermore, it being
>> a fundamental principle of the system of justice to which we both (it
>> may surprise you to learn) subscribe that an accused person must be
>> informed of the exact charges of which he is accused and, in addition,
>> be allowed the opportunity to confront his accusers, I consider it a
>> subversion of due process for you to retail such ill-informed and
>> mentally-diseased tittle-tattle here in the context of what is
>> certainly a flawed trial, but a trial nonetheless. You might in future
>> consider taking your reflections on the Dutroux case to such forums
>> as:
>I have no "reflections" on the Dutroux case other than a very recent
>interest in it.
That's painfully obvious. Knowing nothing, you do a quick Google
search, and then waltz in with a dead, ratty bird between your teeth
as if you had discovered something. Let me tell you: the mad
allegations I've seen in seven years surpass even what you were able
to dig up, sorry "research". None of it stands up to a moment's
scrunity. Nobody who's watched this case for more than say a couple of
weeks gives the sort of article you cited houseroom. Been there, done
that, and the T-shirt fell apart in the first wash.
>For some reason, not a very elusive reason, I will
>trust my own reseaching the matter over your ODD protestations.
I'll tell you how to overcome my protestations: post one piece of
evidence to substantiate one of your allegations. That's how it's
done. Quoting at arm's length as you do is very easy. Any fool can
find rubbish on the Internet. But as I suggested, apply your critical
faculties. You'll soon see how to differentiate between what's worth
reading and what's not.
>This
>infamous case is of international concern and its deplorable handling
>has grave implications of cover-up.
The international importance is nugatory. Present your case for a
cover-up, and I'll demolish it.
>Never mind the horrific tragic
>deaths of at least four children.
How so, never mind them?
>My (!) standards for forensic analysis??? I'll leave forensic analysis
>to ****Maggie - she's great at it!
Maggie is free to chip in whenever the mood takes her. She'll be
somewhat hampered by the fact that the authoritative reports tend to
be in French or Dutch, but I'll take seriously anything she has to
say.
But you are no Maggie.
>You are funnier than you can possibly realise, Mephisto Mond.
I'll bear in mind that this assessment is coming from a person with a
red plastic nose, large hooped pantaloons and oversized shoes, driving
a very small car filled with 320 passengers and a bucket of confetti.
--
AH
nan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Investigation [from www.observer.guardian.co.uk]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belgium's silent heart of darkness
Waiting for justice
Olenka Frenkiel
Sunday May 5, 2002
The Observer
Something is rotten in the state of Belgium. Six years after the
arrest of Marc Dutroux, the country's notorious paedophile, no date
has been set for his trial and the case remains painfully unresolved.
In 1995, when two eight-year-old girls were kidnapped, Dutroux, a
convicted sex offender, was a prime suspect from the start, yet he
wasn't arrested for 14 months. By that time, four of his captives -
including the two girls - were dead. Since his arrest, 20 potential
witnesses connected with the case have died in mysterious
circumstances, fuelling suspicions of a cover-up reaching the highest
levels.
I have spent the last six months making a documentary about the
investigation. Early on, I was told by one senior government adviser:
'You must not underestimate the terrible record of our Belgian justice
system.'
It's a system which today appears paralysed, unable to prosecute the
accused, his wife and an alleged accomplice. With each successive year
in jail without trial their case against the Belgian authorities for a
breach of human rights grows stronger. The official explanation for
the delay is that hysterical conspiracy theories forced investigators
to search for paedophile networks which didn't exist. But far from
being investigated, leads pointing to a network seem rather to have
been ignored or buried.
Dutroux's wife, Michele Martin, a former primary school teacher and
the mother of his three children, has admitted that, in 1995, she knew
two small girls were incarcerated without food or water in a secret
dungeon in the cellar of a house they owned in Charleroi. She told
police she visited the house to feed their dogs while her husband was
in jail on car-theft charges, but she was 'too frightened' to feed the
girls.
Months later Dutroux led police to the emaciated bodies of Julie
Lejeune and Melissa Russo, the two eight-year-olds who had been
kidnapped more than a year before. They were buried in the garden of
another of Dutroux's homes. An accomplice, Michel Lelievre - a drug
addict and petty thief - told police soon after his arrest that the
girls had been kidnapped to order, for someone else. The chief suspect
was Jean Michel Nihoul, a Brussels businessman, pub-owner and familiar
face at sex parties. While they had been in prison, Lelievre told
police, Dutroux and Nihoul met frequently in the exercise yard, making
plans. The judge investigating the case, Jean-Marc Connerotte,
believed Nihoul was the brains behind the operation. But, as the
network began to unravel, Lelievre suddenly stopped co-operating,
saying he had been threatened.
I met Nihoul in a restaurant in Brussels. 'I am the Monster of
Belgium,' he roared at me by way of greeting. He is confident he will
never come to trial and that the evidence against him will never be
heard by any jury. During the course of our meal he, apparently
playfully, grabbed me, tickling, and finally pulled me over on to him
in the restaurant booth until I had to appeal to my colleagues for
rescue.
He will never come to court, he said, because the information he has
about important people in Belgium would bring the government down. The
Monster of Belgium denies he's a paedophile but seemed to enjoy his
notoriety and demanded £1,000 for his story. We declined his offer.
Every documentary likes a monster but we don't pay for interviews and
frankly I'd already had enough.
But we did need to offer Nihoul a right to reply to the accusations
made by Regina Louf, a woman now aged 33 whose testimony has divided
Belgium. Louf came forward after Judge Connerotte made an appeal to
victims of paedophiles to tell police what they knew. Connerotte, the
man who had arrested Dutroux and saved two teenage girls from his
dungeon, was a hero in Belgium. Louf was the first of 10 to come
forward.
She told investigators how from the age of 12 she'd been 'given' by
her parents to a family friend, Tony Van den Bogaert, who'd had a key
to their house. He would collect her from school and take her away for
weekends to sex parties where she was 'given' to other men and
secretly filmed having sex with them. 'It was highly organised,' she
says. 'Big business. Blackmail. There was a lot of money involved.'
In 1996 she related her experiences to a police team under carefully
filmed and supervised conditions. She described certain regular
clients including judges, one of the country's most powerful
politicians (now dead) and a prominent banker. She gave the police the
names by which she knew these men, detailed the houses, apartments and
districts where she'd been taken with other children to entertain the
guests.
This 'entertainment' was not just sex, she told the police. It
involved sadism, torture and even murder, and again she described the
places, the victims and the ways they were killed. One of the regular
organisers of these parties, she claimed, was the man she knew as
'Mich', Jean Michel Nihoul, 'a very cruel man. He abused children in a
very sadistic way', she said. Also there, she said, was the young
Dutroux.
'Dutroux was a boy who brought drugs, cocaine to these parties - he
brought some girls, watched girls. At these events Nihoul was a sort
of party beast while Dutroux was more on the side.'
Louf's testimony was vitally important. If true, it placed Dutroux and
Nihoul, suspected accomplices in the latest child abductions, together
at the scene of similar crimes 10 years before. Police began to check
her story. But then something changed.
In October 1996, Connerotte, the only man who has ever advanced the
Dutroux investigation, was sacked from the case. He had attended a
fund-raising dinner in support of the victims' families and was
accused of a conflict of interests.
A crowd of 400,000 marched on the Palace of Justice in Brussels to
protest. The father of one of the murdered children, Gino Russo, spoke
for the demonstrators. 'It was like spitting on the grave of Julie and
Melissa,' he said.
Connerotte was replaced by Judge Jacques Langlois, for whom this case
would be his first assignment. Langlois has spent the last five years
in constant conflict with the public prosecutor assigned with him to
the case, Michel Bourlet. Since Connerotte was sacked, according to
the Russos, the Dutroux file has acquired no new evidence.
Next to be dismissed, a few months later, was the special team of
police officers who had interviewed Louf and the other witnesses. By
now the police believed they had verified key elements of Louf's
story. At least one of the murders she described matched an unsolved
case. One of the police officers in the team, Rudi Hoskens, had been
assigned to re-examine that case and was convinced she had witnessed
the murder: 'She gave us some details that made us think it's
impossible to give without having been there at that place - the way
the body was found at that time, and the way she described the person
who was killed.'
What Louf had described was a macabre torture which had eventually
killed a 15-year-old girl she knew as Chrissie. 'It was a sort of
bondage,' she told me, 'so her legs and her hands and her throat were
connected with the same rope, and so when she moved she strangled
herself.' Louf insists both Nihoul and Dutroux were there that night.
Nihoul, she claims, took part in the murder, a charge he denies.
Dutroux, she says, watched.
Christine Van Hees's body had been found in 1984 dumped in the grounds
of a disused mushroom farm on the outskirts of Brussels. The farm was
later demolished but in 1996 Louf described to the police team its
intricate details, the wallpaper, the sinks, hooks on the ceiling, a
network of stairs and adjoining rooms unique to that building.
When I put this evidence to Anne Thily, Prosecutor General of Liège,
in overall charge of the Dutroux affair, she gave me a shrug and
repeated the official line in Belgium, that Louf is a fantasist and
has invented everything.
This is not the view of the man who grew up at the farm, the son of
the former owner, who showed me photographs of the house and the
mushroom factory. He said: 'I have never met Regina Louf. All I know
is that she could not have described the house as well as she did
unless she'd been there. It was two houses joined together in a
strange way. It would be impossible to invent it.'
For 12 years the unsolved murder of Van Hees gathered dust in the
Brussels files under the direction of Judge Van Espen. Two years ago a
Belgian journalist revealed the close relationship between Judge Van
Espen and Nihoul and his then wife.
As a lawyer, Van Espen had repre sented Nihoul's wife. Van Espen's
sister was the godmother of Nihoul's child. Yet, when Louf accused
these two of the murder, Judge Van Espen saw no conflict of interest,
no reason to resign. Nor was he sacked, as Connerotte had been.
Instead he was allowed to order the police officers to stay out of the
case. Van Espen only resigned as the judge in charge of the mushroom
factory investigation in early 1998 after his relationship with Nihoul
was exposed.
In the spring of 1997 Louf's interrogators had been sent home without
explanation and a new team was assigned to 'reread' her testimony. The
press was briefed that the previous team had been removed because they
had manipulated the evidence of Louf, who was then known by the code
name X1. It is a charge which the police team has always vigorously
denied and which has never been substantiated.
And then the media campaign began. Louf's name was leaked to the
press. The government-owned TV station RTBF began a campaign designed
to prove that Dutroux was an 'isolated pervert' kidnapping girls for
himself, that there was no network, that Nihoul was innocent and Louf
was a liar.
Belgium's flagship current affairs television programme, Au Nom de La
Loi , floated Louf's face over a backdrop of crows pecking over debris
orchestrated by a Blair Witch-style soundtrack. Her ageing parents
appeared as tragic victims of a deranged fantasist, whose false
memories had blighted their last years.
What the programme makers knew but didn't say was that the parents had
already admitted to police that a family friend in his forties, Tony
Van den Bogaert, had had a key to their home and unlimited access to
their 12-year-old daughter. Nor did they tell their viewers that Van
den Bogaert had himself admitted his relationship with Louf to police.
Van den Bogaert lives freely on the borders of Belgium and Holland
unmolested by the law or the press. Au Nom de La Loi has never
attempted to track him down and expose this self-confessed paedophile.
Instead they have devoted hours of air-time to destroying the name of
his victim, Louf, whose only offence appears to be that she was
prepared to testify about the organised abuse she'd suffered as a
child.
This campaign has succeeded. Judges have announced that Louf will not
be called as a witness in any future trial of Dutroux or his
associates. Her testimony and that of all the 10 witnesses who came
forward to Judge Connerotte has been declared worthless.
Noone has ever followed the Dutroux investigation more closely than
Gino and Carine Russo, the parents of Melissa. What alarms them more
than anything is the dearth of evidence or independent witnesses in
the whole affair.
The Russos have access to the dossier of evidence which will,
eventually, be presented to a jury. What alarms them, they say, is
that it contains little more than the highly suspect version of events
offered by Dutroux and his wife. This is crucial because while Dutroux
admits incarcerating their daughter in his home, he denies her kidnap,
rape or murder. Dutroux even claims he tried in vain to save the girls
and that Melissa died in his arms.
The Russos have lived this nightmare ever since Melissa disappeared
with her friend Julie in June 1995. Although Dutroux was a known
paedophile, police didn't search his house for five months, and when
they did they failed to find the girls, despite the sound of children
in the cellar.
When a parliamentary commission examined the series of failures in the
Dutroux investigation the police officer responsible, René Michaux,
claimed it was a genuine mistake, that the entrance to the dungeon was
well hidden and that the children's voices seemed to come from
outside. He found a speculum on the floor which he lifted, handled and
returned to Dutroux's wife without forensic analysis.
They found films which went undeveloped and videos which they didn't
watch. Had they done so, they would have seen Dutroux building the
dungeon. Instead Dutroux continued to abduct girls. In August 1996,
four days after his last kidnap, he was arrested. He showed police the
dungeon from where two girls were freed and then he led them to where
Melissa and Julie were buried.
Carine Russo was not allowed to see her daughter's body. 'I begged and
pleaded. I went with my lawyer but they refused. They told me the law
did not permit it. "But who will identify my daughter?" I asked them.
"Who will confirm that it's her?" "Dutroux has identified her," they
told me.' Then Carine looks at me. 'It is stupefying,' she says.
The autopsy report reveals Melissa was raped repeatedly over a
prolonged period. But there is nothing, no DNA evidence, no witness
sightings, no forensics of any kind to show whether it was Dutroux, or
anyone else.
Carine Russo points to a wall of files in her office. 'Where are the
results of the swabs taken from Melissa's body for analysis? We know
swabs were taken. It says so in the reports. But there are no results.
I've asked the prosecutor repeatedly and no one seems to know.'
After their years of grief and their betrayal by the Belgian police
and judiciary, the Russos barely believe a word of the official
version: that Dutroux, the lone paedophile, kidnapped the girls for
his personal use and kept them in the cage in his cellar until their
death of starvation the day he returned home after four months in
jail. How, they ask, could two children survive alone with virtually
no food or water for four months?
The Russos suspect the girls weren't there at all. A number of
reported sightings of Melissa, one in an upstairs room of a Charleroi
nightclub, which were never followed up, have convinced them that
someone else had access to the girls while Dutroux was in jail. Why
else, they ask, were the hairs which detectives gathered from the
dungeon in Dutroux's cellar never sent for DNA analysis? Why did Judge
Langlois, Connerotte's replacement, refuse to have them tested despite
pressure from his prosecutor, Michel Bourlet, who believed that a DNA
identification of those hairs might reveal who else was involved.
Langlois's boss, the Prosecutor General of Liege, Anne Thily, says:
'There was no need to get the hairs analysed as no one else entered
the cage. There was no network so there was no need to look for
evidence of one.
'In any case,' she continued, 'the hairs have all now been analysed -
all 5,000.' And the results of this analysis? 'Nothing.' Thily flashed
me a triumphant smile. 'No evidence of any relevance in the Dutroux
affair. Which proves, of course, that Langlois was right all along.'
But this is not true. Sources central to the investigation confirm
that to date the hairs have still not been analysed. How can such a
senior figure lie so brazenly? Another Belgian mystery.
'Who raped the children?' I asked Thily. 'Dutroux of course.'
'But he denies it. How will you prove it to the jury? There was no DNA
test?' Now she was indignant. 'There were DNA tests, Madame.'
'And the results?' 'Inconclusive. The bodies were too decomposed to
test for DNA,' she says.
But this too makes no sense. The autopsy states clearly that the
bodies were not decomposed. Samples were taken. But no one seems to
know what has happened to the results.
Bruno Tagliaferro was someone who knew, or claimed to know, about the
abduction of Julie and Melissa and the car which was used. The
Charleroi scrap metal merchant told his wife in 1995 that Dutroux was
trying to get him killed. It was something to do with the car in which
girls had been taken.
When he was found dead, apparently of a heart attack, his wife
Fabienne Jaupart, refused to accept the verdict. Samples of his body
sent to the US for analysis showed he'd been poisoned. Jaupart told
reporters she was determined to find her husband's killer, but soon
she too was found dead in her bed, her mattress smouldering. It was
declared suicide. Since 1995, there have been 20 unexplained deaths of
potential witnesses connected with Dutroux.
'In Belgium,' says Regina Louf smiling, 'if you're a potential witness
you're either dead, or like me, mad.'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<nnr940145e179i5tu...@4ax.com>...
>I submit this article in full. From Nan
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Investigation [from www.observer.guardian.co.uk]
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Belgium's silent heart of darkness
>Waiting for justice
>Olenka Frenkiel
>Sunday May 5, 2002
>The Observer
>Something is rotten in the state of Belgium. Six years after the
>arrest of Marc Dutroux, the country's notorious paedophile, no date
>has been set for his trial and the case remains painfully unresolved.
>In 1995, when two eight-year-old girls were kidnapped, Dutroux, a
>convicted sex offender, was a prime suspect from the start, yet he
>wasn't arrested for 14 months. By that time, four of his captives -
>including the two girls - were dead. Since his arrest, 20 potential
>witnesses connected with the case have died in mysterious
>circumstances,
Wrong. One single witness has died, a policeman who may have corruptly
operated Michel Nihoul as an undeclared informer. Gerard Vannesse was
briefly imprisoned in connection with this case, and died soon after
his release. No suspicious circumstances surround his death.
A number of other people whose names can be connected to crime in the
Charleroi region have died in seven years, not surprisingly. Neither
Ms. Frenkel nor you can draw anything like a solid line between any of
those names and Marc Dutroux.
People die. What can I tell you?
>fuelling suspicions of a cover-up reaching the highest
>levels.
Fuelling such suspicions in gullible minds, such as those displayed by
Nan and Olenka Frenkel.
>I have spent the last six months making a documentary about the
>investigation. Early on, I was told by one senior government adviser:
>'You must not underestimate the terrible record of our Belgian justice
>system.'
This quote refers to nothing in particular. What was the context of
the statement?
>It's a system which today appears paralysed, unable to prosecute the
>accused, his wife and an alleged accomplice. With each successive year
>in jail without trial their case against the Belgian authorities for a
>breach of human rights grows stronger.
That's a fair point. It's a strange sort of cover-up which keeps the
main fall-guy in jail interminably and delivers up a case to the
European court on a plate, though, isn't it? Wouldn't a real cover-up
either have him whacked à la Michele Sindona, or have allowed him to
escape successfully in 1998?
>The official explanation for
>the delay is that hysterical conspiracy theories forced investigators
>to search for paedophile networks which didn't exist. But far from
>being investigated, leads pointing to a network seem rather to have
>been ignored or buried.
She is singulary unable to demonstrate that claim by pointing to any
substantive leads.
>Dutroux's wife, Michele Martin, a former primary school teacher and
>the mother of his three children, has admitted that, in 1995, she knew
>two small girls were incarcerated without food or water in a secret
>dungeon in the cellar of a house they owned in Charleroi. She told
>police she visited the house to feed their dogs while her husband was
>in jail on car-theft charges, but she was 'too frightened' to feed the
>girls.
How is that an uninvestigated lead?
>Months later Dutroux led police to the emaciated bodies of Julie
>Lejeune and Melissa Russo, the two eight-year-olds who had been
>kidnapped more than a year before. They were buried in the garden of
>another of Dutroux's homes. An accomplice, Michel Lelievre - a drug
>addict and petty thief - told police soon after his arrest that the
>girls had been kidnapped to order, for someone else. The chief suspect
>was Jean Michel Nihoul, a Brussels businessman, pub-owner and familiar
Nihoul has never owned a pub of any sort.
>face at sex parties. While they had been in prison, Lelievre told
>police, Dutroux and Nihoul met frequently in the exercise yard, making
>plans.
Utter rubbish. The prisoners in the wing of Arlon prison inhabited by
the suspects (Nihoul has been free since 1997) are now allowed to
associate with each other.
>The judge investigating the case, Jean-Marc Connerotte,
>believed Nihoul was the brains behind the operation. But, as the
>network began to unravel, Lelievre suddenly stopped co-operating,
>saying he had been threatened.
In other words, he does not stand by his previous statements,
including the one above. Only Olenka Frenkel still stands by it.
>I met Nihoul in a restaurant in Brussels. 'I am the Monster of
>Belgium,' he roared at me by way of greeting. He is confident he will
>never come to trial and that the evidence against him will never be
>heard by any jury. During the course of our meal he, apparently
>playfully, grabbed me, tickling, and finally pulled me over on to him
>in the restaurant booth until I had to appeal to my colleagues for
>rescue.
This of course proves he is the kidnapper and murderer of children.
>He will never come to court, he said, because the information he has
>about important people in Belgium would bring the government down.
His presence in the dock this week is evidence, I should say, of
Nihoul's arrogance, and of Ms. Frenkel's gullibility.
>The
>Monster of Belgium denies he's a paedophile but seemed to enjoy his
>notoriety and demanded £1,000 for his story. We declined his offer.
Of course we did. Only child-killers ask for money from the press.
I'm still at something of a loss to understand how any of this
colourful detail proves a cover-up.
>Every documentary likes a monster but we don't pay for interviews and
>frankly I'd already had enough.
"We made our excuses and left".
>But we did need to offer Nihoul a right to reply to the accusations
>made by Regina Louf, a woman now aged 33 whose testimony has divided
>Belgium.
There's no need for the BBC (for whom this article was written) to
offer Nihoul any sort of right of reply at all. Apparently Ms. Frenkel
is not as quick to leave as all that, given that she's still to get
anything juicy out of Nihoul.
>Louf came forward after Judge Connerotte made an appeal to
>victims of paedophiles to tell police what they knew. Connerotte, the
>man who had arrested Dutroux and saved two teenage girls from his
>dungeon, was a hero in Belgium. Louf was the first of 10 to come
>forward.
>She told investigators how from the age of 12 she'd been 'given' by
>her parents to a family friend, Tony Van den Bogaert, who'd had a key
>to their house. He would collect her from school and take her away for
>weekends to sex parties where she was 'given' to other men and
>secretly filmed having sex with them. 'It was highly organised,' she
>says. 'Big business. Blackmail. There was a lot of money involved.'
Her abuse at the hands of Tony has been substantiated, not least by
his own admission. None of the rest has any foundation, objectively
speaking.
>In 1996 she related her experiences to a police team under carefully
>filmed and supervised conditions. She described certain regular
>clients including judges, one of the country's most powerful
>politicians (now dead) and a prominent banker. She gave the police the
>names by which she knew these men, detailed the houses, apartments and
>districts where she'd been taken with other children to entertain the
>guests.
And important details failed to tally. "Giving" statements to the
police does not constitute grounds for action. If the police check the
details and find them wanting, the resulting refusal to act is not a
"cover-up".
>This 'entertainment' was not just sex, she told the police. It
>involved sadism, torture and even murder, and again she described the
>places, the victims and the ways they were killed. One of the regular
>organisers of these parties, she claimed, was the man she knew as
>'Mich', Jean Michel Nihoul, 'a very cruel man. He abused children in a
>very sadistic way', she said. Also there, she said, was the young
>Dutroux.
It's been shown how on the dates Regina gave, Dutroux and other names
witnesses could not possibly have been present, by virtue of being in
jail, for example.
>'Dutroux was a boy who brought drugs, cocaine to these parties - he
>brought some girls, watched girls. At these events Nihoul was a sort
>of party beast while Dutroux was more on the side.'
She says so, but there's nothing to her allegations up, and much to
undermine them. Would you prefer we scrap the rules of evidence
entirely, and allow anyone to allege anything they wish, without their
statements being tested?
>Louf's testimony was vitally important. If true, it placed Dutroux and
>Nihoul, suspected accomplices in the latest child abductions, together
>at the scene of similar crimes 10 years before.
But it wasn't true, to the extent that we're able to tell by comparing
her version with objectively verifiable facts.
>Police began to check
>her story. But then something changed.
>In October 1996, Connerotte, the only man who has ever advanced the
>Dutroux investigation, was sacked from the case.
Ms. Frenkel's timeline is all fucked up. Connerotte was removed from
the case long before police started to check Regina's story. He was
gone two months into the case. For very good reason, what's more.
>He had attended a
>fund-raising dinner in support of the victims' families and was
>accused of a conflict of interests.
Quite clearly. A magistrate in his position must not only be
impartial, but be seen to be impartial. He made a very stupid move.
>A crowd of 400,000 marched on the Palace of Justice in Brussels to
>protest.
The actual figure was 300,000, which is impressive enough. Ms. Frenkel
quite simply made this figure up, since there's never been any mention
of a figure other than 300,000 in any source I've ever seen in seven
years.
>The father of one of the murdered children, Gino Russo, spoke
>for the demonstrators. 'It was like spitting on the grave of Julie and
>Melissa,' he said.
>Connerotte was replaced by Judge Jacques Langlois, for whom this case
>would be his first assignment. Langlois has spent the last five years
>in constant conflict with the public prosecutor assigned with him to
>the case, Michel Bourlet.
Both men deny this.
>Since Connerotte was sacked, according to
>the Russos, the Dutroux file has acquired no new evidence.
The case file amounts to some 450,000 pages of "no new evidence".
That's three DVDs each containing some 4.7 Gb of "no new evidence".
>Next to be dismissed, a few months later, was the special team of
>police officers who had interviewed Louf and the other witnesses.
They were not dismissed, and are in fact still employed. The "team,"
by the way, is composed of two men -- Aimé Bille and Patrick Debaets
(qv).
>By
>now the police believed they had verified key elements of Louf's
>story.
If so, they kept it to themselves. Not a single page of evidence from
Regina Louf is in the Dutroux dossier, or any other criminal dossier
in existence.
>At least one of the murders she described matched an unsolved
>case. One of the police officers in the team, Rudi Hoskens, had been
>assigned to re-examine that case and was convinced she had witnessed
>the murder: 'She gave us some details that made us think it's
>impossible to give without having been there at that place - the way
>the body was found at that time, and the way she described the person
>who was killed.'
>What Louf had described was a macabre torture which had eventually
>killed a 15-year-old girl she knew as Chrissie. 'It was a sort of
>bondage,' she told me, 'so her legs and her hands and her throat were
>connected with the same rope, and so when she moved she strangled
>herself.'
This is unverifiable, since the body of Christine Van Hees was found
severely burned. The intricacies of the knots used to tie her up were,
sadly, consumed by the flames.
>Louf insists both Nihoul and Dutroux were there that night.
>Nihoul, she claims, took part in the murder, a charge he denies.
>Dutroux, she says, watched.
An allegation is not evidence.
>Christine Van Hees's body had been found in 1984 dumped in the grounds
>of a disused mushroom farm on the outskirts of Brussels.
It wasn't a farm, and the body wasn't dumped. The murder
unquestionably took place right there on the spot.
>The farm was
>later demolished but in 1996 Louf described to the police team its
>intricate details, the wallpaper, the sinks, hooks on the ceiling, a
>network of stairs and adjoining rooms unique to that building.
The son of the proprietor of the building agreed that her description
of the premises tended to suggest she had been there. Proves nothing
of murder, of course.
>When I put this evidence to Anne Thily, Prosecutor General of Liège,
>in overall charge of the Dutroux affair, she gave me a shrug and
>repeated the official line in Belgium, that Louf is a fantasist and
>has invented everything.
>This is not the view of the man who grew up at the farm, the son of
>the former owner, who showed me photographs of the house and the
>mushroom factory. He said: 'I have never met Regina Louf. All I know
>is that she could not have described the house as well as she did
>unless she'd been there. It was two houses joined together in a
>strange way. It would be impossible to invent it.'
>For 12 years the unsolved murder of Van Hees gathered dust in the
>Brussels files under the direction of Judge Van Espen. Two years ago a
>Belgian journalist revealed the close relationship between Judge Van
>Espen and Nihoul and his then wife.
None. He countersigned an official document, which as a fellow lawyer
he might have done for anyone. Annie Bouty, the woman in question, was
briefly under suspicion in this case, but despite seven years of
inquiries, she now stands charged of nothing at all.
>As a lawyer, Van Espen had repre sented Nihoul's wife.
Not true.
>Van Espen's
>sister was the godmother of Nihoul's child.
Not true.
>Yet, when Louf accused
>these two of the murder, Judge Van Espen saw no conflict of interest,
>no reason to resign.
Of course not.
>Nor was he sacked, as Connerotte had been.
>Instead he was allowed to order the police officers to stay out of the
>case.
Never happened. Even Bille and Debaets don't claim this.
>Van Espen only resigned as the judge in charge of the mushroom
>factory investigation in early 1998 after his relationship with Nihoul
>was exposed.
And though his "relationship" was completely anodyne, he was removed
nonetheless, just as Connerotte had been. What is Ms. Frenkel's point
here? That he wasn't removed until he was removed?
>In the spring of 1997 Louf's interrogators had been sent home without
>explanation and a new team was assigned to 'reread' her testimony. The
>press was briefed that the previous team had been removed because they
>had manipulated the evidence of Louf, who was then known by the code
>name X1. It is a charge which the police team has always vigorously
>denied and which has never been substantiated.
None of which means that her statements are true, of course.
>And then the media campaign began. Louf's name was leaked to the
>press.
Not true. She discarded her anonymity voluntarily.
>The government-owned TV station RTBF began a campaign designed
>to prove that Dutroux was an 'isolated pervert' kidnapping girls for
>himself, that there was no network, that Nihoul was innocent and Louf
>was a liar.
In fact, a programme (Au nom de la loi) made by a team of four RTBF
journalists tended to favour this interpretation. In the meantime, a
different programme strand (Faits divers), made by different RTBF
journalists, took a robustly different line. So the state-owned TV
represented both sides of the issue. And Ms. Frenkel has a problem
with that?
>Belgium's flagship current affairs television programme, Au Nom de La
>Loi , floated Louf's face over a backdrop of crows pecking over debris
>orchestrated by a Blair Witch-style soundtrack. Her ageing parents
>appeared as tragic victims of a deranged fantasist, whose false
>memories had blighted their last years.
That programme was disgraceful, yes.
>What the programme makers knew but didn't say was that the parents had
>already admitted to police that a family friend in his forties, Tony
>Van den Bogaert, had had a key to their home and unlimited access to
>their 12-year-old daughter. Nor did they tell their viewers that Van
>den Bogaert had himself admitted his relationship with Louf to police.
>Van den Bogaert lives freely on the borders of Belgium and Holland
>unmolested by the law or the press. Au Nom de La Loi has never
>attempted to track him down and expose this self-confessed paedophile.
>Instead they have devoted hours of air-time to destroying the name of
>his victim, Louf, whose only offence appears to be that she was
>prepared to testify about the organised abuse she'd suffered as a
>child.
>This campaign has succeeded. Judges have announced that Louf will not
>be called as a witness in any future trial of Dutroux or his
>associates. Her testimony and that of all the 10 witnesses who came
>forward to Judge Connerotte has been declared worthless.
No it hasn't. But it has been judged useless in the context of a
trial. Perhaps you're not aware of the need for evidence presented in
court to have a certain probative value?
>Noone has ever followed the Dutroux investigation more closely than
>Gino and Carine Russo, the parents of Melissa. What alarms them more
>than anything is the dearth of evidence or independent witnesses in
>the whole affair.
>The Russos have access to the dossier of evidence which will,
>eventually, be presented to a jury. What alarms them, they say, is
>that it contains little more than the highly suspect version of events
>offered by Dutroux and his wife. This is crucial because while Dutroux
>admits incarcerating their daughter in his home, he denies her kidnap,
>rape or murder. Dutroux even claims he tried in vain to save the girls
>and that Melissa died in his arms.
This is true, but it's evidence of a crime without witnesses, rather
than a cover-up.
>The Russos have lived this nightmare ever since Melissa disappeared
>with her friend Julie in June 1995. Although Dutroux was a known
>paedophile, police didn't search his house for five months, and when
>they did they failed to find the girls, despite the sound of children
>in the cellar.
True, and scandalous. Olenka fails to explain why such omissions
happened, though.
>When a parliamentary commission examined the series of failures in the
>Dutroux investigation the police officer responsible, René Michaux,
>claimed it was a genuine mistake, that the entrance to the dungeon was
>well hidden and that the children's voices seemed to come from
>outside. He found a speculum on the floor which he lifted, handled and
>returned to Dutroux's wife without forensic analysis.
Yes. Michaux was a culpable idiot, and a notorious drunk.
>They found films which went undeveloped and videos which they didn't
>watch. Had they done so, they would have seen Dutroux building the
>dungeon. Instead Dutroux continued to abduct girls. In August 1996,
>four days after his last kidnap, he was arrested. He showed police the
>dungeon from where two girls were freed and then he led them to where
>Melissa and Julie were buried.
>Carine Russo was not allowed to see her daughter's body. 'I begged and
>pleaded. I went with my lawyer but they refused. They told me the law
>did not permit it. "But who will identify my daughter?" I asked them.
>"Who will confirm that it's her?" "Dutroux has identified her," they
>told me.' Then Carine looks at me. 'It is stupefying,' she says.
This is all awful, but where's the evidence of a cover-up?
>The autopsy report reveals Melissa was raped repeatedly over a
>prolonged period.
Olenka doesn't know this. It's true, but at the time of writing, she
was making it up, or repeating a rumour put about by someone else who
was making it up, which is just as bad. The evidence is out there now,
but it wasn't then.
>But there is nothing, no DNA evidence, no witness
>sightings, no forensics of any kind to show whether it was Dutroux, or
>anyone else.
Not true.
>Carine Russo points to a wall of files in her office. 'Where are the
>results of the swabs taken from Melissa's body for analysis? We know
>swabs were taken. It says so in the reports. But there are no results.
>I've asked the prosecutor repeatedly and no one seems to know.'
The results are in the case-file as we now know it.
>After their years of grief and their betrayal by the Belgian police
>and judiciary, the Russos barely believe a word of the official
>version: that Dutroux, the lone paedophile, kidnapped the girls for
>his personal use and kept them in the cage in his cellar until their
>death of starvation the day he returned home after four months in
>jail. How, they ask, could two children survive alone with virtually
>no food or water for four months?
How indeed? But unanswered questions are not evidence of a cover-up.
At the outset of this article, Olenka promised us evidence. Where is
it?
>The Russos suspect the girls weren't there at all. A number of
>reported sightings of Melissa, one in an upstairs room of a Charleroi
>nightclub, which were never followed up, have convinced them that
>someone else had access to the girls while Dutroux was in jail. Why
>else, they ask, were the hairs which detectives gathered from the
>dungeon in Dutroux's cellar never sent for DNA analysis?
They were.
>Why did Judge
>Langlois, Connerotte's replacement, refuse to have them tested despite
>pressure from his prosecutor, Michel Bourlet, who believed that a DNA
>identification of those hairs might reveal who else was involved.
They have been sent for testing in labs in Belgium, Germany and, oddly
enough, Turkey. I believe there are thousands of them.
>Langlois's boss, the Prosecutor General of Liege, Anne Thily, says:
>'There was no need to get the hairs analysed as no one else entered
>the cage. There was no network so there was no need to look for
>evidence of one.
Thily is a fool and a scoundrel. But where's the evidence of a
cover-up?
>'In any case,' she continued, 'the hairs have all now been analysed -
>all 5,000.' And the results of this analysis? 'Nothing.' Thily flashed
>me a triumphant smile. 'No evidence of any relevance in the Dutroux
>affair. Which proves, of course, that Langlois was right all along.'
Thily is ill-informed.
>But this is not true. Sources central to the investigation confirm
>that to date the hairs have still not been analysed. How can such a
>senior figure lie so brazenly? Another Belgian mystery.
She's wrong. I should point out that Thily herself has no authority
over the conduct of this investigation.
>'Who raped the children?' I asked Thily. 'Dutroux of course.'
>'But he denies it. How will you prove it to the jury? There was no DNA
>test?' Now she was indignant. 'There were DNA tests, Madame.'
>'And the results?' 'Inconclusive. The bodies were too decomposed to
>test for DNA,' she says.
>But this too makes no sense. The autopsy states clearly that the
>bodies were not decomposed. Samples were taken. But no one seems to
>know what has happened to the results.
The court will find out. The test results are in the dossier.
>Bruno Tagliaferro was someone who knew, or claimed to know, about the
>abduction of Julie and Melissa and the car which was used. The
>Charleroi scrap metal merchant told his wife in 1995 that Dutroux was
>trying to get him killed. It was something to do with the car in which
>girls had been taken.
Tagliaferro was killed all right, and only one foot ever recovered. It
had nothing to do with Dutroux, though. Dutroux was in jail. He was
murdered by his old girlfriend's new boyfriend.
>When he was found dead, apparently of a heart attack, his wife
>Fabienne Jaupart, refused to accept the verdict. Samples of his body
>sent to the US for analysis showed he'd been poisoned.
Only one of his feet was ever recovered.
>Jaupart told
>reporters she was determined to find her husband's killer, but soon
>she too was found dead in her bed, her mattress smouldering. It was
>declared suicide. Since 1995, there have been 20 unexplained deaths of
>potential witnesses connected with Dutroux.
There's nothing to suggest Tagliaferro had anything to say about
Dutroux.
>'In Belgium,' says Regina Louf smiling, 'if you're a potential witness
>you're either dead, or like me, mad.'
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
AH
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<nnr940145e179i5tu...@4ax.com>...
>Alan, since when does it transpire that one is no longer allowed to
>speculate on, or form an opinion on any crime or event divorced from
>all the legal trappings of a formal trial?
I've no idea what you're talking about. All I'm asking is that nan
endeavour to ensure the stuff she's posting is backed up by
*something*. Unsubstantiated rumours, and allegations which fly int he
face of *known* evidence just make her look like a rube. They add
nothing to consideration of the case.
>Why not just shut down all
>the newspapers and television stations? After all, unless they confer
>with a battery of lawyers and legal experts, what right do they have
>to even report the news, much less editorialize on it? Do you even
>realize just how silly you come off doing this? BTW, this is done
>just as often in this country, the presumption being that if Aunt
>Tillie in Podunk, Iowa speculates on the nation's latest serial murder
>while shopping for groceries at Mabel's Outpost the entire system of
>western jurisprudence will come down around our ears.
Not even slightly my point. Nan should bring herself up to speed with
what is incontrovertibly known about the case. It's a discourtesy to
other posters who have taken the trouble. The stuff she's digging up
is so wrong I'm embarrassed on her behalf.
>It's called free speech, Alan. You know, public discourse and
>community gossip - yes gossip, because that, too, is protected.
Gossip based on easily-disprovable nonsense makes the gossiper look
like an idiot. Gossip based on nothing at all is even worse. In the
end, it's no skin off my nose how stupid she looks. I'm only
suggesting that with a little effort and a little critical analysis,
she could save herself a faceful of egg.
Pissing in the wind, I know. Nan of all posters to at-c is the least
likely to be concerned with how utterly moronic she appears to be.
Past history shows that.
>And I
>note that it always seems to be prissy twits like yourself who believe
>they own the entire social system, lock, stock and barrel, right down
>to what people are even allowed to discuss in free speech newsgroups
>like this.
Are you telling me what opinions I may or may not express?
>You usually do this by intimating that the discussion of
>these *weighty* matters by someone 200 million light years away in the
>Andromeda Galaxy will somehow taint the judicial process.
Cite.
>And, as a
>corollary, that only wise sages like Alan Hope get to mull these
>things over.
Cite for that too, if you would.
>Rules of evidence and the legal protections our courts provide is a
>legal process, sir, not a blueprint for discussion in these
>newsgroups.
The rule for discussion in these newsgroups is, read yourself in
before you start spouting. You'd just as well tell the waves to stop
being so wet as explain that to nan, though. She seems to think her
opinions carry weight _per se_. People like you, who ought to know
better, and who as professed friends of poor sick nan ought to be more
solicitous of her well-being, simply make her problem worse. You're
like the fat spotty girl who worms her way into the pretty prom
queen's good-books: you hope some of her cachet will rub off. Except
in your case, you're hoping your association with nan will make the
kind of shit you habitually post (see above) will take on an
appearance of near-sanity by comparison with the tragic head-diseased
old trout.
That's a very cynical way of carrying on, Cleo.
--
AH
nan
> Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<nnr940145e179i5tu...@4ax.com>...
>
> Alan, since when does it transpire that one is no longer allowed to
> speculate on, or form an opinion on any crime or event divorced from
> the newspapers and television stations? After all, unless they confer
> with a battery of lawyers and legal experts, what right do they have
> to even report the news, much less editorialize on it? Do you even
> realize just how silly you come off doing this? BTW, this is done
> just as often in this country, the presumption being that if Aunt
> Tillie in Podunk, Iowa speculates on the nation's latest serial murder
> while shopping for groceries at Mabel's Outpost the entire system of
> western jurisprudence will come down around our ears.
>
> note that it always seems to be prissy twits like yourself who believe
> they own the entire social system, lock, stock and barrel, right down
> to what people are even allowed to discuss in free speech newsgroups
> these *weighty* matters by someone 200 million light years away in the
> corollary, that only wise sages like Alan Hope get to mull these
> things over.
>
> legal process, sir, not a blueprint for discussion in these
> newsgroups.
>
Dear Cleo,
Alan Hope/Mephisto Mond's reaction to my posts on the Dutroux case is
way over the top. He self-righteously hurls veiled threats and
explicit insults at me. As if HE could stop me by these means! Jesu!
He should have learned better by now - I am a free spirit and defiant
as hell.
I wonder why Alan so urgently dismisses what are credible articles by
international news sources, investigative reports as well as Europe's
general public's speculation about this horrendous case.
His irrational reactions show him to be an hysterical fool.
He's rather too defensive in the denial mode.
Regards, from Nan
nan
> nan goes:
>
> >Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<nnr940145e179i5tu...@4ax.com>...
> >> nan goes:
>
> >> >A related article, excerpt from
> >> >www.sra-ireland.freepress.free-speech.com:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> >SRA Missing Persons and Satanism The Irish press and media completely
> >> >ignored the satanic ritual murder connections in the Marc Dutroux
> >> >murders !
>
> >http://www.conspiracy-net.com/archives/articles/conspiracy/satanism/CNCf0007.txt
>
> >> Are you associating yourself with this farrago of nutcase paranoia and
> >> outright lies, nan? It's hard to see where your quoting stops and your
> >> own comments begin. Some clarification, please.
>
> >If the international community and its print media are concerned about
> >implications of "satanic ritural murder connections", then their
> >rightful concern is being rightfuly expressed.
>
> But the site you quoted is by no stretch of the imagination a
> representative of the "print media" of the "international community".
> It's a nutjob website, like so many others.
>
> >If there is a wider
> >international network of paedophiliac murdering/torturing ghouls out
> >there, then it matters very little if they are referred to as sadistic
> >child raping maniacs or satanists practicing ritual murders of
> >children.
>
> So long as we dismiss any concern for accuracy, you're quite right.
> What difference does it make if the ME says the deceased died of
> gunshot wounds or an attack of the Vapoures? He's just as dead.
What a lame agrument. You've gone off totally.
>
> >The means and net results of their atrocities is what
> >counts.
>
> Nonsense, of course.
You're bonkers. You cannot dismiss away with silly declarations like
"nonsense."
>
> >Clarification: I have no COMMENTS or no OPINIONS on the credibility of
> >details of this case. I am merely submitting a variety of news
> >articles and investigative reports. I do wonder about your extreme
> >reaction, however.
>
> But you're not submitting a variety, are you? You've submitted one
> cite, from the very edge of sanity. The case has been covered, in
> recent days, by a very wide spectrum of media. Yet the one submission
> from you comes from the lunatic wing. What kind of researcher begins
> her researches with the least credible sources?
>
> >Cripes, are you ever defensive about it: "...nutcase paranoia and
> >outright lies..." Hey, Buddy, that makes me even more curious! Your
> >reaction falls into the big "deny&lie" category. Furthermore, you
> >cannot taint me because you defame the sources.
>
> I wonder why on earth you would imagine I'd be defensive. Do you
> suppose perhaps I'm a Satanic ritual abuser?
Your irrational responses would make anyone wonder, you fool.
Your "wrath" is better directed at Detroux and his monsterous crimes,
the suspicious 6-8 years delay in prosecuting Detroux and his
accomplices, the persecution of a surviving witness, the mysterious
deaths of witnesses and investigators, the possibility of a large
network of sadistic paedophiliac kidnappers and murderers, and the
possibility of disgraceful cover-ups by authorities.
I am not wasting any more time on you, Alan/Mephisto! You need to
behave and strive for rationality. I don't trust your word, and why
in the hell should I?
From Nan
Alan Hope
>I wonder why Alan so urgently dismisses what are credible articles by
>international news sources, investigative reports as well as Europe's
>general public's speculation about this horrendous case.
Because they're not credible so long as they're full of errors and
inventions. You've posted nothing from any international news source
worthy of the name, but I've shown how even the BBC and British
broadsheets are sloppy with facts relating to this case.
Speculation is fine, as long as it's presented as speculation. It's
not so fine when it's presented as fact. Do you have a problem with
that position?
--
AH
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<1t5c40hioa6bpnfet...@4ax.com>...
>> nan goes:
>> >Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<nnr940145e179i5tu...@4ax.com>...
>> >> nan goes:
>> >> >A related article, excerpt from
>> >> >www.sra-ireland.freepress.free-speech.com:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >> >SRA Missing Persons and Satanism The Irish press and media completely
>> >> >ignored the satanic ritual murder connections in the Marc Dutroux
>> >> >murders !
>http://www.conspiracy-net.com/archives/articles/conspiracy/satanism/CNCf0007.txt
>> >> Are you associating yourself with this farrago of nutcase paranoia and
>> >> outright lies, nan? It's hard to see where your quoting stops and your
>> >> own comments begin. Some clarification, please.
>> >If the international community and its print media are concerned about
>> >implications of "satanic ritural murder connections", then their
>> >rightful concern is being rightfuly expressed.
>> But the site you quoted is by no stretch of the imagination a
>> representative of the "print media" of the "international community".
>> It's a nutjob website, like so many others.
>You are irrational as hell. You are the "nutjob"!
Read the article you posted, for once.
>> >If there is a wider
>> >international network of paedophiliac murdering/torturing ghouls out
>> >there, then it matters very little if they are referred to as sadistic
>> >child raping maniacs or satanists practicing ritual murders of
>> >children.
>> So long as we dismiss any concern for accuracy, you're quite right.
>> What difference does it make if the ME says the deceased died of
>> gunshot wounds or an attack of the Vapoures? He's just as dead.
>What a lame agrument. You've gone off totally.
I know it's a lame argument. It's your argument.
>> >The means and net results of their atrocities is what
>> >counts.
>> Nonsense, of course.
>You're bonkers. You cannot dismiss away with silly declarations like
>"nonsense."
You're the one dismissing the distinction between "died at the hands
of Satanists" and "died some other way". I happen to consider the
distinction important.
>> >Clarification: I have no COMMENTS or no OPINIONS on the credibility of
>> >details of this case. I am merely submitting a variety of news
>> >articles and investigative reports. I do wonder about your extreme
>> >reaction, however.
>> But you're not submitting a variety, are you? You've submitted one
>> cite, from the very edge of sanity. The case has been covered, in
>> recent days, by a very wide spectrum of media. Yet the one submission
>> from you comes from the lunatic wing. What kind of researcher begins
>> her researches with the least credible sources?
>> >Cripes, are you ever defensive about it: "...nutcase paranoia and
>> >outright lies..." Hey, Buddy, that makes me even more curious! Your
>> >reaction falls into the big "deny&lie" category. Furthermore, you
>> >cannot taint me because you defame the sources.
>> I wonder why on earth you would imagine I'd be defensive. Do you
>> suppose perhaps I'm a Satanic ritual abuser?
>Your irrational responses would make anyone wonder, you fool.
>Your "wrath" is better directed at Detroux and his monsterous crimes,
>the suspicious 6-8 years delay in prosecuting Detroux and his
>accomplices,
Nothing suspicious about it, though your inability to subtract 1996
from 2004 is a mite dubious.
>the persecution of a surviving witness,
She's not a witness, and she's not persecuted. Zero for two.
>the mysterious
>deaths of witnesses and investigators,
One witness-suspect has died, and there's no mystery about the
circumstances.
>the possibility of a large
>network of sadistic paedophiliac kidnappers and murderers, and the
>possibility of disgraceful cover-ups by authorities.
Both "possibilities" have yet to be substantiated with anything
resembling evidence. Do you believe an allegation is enough to
constitute proof?
>I am not wasting any more time on you, Alan/Mephisto! You need to
>behave and strive for rationality. I don't trust your word, and why
>in the hell should I?
Because despite your "research" I'm the best you've come up with.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<gdhc401rsmivsh3rr...@4ax.com>...
>> Are you telling me what opinions I may or may not express?
>No, I'm not, but you sure as hell are telling others what opinions
>they may or may not express, and that arrogance extends well beyond
>Nan.
I'm saying opinions should be based in truth, and if not, the lack
should be acknowledged. Nan posts some rubbish, I point out the
inaccuracies and the falsehoods therein, and all of a sudden I'm a
suspected devil-worshipper.
I'm saying check the truth of what you're claiming before you claim
it. And if there's no truth, then say so. Is that so radical?
It so happens I believe there is more to this case than the indictment
states. But I'm happy to admit that my suspicions are just that, and
are based on conjecture and speculation, albeit conjecture and
speculation based firmly in the content of the dossier, and the
non-content of the dossier -- that which one might expect to find but
which is not there.
Nan has not the knowledge of the case to indulge in such speculation,
but throws up the first thing she finds that's at all controversial.
You ought to be able to see that her position has nothing to do with a
search for truth, and everything to do with an opposition to me.
>Is Olenka Frenkiel of the London Observer also a raving lunatic,
>Alan?
Obviously not, but she's a sloppy journalist. Her mistakes have been
pointed out, and the corrections I've offered are incontrovertible.
Olenka spent a short time here, and picked up all sorts of nonsense.
She allowed the nonsense to pollute her story, for the sake of
sensationalism.
>Do you think you're the only one entitled to sort and sift
>current events?
I'm saying nothing that isn't common knowledge among those who know
the case.
>Nan, like me, is probably of that age where she, too,
>lived contemporaneously with the Kennedy assassination. We had many
>people just like you, Alan, trying to shout us down and insisting that
>we were conspiracy nuts, that we didn't know what the fuck we were
>talking about. Well, as it turns out we did, and between Oswald, Ruby
>and Tippet and a few others who mysteriously vanished or were offed,
>not to mention missing evidence, including JFK's brain among other
>things, the American people were fucked over big time.
I have not the slightest interest in the Kennedy case, and see no
connection between that case and this.
>Now that the
>dust has settled on that one, few would argue today against a cover-up
>of monumental proportions which took place, right on up to the very
>highest levels of government.
So what? That a cover-up took place in Dallas has no bearing whatever
on a mooted cover-up in Belgium. I'm asking proponents of the cover-up
theory to make their case: present your evidence. Neither you nor nan
is in a position to do any such thing.
>This situation has the same exact smell to it, sir.
Smell is not evidence. Present your evidence.
>And like the
>Kennedy assassination, the parallels are similarly ominous as they
>bear on dismissing as quacks and nutcases all who insist that there
>are just too god-damned many screwy things going on here. Of course
>there's not a whole lot of hard evidence to link people in high places
>to these things.
My point. When you get some, come back and see if it gives you some
credibility.
>What, you think lawyers and judges and mayors and
>cops leave their calling cards when they're in on the heist? Moreover,
>what little there is which remains will be gotten rid of, just like it
>was with Kennedy if my suspicions are correct.
You're very close to claiming that the lack of evidence of a cover-up
is itself evidence of a cover-up.
>That likely includes a
>few more people if they're unwise enough to stick their heads out too
>far. People who have the very resources of the state at their disposal
>can cover up anything, and they don't play around, Alan. And it also
>explains why the commit the monstrous crimes they do: Because they
>CAN!
Present your evidence. I'll take it under consideration. I can't say
fairer than that.
>Indeed, someone will go to jail for these crimes, but I can assure you
>they won't live long in that jail, and those very powerful people who
>participated will live to a ripe old age, pillars of their community.
You have nothing to say about this case. Just fucking drop it, why
don't you? You have no idea what you're talking about.
--
AH
Dr Zen
> Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<ko6b40psifn24fo15...@4ax.com>...
> > nan goes:
> >
> > >PLEASE NOTE: Just because YOU say something is "wrong" doesn't mean it
> > >is wrong.
> >
> > Nevertheless, everything I noted as wrong is, in fact, wrong. Try to
> > exercise some critical sense, will you?
>
> Mephisto Mond,
> It is NOT enough for you to assert "wrong" - you must support your
> assertions with contradicting facts and documentation. That old
> "cite, please" stuff applies to you.
>
He has to prove that you're bullshitting? How can he do that? If he
posted Dutroux's rap sheet, you'd simply claim that the previous child
rapes were suppressed or some such nonsense.
Zen
nan
> Cleopatra goes:
>
> >Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<gdhc401rsmivsh3rr...@4ax.com>...
>
> >> Are you telling me what opinions I may or may not express?
>
> >No, I'm not, but you sure as hell are telling others what opinions
> >they may or may not express, and that arrogance extends well beyond
> >Nan.
>
> I'm saying opinions should be based in truth, and if not, the lack
> should be acknowledged. Nan posts some rubbish, I point out the
> inaccuracies and the falsehoods therein, and all of a sudden I'm a
> suspected devil-worshipper.
Alan, there is no subtle reason why I refer to you as "Mephisto Mond."
> I'm saying check the truth of what you're claiming before you claim
> it. And if there's no truth, then say so. Is that so radical?
Alan, what a deceitful person you are! I've made NO claims about the
"truth" of anything. However, it is true that many citizens all over
Europe have suspicions and speculate on on the Dutroux case and
probable coverups. Many Europeans share distrust of Belgium
authorities handling the Dutroux case. For the most part, the Belgium
press' coverage is more dismissive than forthcoming. The UK media
offers comprehensive coverage and investigative reporting.
> It so happens I believe there is more to this case than the indictment
> states. But I'm happy to admit that my suspicions are just that, and
> are based on conjecture and speculation, albeit conjecture and
> speculation based firmly in the content of the dossier, and the
> non-content of the dossier -- that which one might expect to find but
> which is not there.
> Nan has not the knowledge of the case to indulge in such speculation,
> but throws up the first thing she finds that's at all controversial.
Yep - because the case is HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL! During the 8 years
before bringing Dutroux and accomplices to trial, the authorities have
had a long time to investigate with an equally long time to cover-up.
> You ought to be able to see that her position has nothing to do with a
> search for truth, and everything to do with an opposition to me.
If fact, the news about the Dutroux case is conjured-up so I can drive
you, Alan, into a paranoic frenzy! It seems I've have nearly achieved
complete success!
>
> >Is Olenka Frenkiel of the London Observer also a raving lunatic,
> >Alan?
>
> Obviously not, but she's a sloppy journalist. Her mistakes have been
> pointed out, and the corrections I've offered are incontrovertible.
> Olenka spent a short time here, and picked up all sorts of nonsense.
> She allowed the nonsense to pollute her story, for the sake of
> sensationalism.
It's a sensational case - the reporter Frenkiel doesn't need to add
"nonsense" to make it more so.
>
> >Do you think you're the only one entitled to sort and sift
> >current events?
>
> I'm saying nothing that isn't common knowledge among those who know
> the case. You, Alan Mephisto, are the one who is being "sloppy" and irrational. Furthermore, you are NOT an authority on the Dutroux, et al, case, How presumptuous of you to try to flim-flam innocent Americans and even (!) your atc sycophantasium.
> >Nan, like me, is probably of that age where she, too,
> >lived contemporaneously with the Kennedy assassination. We had many
> >people just like you, Alan, trying to shout us down and insisting that
> >we were conspiracy nuts, that we didn't know what the fuck we were
> >talking about. Well, as it turns out we did, and between Oswald, Ruby
> >and Tippet and a few others who mysteriously vanished or were offed,
> >not to mention missing evidence, including JFK's brain among other
> >things, the American people were fucked over big time.
>
> I have not the slightest interest in the Kennedy case, and see no
> connection between that case and this.
Alan, in full display of his foppish denial/dismiss mode, but WHY?
There is a connection if the subject is conspiracy and cover-up. (Ref:
Le Devises des Rois de France, LeVassier)
> >Now that the
> >dust has settled on that one, few would argue today against a cover-up
> >of monumental proportions which took place, right on up to the very
> >highest levels of government.
>
> So what? That a cover-up took place in Dallas has no bearing whatever
> on a mooted cover-up in Belgium. I'm asking proponents of the cover-up
> theory to make their case: present your evidence. Neither you nor nan
> is in a position to do any such thing.
>
> >This situation has the same exact smell to it, sir.
>
> Smell is not evidence. Present your evidence.
Follow the scent...cannot ignore it reeks!
Cleo makes a far more reasonable argument than you do.
How DARE you brattishly stomp and rudely shout at Cleo, or me, or
anyone else that they "have nothing to say about this case." Jesu! We
are FREE AMERICANS in the wide-open free society of the ng forum!
Your outrageously presumptuous demand "Just fucking drop it..." says
everything about you - your own words express what a frikkin fraud you
are. What are you defending? You've lost the honour of unbiased
credibility long before now.
It is one thing to freely express one's opinion, and quite another
thing to demand no one else should!
But, I've never doubted your being the moral (secular) fraud you
really are, Alan.
from Nan
from Nan
nan
> Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<gdhc401rsmivsh3rr...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > Are you telling me what opinions I may or may not express?
>
> they may or may not express, and that arrogance extends well beyond
> Alan? Do you think you're the only one entitled to sort and sift
> current events? Nan, like me, is probably of that age where she, too,
> lived contemporaneously with the Kennedy assassination. We had many
> people just like you, Alan, trying to shout us down and insisting that
> we were conspiracy nuts, that we didn't know what the fuck we were
> talking about. Well, as it turns out we did, and between Oswald, Ruby
> and Tippet and a few others who mysteriously vanished or were offed,
> not to mention missing evidence, including JFK's brain among other
> dust has settled on that one, few would argue today against a cover-up
> of monumental proportions which took place, right on up to the very
> highest levels of government.
>
> Kennedy assassination, the parallels are similarly ominous as they
> bear on dismissing as quacks and nutcases all who insist that there
> are just too god-damned many screwy things going on here. Of course
> there's not a whole lot of hard evidence to link people in high places
> cops leave their calling cards when they're in on the heist? Moreover,
> what little there is which remains will be gotten rid of, just like it
> few more people if they're unwise enough to stick their heads out too
> far. People who have the very resources of the state at their disposal
> can cover up anything, and they don't play around, Alan. And it also
> explains why the commit the monstrous crimes they do: Because they
> CAN!
>
> they won't live long in that jail, and those very powerful people who
> participated will live to a ripe old age, pillars of their community.
>
Jesu! Alan Mephisto wrote in a previous post:
"Regina Louf, [young woman who is a surviving witness in the Dutroux
case] who I've met on many occasions, and interviewed, and with whom
I'm on perfectly cordial terms, has not been mistreated, other than
the fact that her allegations have not been substantiated. They have,
however, been investigated by five separate jurisdictions. One book,
by a journalist, was rather unkind to her. Another book, by three
journalists, went to the other extreme.
Nobody of any importance has treated her as if she's crazy. She
continues to go about her business (the grooming of dogs) unmolested.
Short of taking her evidence at face value, in the absence of
corroboration, I wonder what more you think could be done?
"Nobody of any importance..." !!! Alan is the petty master of
rhetorical deceit. "I educate, you spin, they propaganize" ~ Alan Hope
I fear for poor Regina Louf (read her story.) I pray UK reporters
rescue her from Belgium persons of any and of no importance. The
young lady Regina Louf stated in an interview (posted in this
thread)that authorities treated her and dismissed her as if she is
"mad." And, she stated in effect that witnesses either become dead or
they remain alive but declared "mad."
I do not believe Alan Hope has met Regina Louf.
from Nan
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<ekgf405tcjjc5o418...@4ax.com>...
>> Cleopatra goes:
>> >Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<gdhc401rsmivsh3rr...@4ax.com>...
>> >> Are you telling me what opinions I may or may not express?
>> >No, I'm not, but you sure as hell are telling others what opinions
>> >they may or may not express, and that arrogance extends well beyond
>> >Nan.
>> I'm saying opinions should be based in truth, and if not, the lack
>> should be acknowledged. Nan posts some rubbish, I point out the
>> inaccuracies and the falsehoods therein, and all of a sudden I'm a
>> suspected devil-worshipper.
>Alan, there is no subtle reason why I refer to you as "Mephisto Mond."
I'm not even slightly interested. Your tendency to neologism and
syntax-abuse is taken as read. I'm happy enough to be associated with
"Mephisto" -- a fine work by the younger Mann and an excellent film by
Ivan Redl with Klaus Maria Brandauer -- but I don't even bother
wondering what "Mond" is supposed to mean.
>> I'm saying check the truth of what you're claiming before you claim
>> it. And if there's no truth, then say so. Is that so radical?
>Alan, what a deceitful person you are! I've made NO claims about the
>"truth" of anything.
Nan, you're too old to be playing the innocent virgin role. You're
being disingenuous. Either take ownership of what you post or
dissociate yourself explicitly from the outlandish nonsense you've
been retailing. Why would anyone in her right mind post, in full and
without comment, an article whose content she didn't endorse?
>However, it is true that many citizens all over
>Europe have suspicions and speculate on on the Dutroux case and
>probable coverups.
In the absence of evidence. I'm pointing out where these speculations
have no basis in known fact. You know, there are enough shadowy zones
in this case without making them up out of whole cloth. The pursuit of
truth would be better served by ignoring the ranting of loons such as
those whose views you've propagated. It detracts from the real
questions, and tars all inquiry with the lunatic brush. That might in
fact be its purpose.
>Many Europeans share distrust of Belgium
>authorities handling the Dutroux case. For the most part, the Belgium
>press' coverage is more dismissive than forthcoming.
You're in absolutely no position to judge. You don't read French and
you don't read Dutch. Case closed.
>The UK media
>offers comprehensive coverage and investigative reporting.
No, it certainly does not. I've annotated articles from the Telegraph,
Independent, Observer and BBC, pointing out the basic mistakes which
show they're all scissoring from the same flawed source.
>> It so happens I believe there is more to this case than the indictment
>> states. But I'm happy to admit that my suspicions are just that, and
>> are based on conjecture and speculation, albeit conjecture and
>> speculation based firmly in the content of the dossier, and the
>> non-content of the dossier -- that which one might expect to find but
>> which is not there.
>> Nan has not the knowledge of the case to indulge in such speculation,
>> but throws up the first thing she finds that's at all controversial.
>Yep - because the case is HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL! During the 8 years
>before bringing Dutroux and accomplices to trial, the authorities have
>had a long time to investigate with an equally long time to cover-up.
Which is far short of being any sort of evidence. Point to something
verifiable, just once.
>> You ought to be able to see that her position has nothing to do with a
>> search for truth, and everything to do with an opposition to me.
>If fact, the news about the Dutroux case is conjured-up so I can drive
>you, Alan, into a paranoic frenzy! It seems I've have nearly achieved
>complete success!
It's a little hard for you, from your encampment atop Mount Loon, to
determine what the conditions are like for those of us living in the
valley.
>> >Is Olenka Frenkiel of the London Observer also a raving lunatic,
>> >Alan?
>> Obviously not, but she's a sloppy journalist. Her mistakes have been
>> pointed out, and the corrections I've offered are incontrovertible.
>> Olenka spent a short time here, and picked up all sorts of nonsense.
>> She allowed the nonsense to pollute her story, for the sake of
>> sensationalism.
>It's a sensational case - the reporter Frenkiel doesn't need to add
>"nonsense" to make it more so.
Yet she did.
>> >Do you think you're the only one entitled to sort and sift
>> >current events?
>> I'm saying nothing that isn't common knowledge among those who know
>> the case.
>You, Alan Mephisto, are the one who is being "sloppy" and irrational. Furthermore, >you are NOT an authority on the Dutroux, et al, case, How presumptuous of you to >try to flim-flam innocent Americans and even (!) your atc sycophantasium.
I may not be an authority, but I know more about it than anyone you've
cited. I was also interviewed as a source by the BBC, you know, and
briefed Swedish journalists at the request of their embassy. Nice
little earner, too. I briefed the lady from the Zuddeutsche Zeitung
for free, two months ago now. Very well-organised, your southern
Germans.
Tell them I'm not an authority. But I do know what I'm talking about.
>> >Nan, like me, is probably of that age where she, too,
>> >lived contemporaneously with the Kennedy assassination. We had many
>> >people just like you, Alan, trying to shout us down and insisting that
>> >we were conspiracy nuts, that we didn't know what the fuck we were
>> >talking about. Well, as it turns out we did, and between Oswald, Ruby
>> >and Tippet and a few others who mysteriously vanished or were offed,
>> >not to mention missing evidence, including JFK's brain among other
>> >things, the American people were fucked over big time.
>> I have not the slightest interest in the Kennedy case, and see no
>> connection between that case and this.
>Alan, in full display of his foppish denial/dismiss mode, but WHY?
>There is a connection if the subject is conspiracy and cover-up. (Ref:
>Le Devises des Rois de France, LeVassier)
More rubbish.
>> >Now that the
>> >dust has settled on that one, few would argue today against a cover-up
>> >of monumental proportions which took place, right on up to the very
>> >highest levels of government.
>> So what? That a cover-up took place in Dallas has no bearing whatever
>> on a mooted cover-up in Belgium. I'm asking proponents of the cover-up
>> theory to make their case: present your evidence. Neither you nor nan
>> is in a position to do any such thing.
>> >This situation has the same exact smell to it, sir.
>> Smell is not evidence. Present your evidence.
>Follow the scent...cannot ignore it reeks!
So detail your case. That's all I'm asking. Present some verifiable
evidence. What's keeping you?
She makes no argument whatsoever.
>How DARE you brattishly stomp and rudely shout at Cleo, or me, or
>anyone else that they "have nothing to say about this case." Jesu!
It's very rude of me, I know, but I'm doing it nonetheless. Neither of
you has Word One to say on this case. You're arguing from a position
of extreme ignorance. Prove me wrong.
>We
>are FREE AMERICANS in the wide-open free society of the ng forum!
>Your outrageously presumptuous demand "Just fucking drop it..." says
>everything about you - your own words express what a frikkin fraud you
>are. What are you defending? You've lost the honour of unbiased
>credibility long before now.
Consider the source.
>It is one thing to freely express one's opinion, and quite another
>thing to demand no one else should!
Make your opinion on the basis of something tangible. Show that you
have some grasp of the basic facts. I'm saying that only people above
^ this height may come on this ride. That's fair enough. You and Cleo
are, on the evidence to date, showing yourselves to be knee-high to
Jiminy fucking Cricket.
>But, I've never doubted your being the moral (secular) fraud you
>really are, Alan.
Wounded, innit.
--
AH
nan
> nan goes:
>
> >I wonder why Alan so urgently dismisses what are credible articles by
> >international news sources, investigative reports as well as Europe's
> >general public's speculation about this horrendous case.
>
> Because they're not credible so long as they're full of errors and
> inventions.
Alan Mephisto Mond,
Your dismissive statements offer of NO contradicting proof or facts!
Your nonsensical efforts to prove 2+2=5 is noted.
> You've posted nothing from any international news source
> worthy of the name, but I've shown how even the BBC and British
> broadsheets are sloppy with facts relating to this case.
No, Alan Mephisto Mod! You have _not shown_ any such thing at all. A
mere statement by you that you have done so simply does not SUFFICE!
> Speculation is fine, as long as it's presented as speculation. It's
> not so fine when it's presented as fact. Do you have a problem with
> that position?
What speculations have been presented as fact? Do you refer to the
gossip about Belgium's royal prince's involvement in orgies? Really,
are you in the pay his majesty's government or what? Are you...a
closet royalist? Most of us, the Liberated, do not believe that a
prince, an earl or a marquis is by divine rights exempt from being
accused or suspected of debauchery and sadistic practices. What and
who are behind all those "orgy cafes" in Belgium?
It appears that France has its ruling Cafe al Fresco society and
Belgium has its "orgy cafe" society. Of course, appearance is an
impression, not a speculation.
Your attempting to prove to us that 2+2=5 can only be considered the
last resort of a charlatan. Here you are - defaming everyone else's
credibility.
There is no needle with an eye large enough for your passage to
Heaven, Ole Fop.
from Nan
Alan Hope
>I do not believe Alan Hope has met Regina Louf.
Well, that's of no importance whatever. Regina and I both know
different.
What are you going to do to substantiate your claim?
--
AH
nan
Zen, you're off the path of reason. What am I bullshitting about?
It's no BS that I don't accept Alan Hope's interpretation of facts and
events on its face value. It is MY free choice not to accept his word
or his opinions, or to submit quietly to his insults.
No news report I've posted was written by me - I am delivering the
news not writing it. It is a typical cowardly and deceitful ploy of
Alan's, and this is why have monumental contempt for him, to insult
the messenger to diffuse and distract from the message. The infamy
attached to the Dutroux, et al, case in NOT of my making!
It should be more than obvious that Alan Hope is very fast at jumping
to control the information, claim credibility to the exclusion of all
others, to denounce international news sources, investigative reports
and journalists, and furthermore, to dismiss what are NORMAL reactions
from the international communities.
The difference in slant of bias is:
The thousands of decent Belgium citizen protestors who amassed to
protest against the irresponsible handling of the Dutroux case (!) are
not a "mob" - they are an outraged decent folk.
Any frikken man(as did Alan Hope)who argues his point by alluding to
(my) sucking on a goat pizzle demonstrates he has no credibity at all
except his incredible extreme capacity for vulgarity. Period, Zen,
Period!
As far as BS is concerned, you are just pimping for Alan Hope.
from Nan
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<52od405m9ifldpeus...@4ax.com>...
>> nan goes:
>> >I wonder why Alan so urgently dismisses what are credible articles by
>> >international news sources, investigative reports as well as Europe's
>> >general public's speculation about this horrendous case.
>> Because they're not credible so long as they're full of errors and
>> inventions.
>Alan Mephisto Mond,
>Your dismissive statements offer of NO contradicting proof or facts!
>Your nonsensical efforts to prove 2+2=5 is noted.
Nan, check seven years of Belgian coverage, including the records of
official proceedings, and get back to me, okay?
I mean really. You read one crazy screed from a nutcase *Irish*
website and all of a sudden you're the fucking expert. You're a
fucking monoglot with severe problems in the one language you do
speak, and you presume to lecture me. I live here, I'm fluent in both
languages, I've followed the case for seven years and I know many of
the people involved. Back the fuck off out of my glow and show a bit
of humility, you presumptuous old know-nothing no-mark.
I'll not entertain you any longer.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>The thousands of decent Belgium citizen protestors who amassed to
>protest against the irresponsible handling of the Dutroux case (!) are
>not a "mob" - they are an outraged decent folk.
They didn't do that, of course. But you're unlikely to know that,
since you know nothing about the case.
What were they protesting, exactly?
See? You don't even know.
--
AH
ing
> It's a little hard for you, from your encampment atop Mount Loon, to
> determine what the conditions are like for those of us living in the
> valley.
Gawd damn it Alan, I LOVE this line ... can I
please borrow it? There's a local meeting coming
up on a contentious issue ... I just KNOW it'd be
perfect. What's your normal fee for such things?
ing
nan
snip to the point:
> You'd like to pretend it has nothing to do with you, that you're only
> reporting second-hand, but of course you select the information you
> report just as anyone does.
> You know perfectly well that the stuff
> you're posting has no credibility. And unless you're going at your
> "research" in a very strange way indeed, you'll already have
> discovered that the allegations with which you desire not to dirty
> your hands are not repeated by what most people would consider to be
> reliable sources.
Convoluted crap! Really evil crap!
> >If you are holding out for a copyright on your great expose, let me
> >know then.
> >I'll respect that.
>
> No such thing. But you're posting rumour, tittle-tattle that's long
> been discredited, and made-up rubbish.
Yeah? I don't consider you a better source. I have no respect for
you nor any trust in WHATEVER you consider right or wrong. Why should
I? You're an anti-American propagandist-hack mongering "lost
freedoms." You've called Luk a Nazi and a racist, and, by God, what
haven't you called me to discredit me.
I have the grace to say I don't believe you, and you lack grace by
calling me "liar." Get the difference?
I have to respond to your calling me a "liar" weeks ago: Well, Alan
Mephisto, is it TRUE I am a musician, an amateur musician at a high
intermediate level if I practice enough. I am not a good sight reader
and I don't anticipate repeat signs - play right past them every time.
Nevertheless, I've performed on live radio, in a Unitarian Church, in
plays and with various ensembles! I don't make-up things about
myself. I have no need to misrepresent myself. I cannot let an
affront go by with answering it - however delayed my answer may be!
Your gall lingers like a raptor in waiting.
> You really ought to be aware of
> that.
You'd be disconcerted by what I am aware.
>So why are you doing it?
"I like to watch."
The fact is not you nor me, but someone else opened the subject of
Belgium's infamous Dutroux case and the trial. It never occurred to me
to have you "clarify" the truth, facts, events, the people and
everything else involved in case. I understand your assumed
proprietory interest in Dutroux. HOWEVER, I don't respect or trust
your opinions on any subject because of the lack of fairmindedness and
overwhelming meanspiritedness you've always shown. I am biased against
you, Ole Chap! Your attacks on my postings are just too, too petty for
any words other than "comic relief."
from Nan
nan
Substantiate what "claim"? Did you lead poor Regina Louf down the
collidors to Room 101?
Regina Louf said in an interview she's happy to be alive even though
she's regarded as being "mad." She was discredited as a witness and
as a victim by the authorities and/or prosecution.
Everything about the Belgium's government and its justice system
stinks to high heaven. Not my "claim" - my impression. And, it's a
scary one.
BTW, is it not a fact that Belgium depends on tourism for its major
revenue source?
from Nan
Mke
"Mke" <Noa...@homail.com> wrote in message
news:40447f7d$0$3104$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
: Trial Opens in Belgian Girls' Slayings
:
can anyone suggest a good link to follow this case
Thanks
Mke
nan
> nan goes:
>
> >The thousands of decent Belgium citizen protestors who amassed to
> >protest against the irresponsible handling of the Dutroux case (!) are
> >not a "mob" - they are an outraged decent folk.
Alan Mephisto Mond blows:
> They didn't do that, of course. But you're unlikely to know that,
> since you know nothing about the case.
>
> What were they protesting, exactly?
>
> See? You don't even know.
As I said in another post, I believe in the good hearts and minds of
most Belgium citizens.
Excerpt:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Part V: The Dutroux affair and the Belgian Society
The horror of the Dutroux affair triggered a deep anger and
frustration in the Belgian public; in October 1996 300,000 people
marched through Brussels to protest crime, corruption, incompetence,
the heartless and ineffective response of the authorities, and the
sacking of an overzealous magistrate thought to be too "sympathetic"
to the victims. Since then parliamentary inquiries and administrative
reforms have followed one another, to no obvious effect...
[www.thevoice.student.kuleuver.ac.be/articles/belgiumhistory.htm]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your posts are becoming more idiotic than ever before. If I have to
pity you instead of despising you, I'm gonna git angry.
from Nan
Alan Hope
>Nan, if this guy doesn't personify all that I find so god-damned
>objectionable in emasculate, European men, nobody does.
You can't imagine what a delight that is to hear. Maybe you'll be good
enough to have one of those meltdowns your friend Nan is famous for,
if I annoy you just a little bit more?
Nothing makes my day more than making some crazy old Usenet hag
disappear into a puddle of piss and snot.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<10lh40dr5plbdouaf...@4ax.com>...
>> nan goes:
>> >I do not believe Alan Hope has met Regina Louf.
>> Well, that's of no importance whatever. Regina and I both know
>> different.
>> What are you going to do to substantiate your claim?
>Substantiate what "claim"? Did you lead poor Regina Louf down the
>collidors to Room 101?
Collidors?
>Regina Louf said in an interview she's happy to be alive even though
>she's regarded as being "mad." She was discredited as a witness and
>as a victim by the authorities and/or prosecution.
She was discredited as a witness because her testimony was not
credible. Seems fair.
>Everything about the Belgium's government and its justice system
>stinks to high heaven. Not my "claim" - my impression. And, it's a
>scary one.
Your impression is based on nothing much, of course. And it's worth
exactly that.
>BTW, is it not a fact that Belgium depends on tourism for its major
>revenue source?
The snowflakes swirl at the end of the world. Are playing
non-sequitur?
--
AH
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<pbsh409cccmkd2n4c...@4ax.com>...
>> nan goes:
>> >The thousands of decent Belgium citizen protestors who amassed to
>> >protest against the irresponsible handling of the Dutroux case (!) are
>> >not a "mob" - they are an outraged decent folk.
>Alan Mephisto Mond blows:
>> They didn't do that, of course. But you're unlikely to know that,
>> since you know nothing about the case.
>> What were they protesting, exactly?
>> See? You don't even know.
>As I said in another post, I believe in the good hearts and minds of
>most Belgium citizens.
>Excerpt:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Part V: The Dutroux affair and the Belgian Society
>The horror of the Dutroux affair triggered a deep anger and
>frustration in the Belgian public; in October 1996 300,000 people
>marched through Brussels to protest crime, corruption, incompetence,
>the heartless and ineffective response of the authorities, and the
>sacking of an overzealous magistrate thought to be too "sympathetic"
>to the victims.
Only the last of those is accurate. The White March took place on 20
October 1996. The parliamentary commission which revealed the extent
of corruption and incompetence held its first session on 21 October
1996.
>Since then parliamentary inquiries and administrative
>reforms have followed one another, to no obvious effect...
>[www.thevoice.student.kuleuver.ac.be/articles/belgiumhistory.htm]
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Your posts are becoming more idiotic than ever before. If I have to
>pity you instead of despising you, I'm gonna git angry.
Are you saying they were protesting against something they didn't yet
know about? The dates are a matter of public record. But of course you
wouldn't know that, despite all your "research".
--
AH
Alan Hope
>I have no respect for
>you nor any trust in WHATEVER you consider right or wrong. Why should
>I? You're an anti-American propagandist-hack mongering "lost
>freedoms." You've called Luk a Nazi and a racist, and, by God, what
>haven't you called me to discredit me.
Then you're coming at the question of "research" from entirely the
wrong direction, you poor old nutcase. If your belief or otherwise in
a question is going to be determined by a desire to oppose my
position, I don't see how you hope to learn anything. This is why I
advised you to show some critical intelligence. Opposing me on
principle is just as stupid and short-sighted as swallowing my every
word would be -- can't you see that? Blind dismissal is as illogical
as blind acceptance.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope wrote:
Feel free to use it without attribution.
--
AH
Sarah Monroe
>Mephisto, is it TRUE I am a musician, an amateur musician at a high
>intermediate level if I practice enough. I am not a good sight reader
>and I don't anticipate repeat signs - play right past them every time.
> Nevertheless, I've performed on live radio, in a Unitarian Church, in
>plays and with various ensembles! I don't make-up things about
>myself. I have no need to misrepresent myself. I cannot let an
>affront go by with answering it - however delayed my answer may be!
>Your gall lingers like a raptor in waiting.
>
The next American Idol, Senior Division. Wonder what that has to do with this
case.
Gms
"Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never
forgotten this.
http://gmspider.com/GGHome.htm
John Stevens
You are clearly very well informed about the case. There were some
things that I disagree with you about, however.
--- Suspicious Deaths ---
Alan, you are the only person I know who claims that only one
potential witness died. Bruno Tagliaferro, Fabienne Jaupart, Michel
Piro, José Steppe... the list goes on and on. This series of deaths
(and some of them had direct links to Dutroux, by the way), and the
reluctance of the Belgian authorities to investigate them, struck not
only Olenka and Belgian journalists, but also Dutch and German
journalists. Now maybe the German ZDF exaggerated when they spoke
about 23 suspicious deaths (Dutch journalists spoke about 9), but
ONE...?
---- Fuelling Suspicions of a Cover up = Gullibility ---
Nothing to do with being gullible, Alan. When Anne Thily says that the
bodies of Julie and Melissa were decomposed, but the autopsy report
said that they were not. And Thily says that DNA samples were not
taken, but the autopsy report says that they were. Hey, that makes me
suspicious! Not proof of a cover up, sure, but I do not think anyone
whose suspicions are raised can be considered 'gullible'.
Olenka worked for six months in Belgium, by the way, on her
'Correspondent'program for the BBC and subsequent Observer article.
During all this time she worked closely with Marie-Jeanne Vanheeswyck.
Now even if you do not agree with Marie-Jeanne Vanheewyck, she is
definitely very well informed. She shared all of her material (and
many of her sources) with Olenka.
--- Unable to point to any substantive leads ---
She pointed to lots of leads which have not been followed up by the
Belgian authorities, or have been pushed into the famous 'Dossier
Bis'. Apart from Christine van Hees and the mushroom farm (I know you
don't like the word 'farm' but I honestly don't know how to translate
'champignonnière', other than 'mushroom farm'), she discussed how Tony
van den Bogaert was left in peace, and the scandal of the non-analysis
of the hairs.
--- Nihoul has never owned a pub of any sort ---
Yes he did. The "Clin d'Oeil", a café in Brussels around 1983 or so.
--- Lelièvre suddenly stopped cooperating, saying he had been
threatened ----
The sudden halt of Lelièvre was striking, and disappointing. Before
then he was singing like a canary.
---- Regina Louf ---
Regina was treated disgracefully by large sections of the Belgian
media (I think we probably agree on this point)
The accuracy of her description of the mushroom farm, combined with
shady aspects of the initial investigation. The links between the
policeman heading the investigation in 1984, Collignon, and the Dolo
club (where Collignon and Nihoul both participated in sex parties),
form one example.
The fact that she named the same people, places and dates as other
witnesses (statements by X1, X2 and Chantal Storme are very striking)
and some of these people were also named in anonymous letters and
telephone calls. It is too convenient to simply say 'Oh, they must
have talked to each other' or 'their therapists must have talked to
each other'. But this is the reason that is officially adopted (and
echoed in programs such as 'Au Nom de la Loi' or the book by Dawant
'L'Enquête Manipulée'), and is used to justify the fact that many of
the accused have never been questioned by police. Although I cannot
mention their names, I am sure you know who I am talking about when I
mention two brothers who live in Knokke. The witnesses and anonymous
letters point to child abuse, by the brothers, involving extreme
violence, including rape of children using a razor blade. It is
impossible for the independent sources to be wrong because they are
all somehow deluded or mistaken.
---- It has been shown on the dates... ----
The only person who could definitely be excluded from the description
by Regina of the murder of Christine van Hees, is Weinstein (in prison
in France). This is not to say that I unconditionally believe that the
people she said were there, were actually present. Eye-witness
accounts are notoriously unreliable, of course, especially given the
length of time between her testimony and the date of the murder.
---- Connerotte attended a fund raising dinner ----
You say that he had to be impartial. And according to Belgian law you
are right. But somebody else expressed this very well. He said 'if
Connerotte had been investigating magistrate in WW II he would have
had to give 50% of his time to Hitler and 50% to the Jews'.
--- Dutroux file has acquired no new evidence ----
Lots of pages, no new evidence. I think that when trial is complete,
it will be very clear precisely how much Langlois really contributed
in over 7 years, as opposed to the 2 months of the Connerotte
investigation.
It is incredible to me that Langlois was given the task of leading the
most complex and notorious and emotive investigation in Belgian
history, when he had never done the job before!
--- Langlois, no conflict with Bourlet ----
It looks like war to me! Bourlet went to court to get the famous hairs
analysed when Langlois opposed this (with resultant compromise
decision: put this in the 'Dossier Bis'), and to stage a
reconstruction of the abduction of Julie and Melissa (Bourlet won, but
after 5 years the reconstructions was of limited use).
--- No evidence of Louf is in any other criminal dossier ---
Her file is still open, and as of writing is expected to be
transferred from Neufchateau to Ghent, following the request by
Bourlet for a transfer. Thily has been pushing hard for the file to be
closed but this is not going to happen any time soon. This does not
stop her lying about it, though (she said to Olenka in her interview
that the file was closed).
--- Van Espen and Nihoul: relationship ---
The sister of Van Espen, Françoise, was definitely the godmother of
the son of Nihoul.
Annie Bouty was represented by Van Espen (her lawyer) when acting
against, of all people, Nihoul (they had the ultimate love-hate
relationship) on 20/6/1984 (four months after the murder of the
mushroom farm).
--- Van Espen orders the police officers to stay out of the case ---
The role of Van Espen in the suspension of Bille and Debaets is very
murky.
--- Van Espen was removed ---
Van Espen was not removed. He resigned. And only because journalists
exposed his relationships with Bouty and Nihoul.
--- 'Rereading' of Louf testimony ----
It seems incredible to me that the policeman are investigated and the
investigation suspended, followed by the policemen being exonerated
(after three years!) but the investigation still stays... suspended.
The Belgian authorities have to explain themselves here, because it
stinks!
---- They found videos they didn't watch ---
You say 'where is the evidence of a cover up?'. Hmm... when Dutroux is
arrested they find 90 or so videos. All sent to the a central
processing lab, but all OK (we are assured) nothing suspicious
there... But by some oversight 3 videos were not sent off to the
central lab, but were retained by Neufchateau, unviewed and gathering
dust in a drawer. A few years later the investigators act on a whim,
'hey, let us take a look at those videos'. What do they find? Images
of Dutroux raping a girl. Amazing! So of course they think: 'hey, if
there is something on this video, what about the other 90 that are
allegedly clean?'. They then contact the central lab, who say 'sorry,
they have been given back to Dutroux (actually, his lawyer) by
mistake'. They contact the lawyer who says 'sorry, we had a burglary,
they have all gone'
How convenient!
--- Autopsy report reveals that Melissa was raped repeatedly over a
long period ---
Olenka did know this. She had access to the autopsy reports. It was
this that allowed her to interview Anne Thily so effectively and
expose many of her lies.
--- Thily: where is the evidence of a cover up? ---
Thily is no fool. She is very clever and well informed. She is after
all the immediate boss of Bourlet. In the interview with Olenka she
lied, lied and lied again. Not evidence of a cover up, I agree. But
once again it stinks.
--- Thily has no authority ---
As Procureur Général de Liège, she has a great deal of authority. She
is the immediate boss of Bourlet, as I have said. A Procureur du Roi
does not have the same theoretical independence as an investigating
magistrate. She may not be able to influence him on a day to day
basis, but she can place him under a great deal of pressure. One thing
she did, for example, was tap his phone.
--- Tagliaferro: only one of his feet was ever recovered ---
I think you are confusing Bruno Tagliaferro with Jean-Paul Taminiaux
(one foot recovered). Given the documented relationship between
Tagliaferro and Diakostavrianos, his business and where he lived, he
probably knew Dutroux quite well.
Alan Hope
>I found your comments on Olenka Frenkiel's article very interesting.
>You are clearly very well informed about the case. There were some
>things that I disagree with you about, however.
> --- Suspicious Deaths ---
>Alan, you are the only person I know who claims that only one
>potential witness died. Bruno Tagliaferro, Fabienne Jaupart, Michel
>Piro, José Steppe... the list goes on and on.
Yes, it does, but the trouble is that those people had either a very
tenuous connection to the accused, or none at all. And nothing that
could be linked to the actual charges themselves. It's all very well
to say that Tagliaferro knew Dutroux, but that's the answer to the
wrong question. So what if he did?
>This series of deaths
>(and some of them had direct links to Dutroux, by the way), and the
>reluctance of the Belgian authorities to investigate them, struck not
>only Olenka and Belgian journalists, but also Dutch and German
>journalists. Now maybe the German ZDF exaggerated when they spoke
>about 23 suspicious deaths (Dutch journalists spoke about 9), but
>ONE...?
The death of Gerard Vannesse wasn't even suspicious. You have to show
that there really was a connection to this CASE -- not just a
connection to someone who happens to be involved in the case. Where's
the evidence?
>---- Fuelling Suspicions of a Cover up = Gullibility ---
>Nothing to do with being gullible, Alan. When Anne Thily says that the
>bodies of Julie and Melissa were decomposed, but the autopsy report
>said that they were not. And Thily says that DNA samples were not
>taken, but the autopsy report says that they were. Hey, that makes me
>suspicious! Not proof of a cover up, sure, but I do not think anyone
>whose suspicions are raised can be considered 'gullible'.
Anne Thily is being given, by accounts such as Frenkels, more weight
than she merits. She's the superior magistrate for the
parquet-general, as you probably know, but has no particular insight
into the case. She made intemperate statements and ought, as is often
the case, to have kept her big mouth shut. She obviously doesn't know
what she was talking about, which was easily made clear. Her
statements are no sort of evidence of cover-up, only of her own
stupidity.
>Olenka worked for six months in Belgium, by the way, on her
>'Correspondent'program for the BBC and subsequent Observer article.
>During all this time she worked closely with Marie-Jeanne Vanheeswyck.
>Now even if you do not agree with Marie-Jeanne Vanheewyck, she is
>definitely very well informed. She shared all of her material (and
>many of her sources) with Olenka.
I know Marie-Jeanne, and I've had her in my house. I'm aware of her
part in Frenkel's report. It's my view that M-J is quite a bit more
circumspect than Frenkel was, though.
>--- Unable to point to any substantive leads ---
>She pointed to lots of leads which have not been followed up by the
>Belgian authorities, or have been pushed into the famous 'Dossier
>Bis'. Apart from Christine van Hees and the mushroom farm (I know you
>don't like the word 'farm' but I honestly don't know how to translate
>'champignonnière', other than 'mushroom farm'), she discussed how Tony
>van den Bogaert was left in peace, and the scandal of the non-analysis
>of the hairs.
The question of the hair samples is still being misunderstood. They
are being analysed. You might not think much of them being classed in
the dossier-bis, and you probably think the work should have been done
sooner, but it is being done.
>--- Nihoul has never owned a pub of any sort ---
>Yes he did. The "Clin d'Oeil", a café in Brussels around 1983 or so.
I'm not aware of that. I was thinking of his fake alibi for Bertrix,
do you recall? When Michel Van der Elst claimed to have accompanied
him to talks with Maes over the acquisition of licenced premises?
>--- Lelièvre suddenly stopped cooperating, saying he had been
>threatened ----
>The sudden halt of Lelièvre was striking, and disappointing. Before
>then he was singing like a canary.
>---- Regina Louf ---
>Regina was treated disgracefully by large sections of the Belgian
>media (I think we probably agree on this point)
Yes. Are you going to tell me Brewaeys and Deliege are bought men?
>The accuracy of her description of the mushroom farm, combined with
>shady aspects of the initial investigation. The links between the
>policeman heading the investigation in 1984, Collignon, and the Dolo
>club (where Collignon and Nihoul both participated in sex parties),
>form one example.
One example of what?
>The fact that she named the same people, places and dates as other
>witnesses (statements by X1, X2 and Chantal Storme are very striking)
>and some of these people were also named in anonymous letters and
>telephone calls. It is too convenient to simply say 'Oh, they must
>have talked to each other' or 'their therapists must have talked to
>each other'. But this is the reason that is officially adopted (and
>echoed in programs such as 'Au Nom de la Loi' or the book by Dawant
>'L'Enquête Manipulée'), and is used to justify the fact that many of
>the accused have never been questioned by police.
You must be aware of the thousands of tips, anonymous and otherwise,
denouncing this person and that since Connerotte set up his
green-line. I should hope that investigators don't automatically drag
people in for questioning on the basis of no more than unfounded tips.
>Although I cannot
>mention their names, I am sure you know who I am talking about when I
>mention two brothers who live in Knokke. The witnesses and anonymous
>letters point to child abuse, by the brothers, involving extreme
>violence, including rape of children using a razor blade. It is
>impossible for the independent sources to be wrong because they are
>all somehow deluded or mistaken.
>---- It has been shown on the dates... ----
>The only person who could definitely be excluded from the description
>by Regina of the murder of Christine van Hees, is Weinstein (in prison
>in France). This is not to say that I unconditionally believe that the
>people she said were there, were actually present. Eye-witness
>accounts are notoriously unreliable, of course, especially given the
>length of time between her testimony and the date of the murder.
And when it's clear that Nihoul and Dutroux never knew each other at
that early date? The same people who find it very strange a Brussels
man shouldhave his car repaired by a Charleroi petty crook seem to
have no trouble believing the same Charleroi crook would have access
to a sex-ring involving top names. Can you really imagine those people
having anything to do with a "marginal" like Dutroux?
>---- Connerotte attended a fund raising dinner ----
>You say that he had to be impartial. And according to Belgian law you
>are right. But somebody else expressed this very well. He said 'if
>Connerotte had been investigating magistrate in WW II he would have
>had to give 50% of his time to Hitler and 50% to the Jews'.
That's not a fair assessment of the situation, as you probably know.
Connerotte was sunk by his own carelessness. You'll have seen the
photo where he's seated at the supper next to Bourlet -- yet Bourlet
remains on the case to this day. The roles of the two men are quite
significantly different. The Cour de Cassation had no option but to
remove Connerotte, or risk jeopardising the whole case.
>--- Dutroux file has acquired no new evidence ----
>Lots of pages, no new evidence. I think that when trial is complete,
>it will be very clear precisely how much Langlois really contributed
>in over 7 years, as opposed to the 2 months of the Connerotte
>investigation.
We'll find out more this coming week, I think.
>It is incredible to me that Langlois was given the task of leading the
>most complex and notorious and emotive investigation in Belgian
>history, when he had never done the job before!
Perhaps. Neufchateau is a very small office, though. What would have
been better?
>--- Langlois, no conflict with Bourlet ----
>It looks like war to me! Bourlet went to court to get the famous hairs
>analysed when Langlois opposed this (with resultant compromise
>decision: put this in the 'Dossier Bis'), and to stage a
>reconstruction of the abduction of Julie and Melissa (Bourlet won, but
>after 5 years the reconstructions was of limited use).
Did I say there was no conflict between Langlois and Bourlet? I
mention that both of them deny a conflict, although of course there's
the verifable matter of investigations requested by Bourlet and denied
by Langlois, and the difference in their estimation of the role of
Nihoul.
>--- No evidence of Louf is in any other criminal dossier ---
>Her file is still open, and as of writing is expected to be
>transferred from Neufchateau to Ghent, following the request by
>Bourlet for a transfer. Thily has been pushing hard for the file to be
>closed but this is not going to happen any time soon. This does not
>stop her lying about it, though (she said to Olenka in her interview
>that the file was closed).
Thily again. She needs to be muzzled.
>--- Van Espen and Nihoul: relationship ---
>The sister of Van Espen, Françoise, was definitely the godmother of
>the son of Nihoul.
>Annie Bouty was represented by Van Espen (her lawyer) when acting
>against, of all people, Nihoul (they had the ultimate love-hate
>relationship) on 20/6/1984 (four months after the murder of the
>mushroom farm).
At which time there was not the slightest indication that Nihoul was
involved. No conflict of interest there.
>--- Van Espen orders the police officers to stay out of the case ---
>The role of Van Espen in the suspension of Bille and Debaets is very
>murky.
Murky, meaning what?
>--- Van Espen was removed ---
>Van Espen was not removed. He resigned. And only because journalists
>exposed his relationships with Bouty and Nihoul.
So that's good, no?
>--- 'Rereading' of Louf testimony ----
>It seems incredible to me that the policeman are investigated and the
>investigation suspended, followed by the policemen being exonerated
>(after three years!) but the investigation still stays... suspended.
>The Belgian authorities have to explain themselves here, because it
>stinks!
You mean investigation of Regina's allegations? There's no way any of
that is ever going to get to a court now.
>---- They found videos they didn't watch ---
>You say 'where is the evidence of a cover up?'. Hmm... when Dutroux is
>arrested they find 90 or so videos. All sent to the a central
>processing lab, but all OK (we are assured) nothing suspicious
>there... But by some oversight 3 videos were not sent off to the
>central lab, but were retained by Neufchateau, unviewed and gathering
>dust in a drawer. A few years later the investigators act on a whim,
>'hey, let us take a look at those videos'. What do they find? Images
>of Dutroux raping a girl. Amazing! So of course they think: 'hey, if
>there is something on this video, what about the other 90 that are
>allegedly clean?'. They then contact the central lab, who say 'sorry,
>they have been given back to Dutroux (actually, his lawyer) by
>mistake'. They contact the lawyer who says 'sorry, we had a burglary,
>they have all gone'
>How convenient!
I'm afraid I'm not immediately going to jump to the conclusion of a
cover-up, partly because the means you describe are so completely
ham-fisted, and partly because the catalogue of fuck-ups on the part
of the actors in this case is too long. The incident you describe,
like so may others (the return of the speculum to Martin after
Michaux's December search at Marcinelle, for example) is the kind of
conspiracy the Marx Brothers would engage in. You're asking me to
believe the notables who are being protected have left their fate in
the hands of drunks, idiots and buffoons, yet somehow still remain
undiscovered.
Cock-up is less compelling than conspiracy as a theory, but it's far
more often true.
>--- Autopsy report reveals that Melissa was raped repeatedly over a
>long period ---
>Olenka did know this. She had access to the autopsy reports. It was
>this that allowed her to interview Anne Thily so effectively and
>expose many of her lies.
I'm not sure those details were in Marie-Jeanne's possession at that
time. They're all over the place now, of course, but DDC (I'd rather
not put the names about willy-nilly here), who as you know co-wrote
the book with M-J, told me he'd obtained the DVDs containing the
autopsy information in the autumn of last year.
>--- Thily: where is the evidence of a cover up? ---
>Thily is no fool. She is very clever and well informed. She is after
>all the immediate boss of Bourlet. In the interview with Olenka she
>lied, lied and lied again. Not evidence of a cover up, I agree. But
>once again it stinks.
Thily is a clown.
>--- Thily has no authority ---
>As Procureur Général de Liège, she has a great deal of authority. She
>is the immediate boss of Bourlet, as I have said. A Procureur du Roi
>does not have the same theoretical independence as an investigating
>magistrate. She may not be able to influence him on a day to day
>basis, but she can place him under a great deal of pressure. One thing
>she did, for example, was tap his phone.
Do you have a cite for this?
>--- Tagliaferro: only one of his feet was ever recovered ---
>I think you are confusing Bruno Tagliaferro with Jean-Paul Taminiaux
Yes, you're quite right. My apologies.
>(one foot recovered). Given the documented relationship between
>Tagliaferro and Diakostavrianos, his business and where he lived, he
>probably knew Dutroux quite well.
"Probably". Diakostavrianos has been excluded from all suspicion in
the Dutroux case, however. The link is very tenuous. Although the
story of his widow's death is very odd.
--
AH
Sharonpo
>> You know perfectly well that the stuff
>> you're posting has no credibility. And unless you're going at your
>> "research" in a very strange way indeed, you'll already have
>> discovered that the allegations with which you desire not to dirty
>> your hands are not repeated by what most people would consider to be
>> reliable sources.
Nan:
>> >If you are holding out for a copyright on your great expose, let me
>> >know then.
>> >I'll respect that.
Alan:
>> No such thing. But you're posting rumour, tittle-tattle that's long
>> been discredited, and made-up rubbish.
http://www.thesprout.net/003/mediadraining/mediadraining02.htm
"MacHope still can't grasp the difference between 'news' - generated by
journalists - and "vapid, insipid tittle-tattle" which can be written by
anybody in a commentary."
Nan:
>Yeah? I don't consider you a better source. I have no respect for
>you nor any trust in WHATEVER you consider right or wrong. Why should
>I? You're an anti-American propagandist-hack mongering "lost
>freedoms." You've called Luk a Nazi and a racist, and, by God, what
>haven't you called me to discredit me.
Nan, Mr. Stevens has been kind enough to gently pull Alan away from the brink
of hysteria he has been teetering on. Unfortunately, Alan simply cannot seem to
disengage from his "expert" persona. I suppose his stint as a TV guide writer
filled him with Hercule Poirot delusions.
http://www.thesprout.net/002/mediadraining/mediadraining02.htm
"...Bullet self-congratulations baloney
The independent weekly English-speaking TV and film guide, The Bulletin, had
many Brussels-based journalists pushing their fingers down their throats in the
third week of September. Its owners decided to publish a 40 year anniversary
special - which seemed to serve only one purpose: to blow out of proportion the
magazine's quality of content and place on the Brussels landscape. How did its
publishers think they would get away with such trite? Despite having a small
group of credible journalists, the bulk of its dreary pieces are based on the
unremarkable ideas formed by unemployed, Brit wannabe journalists in Brussels
who confuse bigotry for reporting (Ian MacDonald, as one example, who also
doubles up as 'Alan Hope')."
http://www.thesprout.net/003/mediadraining/mediadraining02.htm
"CUTTINGS
Plastic sheets: Bullet bed-wetting columnist loses the plot…again
Normally, The Sprout doesn't take the piss out of columnists, but in the case
of Alan Hope (alias Ian MacDonald), we'll make just one exception. The Bullet's
TV-guide supremo and wannabe-hack, has really thrown his truncheon, er rattle,
out of his pram this time. The unremarkable columnist for the English language
weekly, The Bulletin, vented his anger with The Sprout through his double-page,
seven-day TV commentary, which he writes under the fake name of Ian MacDonald.
Full marks though to the former Glaswegian cop whose ranting produced a scurry
of phone calls to The Sprout, over his tantrum - presumably based on last
month's article in Media Draining which ridiculed the otherwise useful Brussels
TV guide for patting itself on the back in its 40-year anniversary special. But
'nil points' on understanding the media. MacHope still can't grasp the
difference between 'news' - generated by journalists - and "vapid, insipid
tittle-tattle" which can be written by anybody in a commentary. Media Draining
is the latter, which Mac should understand, as he is only able to write this.
His shite TV column relentlessly breaks the golden rule by being laced with
additional 'information' dressed up as news."
<g>
I think I shall forevermore think of "Mr. Tittle-Tattle" when I see Alan's
posts.
Silky Boxers
other side of the planet....police, investigators really afraid to do
much, because of the more prevailant recoil of "law suits".
Then the other question becomes, why was it so hard to find info on this
perp? To make the initial arrest.
Awake
>I found your comments on Olenka Frenkiel's article very interesting.
>You are clearly very well informed about the case. There were some
>things that I disagree with you about, however.
>
> --- Suspicious Deaths ---
>
>Alan, you are the only person I know who claims that only one
>potential witness died. Bruno Tagliaferro, Fabienne Jaupart, Michel
>(and some of them had direct links to Dutroux, by the way), and the
>reluctance of the Belgian authorities to investigate them, struck not
>only Olenka and Belgian journalists, but also Dutch and German
>journalists. Now maybe the German ZDF exaggerated when they spoke
>about 23 suspicious deaths (Dutch journalists spoke about 9), but
>ONE...?
Hope is claiming that the sky is *not* blue on a clear sunny day.
It is a waste of time to attempt debate with him. He is a mud slinger
and he has the advantage in a case like this because _most_
people do not want to believe that such evil at such a high level
of society exists.
Alan Hope is a supporter of the state at any cost. Living in America
as I have my whole life I am very familiar with his kind and of those
in the Belgium media who are trying to wrap this case solely around
the neck of Mark Dutroux, and then bury he and this case.
JFK assassination.
Oklahoma City.
First bombing of World Trade Center.
9-11.
I'm very familiar with such tactics.
>--- Thily: where is the evidence of a cover up? ---
>
>Thily is no fool. She is very clever and well informed. She is after
>all the immediate boss of Bourlet. In the interview with Olenka she
>lied, lied and lied again. Not evidence of a cover up, I agree. But
>once again it stinks.
Not evidence of a cover-up?
Why is she lying then? Unless you have proof that she has a psychotic illness
that compels her to lie when the truth would be so much better for her and
everyone else then her confirmed lies are indeed proof of a cover-up.
Why else does one lie except to _cover-up_?
To conceal.
To divert away from truth.
Lying is _cover-up_.
-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.
Awake
> Cleopatra goes:
>
>>Is Olenka Frenkiel of the London Observer also a raving lunatic,
>>Alan?
>
>Obviously not, but she's a sloppy journalist. Her mistakes have been
>pointed out, and the corrections I've offered are incontrovertible.
>Olenka spent a short time here, and picked up all sorts of nonsense.
>She allowed the nonsense to pollute her story, for the sake of
>sensationalism.
She is the only journalist who has offered the truth and questioned the
obvious falsehoods in the absurd explanations offered by Belgian authorities.
Ms. Frenkiel has also raised important questions about the Belgian state television
stations "reporting" of this scandalous affair which resembles the "reporting" about
the JFK assassination by the "mainstream" media in America both then and now.
>>Nan, like me, is probably of that age where she, too,
>>lived contemporaneously with the Kennedy assassination. We had many
>>people just like you, Alan, trying to shout us down and insisting that
>>we were conspiracy nuts, that we didn't know what the fuck we were
>>talking about. Well, as it turns out we did, and between Oswald, Ruby
>>and Tippet and a few others who mysteriously vanished or were offed,
>>not to mention missing evidence, including JFK's brain among other
>>things, the American people were fucked over big time.
>
>I have not the slightest interest in the Kennedy case, and see no
>connection between that case and this.
Because you are an asshole.
Or worse, a supporter of the state.
>>Now that the
>>dust has settled on that one, few would argue today against a cover-up
>>of monumental proportions which took place, right on up to the very
>>highest levels of government.
>
>So what? That a cover-up took place in Dallas has no bearing whatever
>on a mooted cover-up in Belgium. I'm asking proponents of the cover-up
>theory to make their case: present your evidence. Neither you nor nan
>is in a position to do any such thing.
The proof has been presented by Olenka Frenkiel.
>>This situation has the same exact smell to it, sir.
>
>Smell is not evidence. Present your evidence.
Olenka Frenkiel has done this for us.
>>What, you think lawyers and judges and mayors and
>>cops leave their calling cards when they're in on the heist? Moreover,
>>what little there is which remains will be gotten rid of, just like it
>>was with Kennedy if my suspicions are correct.
>
>You're very close to claiming that the lack of evidence of a cover-up
>is itself evidence of a cover-up.
No I am saying that Olenka Frenkiel's questioning of absurd statements by Belgian
authorities and state media as well as absolute lies about evidence which exists but
which the Belgian authorities claim does not when questioned is proof of a cover-up.
>>That likely includes a
>>few more people if they're unwise enough to stick their heads out too
>>far. People who have the very resources of the state at their disposal
>>can cover up anything, and they don't play around, Alan. And it also
>>explains why the commit the monstrous crimes they do: Because they
>>CAN!
>
>Present your evidence. I'll take it under consideration. I can't say
>fairer than that.
The evidence has been presented as it has for the conspiratorial murder of JFK,
but you like the JFK assassination conspiracy deniers simply refuse to accept
evidence which is as factually true as saying the sky is blue on a clear sunny day.
If you say the sky is *not* blue on a clear sunny day then there is nothing more
for us to talk about.
That is your claim.
Belgium is run by a pedophile ring. That's what the evidence shows.
>>Indeed, someone will go to jail for these crimes, but I can assure you
>>they won't live long in that jail, and those very powerful people who
>>participated will live to a ripe old age, pillars of their community.
-=-
Ray Haddad
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Awake) instead replied:
>This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.
Why doesn't this surprise me?
Alan Hope
>I think I shall forevermore think of "Mr. Tittle-Tattle" when I see Alan's
>posts.
Like anyone gives a fuck about your opinion.
Nevertheless, the distinction Sprouty makes is one he fails to
observe. He's holding me to a news standard when I'm writing TV
commentary? Isn't he also telling us the two things are different?
I reckon he's peeved because I have readers, while all he gets are
website hits from people like you who stalk and stalk and think
they've finally hit on something.
Did you know he sells his magazine in a plastic wrapper? Maybe he
thinks if people can't leaf through it in the shop they'll buy it and
take it home. But the thing just stands there in stacks, never moving,
while copies of the Bulletin fly off the shelves. No wonder the poor
sod is envious.
--
AH
Dr Zen
> gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote in message news:<5e7da04d.04030...@posting.google.com>...
> > nanl...@hotmail.com (nan) wrote in message news:<8f49fa86.04030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<ko6b40psifn24fo15...@4ax.com>...
> > > > nan goes:
> > > >
> > > > >PLEASE NOTE: Just because YOU say something is "wrong" doesn't mean it
> > > > >is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Nevertheless, everything I noted as wrong is, in fact, wrong. Try to
> > > > exercise some critical sense, will you?
> > >
> > > Mephisto Mond,
> > > It is NOT enough for you to assert "wrong" - you must support your
> > > assertions with contradicting facts and documentation. That old
> > > "cite, please" stuff applies to you.
> > >
> >
> > He has to prove that you're bullshitting? How can he do that? If he
> > posted Dutroux's rap sheet, you'd simply claim that the previous child
> > rapes were suppressed or some such nonsense.
> >
> > Zen
>
> Zen, you're off the path of reason. What am I bullshitting about?
What *aren't* you bullshitting about?
> It's no BS that I don't accept Alan Hope's interpretation of facts and
> events on its face value.
Alan Hope has followed the Dutroux case closely. You've googled a
couple of yellow press reports.
Alan Hope has expressed a belief that you should be willing to
substantiate any claims you make with facts. He has not made claims of
his own, except to suggest where you have made claims in need of
substantiation.
> It is MY free choice not to accept his word
> or his opinions, or to submit quietly to his insults.
>
If you believe it is an insult to be asked to substantiate the wild
claims you make, then I am also going to insult you.
> No news report I've posted was written by me - I am delivering the
> news not writing it.
You comment on its veracity without any means of substantiating it.
> It is a typical cowardly and deceitful ploy of
> Alan's, and this is why have monumental contempt for him, to insult
> the messenger to diffuse and distract from the message.
Your identification with the message is noted.
> The infamy
> attached to the Dutroux, et al, case in NOT of my making!
>
Dutroux, I have no doubt, deserves his infamy. The others smeared in
the reports you cite may do, but no evidence that they do is
presented, either in the reports you cite, or by you.
> It should be more than obvious that Alan Hope is very fast at jumping
> to control the information, claim credibility to the exclusion of all
> others, to denounce international news sources, investigative reports
> and journalists, and furthermore, to dismiss what are NORMAL reactions
> from the international communities.
>
You didn't, so far as I noted, cite anything but the ill-informed
blather of an overexcited young woman fresh out of journalism school.
> The difference in slant of bias is:
>
> The thousands of decent Belgium citizen protestors who amassed to
> protest against the irresponsible handling of the Dutroux case (!) are
> not a "mob" - they are an outraged decent folk.
No such amassing took place. Do you know what those people were
actually protesting?
> Any frikken man(as did Alan Hope)who argues his point by alluding to
> (my) sucking on a goat pizzle demonstrates he has no credibity at all
> except his incredible extreme capacity for vulgarity.
Do you deny that you suck goat pizzles?
> Period, Zen,
> Period!
>
> As far as BS is concerned, you are just pimping for Alan Hope.
>
Hope doesn't need a pimp while the likes of you are queueing up for a
good fucking over!
Zen
nan
No, Alan, I am quoting the observation of a Belgium citizen who should
know:
Excerpt:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Part V: The Dutroux affair and the Belgian Society
The horror of the Dutroux affair triggered a deep anger and
frustration in the Belgian public; in October 1996 300,000 people
marched through Brussels to protest crime, corruption, incompetence,
the heartless and ineffective response of the authorities, and the
sacking of an overzealous magistrate thought to be too "sympathetic"
to the victims. Since then parliamentary inquiries and administrative
reforms have followed one another, to no obvious effect...
[www.thevoice.student.kuleuver.ac.be/articles/belgiumhistory.htm]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note: following citizen protests, "Since then parliamentary inquiries
and administrative reforms have followed one another, to no obvious
effect..."
One can only conclude bureaucratic farce and cover-up.
from Nan
nan
> Sharonpo goes:
>
> >I think I shall forevermore think of "Mr. Tittle-Tattle" when I see Alan's
> >posts.
>
> Like anyone gives a fuck about your opinion.
>
Sharon always accurately hits the Achilles heel of an egoist heel's
psyche.
The following are your absolutely irrational self-serving rationales.
For example: "Did you know he sells his magazine in a plastic
wrapper?" Frankly, all your writing in the atc are plastic raps.
from Nan
Behold the manure:
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<c8rl40tbs7id2dktc...@4ax.com>...
>> Sharonpo goes:
>> >I think I shall forevermore think of "Mr. Tittle-Tattle" when I see Alan's
>> >posts.
>> Like anyone gives a fuck about your opinion.
>Well, I for one don't give a "fuck" for your opinions, Alan!
That's why you're on my heels five minutes after I've posted, right,
spitting drool all over the onlookers.
>Sharon always accurately hits the Achilles heel of an egoist heel's
>psyche.
>The following are your absolutely irrational self-serving rationales.
>For example: "Did you know he sells his magazine in a plastic
>wrapper?" Frankly, all your writing in the atc are plastic raps.
Gawd. Bad puns now. Time for the straitjacket shortly.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>> >[www.thevoice.student.kuleuven.ac.be/articles/belgiumhistory.htm]
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >Your posts are becoming more idiotic than ever before. If I have to
>> >pity you instead of despising you, I'm gonna git angry.
>> Are you saying they were protesting against something they didn't yet
>> know about? The dates are a matter of public record. But of course you
>> wouldn't know that, despite all your "research".
>No, Alan, I am quoting the observation of a Belgium citizen who should
>know:
Here's how he describes himself:
"I am neither an exile nor an émigré, but I too had the occasion
recently to spend an extended period in Belgium. Unlike most temporary
visitors to the country, however, I was not in Brussels, but in a
small Flemish village not far from Bruges; and in contrast to most of
Belgium's transitory foreign residents today I could claim at least a
slender bond to the place since my father was born there, in Antwerp."
Turns out he's Tony Judt, a professor of European Studies at NYU. The
article you quoted came not from Leuven but from the NY Review of
Books. Does Cleo know you're keeping company with such dubious
sources?
I've given you the dates. Are you saying they're wrong?
By the way, that URL returns a DNS Error.
The correct address is
http://www.thevoice.student.kuleuven.ac.be/articles/belgiumhistory.htm
>Excerpt:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Part V: The Dutroux affair and the Belgian Society
>The horror of the Dutroux affair triggered a deep anger and
>frustration in the Belgian public; in October 1996 300,000 people
>marched through Brussels to protest crime, corruption, incompetence,
>the heartless and ineffective response of the authorities, and the
>sacking of an overzealous magistrate thought to be too "sympathetic"
>to the victims. Since then parliamentary inquiries and administrative
>reforms have followed one another, to no obvious effect...
>[www.thevoice.student.kuleuver.ac.be/articles/belgiumhistory.htm]
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Note: following citizen protests, "Since then parliamentary inquiries
>and administrative reforms have followed one another, to no obvious
>effect..."
>One can only conclude bureaucratic farce and cover-up.
Well, you can only conclude so. But your sources are so dodgy. Would
it kill you to look at something in French, or in Dutch? I suppose it
would.
--
AH
nan
> nanl...@hotmail.com (nan) wrote in message news:<8f49fa86.04030...@posting.google.com>...
> > gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote in message news:<5e7da04d.04030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > nanl...@hotmail.com (nan) wrote in message news:<8f49fa86.04030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<ko6b40psifn24fo15...@4ax.com>...
> > > > > nan goes:
> > > > >
> > > > > >PLEASE NOTE: Just because YOU say something is "wrong" doesn't mean it
> > > > > >is wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nevertheless, everything I noted as wrong is, in fact, wrong. Try to
> > > > > exercise some critical sense, will you?
> > > >
> > > > Mephisto Mond,
> > > > It is NOT enough for you to assert "wrong" - you must support your
> > > > assertions with contradicting facts and documentation. That old
> > > > "cite, please" stuff applies to you.
> > > >
> > >
> > > He has to prove that you're bullshitting? How can he do that? If he
> > > posted Dutroux's rap sheet, you'd simply claim that the previous child
> > > rapes were suppressed or some such nonsense.
> > >
> > > Zen
> >
> > Zen, you're off the path of reason. What am I bullshitting about?
>
> What *aren't* you bullshitting about?
No, Zen, you must substantiate your affront with exact quotes proving
your claim of my "bullshit." "Bullshit" is in a pile of the beholder.
> > It's no BS that I don't accept Alan Hope's interpretation of facts and
> > events on its face value.
>
> Alan Hope has followed the Dutroux case closely. You've googled a
> couple of yellow press reports.
The BBC, et al, are "yellow presses"? Your assertion defines
"bullshit."
>
> Alan Hope has expressed a belief that you should be willing to
> substantiate any claims you make with facts. He has not made claims of
> his own, except to suggest where you have made claims in need of
> substantiation.
>
> > It is MY free choice not to accept his word
> > or his opinions, or to submit quietly to his insults.
> >
>
> If you believe it is an insult to be asked to substantiate the wild
> claims you make, then I am also going to insult you.
I cannot substantiate the reporting of the BBC, and I accept it on
face value until there are controverting reports. Alan's request is
not the "insult."
I've MADE NO WILD CLAIMS! I have POSTED various articles on the
Dutroux case!
You asinine pimp!
> > No news report I've posted was written by me - I am delivering the
> > news not writing it.
>
> You comment on its veracity without any means of substantiating it.
Well, Zen, I don't expect Alan Hope's *veracity* to substantuate news
reports from bonafide news agencies like the BBC. Furthermore, I
don't have to substaniate ANY news report as a reader, nor does any
other reader have that responsibility. I, among the vast numbers of
readers/viewers of internationally distributed BBC's investigative
reports, will freely comment. I will inspite of you and Alan who want
to diffuse the obvious truths of the matter as well as attack the
integrity of reporters.
>
> > It is a typical cowardly and deceitful ploy of
> > Alan's, and this is why have monumental contempt for him, to insult
> > the messenger to diffuse and distract from the message.
>
> Your identification with the message is noted.
Weird pimping. Alan does need alot of loony backup and damage control.
> > The infamy
> > attached to the Dutroux, et al, case in NOT of my making!
> >
>
> Dutroux, I have no doubt, deserves his infamy. The others smeared in
> the reports you cite may do, but no evidence that they do is
> presented, either in the reports you cite, or by you.
I "smear" no one but Alan Hope, the Mephisto Mond. Well, now you for
being his pimp.
>
> > It should be more than obvious that Alan Hope is very fast at jumping
> > to control the information, claim credibility to the exclusion of all
> > others, to denounce international news sources, investigative reports
> > and journalists, and furthermore, to dismiss what are NORMAL reactions
> > from the international communities.
> >
>
> You didn't, so far as I noted, cite anything but the ill-informed
> blather of an overexcited young woman fresh out of journalism school.
I think that young woman reporter has made your Alan overly jealous!
She's received Awards for her journalistic integrity, and is a credit
to the UK as well as to the BBC (which needs it.)
>
> > The difference in slant of bias is:
> >
> > The thousands of decent Belgium citizen protestors who amassed to
> > protest against the irresponsible handling of the Dutroux case (!) are
> > not a "mob" - they are an outraged decent folk.
>
> No such amassing took place. Do you know what those people were
> actually protesting?
Jesu! What a STUPID questions! Read the MANY articles about the
citizens' protest march and then prove the articles are wrong. It's
your duty, not mine.
> > Any frikken man(as did Alan Hope)who argues his point by alluding to
> > (my) sucking on a goat pizzle demonstrates he has no credibity at all
> > except his incredible extreme capacity for vulgarity.
>
> Do you deny that you suck goat pizzles?
You cannot deny you are an obscene pimp for Alan Hope - there full
evidence of it here in your own words.
>
> > Period, Zen,
> > Period!
> >
> > As far as BS is concerned, you are just pimping for Alan Hope.
> >
>
> Hope doesn't need a pimp while the likes of you are queueing up for a
> good fucking over!
>
> Zen
Are you not zendic enough? With your own words you continue to fuck
yourself. Alan needs sychopants and a pimp. You're just not very good
at selling him - well, he is already _spoiled merchandise_.
Neither you nor Alan Hope, nor anyone else can suppress nor control
what is freely posted and commented upon about the Dutroux case.
Demanding that I substantiate the contents of international news
reports is ASININE!
If you do not intend to ploy reverse psychology, nevertheless you
solicit that effect. Be assured your assumed intimidating manner of
*persuasion* is doomed to adverse reactions and defiance. Alan Hope
has found it so and then needed a pimp. Have you a pimp-in-waiting
for yourself? Your "goods" are no better than Alan Hope's are.
from Nan
nan
> > > > >
> > > > > >PLEASE NOTE: Just because YOU say something is "wrong" doesn't mean
> > > > > >it is wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nevertheless, everything I noted as wrong is, in fact, wrong. Try to
> > > > > exercise some critical sense, will you?
> > > >
> > > > Mephisto Mond,
> > > > It is NOT enough for you to assert "wrong" - you must support your
> > > > assertions with contradicting facts and documentation. That old
> > > > "cite, please" stuff applies to you.
Zen playing the fool says:
> Alan Hope has expressed a belief that you should be willing to
> substantiate any claims you make with facts.
I've made no claims other than disclaiming Alan Hope.
> He has not made claims of
> his own, except to suggest where you have made claims in need of
> substantiation.
Alan Hope is the only one making claims. See above.
Alan Hope marked various statements in a news report about the Dutroux
case as "wrong" -that is proof enough of HIS making claims which he
didn't substantiate.
> > It should be more than obvious that Alan Hope is very fast at jumping
> > to control the information, claim credibility to the exclusion of all
> > others, to denounce international news sources, investigative reports
> > and journalists, and furthermore, to dismiss what are NORMAL reactions
> > from the international communities.
>
> You didn't, so far as I noted, cite anything but the ill-informed
> blather of an overexcited young woman fresh out of journalism school.
BBC journalist Frenkiel is highly praised for her investigative
reports on
Belgium's infamous Dutroux, et al, child abductions, child
pornography, child sex-slavery and murders case. Alan Hope,
expatriate
living in Belgium, or maybe on Belgium's largess, attacks the
integrity of Olenka Frenkiel's reporting.
For some background on reporter Frenkiel, this excerpt:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reporter Olenka Frenkiel, producer Giselle Portenier and executive
producer Fiona Murch of BBC News have won the Polk Award for
Television Foreign Reporting for their chilling documentary, "Murder
in Purdah," which recorded how, as Islamic fundamentalism took an
ever-firmer grip on Pakistan, men in rural areas maimed and killed
wives, daughters and sisters for suspected sexual infidelity. Over a
six-week period, Frenkiel and Portenier tracked down the victims as
well as the perpetrators. Shown in America on ABC-TV's Nightline under
the title "A Matter of Honour," the film has had reverberations
throughout the Muslim world and beyond, in the form of widespread
letter-writing campaigns and organized protests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm playing it again, Zen:
Alan Hope is a vulgar pedantic hack whose only talent shines in the
toilet bowl.
from Nan
nan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/programmes/correspondent_europe/1953293.stm.
It's a ).
BBC
Friday, 26 April, 2002, 13:45 GMT 14:45 UK
Belgium's X Files Forum: Have your say
Belgium's X-Files: an Olenka Frenkiel investigation
We apologise that due to unforeseen circumstances the live interactive
forum with Olenka Frenkiel and Marie-Jeanne Van Heeswyck has been
cancelled.
Olenka Frenkiel answers a selection of your e-mails
Q It seems sadly appropriate that in a story of dark-dealings,
cover-ups and hiding the truth, the live chat with Olenka Frankel and
Marie-Jeanne van Heeswyck should be mysteriously cancelled!
Toby Crozier, UK
A Nothing mysterious. I'm afraid the medium is new to us and some
unforeseen problems emerged. I won't bore you with the details but
basically it was my fault. Sorry.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q I was wondering if it was not possible that Europe's police forces
put pressure on the Belgium government. I always hear of concerted
busts of paedophile rings in Europe. And if the police forces cannot
do so could the European Union not step in and force them to solve
paedophilia in Belgium?
Suzan Demirates, England
A One might have thought so but you enter a marshmallowy world when
you try to talk to these Euro institutions. They can't even offer me
standardised statistics on missing children throughout Europe
comparing country by country. I would have thought that might be step
one in establishing whether Belgium is different or not.
Olenka Frenkiel
" Why do I have to look to BBC television to see things that nobody
want to say in Belgium "
Karel Goegebuer
Q Why do I have to look to BBC television to see things that nobody
want to say in Belgium. Why are the victims of Dutroux helped by a
Dutch television station and not by Belgian Government? Why do we have
a minister Verwilgen in Belgium who is afraid of saying anything? It
is good that other people who are in the Belgian government cannot
harm or say anything! Thank you for that.
Karel Goegebuer, Belgium
A Thank you for your email. Perhaps this is one good outcome of
"globalization" -
Olenka Frenkiel
Q What of the two girls found alive? Do they not have any damning
testimony? Well done on the programme by the way.
Jeff Evans, UK
A Thanks. The two living girls were drugged for most of the time they
were in the cellar and do not remember events very clearly. Rohypnol,
the date rape drug, was a favourite drug of Dutroux when he abducted
children. He even murdered a former accomplice by giving him rohypnol
and then burying him alive. His body was found with earth in the
lungs.
Laetitia the older survivor remembers Sabine trying to persuade her to
play a computer game, which Dutroux had provided but she was too
sleepy. They both told police Dutroux had raped them repeatedly - as
for anyone else, it's not clear. Laetitia was only there for just over
a week. They will probably be called to testify if and when Dutroux
eventually comes to trial. An excellent little documentary on Laetitia
was made by Dutch TV, which showed she had received no counselling or
psychological help after being released. A Dutch businesswoman has now
taken up her case and is paying for help and for her continued
education. I spoke to both girls but they have shied away from
publicity and I didn't want to press them.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q I have just seen the BBC programme, and am of course horrified by
the apparent mishandling of the 'X' files case. Is it possible to have
a more extensive media investigation of the claims and the many
unexplained deaths of witnesses in the case? Given the public attitude
in the UK towards paedophilia, could an approach not be made to a
major newspaper here so that an adequate investigation of all of the
threads of the case can be undertaken?
Andy Ross, UK
A Well I wrote the article in the Observer last Sunday - they were
really keen on the piece. And I have a lot more information about this
but there's a limit to how much you can cram into 45 minutes. There's
enough here for a book. Maybe you could write it?
Olenka Frenkiel
" The truth is that those journalists who tell the story complain that
they have been harassed, sacked, threatened and many say they have
been forced to stop reporting on this issue to continue working "
Olenka Frenkiel
Q The programme seemed to imply that at least one TV channel was
either directly or indirectly trying to discredit the suggestions that
Dutroux was not working alone. Are there countervailing opinions in
the media? Would, for instance, something like your own programme have
ever been made in Belgium?
Mark Bertenshaw, UK
A Yes there is a power struggle between the two views. I have had
emails from Belgians who say "Oh no not this again" and others who've
said - "why do we have to wait for foreigners to tell the truth about
our country. Why don't our own networks tell this story? The truth is
that those journalists who tell the story complain that they have been
harassed, sacked, threatened and many say they have been forced to
stop reporting on this issue to continue working. There is one rival
programme on RTBF that has occasionally tried to tell the other side
(my side) of the story but theirs has been a losing battle. I cannot
allege a conspiracy in Au Nom de La Loi but I can say that they
knowingly misrepresented Regina Louf as a lying fantasist who had
unfairly accused her innocent parents of giving her away for sex as a
child. They knew Regina's allegations were true as the parents and the
abuser had already admitted this to the police and the programme
makers knew this. Why they chose to misrepresent her? I don't know.
Why they chose to make a programme claiming Nihoul was innocent? I
don't know. Why they devoted another programme to "proving" that
Dutroux was an isolated pervert? I don't know.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q Have there been any discussions towards setting up an authority that
can work between countries in the pursuit of bringing to justice the
members of these rings of abusers. We are always seeking to put the
safety of our children above all else. The time is now to put the
actions in place instead of the empty words.
Hugh Aitkin, UK
A Yes there are lots of organisations, which claim to deal with
missing children. But ask them if, for example they have properly
collected standardised figures for European countries, comparing like
with like allowing us to see which country has the worst record and
which the best - none of them can provide this. Belgium, Holland,
France - all have huge police departments devoted to this problem -
there's something in Brussels, something in The Hague, there's
Interpol etc. But not one of them has allocated the public funding
they receive to this simple task of collating good information. That
to me is a scandal.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q How is holding Dutroux in what appears to be "protective custody"
compatible with The European Convention on Human Rights - i.e.
detention without trial? Have the parents no further appeal to
European Court of Human Rights?
Peter Williamson, UK
A The European convention says a "reasonable time" must not be
exceeded in jail without trial. It is now six years - that is
stretching it a bit. The rules are, you have to exhaust the legal
system in your own country before you can go to Europe. That has yet
to play itself out both for the Russos and Regina Louf and the
policemen involved. The problem for them is that the longer it is
dragged out, the more costly the legal fees and they just don't have
the resources for years and years of litigation. But they are trying.
Olenka Frenkiel
" Since the Belgian government and establishment are clearly
implicated, isn't it time that the much-vaunted EU Europol became
involved "
Brian Singleton
Q What an absolutely rational and compelling programme. Since the
Belgian government and establishment are clearly implicated, isn't it
time that the much-vaunted EU Europol became involved and carried out
an independent investigation?
Brian Singleton, UK
A Good luck. They can't even tell me how Belgium's missing children
record compares with that of other countries. I won't hold my breath.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q I was wondering if it was not possible that Europe's police forces
put pressure on the Belgium government. I always hear of concerted
busts of paedophile rings in Europe. And if the police forces cannot
do so could the European Union not step in and force them to solve
paedophilia in Belgium?
Suzan Demirates, England
A One might have thought so but you enter a marshmallowy world when
you try to talk to these Euro instritutions. They can't even offer me
standardised statistics on missing children throughout Europe
comparing country by country. I would have thought that might be step
one in establishing whether Belgium is different or not.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q One obvious thought strikes me: Why has nobody sat down with the
surviving girl(s) and shown them photos of all politicians serving at
that time - to see if any faces ring a bell?
Paul Dunwell, UK
A The two surviving girls will be witnesses if Dutroux comes to trial
so it is difficult to interview them as they have generally refused to
discuss details of their incarceration. The other problem is that
Dutroux kept his victims almost permanently anaesthetized. His drug of
choice was rohypnol the date rape drug that he administered as soon as
they were abducted and kept topping up. Consequently their memories
are hazy.
Besides the police did start to do that with the X witnesses but their
bosses have now dismissed all the progress they made as useless. The
authorities do have the names of those who are identified by victims.
So do I. We cannot publish them because we don't have the proof and
could therefore be sued for libel especially as the Procureur General
has dismissed the allegations as nonsense or fantasy. But the evidence
against 3 of them is quite strong according to the police to whom I
spoke - but they of-course are not allowed to continue with the
investigation.
Olenka Frenkiel
" What I don't understand is why there has not been more uproar about
this in Belgium "
Michael
Q What I have read has absolutely made my blood boil. What I don't
understand is why there has not been more uproar about this in
Belgium? Do the Belgian people not care, do they find it an
embarrassment and want to just forget about it? Politicians are
usually very quick to demand inquiries when there has been a foul-up
by the police, why not now?
Michael, Dublin, Ireland
A They seem to suffer from dutroux fatigue and an indignation that
their country is now known as a pedophile's haven. They were outraged
in 1996 and 1997 when they marched on Brussels. But they've had
enough. They're fed up with it and no longer really care. They also
are confused. They don't any more know whom to believe.
Olenka Frenkiel
A They seem to suffer from dutroux fatigue and an indignation that
their country is now known as a pedophile's haven. They were outraged
in 1996 and 1997 when they marched on Brussels. But they've had
enough. They're fed up with it and no longer really care. They also
are confused. They don't any more know whom to believe.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q Excellent programme. Do you think there are any lessons for the UK
Policing particularly in relation to the independence of
investigations and political or judicial influence of the police?
Stuart Hyde, UK
A After my research I strongly believe that our criminal justice
system is more effective and accountable in Britain than in Belgium.
But we have had our pedophile rings in Britain which have also been
ignored and uninvestigated by police and social services. I refer you
to the excellent Newsnight programme a year or so ago which exposed
such a ring in Liverpool and forced the authorities to stop ignoring
the testimonies they had had for years. Since the programme, which
elicited frank confessions from some of the perpetrators, they have
been prosecuted. Thanks for getting in touch.
Olenka Frenkiel
As a social worker I am utterly horrified about the apparent
mismanagement of this investigation and the implications about the
justice system in Belgium. Totally shocked and dismayed.
Sian McKinnon, Scotland
" It is demoralising to think that the rights we hold as sacred almost
can be so easily disregarded "
Anber Raz
I watched this investigative programme with great unease. It's
frustrating to think that this form of corruption could exist on such
a large scale, concerning such an horrific crime, yet there is nothing
that can be done about it. We are not as free, democratic as we think.
It is demoralising to think that the rights we hold as sacred almost
can be so easily disregarded. My deepest sympathies go to the parents
of these girls along with a hope that this investigation will
encourage people to lobby the Belgian government to take action.
Anber Raz, UK
Well, I've been left absolutely shell-shocked after watching you're
programme. Unfortunately words aren't enough but it is clear to see
that Belgium is protecting it's powerful which makes theses crimes
even more scary. I'd also just like to say how much I admire the
bravery of Regina. Thank you.
Mark Beecher, England
Firstly I'd just like to congratulate you on an excellent report,
which asked some urgent if awkward questions. I would like to ask why,
do you believe, child abuse, as sadistic and murderous as that
described by the Xs, continues, seemingly unchallenged in a civilised
society?
Elizabeth Scott, UK
You commented on various people who were going to tell the police
about the rapists...then they died before they got a chance. Did the
police ever look into these cases? Did they just dismiss them? Did
they not think maybe there was a link?
Clare Knight, England
" Thank you once again and lets not forget the girls "
Vivienne Boon
I just want to thank you for covering this story again. It should not
be forgotten, but the longer these cases go on the more passive people
become. Can we at least make sure that when the national press in the
country are telling as many lies as the officials, the foreign press
keep on hammering to get the truth...Thank you once again and lets not
forget the girls.
Vivienne Boon, Holland
Could you not get the European court to take over the investigation of
this horrifying case? Whatever you do I wish you good luck as the rest
of the world can surely have no faith in the Belgian justice system
now.
Pekelbe, UK
I am from Belgium and like all respectable people there I am horrified
by the Dutroux scandal. We have not forgotten Julie, Melissa and all
the other children who have disappeared or were abused or killed. We
all hope that justice will be done one day, and that the guilty -
whoever they are - will be punished, but what can we do? Maybe more
programmes like yours will help...
Brigitte Descy, UK
I wonder if the truth will come out after the 30-year rule has passed?
Congratulations on an excellent documentary.
Philip de Cadenet, UK
Spawned by the Internet, all recent cases of child exploitation have
proved to be communal in nature. As a tradesman I looked at the door
in the cellar and recognised a construction that put the builder at
the top of his trade and not short of intelligence; did he not imagine
what this was for or was he at least one of the network?
Gerry Pope, Ireland
I was the victim of a network in the UK featured by Sarah Macdonald. I
was ignored and branded a liar for years. It took the media to shame
the authorities into action and finally we got some justice. But only
after hundreds more victims. They put us through hell for it. I hope
you get some justice much if I can help in any way.
Shy Keenan, UK
'We apologise that due to unforeseen circumstances the live
interactive forum with Olenka Frenkiel and Marie-Jeanne Van Heeswyck
has been cancelled.' This sounds like yet another excuse to withhold
information in the 'Detroux' investigation. Your programme was much
appreciated and threw some fresh light on what has been, at the least,
yet another demoralising example of the corrupt Belgian legal system.
As an Anglophone living in Belgium I welcome investigative reports
into what must be one of Belgium's most notorious and obscene
miscarriages of justice in recent times. Continue the good work.
Nothing is being done here to resolve a story as awful as this one.
G.Egan, Belgium
There is nothing sinister in the cancellation - there were genuine
unforeseen problems. I won't bore you with the details but basically
it was my fault. Sorry.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q What is the feeling among the general population in Belgium now? And
will this be an active political issue in an election or is it a
cancer that is spread across the system, so no one wants to mention
it.
Liam, Ireland
" There is no doubt among Belgians - that the Belgian Justice system
is seriously flawed "
Olenka Frenkiel
A Hard to know really. My feeling was that they are sick to death of
hearing about it. It is said that Belgium is divided between
"believers" and "non-believers" - i.e. those who believe Regina Louf
and de Baets and those who don't. I felt it rather differently almost
every person you ask will volunteer the opinion that something has
been covered up, something stinks, something is not normal about the
Dutroux affair and the way it has been dealt with. But they have had
enough of mystery and conspiracy theory. They no longer have any
patience to concentrate on the details and can't bear to listen to any
more horror stories.
They feel they can't do anything about it and want to get on with
their lives. But there is no doubt among Belgians from a very senior
Government advisor I met down to the ordinary citizen - that the
Belgian Justice system is seriously flawed. A series of 28 murders in
the 1980s, known as the supermarket murders in which 28 people were
shot in supermarket car-parks in mafia style hits has never been
solved. The shootings had the same signature and some of the guns used
were tracked to the gendarmerie. The socialist politician Andre Cools
was killed in 1991 and that has never come to trial. As one senior
Belgian said to me citing these examples "You must not underestimate
how bad Belgian justice is."
Olenka Frenkiel
Q Couldn't the European Court of Human Rights take up this case?
Lauren Millar, England
A The lawyers of Dutroux and Michel Martin, his wife have threatened
to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights. European law
says prisoners cannot be held without trial for more than "a
reasonable time" The fact that they have been held without trial for 6
years is stretching that definition.
But I take it your question refers not to Dutroux's human rights but
to Regina's. I think the rule there is that you have to have exhausted
the law courts of your own country before you can take the case to
Europe. The two people who are fighting are Patriek de Baets, (the
policeman who first interviewed Regina) and his colleague Aime Bille.
If they don't get justice through their own courts they plan to take
it to Europe. But the whole process is very expensive for them - the
legal fees are punitive. So far they have won all the cases in
Belgium. It's just the process is slow because they don't have the
funding.
Olenka Frenkiel
As I watched the programme I felt sick at the thought of what those
poor girls, only 2 years younger than myself, endured. If these men
are not brought to justice in this life I hope they pay in the next.
Amy, England
I've just seen the documentary you made about the X-files of those
poor children in Belgium. It was a very touching piece of work with a
very powerful message. I want to congratulate you and wish you luck on
any further investigation. I would also like to send condolences to
the parents of those girls, and may their souls rest in peace. Thank
you.
Elizabeth, England
It is always the ordinary person in the street who are prayed on by
the officials the rich and the powerful this programme demonstrates
just how these people get away with murder until the ordinary man in
the street says enough is enough an independent outside of Belgium
group should be bought in to investigate the perpetrators of the
original crimes and also the people who helped to hide them for as
they are as guilty as the perverts.
Rebecca Gourlay, England
" As a Police officer with 22 years service here in England I am
astounded at the treatment of my fellow colleagues in Belgium "
Tony Jenkins
As a Police officer with 22 years service here in England I am
astounded at the treatment of my fellow colleagues in Belgium. I don't
believe the government here in England could get away with this.
Although I don't know the ins and outs of the Belgian matters my gut
reaction is that this corruption reaches the highest echelons of the
Belgian government. They should be ashamed of their treatment of this
investigation! When corruption reaches these levels it is unlikely
those poor parents will ever find the truth, but I wish them well
Tony Jenkins, England
This was a shocking report on the investigation (or the lack of it) in
the Dutroux affaire. We got more information from you than we EVER got
from Belgian media. We feel betrayed by the Belgian media and
politicians who apparently hope that the entire story will be
forgotten.
Przemko Tylzanowski & Kristin Verschueren, Belgium
I find it odd that the Belgian authorities discount the possibility of
a network particularly in the light of the recent news that a network
appears to have been operating in Auxerre in France where from memory
18 young women have disappeared and two investigating magistrates have
been heavily criticised and files have gone missing!
Stephen, England
It seems obvious that someone doesn't want the truth to come out.
Cover up? I think so, anyone with their eyes open must think so. If
this is the case, then surely there are powerful people in the
Government, Justice, and Police involved in child abuse in Belgium.
Maybe it is time that the European Union gets involved. Also, who is
to say that what has happened in Belgium may also have happened in
other countries, the UK included. Thank you for showing the programme,
and I hope the children, their parents, and Belgium eventually get
some justice.
Cenwyn Jones, UK
Could not the unfortunate parents take the matter to the European
Court? If money is a problem, could not a fund be set up to which I
would gladly contribute?
John Hart, England
I had a pen friend in Ghent at the same time the abductions happened
and he worked in the police force. He suddenly stopped writing. It
seemed a little odd as we had been writing a lot. I just wonder if he
was involved?
Nessa Rumens, UK
I cannot believe that such an evil has gone unpunished! 20 people died
mysteriously and yet nothing has been uncovered. I shudder with fear
at the children that go missing in Belgium and around the world. It is
a scandal and you should not give up - KEEP SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH!
Karen Balman, England
When a country's judicial system seems incapable of investigating a
straightforward case - forensic evidence should even now, still be
possible, and certainly in this country I suspect that exhumation
would still deliver forensic evidence. If the Belgians cannot collect
such evidence, can the citizens sue for breach of their human rights
based on the incompetence of their government, and have the case
investigated by an independent authority, does it make any sense to
form a European criminal investigation unit?
Every country has had its problems - remember when the newly appointed
Chief of Police came in and sacked the whole of the Manchester Fraud
squad? With regard to sacking a magistrate that had dinner with
victims and supported their fund raising, I agree this was unwise, but
a conflict of interest is not necessarily proven. No one can be more
partial than the parents of the victims, but surely they only want to
see the right people brought to justice, not any person at any cost.
In view of the public outcry, I think the Belgians should reinstate
the Magistrate.
Fay Green, UK
" I find it really terrible that a major country like Belgium should
hide investigation into such a sick network "
V B Rumsey
Good luck with your investigation. I find it really terrible that a
major country like Belgium should hide investigation into such a sick
network. Come on, Belgium, wake up and expose the truth.
V B Rumsey, England
Thank you for a clear-sighted report of a very murky area. Because I
have had to listen to the testimonies of people who have experienced
similar networks in the UK, I very much value airtime given to saying
things, which are not palatable to many. Good wishes, and thanks
Julian Turner, UK
I am utterly disgusted that a country as developed as Belgium could
allow such a travesty to happen. The Belgian people must be terrified
for the safety of their children. Clearly this is a massive cover up
in order to protect people whom the government of Belgium feels are
worthy of such protection. I am utterly horrified by this, and feel
that surely there is something that other countries within Europe can
do to investigate this terrible cover up
Stu Briscoe, UK
I found the programme extremely interesting and disturbing. What I
don't understand is why most Belgians seem to accept the situation
after their initial strong protest. Doesn't the desire to protect
their own children over ride all other concerns?
Eleanor Dobson, UK
Q What your investigation failed (or wasn't allowed) to mention that a
growing number of issues have arisen concerning possible links between
the alleged protection of Dutroux et al & the Belgian Royal Family. In
2000 a French journalist published a book allegedly proving links
between paedophile networks & the Royal Family of Belgium, It was of
course outlawed to be published here & was hushed up surprisingly
quickly.
Steve McMillan, Belgium
" The problems with the allegations against the King are that they are
not very well substantiated and we would not want to accuse anyone,
King or not, of such a crime unless there were substantial evidence "
Olenka Frenkiel
A We are aware of the book. There were many aspects of the case that
weren't squeezed in to the 45 minutes we are allocated. There was a
lot to explain to a British audience who know almost nothing about the
case. So we left a lot of extremely strong material out - simple
because we could not fit it in. The problems with the allegations
against the King are that they are not very well substantiated and we
would not want to accuse anyone, King or not, of such a crime unless
there were substantial evidence.
I have asked many people on all sides of the case about the
allegations against the King. Even among those who are convinced of a
network involving very senior Belgians - even among those who believe
there has been a cover up - there are very few whom the Nicholas book
convinces and some even fear it may be a red herring deliberately
planted into the story to discredit the other stronger evidence. Where
you have a cover-up, conspiracy theories proliferate. But if I had an
extra 30 minutes to add to the programme, the material about the Royal
family would not make it.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q Another investigation on the Dutroux affair? Fair enough....
unfortunately this reporter is simply showing her vision of this
terrible affair...every other journalist has his "truth" about this
and conclusions are always different though. Although this time it
gets seriously on my nerves: where did this reporter found out this
figure about missing children in Belgium? Kidnapping kids aren't our
favourite national sport, there are no more children disappearing than
in any other civilised country and beside amongst the figure she gave,
many of them are illegal minor immigrants that vanished away because
of foreign mafia networks. Please stop this crap about Belgium.
Besides the Dutroux's trial is planned.
Thierry Goffeau, Brussels
A I'm sorry you didn't like the programme. You may be very familiar
with the various journalists' views in Belgium but the British have
been spared this story. Far from "another story about Dutroux" in
Britain the story has hardly been told at all. It was all-new to
British viewers and they were shocked. The fact that Belgians have
grown so complacent about the hopeless inefficiency of their justice
system is not a recommendation.
These are the facts. There is still no date for the Dutroux trial. It
was planned for this year but I was told that it now wouldn't be
before 2003. The figure for missing children was obtained from Child
Focus and the Belgian police. There are no standardised figures in
Europe relating to child disappearances allowing one to compare
country with country so it impossible to say whether the problem is
more severe in Belgium than in other countries. What difference does
it make that many of the children are immigrant and are the prey of
international traffickers. They are still children and they still
"disappear". I spent a long time trying to get some sense out of the
Belgians about their missing children numbers. This was the
information they gave me.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q Olenka, I am filled with wonder and awe that having come so far in
your investigations and run up against the brick wall of self-defence
the ruling class has put in your path - you have not yourself gone
quite mad. I must also say that having been molested myself as I
child, I can only now assume I was immensely shrewd, at the age of 9,
in deciding that any attempt on my part to tell anyone about the
events would only lead to more suffering for me because, as I told
myself, 'no one will believe you, they'll call you a liar and hurt
you." What a clever kid. Now - here we are - all lining up to be told
what to do by Brussels!!! I'm overwhelmed at the crass stupidity of us
all! Congratulations on your splendid work -you will of course give up
someday - as we all do - and for the usual reasons - no one gives a
damn! Bravo!
Viv, England
A Thank you. You're right I was tempted many times to "give-up". It is
nice to know there's someone out there who appreciates it. That is
what keeps us going. Many people just don't want to know.
Olenka Frenkiel
" I get the strong impression that it's only sensationalism and very
little investigation "
Bart Luyckx
Q I find it bewildering that a BBC reporter has so much belief in what
people claim to know (and even uses fiction to support it) instead of
checking the facts. Your programme contains only the most sensational
(largely unsubstantiated) stories and very little facts. You even fail
to mention that Nihoul will be up for trial shortly, together with
Dutroux and several others. I get the strong impression that it's only
sensationalism and very little investigation. I thought I would learn
something new; instead I get disappointed over the new BBC standards
for investigative journalism. Nice job!
Bart Luyckx, Belgium
A I'm sorry you felt that way Bart. As I understand it there is no
decision yet as to whether Nihoul will come to trial. So far it is
only a recommendation by the Procureur du Roi Bourlet that Nihoul
should be taken to court. Those among the judiciary who disagree with
Bourlet - among whom I have some informed sources - claim that he will
not come to court for the Dutroux affair. We will see. You may have
your views about this case but you cannot deny there are many
unanswered questions, which show Belgium in rather a poor light. And
how do you explain the campaign against Regina Louf on RTBF? They
showed her parents as victims of a "mythomane" when they knew her
parents and her abuser had already confessed to the police that she
had been abused regularly as a child. The programme makers have
admitted this to me though they have never admitted this to their own
audience or attempted to rectify the false impression they presented.
Is this a preferable form of journalism to the one you saw on Sunday
night?
Olenka Frenkiel
It is all too common for those in high places to get away with
activities like this. The fact that the citizens of Belgium have given
up is testimony enough of the corruption of the state.
Adam McIntosh, USA
Well-done Olenka and the BBC for such a frank but disturbing
documentary. I hope now something will be done about this. I am
convinced it goes on the world over but people's reluctance to face
the truth allows it to go on with impunity.
Mark, UK
Brilliant piece of reporting but we have to have answers and if the
corruption is at the top of a country it must be routed out or it will
continue lies breed lies and for deceit there has to be trust please
don't give up the fight.
Alan Mikkelson, England
Broken Hearted. Why do we see the country at the centre of European
power and "justice" and they cannot smash these filthy paedophile
rings. The EU has to hammer this scourge over all of Europe.
Alan Hughes, Scotland
" I want to express my deep sympathy to the parents of the murdered
children, and hope they know that some of their fellow countrymen
haven't turned their back on them "
Marianne De Leye
Congratulations with the programme on the Belgian X-files. Personally
I am convinced of the existence of networks. What remains a mystery to
me is why the Belgian public, who marched with hundred thousands in
protest only a few years ago, can now be so forgetful and indifferent.
I want to express my deep sympathy to the parents of the murdered
children, and hope they know that some of their fellow countrymen
haven't turned their back on them.
Marianne De Leye, Belgium
A recent survey conducted showed Belgium to be second only to Italy
that in Antwerp exists a red light district holding many women from
Eastern Europe "prisoner". I say prisoner, because many of them do not
speak Dutch or French and have no viable means to live other than
prostitution. The hell these women go through are just so brutal. I
witnessed several times while buying groceries near my flat, women
being beaten by their pimps. I am thankful that I "believe" in my
country's system of justice. I can only pray and cry for those
children that suffered....
Lars, Sweden
I hope there will one day be a sequel to this programme, which will
contribute to closure of the file. Thanks and well done.
Adam Watson Brown, Belgium
" I have cried as if my mother had told me an ancient secret she never
dared to tell me before "
Nic de Potter
Congratulations Olenika!!! This was a great broadcast. I have cried as
if my mother had told me an ancient secret she never dared to tell me
before. Unfortunately the networkers' names were not mentioned because
of the secrecy of the 'on-going' investigation. Well done to the whole
team. Please continue.
Nic de Potter
Q Your online report states that Regina Louf was one of 11 people to
come forward to talk of their harrowing experiences - what do we know
of the other ten testimonies? Is there not a great deal more evidence
that can be compiled to prosecute this case?
Sally Jeffrey, UK
A Regina Louf agreed to go public after the police team investigating
her claims was dismissed. This has made it easier for independent
people, like journalists to investigate her claims and cross-examine
her to assess her testimony.
The other "X's" have remained anonymous and Marie-Jeanne Van Heeswyck
the journalist who co-wrote the book the "X Files" has talked to some
of them and seen their testimonies. They vary. Some are more lurid and
macabre, others less so. Some name the same people cited by Regina
Louf. But one of them, not Regina, very controversially names
Belgium's king. This is obviously very shocking to the Belgians and
many have reacted by recoiling from all the X witnesses in blanket
disbelief.
Because the investigation was stopped before it got very far, their
stories have not been exhaustively checked so it is impossible to say
whether they are truthful or correct. What most of them have in common
though is the "sex parties". They describe being taken as children to
houses, or flats where they were expected to perform sexual acts for
adult clients.
As any professional dealing with victims of abuse will tell you, such
people can be very damaged and it may be difficult in some cases to
know whether what they describe is the truth or a "false memory
syndrome". Each has to be assessed individually. Facts have been found
to corroborate Regina Louf's story. Whether that would also have been
true for the other X's is impossible to say as the investigation was
stopped before they could be verified. If you can read French I
recommend the book the X Files.
Olenka Frenkiel
" Would British policemen or magistrates get away without any
sanctions after such sloppy investigations "
Nora Prior
Q Could a scandal like this happen in England or are there safeguards
incorporated into the law governing police and justice administration
to avoid such cover-ups? Would British policemen or magistrates get
away without any sanctions after such sloppy investigations?
Nora Prior, Belgium
It's a question I kept asking myself over and over again as I was
working on this. I think we know that in Britain people have got away
with organised sexual abuse but usually in institutions, children's
homes, schools or churches. The perpetrators have been protected by
their organisations. Some of these rings have come out but I'm sure
some have gone unexposed.
The first I remember was in 1979/80 the Kincora children's home in
Northern Ireland which involved protestant clergy. Then there were the
Welsh children's homes, the boarding schools and in Ireland the
Catholic church.
There is obviously abuse in families. Newsnight did an incredible film
about Liverpool where a family of girls had tried to report the abuse
in their estate for years and had been ignored. This was a paedophile
ring which neither the social services nor the police would
investigate.
The Fred West case too was interesting. It was alleged that many
people came to that house and used the children there. But how many
others were prosecuted apart from Rose and Fred? There are those in
Britain who claim that it could and does happen here.
But I find it hard to believe that once the allegations and the
evidence reached the criminal justice system, the chain of events that
has unfolded in Belgium could happen here in Britain. I also don't
believe a defendant like Dutroux could stay in jail without trial for
this long without people asking questions.
The Sarah Payne killer came to trial within 18 months of the crime.
And I find it hard to imagine that heads would not roll if police here
failed to collect forensic evidence, to send the hairs for analysis,
or to test the DNA samples taken from the victims.
For all our faults here and I have reported them for many years, I
came to admire the relative simplicity of the British adversarial
system as opposed to the European "inquisitorial" system which few
people even in Belgium seem to understand and which seems to hold
no-one accountable for failure.
Olenka Frenkiel
" I wish you all the luck in the world to find out about the truth "
Peter De Schouwer
Q Dear BBC, I am happily surprised to see that you are investigating
one of so many scandals in this corrupt country. I wish you all the
luck in the world to find out about the truth.
Peter De Schouwer, Belgium
AThank you for your interest. This story is well known in Belgium,
albeit highly controversial. It is strange how little of it has been
told here in Britain. Olenka Frenkiel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post a follow-up to this message
Message 2 in thread
From: nan (nanl...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Belgium/Dutroux: Transcript Discussion w/Reporter Olenka Frenkiel
View this article only
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime
Date: 2004-03-05 12:30:41 PST
"news belgium detroux trial"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/programmes/correspondent_europe/1953293.stm.
It's a ).
BBC
Friday, 26 April, 2002, 13:45 GMT 14:45 UK
Belgium's X Files Forum: Have your say
Belgium's X-Files: an Olenka Frenkiel investigation
We apologise that due to unforeseen circumstances the live interactive
forum with Olenka Frenkiel and Marie-Jeanne Van Heeswyck has been
cancelled.
Olenka Frenkiel answers a selection of your e-mails
Q It seems sadly appropriate that in a story of dark-dealings,
cover-ups and hiding the truth, the live chat with Olenka Frankel and
Marie-Jeanne van Heeswyck should be mysteriously cancelled!
Toby Crozier, UK
A Nothing mysterious. I'm afraid the medium is new to us and some
unforeseen problems emerged. I won't bore you with the details but
basically it was my fault. Sorry.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q I was wondering if it was not possible that Europe's police forces
put pressure on the Belgium government. I always hear of concerted
busts of paedophile rings in Europe. And if the police forces cannot
do so could the European Union not step in and force them to solve
paedophilia in Belgium?
Suzan Demirates, England
A One might have thought so but you enter a marshmallowy world when
you try to talk to these Euro institutions. They can't even offer me
standardised statistics on missing children throughout Europe
comparing country by country. I would have thought that might be step
one in establishing whether Belgium is different or not.
Olenka Frenkiel
" Why do I have to look to BBC television to see things that nobody
want to say in Belgium "
Karel Goegebuer
Q Why do I have to look to BBC television to see things that nobody
want to say in Belgium. Why are the victims of Dutroux helped by a
Dutch television station and not by Belgian Government? Why do we have
a minister Verwilgen in Belgium who is afraid of saying anything? It
is good that other people who are in the Belgian government cannot
harm or say anything! Thank you for that.
Karel Goegebuer, Belgium
A Thank you for your email. Perhaps this is one good outcome of
"globalization" -
Olenka Frenkiel
Q What of the two girls found alive? Do they not have any damning
testimony? Well done on the programme by the way.
Jeff Evans, UK
A Thanks. The two living girls were drugged for most of the time they
were in the cellar and do not remember events very clearly. Rohypnol,
the date rape drug, was a favourite drug of Dutroux when he abducted
children. He even murdered a former accomplice by giving him rohypnol
and then burying him alive. His body was found with earth in the
lungs.
Laetitia the older survivor remembers Sabine trying to persuade her to
play a computer game, which Dutroux had provided but she was too
sleepy. They both told police Dutroux had raped them repeatedly - as
for anyone else, it's not clear. Laetitia was only there for just over
a week. They will probably be called to testify if and when Dutroux
eventually comes to trial. An excellent little documentary on Laetitia
was made by Dutch TV, which showed she had received no counselling or
psychological help after being released. A Dutch businesswoman has now
taken up her case and is paying for help and for her continued
education. I spoke to both girls but they have shied away from
publicity and I didn't want to press them.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q I have just seen the BBC programme, and am of course horrified by
the apparent mishandling of the 'X' files case. Is it possible to have
a more extensive media investigation of the claims and the many
unexplained deaths of witnesses in the case? Given the public attitude
in the UK towards paedophilia, could an approach not be made to a
major newspaper here so that an adequate investigation of all of the
threads of the case can be undertaken?
Andy Ross, UK
A Well I wrote the article in the Observer last Sunday - they were
really keen on the piece. And I have a lot more information about this
but there's a limit to how much you can cram into 45 minutes. There's
enough here for a book. Maybe you could write it?
Olenka Frenkiel
" The truth is that those journalists who tell the story complain that
they have been harassed, sacked, threatened and many say they have
been forced to stop reporting on this issue to continue working "
Olenka Frenkiel
Q The programme seemed to imply that at least one TV channel was
either directly or indirectly trying to discredit the suggestions that
Dutroux was not working alone. Are there countervailing opinions in
the media? Would, for instance, something like your own programme have
ever been made in Belgium?
Mark Bertenshaw, UK
A Yes there is a power struggle between the two views. I have had
emails from Belgians who say "Oh no not this again" and others who've
said - "why do we have to wait for foreigners to tell the truth about
our country. Why don't our own networks tell this story? The truth is
that those journalists who tell the story complain that they have been
harassed, sacked, threatened and many say they have been forced to
stop reporting on this issue to continue working. There is one rival
programme on RTBF that has occasionally tried to tell the other side
(my side) of the story but theirs has been a losing battle. I cannot
allege a conspiracy in Au Nom de La Loi but I can say that they
knowingly misrepresented Regina Louf as a lying fantasist who had
unfairly accused her innocent parents of giving her away for sex as a
child. They knew Regina's allegations were true as the parents and the
abuser had already admitted this to the police and the programme
makers knew this. Why they chose to misrepresent her? I don't know.
Why they chose to make a programme claiming Nihoul was innocent? I
don't know. Why they devoted another programme to "proving" that
Dutroux was an isolated pervert? I don't know.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q Have there been any discussions towards setting up an authority that
can work between countries in the pursuit of bringing to justice the
members of these rings of abusers. We are always seeking to put the
safety of our children above all else. The time is now to put the
actions in place instead of the empty words.
Hugh Aitkin, UK
A Yes there are lots of organisations, which claim to deal with
missing children. But ask them if, for example they have properly
collected standardised figures for European countries, comparing like
with like allowing us to see which country has the worst record and
which the best - none of them can provide this. Belgium, Holland,
France - all have huge police departments devoted to this problem -
there's something in Brussels, something in The Hague, there's
Interpol etc. But not one of them has allocated the public funding
they receive to this simple task of collating good information. That
to me is a scandal.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q How is holding Dutroux in what appears to be "protective custody"
compatible with The European Convention on Human Rights - i.e.
detention without trial? Have the parents no further appeal to
European Court of Human Rights?
Peter Williamson, UK
A The European convention says a "reasonable time" must not be
exceeded in jail without trial. It is now six years - that is
stretching it a bit. The rules are, you have to exhaust the legal
system in your own country before you can go to Europe. That has yet
to play itself out both for the Russos and Regina Louf and the
policemen involved. The problem for them is that the longer it is
dragged out, the more costly the legal fees and they just don't have
the resources for years and years of litigation. But they are trying.
Olenka Frenkiel
" Since the Belgian government and establishment are clearly
implicated, isn't it time that the much-vaunted EU Europol became
involved "
Brian Singleton
Q What an absolutely rational and compelling programme. Since the
Belgian government and establishment are clearly implicated, isn't it
time that the much-vaunted EU Europol became involved and carried out
an independent investigation?
Brian Singleton, UK
A Good luck. They can't even tell me how Belgium's missing children
record compares with that of other countries. I won't hold my breath.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q I was wondering if it was not possible that Europe's police forces
put pressure on the Belgium government. I always hear of concerted
busts of paedophile rings in Europe. And if the police forces cannot
do so could the European Union not step in and force them to solve
paedophilia in Belgium?
Suzan Demirates, England
A One might have thought so but you enter a marshmallowy world when
you try to talk to these Euro instritutions. They can't even offer me
standardised statistics on missing children throughout Europe
comparing country by country. I would have thought that might be step
one in establishing whether Belgium is different or not.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q One obvious thought strikes me: Why has nobody sat down with the
surviving girl(s) and shown them photos of all politicians serving at
that time - to see if any faces ring a bell?
Paul Dunwell, UK
A The two surviving girls will be witnesses if Dutroux comes to trial
so it is difficult to interview them as they have generally refused to
discuss details of their incarceration. The other problem is that
Dutroux kept his victims almost permanently anaesthetized. His drug of
choice was rohypnol the date rape drug that he administered as soon as
they were abducted and kept topping up. Consequently their memories
are hazy.
Besides the police did start to do that with the X witnesses but their
bosses have now dismissed all the progress they made as useless. The
authorities do have the names of those who are identified by victims.
So do I. We cannot publish them because we don't have the proof and
could therefore be sued for libel especially as the Procureur General
has dismissed the allegations as nonsense or fantasy. But the evidence
against 3 of them is quite strong according to the police to whom I
spoke - but they of-course are not allowed to continue with the
investigation.
Olenka Frenkiel
" What I don't understand is why there has not been more uproar about
this in Belgium "
Michael
Q What I have read has absolutely made my blood boil. What I don't
understand is why there has not been more uproar about this in
Belgium? Do the Belgian people not care, do they find it an
embarrassment and want to just forget about it? Politicians are
usually very quick to demand inquiries when there has been a foul-up
by the police, why not now?
Michael, Dublin, Ireland
A They seem to suffer from dutroux fatigue and an indignation that
their country is now known as a pedophile's haven. They were outraged
in 1996 and 1997 when they marched on Brussels. But they've had
enough. They're fed up with it and no longer really care. They also
are confused. They don't any more know whom to believe.
Olenka Frenkiel
A They seem to suffer from dutroux fatigue and an indignation that
their country is now known as a pedophile's haven. They were outraged
in 1996 and 1997 when they marched on Brussels. But they've had
enough. They're fed up with it and no longer really care. They also
are confused. They don't any more know whom to believe.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q Excellent programme. Do you think there are any lessons for the UK
Policing particularly in relation to the independence of
investigations and political or judicial influence of the police?
Stuart Hyde, UK
A After my research I strongly believe that our criminal justice
system is more effective and accountable in Britain than in Belgium.
But we have had our pedophile rings in Britain which have also been
ignored and uninvestigated by police and social services. I refer you
to the excellent Newsnight programme a year or so ago which exposed
such a ring in Liverpool and forced the authorities to stop ignoring
the testimonies they had had for years. Since the programme, which
elicited frank confessions from some of the perpetrators, they have
been prosecuted. Thanks for getting in touch.
Olenka Frenkiel
As a social worker I am utterly horrified about the apparent
mismanagement of this investigation and the implications about the
justice system in Belgium. Totally shocked and dismayed.
Sian McKinnon, Scotland
" It is demoralising to think that the rights we hold as sacred almost
can be so easily disregarded "
Anber Raz
I watched this investigative programme with great unease. It's
frustrating to think that this form of corruption could exist on such
a large scale, concerning such an horrific crime, yet there is nothing
that can be done about it. We are not as free, democratic as we think.
It is demoralising to think that the rights we hold as sacred almost
can be so easily disregarded. My deepest sympathies go to the parents
of these girls along with a hope that this investigation will
encourage people to lobby the Belgian government to take action.
Anber Raz, UK
Well, I've been left absolutely shell-shocked after watching you're
programme. Unfortunately words aren't enough but it is clear to see
that Belgium is protecting it's powerful which makes theses crimes
even more scary. I'd also just like to say how much I admire the
bravery of Regina. Thank you.
Mark Beecher, England
Firstly I'd just like to congratulate you on an excellent report,
which asked some urgent if awkward questions. I would like to ask why,
do you believe, child abuse, as sadistic and murderous as that
described by the Xs, continues, seemingly unchallenged in a civilised
society?
Elizabeth Scott, UK
You commented on various people who were going to tell the police
about the rapists...then they died before they got a chance. Did the
police ever look into these cases? Did they just dismiss them? Did
they not think maybe there was a link?
Clare Knight, England
" Thank you once again and lets not forget the girls "
Vivienne Boon
I just want to thank you for covering this story again. It should not
be forgotten, but the longer these cases go on the more passive people
become. Can we at least make sure that when the national press in the
country are telling as many lies as the officials, the foreign press
keep on hammering to get the truth...Thank you once again and lets not
forget the girls.
Vivienne Boon, Holland
Could you not get the European court to take over the investigation of
this horrifying case? Whatever you do I wish you good luck as the rest
of the world can surely have no faith in the Belgian justice system
now.
Pekelbe, UK
I am from Belgium and like all respectable people there I am horrified
by the Dutroux scandal. We have not forgotten Julie, Melissa and all
the other children who have disappeared or were abused or killed. We
all hope that justice will be done one day, and that the guilty -
whoever they are - will be punished, but what can we do? Maybe more
programmes like yours will help...
Brigitte Descy, UK
I wonder if the truth will come out after the 30-year rule has passed?
Congratulations on an excellent documentary.
Philip de Cadenet, UK
Spawned by the Internet, all recent cases of child exploitation have
proved to be communal in nature. As a tradesman I looked at the door
in the cellar and recognised a construction that put the builder at
the top of his trade and not short of intelligence; did he not imagine
what this was for or was he at least one of the network?
Gerry Pope, Ireland
I was the victim of a network in the UK featured by Sarah Macdonald. I
was ignored and branded a liar for years. It took the media to shame
the authorities into action and finally we got some justice. But only
after hundreds more victims. They put us through hell for it. I hope
you get some justice much if I can help in any way.
Shy Keenan, UK
'We apologise that due to unforeseen circumstances the live
interactive forum with Olenka Frenkiel and Marie-Jeanne Van Heeswyck
has been cancelled.' This sounds like yet another excuse to withhold
information in the 'Detroux' investigation. Your programme was much
appreciated and threw some fresh light on what has been, at the least,
yet another demoralising example of the corrupt Belgian legal system.
As an Anglophone living in Belgium I welcome investigative reports
into what must be one of Belgium's most notorious and obscene
miscarriages of justice in recent times. Continue the good work.
Nothing is being done here to resolve a story as awful as this one.
G.Egan, Belgium
There is nothing sinister in the cancellation - there were genuine
unforeseen problems. I won't bore you with the details but basically
it was my fault. Sorry.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q What is the feeling among the general population in Belgium now? And
will this be an active political issue in an election or is it a
cancer that is spread across the system, so no one wants to mention
it.
Liam, Ireland
" There is no doubt among Belgians - that the Belgian Justice system
is seriously flawed "
Olenka Frenkiel
A Hard to know really. My feeling was that they are sick to death of
hearing about it. It is said that Belgium is divided between
"believers" and "non-believers" - i.e. those who believe Regina Louf
and de Baets and those who don't. I felt it rather differently almost
every person you ask will volunteer the opinion that something has
been covered up, something stinks, something is not normal about the
Dutroux affair and the way it has been dealt with. But they have had
enough of mystery and conspiracy theory. They no longer have any
patience to concentrate on the details and can't bear to listen to any
more horror stories.
They feel they can't do anything about it and want to get on with
their lives. But there is no doubt among Belgians from a very senior
Government advisor I met down to the ordinary citizen - that the
Belgian Justice system is seriously flawed. A series of 28 murders in
the 1980s, known as the supermarket murders in which 28 people were
shot in supermarket car-parks in mafia style hits has never been
solved. The shootings had the same signature and some of the guns used
were tracked to the gendarmerie. The socialist politician Andre Cools
was killed in 1991 and that has never come to trial. As one senior
Belgian said to me citing these examples "You must not underestimate
how bad Belgian justice is."
Olenka Frenkiel
Q Couldn't the European Court of Human Rights take up this case?
Lauren Millar, England
A The lawyers of Dutroux and Michel Martin, his wife have threatened
to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights. European law
says prisoners cannot be held without trial for more than "a
reasonable time" The fact that they have been held without trial for 6
years is stretching that definition.
But I take it your question refers not to Dutroux's human rights but
to Regina's. I think the rule there is that you have to have exhausted
the law courts of your own country before you can take the case to
Europe. The two people who are fighting are Patriek de Baets, (the
policeman who first interviewed Regina) and his colleague Aime Bille.
If they don't get justice through their own courts they plan to take
it to Europe. But the whole process is very expensive for them - the
legal fees are punitive. So far they have won all the cases in
Belgium. It's just the process is slow because they don't have the
funding.
Olenka Frenkiel
As I watched the programme I felt sick at the thought of what those
poor girls, only 2 years younger than myself, endured. If these men
are not brought to justice in this life I hope they pay in the next.
Amy, England
I've just seen the documentary you made about the X-files of those
poor children in Belgium. It was a very touching piece of work with a
very powerful message. I want to congratulate you and wish you luck on
any further investigation. I would also like to send condolences to
the parents of those girls, and may their souls rest in peace. Thank
you.
Elizabeth, England
It is always the ordinary person in the street who are prayed on by
the officials the rich and the powerful this programme demonstrates
just how these people get away with murder until the ordinary man in
the street says enough is enough an independent outside of Belgium
group should be bought in to investigate the perpetrators of the
original crimes and also the people who helped to hide them for as
they are as guilty as the perverts.
Rebecca Gourlay, England
" As a Police officer with 22 years service here in England I am
astounded at the treatment of my fellow colleagues in Belgium "
Tony Jenkins
As a Police officer with 22 years service here in England I am
astounded at the treatment of my fellow colleagues in Belgium. I don't
believe the government here in England could get away with this.
Although I don't know the ins and outs of the Belgian matters my gut
reaction is that this corruption reaches the highest echelons of the
Belgian government. They should be ashamed of their treatment of this
investigation! When corruption reaches these levels it is unlikely
those poor parents will ever find the truth, but I wish them well
Tony Jenkins, England
This was a shocking report on the investigation (or the lack of it) in
the Dutroux affaire. We got more information from you than we EVER got
from Belgian media. We feel betrayed by the Belgian media and
politicians who apparently hope that the entire story will be
forgotten.
Przemko Tylzanowski & Kristin Verschueren, Belgium
I find it odd that the Belgian authorities discount the possibility of
a network particularly in the light of the recent news that a network
appears to have been operating in Auxerre in France where from memory
18 young women have disappeared and two investigating magistrates have
been heavily criticised and files have gone missing!
Stephen, England
It seems obvious that someone doesn't want the truth to come out.
Cover up? I think so, anyone with their eyes open must think so. If
this is the case, then surely there are powerful people in the
Government, Justice, and Police involved in child abuse in Belgium.
Maybe it is time that the European Union gets involved. Also, who is
to say that what has happened in Belgium may also have happened in
other countries, the UK included. Thank you for showing the programme,
and I hope the children, their parents, and Belgium eventually get
some justice.
Cenwyn Jones, UK
Could not the unfortunate parents take the matter to the European
Court? If money is a problem, could not a fund be set up to which I
would gladly contribute?
John Hart, England
I had a pen friend in Ghent at the same time the abductions happened
and he worked in the police force. He suddenly stopped writing. It
seemed a little odd as we had been writing a lot. I just wonder if he
was involved?
Nessa Rumens, UK
I cannot believe that such an evil has gone unpunished! 20 people died
mysteriously and yet nothing has been uncovered. I shudder with fear
at the children that go missing in Belgium and around the world. It is
a scandal and you should not give up - KEEP SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH!
Karen Balman, England
When a country's judicial system seems incapable of investigating a
straightforward case - forensic evidence should even now, still be
possible, and certainly in this country I suspect that exhumation
would still deliver forensic evidence. If the Belgians cannot collect
such evidence, can the citizens sue for breach of their human rights
based on the incompetence of their government, and have the case
investigated by an independent authority, does it make any sense to
form a European criminal investigation unit?
Every country has had its problems - remember when the newly appointed
Chief of Police came in and sacked the whole of the Manchester Fraud
squad? With regard to sacking a magistrate that had dinner with
victims and supported their fund raising, I agree this was unwise, but
a conflict of interest is not necessarily proven. No one can be more
partial than the parents of the victims, but surely they only want to
see the right people brought to justice, not any person at any cost.
In view of the public outcry, I think the Belgians should reinstate
the Magistrate.
Fay Green, UK
" I find it really terrible that a major country like Belgium should
hide investigation into such a sick network "
V B Rumsey
Good luck with your investigation. I find it really terrible that a
major country like Belgium should hide investigation into such a sick
network. Come on, Belgium, wake up and expose the truth.
V B Rumsey, England
Thank you for a clear-sighted report of a very murky area. Because I
have had to listen to the testimonies of people who have experienced
similar networks in the UK, I very much value airtime given to saying
things, which are not palatable to many. Good wishes, and thanks
Julian Turner, UK
I am utterly disgusted that a country as developed as Belgium could
allow such a travesty to happen. The Belgian people must be terrified
for the safety of their children. Clearly this is a massive cover up
in order to protect people whom the government of Belgium feels are
worthy of such protection. I am utterly horrified by this, and feel
that surely there is something that other countries within Europe can
do to investigate this terrible cover up
Stu Briscoe, UK
I found the programme extremely interesting and disturbing. What I
don't understand is why most Belgians seem to accept the situation
after their initial strong protest. Doesn't the desire to protect
their own children over ride all other concerns?
Eleanor Dobson, UK
Q What your investigation failed (or wasn't allowed) to mention that a
growing number of issues have arisen concerning possible links between
the alleged protection of Dutroux et al & the Belgian Royal Family. In
2000 a French journalist published a book allegedly proving links
between paedophile networks & the Royal Family of Belgium, It was of
course outlawed to be published here & was hushed up surprisingly
quickly.
Steve McMillan, Belgium
" The problems with the allegations against the King are that they are
not very well substantiated and we would not want to accuse anyone,
King or not, of such a crime unless there were substantial evidence "
Olenka Frenkiel
A We are aware of the book. There were many aspects of the case that
weren't squeezed in to the 45 minutes we are allocated. There was a
lot to explain to a British audience who know almost nothing about the
case. So we left a lot of extremely strong material out - simple
because we could not fit it in. The problems with the allegations
against the King are that they are not very well substantiated and we
would not want to accuse anyone, King or not, of such a crime unless
there were substantial evidence.
I have asked many people on all sides of the case about the
allegations against the King. Even among those who are convinced of a
network involving very senior Belgians - even among those who believe
there has been a cover up - there are very few whom the Nicholas book
convinces and some even fear it may be a red herring deliberately
planted into the story to discredit the other stronger evidence. Where
you have a cover-up, conspiracy theories proliferate. But if I had an
extra 30 minutes to add to the programme, the material about the Royal
family would not make it.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q Another investigation on the Dutroux affair? Fair enough....
unfortunately this reporter is simply showing her vision of this
terrible affair...every other journalist has his "truth" about this
and conclusions are always different though. Although this time it
gets seriously on my nerves: where did this reporter found out this
figure about missing children in Belgium? Kidnapping kids aren't our
favourite national sport, there are no more children disappearing than
in any other civilised country and beside amongst the figure she gave,
many of them are illegal minor immigrants that vanished away because
of foreign mafia networks. Please stop this crap about Belgium.
Besides the Dutroux's trial is planned.
Thierry Goffeau, Brussels
A I'm sorry you didn't like the programme. You may be very familiar
with the various journalists' views in Belgium but the British have
been spared this story. Far from "another story about Dutroux" in
Britain the story has hardly been told at all. It was all-new to
British viewers and they were shocked. The fact that Belgians have
grown so complacent about the hopeless inefficiency of their justice
system is not a recommendation.
These are the facts. There is still no date for the Dutroux trial. It
was planned for this year but I was told that it now wouldn't be
before 2003. The figure for missing children was obtained from Child
Focus and the Belgian police. There are no standardised figures in
Europe relating to child disappearances allowing one to compare
country with country so it impossible to say whether the problem is
more severe in Belgium than in other countries. What difference does
it make that many of the children are immigrant and are the prey of
international traffickers. They are still children and they still
"disappear". I spent a long time trying to get some sense out of the
Belgians about their missing children numbers. This was the
information they gave me.
Olenka Frenkiel
Q Olenka, I am filled with wonder and awe that having come so far in
your investigations and run up against the brick wall of self-defence
the ruling class has put in your path - you have not yourself gone
quite mad. I must also say that having been molested myself as I
child, I can only now assume I was immensely shrewd, at the age of 9,
in deciding that any attempt on my part to tell anyone about the
events would only lead to more suffering for me because, as I told
myself, 'no one will believe you, they'll call you a liar and hurt
you." What a clever kid. Now - here we are - all lining up to be told
what to do by Brussels!!! I'm overwhelmed at the crass stupidity of us
all! Congratulations on your splendid work -you will of course give up
someday - as we all do - and for the usual reasons - no one gives a
damn! Bravo!
Viv, England
A Thank you. You're right I was tempted many times to "give-up". It is
nice to know there's someone out there who appreciates it. That is
what keeps us going. Many people just don't want to know.
Olenka Frenkiel
" I get the strong impression that it's only sensationalism and very
little investigation "
Bart Luyckx
Q I find it bewildering that a BBC reporter has so much belief in what
people claim to know (and even uses fiction to support it) instead of
checking the facts. Your programme contains only the most sensational
(largely unsubstantiated) stories and very little facts. You even fail
to mention that Nihoul will be up for trial shortly, together with
Dutroux and several others. I get the strong impression that it's only
sensationalism and very little investigation. I thought I would learn
something new; instead I get disappointed over the new BBC standards
for investigative journalism. Nice job!
Bart Luyckx, Belgium
A I'm sorry you felt that way Bart. As I understand it there is no
decision yet as to whether Nihoul will come to trial. So far it is
only a recommendation by the Procureur du Roi Bourlet that Nihoul
should be taken to court. Those among the judiciary who disagree with
Bourlet - among whom I have some informed sources - claim that he will
not come to court for the Dutroux affair. We will see. You may have
your views about this case but you cannot deny there are many
unanswered questions, which show Belgium in rather a poor light. And
how do you explain the campaign against Regina Louf on RTBF? They
showed her parents as victims of a "mythomane" when they knew her
parents and her abuser had already confessed to the police that she
had been abused regularly as a child. The programme makers have
admitted this to me though they have never admitted this to their own
audience or attempted to rectify the false impression they presented.
Is this a preferable form of journalism to the one you saw on Sunday
night?
Olenka Frenkiel
It is all too common for those in high places to get away with
activities like this. The fact that the citizens of Belgium have given
up is testimony enough of the corruption of the state.
Adam McIntosh, USA
Well-done Olenka and the BBC for such a frank but disturbing
documentary. I hope now something will be done about this. I am
convinced it goes on the world over but people's reluctance to face
the truth allows it to go on with impunity.
Mark, UK
Brilliant piece of reporting but we have to have answers and if the
corruption is at the top of a country it must be routed out or it will
continue lies breed lies and for deceit there has to be trust please
don't give up the fight.
Alan Mikkelson, England
Broken Hearted. Why do we see the country at the centre of European
power and "justice" and they cannot smash these filthy paedophile
rings. The EU has to hammer this scourge over all of Europe.
Alan Hughes, Scotland
" I want to express my deep sympathy to the parents of the murdered
children, and hope they know that some of their fellow countrymen
haven't turned their back on them "
Marianne De Leye
Congratulations with the programme on the Belgian X-files. Personally
I am convinced of the existence of networks. What remains a mystery to
me is why the Belgian public, who marched with hundred thousands in
protest only a few years ago, can now be so forgetful and indifferent.
I want to express my deep sympathy to the parents of the murdered
children, and hope they know that some of their fellow countrymen
haven't turned their back on them.
Marianne De Leye, Belgium
A recent survey conducted showed Belgium to be second only to Italy
that in Antwerp exists a red light district holding many women from
Eastern Europe "prisoner". I say prisoner, because many of them do not
speak Dutch or French and have no viable means to live other than
prostitution. The hell these women go through are just so brutal. I
witnessed several times while buying groceries near my flat, women
being beaten by their pimps. I am thankful that I "believe" in my
country's system of justice. I can only pray and cry for those
children that suffered....
Lars, Sweden
I hope there will one day be a sequel to this programme, which will
contribute to closure of the file. Thanks and well done.
Adam Watson Brown, Belgium
" I have cried as if my mother had told me an ancient secret she never
dared to tell me before "
Nic de Potter
Congratulations Olenika!!! This was a great broadcast. I have cried as
if my mother had told me an ancient secret she never dared to tell me
before. Unfortunately the networkers' names were not mentioned because
of the secrecy of the 'on-going' investigation. Well done to the whole
team. Please continue.
Nic de Potter
Q Your online report states that Regina Louf was one of 11 people to
come forward to talk of their harrowing experiences - what do we know
of the other ten testimonies? Is there not a great deal more evidence
that can be compiled to prosecute this case?
Sally Jeffrey, UK
A Regina Louf agreed to go public after the police team investigating
her claims was dismissed. This has made it easier for independent
people, like journalists to investigate her claims and cross-examine
her to assess her testimony.
The other "X's" have remained anonymous and Marie-Jeanne Van Heeswyck
the journalist who co-wrote the book the "X Files" has talked to some
of them and seen their testimonies. They vary. Some are more lurid and
macabre, others less so. Some name the same people cited by Regina
Louf. But one of them, not Regina, very controversially names
Belgium's king. This is obviously very shocking to the Belgians and
many have reacted by recoiling from all the X witnesses in blanket
disbelief.
Because the investigation was stopped before it got very far, their
stories have not been exhaustively checked so it is impossible to say
whether they are truthful or correct. What most of them have in common
though is the "sex parties". They describe being taken as children to
houses, or flats where they were expected to perform sexual acts for
adult clients.
As any professional dealing with victims of abuse will tell you, such
people can be very damaged and it may be difficult in some cases to
know whether what they describe is the truth or a "false memory
syndrome". Each has to be assessed individually. Facts have been found
to corroborate Regina Louf's story. Whether that would also have been
true for the other X's is impossible to say as the investigation was
stopped before they could be verified. If you can read French I
recommend the book the X Files.
Olenka Frenkiel
" Would British policemen or magistrates get away without any
sanctions after such sloppy investigations "
Nora Prior
Q Could a scandal like this happen in England or are there safeguards
incorporated into the law governing police and justice administration
to avoid such cover-ups? Would British policemen or magistrates get
away without any sanctions after such sloppy investigations?
Nora Prior, Belgium
It's a question I kept asking myself over and over again as I was
working on this. I think we know that in Britain people have got away
with organised sexual abuse but usually in institutions, children's
homes, schools or churches. The perpetrators have been protected by
their organisations. Some of these rings have come out but I'm sure
some have gone unexposed.
The first I remember was in 1979/80 the Kincora children's home in
Northern Ireland which involved protestant clergy. Then there were the
Welsh children's homes, the boarding schools and in Ireland the
Catholic church.
There is obviously abuse in families. Newsnight did an incredible film
about Liverpool where a family of girls had tried to report the abuse
in their estate for years and had been ignored. This was a paedophile
ring which neither the social services nor the police would
investigate.
The Fred West case too was interesting. It was alleged that many
people came to that house and used the children there. But how many
others were prosecuted apart from Rose and Fred? There are those in
Britain who claim that it could and does happen here.
But I find it hard to believe that once the allegations and the
evidence reached the criminal justice system, the chain of events that
has unfolded in Belgium could happen here in Britain. I also don't
believe a defendant like Dutroux could stay in jail without trial for
this long without people asking questions.
The Sarah Payne killer came to trial within 18 months of the crime.
And I find it hard to imagine that heads would not roll if police here
failed to collect forensic evidence, to send the hairs for analysis,
or to test the DNA samples taken from the victims.
For all our faults here and I have reported them for many years, I
came to admire the relative simplicity of the British adversarial
system as opposed to the European "inquisitorial" system which few
people even in Belgium seem to understand and which seems to hold
no-one accountable for failure.
Olenka Frenkiel
" I wish you all the luck in the world to find out about the truth "
Peter De Schouwer
Q Dear BBC, I am happily surprised to see that you are investigating
one of so many scandals in this corrupt country. I wish you all the
luck in the world to find out about the truth.
Peter De Schouwer, Belgium
AThank you for your interest. This story is well known in Belgium,
albeit highly controversial. It is strange how little of it has been
told here in Britain. Olenka Frenkiel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alan Hope
>Neither you nor Alan Hope, nor anyone else can suppress nor control
>what is freely posted and commented upon about the Dutroux case.
But you need to substantiate your rejection of my corrections. I can
point out in every case where I say the reports you post are wrong.
You merely swipe my objections aside for no better reason than that I
posted them.
Your utterly abject style of argument is not something you can deny.
Your "Belgian citizen" reporting on the march of 300,000 was in fact
an NYU professor who'd been on a visit. Your other main source was a
nutty Irish website claiming Satanists under every bed.
Do yourself a favour and either get better sources, or shut the fuck
up.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>"news belgium detroux trial"
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/programmes/correspondent_europe/1953293.stm.
>It's a ).
1700 lines, posted for the umpteenth time, in which Olenka backs her
own reporting.
What are you attempting to prove? The majority of her correspondents
are complaining that the *British* haven't seen enough of this case.
Do you have any idea of how much coverage it has had in Belgium? Of
course not. You're not able to read and understand those sources, are
you?
You can't even tell the difference between a "Belgium citizen who
should know" and a New York University professor writing for a New
York newspaper.
So much for "research".
--
AH
John Stevens
> tenuous connection to the accused, or none at all. And nothing that
> could be linked to the actual charges themselves. It's all very well
> to say that Tagliaferro knew Dutroux, but that's the answer to the
> wrong question. So what if he did?
Fair enough. All I can say is that I find the times of death and (in
many cases) connections with the Charleroi underworld, very striking.
> The death of Gerard Vannesse wasn't even suspicious.
Yes, I agree with you on this one.
> Anne Thily is being given, by accounts such as Frenkels, more weight
> than she merits. She's the superior magistrate for the
> parquet-general, as you probably know, but has no particular insight
> into the case. She made intemperate statements and ought, as is often
> the case, to have kept her big mouth shut.
On this we will have to agree to disagree. I do not believe that she
was speaking out of ignorance, I think she was lying.
> It's my view that M-J is quite a bit more circumspect than Frenkel was, though.
I'm not sure (although I have never met any of these people). The
Journal du Mardi made a great issue (several months later) of Olenka's
interview of Anne Thily. I do not have a copy of this to hand, though,
so I cannot say if she contributed to this.
> The question of the hair samples is still being misunderstood. They
> are being analysed.
They are being analysed at a snail's pace. And I do not think the UK
public would have been very impressed if, say, the authorities had
announced, before the trial for the murder of Holly and Jessica, that
they had found 5000 hairs in Huntley's house, but they were going to
investigate them in a separate enquiry, beginning at some unspecified
date after the trial.
The same applies to the microtraces, including DNA of an unknown
individual that appears on the wall of the cage, mixed with the blood
of one of the children (DNA for 26 unidentified people has been found
in total in Dutroux's house in Marcinelle, I believe).
Hairs are not the smoking gun the public thinks they are, of course.
But it is a fair bet some of them would have hair-roots or skin
attached, and these would provide a DNA sample.
> Yes. Are you going to tell me Brewaeys and Deliege are bought men?
I find it difficult to believe that they wrote their books and
articles in good faith. But I have no idea what their motives are.
> One example of what?
The most commonly held view is that X1's testimony of Christine Van
Hees's murder has been discredited, even if the accuracy of her
description of the building is frequently acknowledged. But there are
many aspects of the investigation, independent of Regina's own
testimony, which make me uncomfortable.
Collignon (head of the initial investigation) attended sex-parties at
the Dolo, when Nihoul did. The Etterbeek police received a call
shortly after the murder telling them to pay attention to the Dolo if
they wanted leads, and they were given the precise address. But the
Neufchateau investigators did not know this, because the office
transcript referred to 'Chez Dolores' and no address was specified.
The truth only came out because Bille smelt a rat, and took the
trouble of listening to the original tape.
Actually, Collignon was the co-chief of the investigation in 1984. The
other one was identified by X2 as a participant at another sex-party
where acts of paedophilia took place.
All this makes me uncomfortable because Nihoul was 'big in the
eighties' and would not have hesitated to try and use blackmail if he
thought that it might have helped him. His fellow participant's at the
sex parties included people such as Jean Gol (minister of justice) and
Gol's right hand man.
And do not forget that Pascal Lamarque (the person who exchanged 9
letters with Christine Van Hees in the months shortly before her
death) was closely linked with Nihoul and Bouty. We know this because
the Belgian Intelligence Service informed the Neufchateau
investigators of this. Pascal Lamarque was definitely innocent of the
crime though (he was in prison in Verviers).
> You must be aware of the thousands of tips, anonymous and otherwise,
> denouncing this person and that since Connerotte set up his
> green-line. I should hope that investigators don't automatically drag
> people in for questioning on the basis of no more than unfounded tips.
'The brothers XXXX were denounced by anonymous letters, X1, X2 and
Chantal Storme. All these sources talked of acts of extreme violence
committed by 'the brothers'. I expect these leads to be followed up,
because they have no obvious links with Dutroux and Nihoul (who were
indeed seen, for a time, behind every tree and lamp-post in Belgium).
It is impossible for these different sources to talk about the
brothers in this way unless the recollections had become contaminated
in some way, or they themselves were part of a criminal conspiracy
aimed at discrediting, blackmailing, or whatever, the brothers XXXX.
But the police never found any evidence of this, even though they
searched thoroughly (quite rightly) for this. The next, elementary
step, would have been to question the brothers XXXX and carry out
investigations in Knokke, where the brothers XXX live, and where X1,
X2. Chantal Storme, 2 anonymous letters and 1 anonymous phone call,
say that the alleged offences took place.
Now of course, we will never know the truth about the brothers XXXX
because, as I said before, the investigators De Baets and Bille were
accused of collusion with the X's, suspended and the investigation
stopped. The policeman were exonerated three years later (and
completely exonerated, they were not simply let off on a technicality,
or because there was insufficient proof), but the investigation was,
and still is, suspended.
It seems to me to be the most elementary logic that if the policeman
are reinstated, then the investigation should continue where it was
left off. Or maybe you don't agree?
> And when it's clear that Nihoul and Dutroux never knew each other at
> that early date? The same people who find it very strange a Brussels
> man shouldhave his car repaired by a Charleroi petty crook seem to
> have no trouble believing the same Charleroi crook would have access
> to a sex-ring involving top names. Can you really imagine those people
> having anything to do with a "marginal" like Dutroux?
I agree with you 100% that many of the people Regina claims to have
seen, were not in fact there. I know how bad eye-witness
identifications of people are. And I am extremely sceptical of ALL
uncorroborated eye-witness accounts, especially when recalling events
that are several years old.
It is highly unlikely that Nihoul and Dutroux were both present when
Regina said they were. She was, in my opinion, almost certainly
mistaken. But her accounts describing the brothers XXXX must be taken
seriously because of the same accusations made by X2. Chantal Storme,
2 anonymous letters and 1 anonymous phone call. And they were....
until the investigation was suspended.
> The Cour de Cassation had no option but to
> remove Connerotte, or risk jeopardising the whole case.
As I said before, legally you are correct. From a common sense point
of view, I do not see how attending a meal, with the parents, affects
Connerotte's ability to investigate. Eating spaghetti with the parents
does not automatically make Connerotte prejudiced towards Dutroux.
In Britain, the role of the investigated magistrate is played by the
police (in a murder investigation there is a Senior Investigating
Officer, of course). I cannot think of a single case in Britain were
an SIO has been criticized by a murder suspect for showing solidarity
with the parents of a victim.
> Perhaps. Neufchateau is a very small office, though. What would have
> been better?
You may have a point there. Do the rules say a replacement magistrate
must already attached to Neufchateau? I don't know the answer to that
one.
> Thily again. She needs to be muzzled.
I am rather pleased that she wasn't! My suspicion (purely speculation,
of course) is that she talked the way that she did because she is so
used to be given royal treatment by Belgian journalists, who tend to
treat it as an honour if any public figure is gracious enough to give
an interview. Olenka's is probably the first and last interview that
Thily will ever give to an aggressive anglo-saxon journalist.
> At which time there was not the slightest indication that Nihoul was
> involved. No conflict of interest there.
There ws no conflict of interest in 1984, I agree. The problem is that
Van Espen was also the investigating magistrate in this case after
Regina accused Bouty and Nihoul of involvement. He really should made
his links clear at this stage. But he didn't, we had to wait for
journalists to uncover this.
>--- Van Espen orders the police officers to stay out of the case ---
>The role of Van Espen in the suspension of Bille and Debaets is very
>murky.
He played a significant role, with Duterme, in the 're-reading' of the
transcripts, which lead to the erroneous suspension of Bille and De
Baets.
> So that's good, no?
As I said previously. Van Espen should have admitted his links to
Nihoul and Bouty, and not wait for them to be uncovered by
journalists.
> You mean investigation of Regina's allegations? There's no way any of
> that is ever going to get to a court now.
Don't be so sure. The same two brothers XXXX have also been accused,
by completely independent witnesses, of acts of paedophilia which is
going on today. But not in Belgium; these acts are taking place on the
Spanish island of Ibiza (where the brothers XXXX are major
landowners). These accusations are in the hands of the UK
authorities, and they have been passed on to Spain.
Not proof, sure. But these brothers XXXX are on a watch-list of many
countries now. If they ever get arrested, then we will REALLY see the
sparks fly in Belgum..
> I'm afraid I'm not immediately going to jump to the conclusion of a cover-up
I am not asking you to. I was merely drawing your attention to some of
the more unsavoury aspects of the Belgian investigation (or rather
'non-investigation')
> Do you have a cite for this?
I will try and find it for you. My understanding is that it came about
around the time that Thily accused Bourlet of talking to too many
journalists, and forbad him from doing so. When the tap was revealed
her hastily convened defence was that it was done to make sure that he
was not talking to journalists.
As soon as I find the source (or I am forced to own up that I got it
wrong) I will get back to you on this.
> Diakostavrianos has been excluded from all suspicion in
> the Dutroux case, however.
Not for me he hasn't! I find it hard to believe that anyone could
spend so much time in Dutroux's company, and accompany him on his
travels to Eastern Europe, and not be involved in criminal activity
with him. Judging from the leaked files, Langlois did not spend very
much time investigating Diakostavrianos.
nan
Alan spouts:
> nan goes:"news belgium detroux trial"
> are complaining that the *British* haven't seen enough of this case.
> Do you have any idea of how much coverage it has had in Belgium? Of
> course not. You're not able to read and understand those sources, are
> you? You can't even tell the difference between a "Belgium citizen who
> should know" and a New York University professor writing for a New
> York newspaper. So much for "research".
Source: The Human Life Review
Published: Spring 1997 Author: Alexandra Cohen
Alexandra Cohen, a member of the Belgian Parliament, is the mother of
five young children and a former lecturer (in Linguistics) at the
universities of Ghent and Antwerp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was Christianity that brought a fundamentally difference view of
humanity.
A human being no longer belonged to his master but to God.
Our society is gradually becoming a post-Christian society in which
there is a return to the pre-Christian vision of man.
The process is underway but has not yet fully completed itself.
Hence, we object not only to the murder of Julie, Melissa, An, Eefje
and Loubna, but also to the way in which they were raped and abused as
objects of for the satisfaction of sexual lust.
But we do not object to using people as objects when they consent to
it.
And we do not object to aborting unborn human beings.
If this process continues, the day may well come
when we consider the crimes committed on the Belgian children as only
infringements of their parents' property rights!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Post-Christian Realities
By Alexandra Cohen
In march of this year, yet another body of a cruelly murdered child
was found in Belgium. It was the corpse of nine-year old Loubna, who
was abducted, sexually abused, tortured, and murdered five years ago.
Loubna is victim number five, after Julie, Melissa, An and Eefje.
About a dozen other children (mostly girls but also a few boys) are
still missing. Some of them disappeared as long as twenty years ago.
A colleague of mine is a member of the Parliamentary Commission set up
to investigate what went wrong in the judicial inquiry into the
child-abuse cases. He saws that Belgian authorities expect to find
more corpses in the near future. Thus, by the time you read this,
Belgium will possibly have attended yet another funeral for a child
who was sadistically abused and murdered.
Let me introduce myself: I am a politician, a member of the Belgian
Parliament, and a mother of five, three girls and two boys. My eldest
child is thirteen, my youngest five. When Loubna was found and the
details of her death emerged, it made me physically ill. Many parents
in Belgium feel sick these days and, unfortunately, it seems that our
predicament has not yet ended.
The sewers of Belgium started opening last August when police officers
succeeded in rescuing Sabine and Laetitia, two young girls of twelve
and fourteen, who had been kidnapped during the preceding months. The
girls were liberated from a dungeon where they had been kept as living
sexual toys for perverts. Soon after the discovery of Sabine and
Laetitia, they found the bodies of Julie and Melissa, two eight-year
old girls who had been abducted in June 1995. They had been locked up,
then violently raped and tortured for months before they were finally
starved to death (evidently in February, 1996).
In September 1996, a month after the gruesome discovery of Julie and
Melissa, the bodies of An and Eefje were found. These young women,
seventeen and nineteen years old, had also been abducted in August of
the previous year. The police never disclosed the terrible things that
happened to them nor in what circumstances they died. Possibly the
authorities think that Belgians will not be able to stomach the
horror?
The only thing we know is that An and Eefje had been kidnapped, abused
and finally murdered by the same gang that abducted Julie, Melissa,
Sabine and Laetitia.
This gang was led by a man called Marc Dutroux, who had a record of
sexual abuse.
He had been convicted and sentenced (in April 1989) to a 13-year
prison term for the rape of five children and the sexual torture of an
elderly woman. In view of his good conduct in jail (no potential
victims victims ), his term was shortened. This was compounded by an
amnesty granted by the King of Belgium, which led to his being
released in April 1992. Americans may find it hard to believe what
happened next but then you do not live in a welfare state.
What happened was that after leaving prison, Marc Dutroux applied for
and received official invalid status, which entitled him to generous
welfare benefits. Dutroux claimed that this imprisonment had led to
psychological damage, which meant that he, as former electrician,
would never be able to work for a living again. As a consequence,
together with Michelle Martin, his wife and accomplice (in kidnapping
children and locking them up, though not in sexually abusing them), he
received a monthly check of 80,000 Belgian francs ($2,700!) from the
Belgian welfare system.
Part of this money was used by Dutroux to build cells in some of the
cellars of the eight (!) houses he owned. He needed the cells to
imprison girls.
This was common knowledge to some of his friends, one of whom duly
informed the police authorities in October, 1993. However, the police
did not react. After the first girls had been abducted, it took more
than one full year before the police started to consider Marc Dutroux
as a serious suspect. He was arrested rather coincidentally because a
nun, whose hobby it was to learn license plates by heart, remembered
having seen his car near the place where Laetitia had been abducted.
As a result, police were able to release Sabine (kidnapped on May 28,
1996) and Laetitia (kidnapped on August 9) alive from Dutroux's
dungeons last August 15th.
Shortly after the arrest of Dutroux and his wife, a Brussels
businessman, Michel Nihoul, was arrested. It is not clear whether
Dutroux kidnapped the children on the order of Nihoul or whether
Nihoul was just a customer who rented or bought girls from Dutroux.
Nihoul was involved in organising sex parties for all kinds of
perverts in high places, such as the army, the police the judiciary,
and political and media circles.
Rumours about the sex parties, the so-called "Pink Ballets" (les
Ballets Roses), have been rampant in Belgium for about two decades.
The names of prominent politicians and even the present Belgian King,
Albert (who succeeded his brother in 1993 and used to have a
reputation for being a playboy), had been mentioned in this
connection, but nobody had been able to prove anything. Rumours about
the "Pink Ballets" persisted, but many journalists denounced them as
being the Belgian political equivalent of the Loch Ness monster.
Though some claim to have seen its shadow, serious people do not
believe it exists.
Victim number five, Loubna, was kidnapped by a car mechanic, Patrick
Derochette, on a sunny afternoon in August, 1992, when the nine-year
old girl was on her way to a grocery shop and walked past Derochette's
garage, one street away from where she lived. Like Dutroux, Derochette
also had a criminal record for sexual perversity regarding children.
He had previously raped four boys and had spent seven weeks (yes, not
even a full two months!) in prison for these crimes because doctors
claimed he was some kind of lunatic who could not help his behavior.
He raped Loubna but claims that her death was an accident because she
fell and hit her head against an iron trunk. He then hid her body in
the trunk and kept it in the basement of his garage for five years.
One witness, however, a school friend of Loubna, claims that she saw
the girl two weeks after her disappearance in Derochette's car. The
police never took this witness seriously and did not bother Derochette
against until the whole inquiry into Loubna's disappearance was done
over again early this year. Her body was found in Derochette's trunk
on March 5.
If the witness is right, Loubna was probably also used a child
prostitute for some time. The police have discovery that Derochette
knew Michel Nihoul. The both visited the same sex bars and Nihoul got
his petrol at Derochette's garage.
The Belgian police are currently also investigating satanic sects. It
is possible that Nihoul was involved in satanic ceremonies, and it is
certain that some of the members of the Dutroux group had "business
contacts" with satanic groups. It is not clear whether the
participants in satanic orgies took their satanism as a serious
religion or whether some of the sex parties were just dressed up as
satanic rituals in order to give the perverts an added kick.
The Belgian authorities started an investigation into satanic sects
after the police found a letter form a satanic high priest to Bernard
Weinstein, one of Dutroux's two accomplices in the kidnapping of
children. (Mrs. Dutroux being the other.) The letter asked for a
"delivery" in order to be able to perform the rituals of Walpurgis
Night. The delivery is believed to refer to young children needed as
sacrifices in a black mass.
There are many rumours concerning the satanic sects. Some claim that
female sect members were deliberately impregnated so that their newly
born children could be killed on satanic altars. To me as a mother,
this sounds so fantastically horrible that I pray it isn't true. If it
is true, however, I doubt whether the Belgians would be very much
surprised after the other truths they have been forced to face.
(Perhaps that Loch Ness monster really exists!)
For instance, some of the police officers questioned by the
Parliamentary Commission confirmed that there have indeed been "Pink
Ballets." Now, by taking the rumours about the sex orgies seriously,
the authorities are on the brink of a breakthrough I the investigation
concerning the so-called "Crazy Brabant Killers," a murderous gang
that killed 29 people in Brabant, the province surrounding the Belgian
capital of Brussels, in the early and mid-1980s.
The Crazy Brabant Killers got their name because, at the time, nobody
had a clue as to what their motives could be. The gang specialised in
robbing supermarkets in broad daylight. The booty was always very
poor, but that did not seem to bother them. The reason why the
committed their crimes, apparently, was the thrill they got from
slaughtering every supermarket shopper in sight. The shot everyone,
children included, sometimes killing up to eight innocent shoppers or
passers-by in one go. It started with the mu9rder of twelve people at
various occasions in late 1982 and early 1983. Then the wave of terror
subsided, only to be followed by a new wave in the Fall of 1985,
resulting in the death of 17 victims. Then it stopped.
The investigation into the Crazy Brabant Killers got nowhere. Strange
things happened. Officers who were making progress in the case were
taken off it, and substantial evidence disappeared from the files
never to be found again.
Today, almost twelve years later, the key to the mystery seems to have
been found. A scrutiny of the gang's victims could be linked to the
"Pink Ballets." The apparently random killings of the Crazy Brabant
Killers had been a cover-up for eliminating dangerous witnesses of sex
parties (probably with minors-orgies among consenting adults are not
illegal under Belgian law)(.
This discovery has prompted the authorities to investigate the whole
dossier again, but whether this will lead anywhere is doubtful,
because many sensitive documents have been lost.
"There used to be a photo in the judicial files of an army general,
stark naked, during one of the Pink Ballets," one investigator told
the parliamentary committee last February. "I know because I have seen
the picture. But now it is gone. We cannot find it anywhere."
Tapes, too, and typed-out manuscripts of police interviews have gone
missing, as well as a list of people who had allegedly attended
sessions of the Pink Ballets.
Now that the sewers have opened and the stench is there for all to
smell, it is no wonder that ordinary Belgians have lost confidence in
their judicial and political authorities. It is generally assumed that
the incompetence of the authorities to solve the mystery of the Crazy
Brabant Killers, the Pink Ballets, the satanic orgies-and the reason
why it took years to arrest Dutroux, Nihoul and Derochette-has to do
with the fact that these criminals were protected by very high
circles.
On October 20 last year, over 250,000 of Belgium's ten million
inhabitants took to the streets of Brussels for a silent march,
carrying white flowers and white balloons, and demanding that justice
be done, morality restored, and children protected. The "White March"
was one of the most impressive demonstrations that Belgium, and
possibly the whole of Europe, had ever seen. Not one slogan was
shouted, but the silence of the demonstrators resounded louder and
more clearly than a million worlds and cries.
Some people did, however, carry banners in the White March and there
were some incidents at the beginning. Banners of political parties
were objected to and had to be put away. But also banners demanding
for all children, including the unborn, had to be put away. Not all
the protesters demanding protection for Belgium's children were
willing to demand protection for unborn children as well-some even
took it as an insult to dare to suggest such a thing.
In November, shortly after the White March, it was revealed that the
second-highest politician in the country, Vice Premier Elio Di Rupo,
is a promiscuous homosexual with a preference for adolescent boys. Di
Rupo, a prominent leader of the Belgian Socialist Party, did not deny
that his sex life consists of a series of one-night stands with young
men, often prostitutes that he or his chauffeur pick up from the
streets. But he was able to shift the debate to the question of
whether he had had sex with boys of under or over sixteen years (the
former being illegal and the latter legal under Belgian law). No one
could prove the former and the (aptly titled?) Vice Premier got away
with it when his Socialist Party threatened to bring down the
government if Di Rupo were forced to resign-the Christian Democrats of
Premier Jean-Luc Dehaene gave in. More, a few weeks later the
government declared its intention to lower the age of sexual consent
from 16 to 14. And the people, who had given such a powerful [if not
actually internally consistent] cry for moral rectitude during the
White March, did not really seem to care!
I mentioned above that I was physically sick on the evening that poor
Loubna's body was found and the details emerged of how she had died
and lain dead for years only two streets away from her home in a
building that her agonised parents passed nearly every day. Earlier
that same day, I had given a press conference to condemn at 16-week
abortion (illegal in Belgium, where abortion is only permitted up to
12 weeks). It has been subsidised by the Belgian welfare authorities
because the mother claimed that having a child would make it difficult
for her to complete an occupational training course. The welfare
authorities considered this to be a good reason for an abortion never
mind that it was illegal-and, as the woman could not pay for it
herself, they decided to pay for it with taxpayers' money.
As a Belgian taxpayer, I felt cheated. We pay our taxes to the welfare
state to enable it to defend our children, which it does not do.
Instead it uses the money to kill other children. But, again, the
public did not seem to bother. Although an unborn child was killed and
although the abortion was illegal under Belgian law, the press and the
authorities defended the decision "to help" the woman and most people
seemed to accept it.
The contrast between the outcry over the deaths of the pedophiles'
victims and the acceptance of abortion, even beyond the limits of the
law, calls for some reflection. Julie, Melissa, An, Eefje, Loubna and
the other children whose bodies are still missing died because they
had fallen into the hands of evil men who did not respect them as
unique human beings, but regarded them merely as objects for the
satisfaction of their perverted sexual lust (perverted, because sexual
lust for children is abnormal).
In an abortion, the child is not the object needed to satisfy (normal)
sexual desire, however, lustful, but it is the object that can result
from the satisfaction of it. And though one may argue that murdering a
living child in order to fulfill a perverted sexual lust is definitely
worse than killing the unborn child resulting from normal heterosexual
intercourse, it remains true that the unborn child is also killed and
discarded as if it were merely an object.
Indeed, the unborn child is regarding as no more than an unwanted
side-effect of intercourse, the intercourse being seen as an end in
itself-even to the extent that it stands above the life of the child
resulting from it. In this sense, such sexual acts are also perverted
in that the act and the pleasure it provides are elevated to something
noble and worth pursuing, while the child is reduced to a discardable
nothing.
The fact that ordinary people no longer seem to be appalled by
abortion-and their ready acceptance of the concept of the "unwanted
child" -illustrates a terrible truth: the notion that there can be a
discardable side effect of intercourse that is nothing more than a
problem to the woman has become embedded in the collective
subconscious of our society.
It is only a small step to the idea the sexual act is infinitely more
valuable than the life of the child, or any respect for the child, or
for life itself. This idea underlies the statements of a vociferous
group in our society, including not only militant feminists but also
"educators" who propagate such thinking among our children.
There is also a second aspect which calls for some reflection. The
children in Belgium were murdered by others than their parents and
against the will of these parents. But unwanted unborn children are
killed at the demand of their own parents. When we object to the
latter, we are confronted with the question of what entitles us to do
so. [Just as ancient Greek infanticide], In ancient Rome abortion was
legal if the father (the paterfamilias) agreed to it. However, he was
also entitled to kill the members of his household, such as his slaves
and even his children. People were not regarded as unique human
beings, but as part of the patrimony of the paterfamilias. They were
objects and as such could be discarded.
It was Christianity that brought a fundamentally difference view of
humanity. A human being no longer belonged to his master but to God.
Our society is gradually becoming a post-Christian society in which
there is a return to the pre-Christian vision of man. The process is
underway but has not yet fully completed itself. Hence, we object not
only to the murder of Julie, Melissa, An, Eefje and Loubna, but also
to the way in which they were raped and abused as objects of for the
satisfaction of sexual lust. But we do not object to using people as
objects when they consent to it. And we do not object to aborting
unborn human beings. If this process continues, the day may well come
when we consider the crimes committed on the Belgian children as only
infringements of their parents' property rights!
The idea that children are property of the parents also underlies the
right to have children which is used to justify in vitro fertilization
and surrogate motherhood. As in the case of abortion, the argument is
twisted. If it is true that unwanted childlessness is a terrible
affliction, it is true precisely because of the outdated paradigm of
the child as a unique human being-the old-fashioned belief that it is
a child which makes a couple's love tangible and gives meaning to
their unique two in one flesh relationship. Whereas the now-available
reproductive technology reduces the child to a commodity which can be
ordered, bought, "farmed" as it were, to fulfill the demand of the
customers and owners, its parents.
I mentioned the rumour that Belgian women may have been impregnated
only for the purpose of producing children to be killed as ritual
sacrifices during black masses. I said that I pray this is not true-it
seems to horrible-but also that I could no longer be surprised if it
were true. Not only because in the past months Belgians have had to
face all kinds of horrible truths which were unthinkable only a year
ago, but also because such things would be totally consistent with the
post-Christian horrors which are increasingly being accepted in our
society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from Nan
Alan Hope
>> Yes, it does, but the trouble is that those people had either a very
>> tenuous connection to the accused, or none at all. And nothing that
>> could be linked to the actual charges themselves. It's all very well
>> to say that Tagliaferro knew Dutroux, but that's the answer to the
>> wrong question. So what if he did?
>Fair enough. All I can say is that I find the times of death and (in
>many cases) connections with the Charleroi underworld, very striking.
>> The death of Gerard Vannesse wasn't even suspicious.
>Yes, I agree with you on this one.
>> Anne Thily is being given, by accounts such as Frenkels, more weight
>> than she merits. She's the superior magistrate for the
>> parquet-general, as you probably know, but has no particular insight
>> into the case. She made intemperate statements and ought, as is often
>> the case, to have kept her big mouth shut.
>On this we will have to agree to disagree. I do not believe that she
>was speaking out of ignorance, I think she was lying.
A very transparent form of lying, then. Like me telling you I've only
been online since 2001. Not a lie I could ever expect to get away
with. Hence my conclusion.
>> It's my view that M-J is quite a bit more circumspect than Frenkel was, though.
>I'm not sure (although I have never met any of these people). The
>Journal du Mardi made a great issue (several months later) of Olenka's
>interview of Anne Thily. I do not have a copy of this to hand, though,
>so I cannot say if she contributed to this.
Sounds probable. MJ has, of course, been covering this case for the
whole time, and has co-written at least two books. The one I've read
is exhaustively researched and every document that's quoted is cited
in full -- a rather superfluous nicety at the time since few were in
possession of the documents, but more relevant now that everyone is.
On the other hand, the Correspondent piece threw allegations around
without any back-up, and without going into detail and context. The
excuse you've seen her using -- that the BBC limited her to 45 minutes
-- is a poor one. The whole report was designed to be sensational, and
from the response, it worked.
>> The question of the hair samples is still being misunderstood. They
>> are being analysed.
>They are being analysed at a snail's pace. And I do not think the UK
>public would have been very impressed if, say, the authorities had
>announced, before the trial for the murder of Holly and Jessica, that
>they had found 5000 hairs in Huntley's house, but they were going to
>investigate them in a separate enquiry, beginning at some unspecified
>date after the trial.
There's no need of the hairs to convict any of the four accused
currently in the dock. In fact, I think I'm right in saying that an
initial triage specifically *excluded* hair from those four sources.
On the other hand, it would have been inexcusable to delay a trial
that has already taken more than seven years to get to court, simply
to look for accomplices. If the evidence leads to others, they can be
tried in their turn.
>The same applies to the microtraces, including DNA of an unknown
>individual that appears on the wall of the cage, mixed with the blood
>of one of the children (DNA for 26 unidentified people has been found
>in total in Dutroux's house in Marcinelle, I believe).
The same answer applies.
>Hairs are not the smoking gun the public thinks they are, of course.
>But it is a fair bet some of them would have hair-roots or skin
>attached, and these would provide a DNA sample.
>> Yes. Are you going to tell me Brewaeys and Deliege are bought men?
>I find it difficult to believe that they wrote their books and
>articles in good faith. But I have no idea what their motives are.
A difference of opinion? There simply isn't just one way of looking at
this case.
>> One example of what?
>The most commonly held view is that X1's testimony of Christine Van
>Hees's murder has been discredited, even if the accuracy of her
>description of the building is frequently acknowledged. But there are
>many aspects of the investigation, independent of Regina's own
>testimony, which make me uncomfortable.
>Collignon (head of the initial investigation) attended sex-parties at
>the Dolo, when Nihoul did.
The allegation against Collignon comes, according to the X-Files book,
from Michel Forgeot, who was part-owner of the Dolo. The same goes for
Jean Gol and his right-hand man.
>The Etterbeek police received a call
>shortly after the murder telling them to pay attention to the Dolo if
>they wanted leads, and they were given the precise address. But the
>Neufchateau investigators did not know this, because the office
>transcript referred to 'Chez Dolores' and no address was specified.
>The truth only came out because Bille smelt a rat, and took the
>trouble of listening to the original tape.
I think the confusion may arise because the Dolo and the place were
the sex-club took place were two separate premises.
>Actually, Collignon was the co-chief of the investigation in 1984. The
>other one was identified by X2 as a participant at another sex-party
>where acts of paedophilia took place.
I can find no such allegation. His name is Georges Ceuppens.
>All this makes me uncomfortable because Nihoul was 'big in the
>eighties' and would not have hesitated to try and use blackmail if he
>thought that it might have helped him. His fellow participant's at the
>sex parties included people such as Jean Gol (minister of justice) and
>Gol's right hand man.
Allegedly, according to the man who ran the parties. I'm not sure if
I'd describe Nihoul as "big" although that's certainly the impression
he himself wanted to give. In fact he was working for a free radio
station.
>And do not forget that Pascal Lamarque (the person who exchanged 9
>letters with Christine Van Hees in the months shortly before her
>death) was closely linked with Nihoul and Bouty. We know this because
>the Belgian Intelligence Service informed the Neufchateau
>investigators of this. Pascal Lamarque was definitely innocent of the
>crime though (he was in prison in Verviers).
His link to Nihoul-Bouty was very tenuous. He had lived with a man who
was linked to an office Bouty had said up to carry out a traffic in
people and papers between Africa and Belgium, beginning in 1984.
Nihoul wasn't mentioned in the letter from the Sureté. Lamarque only
met Christine once. He sent her nine letters and she replied four
times. But yes, he wasn't investigated in the Dutroux case. Why would
he be?
>> You must be aware of the thousands of tips, anonymous and otherwise,
>> denouncing this person and that since Connerotte set up his
>> green-line. I should hope that investigators don't automatically drag
>> people in for questioning on the basis of no more than unfounded tips.
>'The brothers XXXX were denounced by anonymous letters, X1, X2 and
>Chantal Storme. All these sources talked of acts of extreme violence
>committed by 'the brothers'. I expect these leads to be followed up,
>because they have no obvious links with Dutroux and Nihoul (who were
>indeed seen, for a time, behind every tree and lamp-post in Belgium).
I can find no reference to these brothers in reports of X2's evidence,
which if you'll forgive me, took less time to go through than X1's.
Couldn't you give a name?
>It is impossible for these different sources to talk about the
>brothers in this way unless the recollections had become contaminated
>in some way, or they themselves were part of a criminal conspiracy
>aimed at discrediting, blackmailing, or whatever, the brothers XXXX.
>But the police never found any evidence of this, even though they
>searched thoroughly (quite rightly) for this. The next, elementary
>step, would have been to question the brothers XXXX and carry out
>investigations in Knokke, where the brothers XXX live, and where X1,
>X2. Chantal Storme, 2 anonymous letters and 1 anonymous phone call,
>say that the alleged offences took place.
>Now of course, we will never know the truth about the brothers XXXX
>because, as I said before, the investigators De Baets and Bille were
>accused of collusion with the X's, suspended and the investigation
>stopped. The policeman were exonerated three years later (and
>completely exonerated, they were not simply let off on a technicality,
>or because there was insufficient proof), but the investigation was,
>and still is, suspended.
>It seems to me to be the most elementary logic that if the policeman
>are reinstated, then the investigation should continue where it was
>left off. Or maybe you don't agree?
I agree with that.
>> And when it's clear that Nihoul and Dutroux never knew each other at
>> that early date? The same people who find it very strange a Brussels
>> man shouldhave his car repaired by a Charleroi petty crook seem to
>> have no trouble believing the same Charleroi crook would have access
>> to a sex-ring involving top names. Can you really imagine those people
>> having anything to do with a "marginal" like Dutroux?
>I agree with you 100% that many of the people Regina claims to have
>seen, were not in fact there. I know how bad eye-witness
>identifications of people are. And I am extremely sceptical of ALL
>uncorroborated eye-witness accounts, especially when recalling events
>that are several years old.
>It is highly unlikely that Nihoul and Dutroux were both present when
>Regina said they were. She was, in my opinion, almost certainly
>mistaken. But her accounts describing the brothers XXXX must be taken
>seriously because of the same accusations made by X2. Chantal Storme,
>2 anonymous letters and 1 anonymous phone call. And they were....
>until the investigation was suspended.
We seem to be off on another case, though.
>> The Cour de Cassation had no option but to
>> remove Connerotte, or risk jeopardising the whole case.
>As I said before, legally you are correct. From a common sense point
>of view, I do not see how attending a meal, with the parents, affects
>Connerotte's ability to investigate. Eating spaghetti with the parents
>does not automatically make Connerotte prejudiced towards Dutroux.
The motion to have him removed was filed by Dutroux's lawyer. Had he
not been removed by Cassation, it would have been a ticking bomb until
the trial, and presumably the conviction, and it would have blown up
then.
>In Britain, the role of the investigated magistrate is played by the
>police (in a murder investigation there is a Senior Investigating
>Officer, of course). I cannot think of a single case in Britain were
>an SIO has been criticized by a murder suspect for showing solidarity
>with the parents of a victim.
There's no comparison between the two systems. The British system is
adversarial in all its components. There simply isn't an equivalent
for the investigating magistrate in an inquisitorial system, whose job
is to look for *all* evidence -- inculpatory and exculpatory. His duty
of impartiality is very clear. Bourlet, who sat at the table beside
Connerotte, was not removed, nor was his removal even sought, because
he has no such duty.
>> Perhaps. Neufchateau is a very small office, though. What would have
>> been better?
>You may have a point there. Do the rules say a replacement magistrate
>must already attached to Neufchateau? I don't know the answer to that
>one.
There was no reason to pass Langlois over. Inexperience is not a good
reason. They're thrown in at the deep end and expected to get on with
it. In any other jurisdiction in Belgium there would be more
experienced magistrates to choose from, who would almost certainly
have handled murder cases -- but not always: Van Espen had never taken
on a case of such gravity when he took over the Van Hees murder. Think
about it: they all have to have a first big case.
>> Thily again. She needs to be muzzled.
>I am rather pleased that she wasn't! My suspicion (purely speculation,
>of course) is that she talked the way that she did because she is so
>used to be given royal treatment by Belgian journalists, who tend to
>treat it as an honour if any public figure is gracious enough to give
>an interview.
That's not true. I've had her on the phone. I called up and asked to
speak to her. Same with Bourlet, until he was shut down. Belgium is
very like that.
She certainly hasn't been given the Walter Raleigh treatment by all of
the Belgian press, either. I think she may have been trying to fob
Frenkiel off, knowing that she was a foreigner, and expecting she's
swallow anything.
>Olenka's is probably the first and last interview that
>Thily will ever give to an aggressive anglo-saxon journalist.
It doesn't always do to be aggressive, of course. Softly softly
catchee monkey.
>> At which time there was not the slightest indication that Nihoul was
>> involved. No conflict of interest there.
>There ws no conflict of interest in 1984, I agree. The problem is that
>Van Espen was also the investigating magistrate in this case after
>Regina accused Bouty and Nihoul of involvement. He really should made
>his links clear at this stage. But he didn't, we had to wait for
>journalists to uncover this.
He represented one against the other. No conflict of interest
regarding Nihoul -- should a juge recuse himself if a former
antagonist is under investigation? Surely not. And Bouty's own
involvement was even more peripheral. But purely on a question of
form, the argument above re Connerotte should apply: yes, he should
have recused himself.
>>--- Van Espen orders the police officers to stay out of the case ---
>>The role of Van Espen in the suspension of Bille and Debaets is very
>>murky.
>He played a significant role, with Duterme, in the 're-reading' of the
>transcripts, which lead to the erroneous suspension of Bille and De
>Baets.
>> So that's good, no?
>As I said previously. Van Espen should have admitted his links to
>Nihoul and Bouty, and not wait for them to be uncovered by
>journalists.
All right. I still don't see how that indicates a cover-up. Perhaps
you're not aware of what a small world Brussels is. Everyone knows
everyone else, it seems. The same names keep on cropping up time after
time, whatever the case. A dictionary of Belgian crime could consist
of nothing but blind entries.
>> You mean investigation of Regina's allegations? There's no way any of
>> that is ever going to get to a court now.
>Don't be so sure. The same two brothers XXXX have also been accused,
>by completely independent witnesses, of acts of paedophilia which is
>going on today. But not in Belgium; these acts are taking place on the
>Spanish island of Ibiza (where the brothers XXXX are major
>landowners). These accusations are in the hands of the UK
>authorities, and they have been passed on to Spain.
Okay. I was referring to her allegations in the margins of the Dutroux
case.
>Not proof, sure. But these brothers XXXX are on a watch-list of many
>countries now. If they ever get arrested, then we will REALLY see the
>sparks fly in Belgum..
I wish I knew who you were talking about. Email me, perhaps?
>> I'm afraid I'm not immediately going to jump to the conclusion of a cover-up
>I am not asking you to. I was merely drawing your attention to some of
>the more unsavoury aspects of the Belgian investigation (or rather
>'non-investigation')
>> Do you have a cite for this?
>I will try and find it for you. My understanding is that it came about
>around the time that Thily accused Bourlet of talking to too many
>journalists, and forbad him from doing so. When the tap was revealed
>her hastily convened defence was that it was done to make sure that he
>was not talking to journalists.
>As soon as I find the source (or I am forced to own up that I got it
>wrong) I will get back to you on this.
>> Diakostavrianos has been excluded from all suspicion in
>> the Dutroux case, however.
>Not for me he hasn't! I find it hard to believe that anyone could
>spend so much time in Dutroux's company, and accompany him on his
>travels to Eastern Europe, and not be involved in criminal activity
>with him. Judging from the leaked files, Langlois did not spend very
>much time investigating Diakostavrianos.
He was no doubt involved in criminal activity with Dutroux, but not
necessarily *this* criminal activity. And I was reading just today
that he accompanied *Leličvre* to Slovakia.
Anyway, I wanted to ask you, since you're the only one of my
correspondents who can keep a civil tongue in his head, and seem to
have done some proper reading, what you think of Dutroux's latest
version of events? He's basically taken on board the suspicions of the
"believers" and made them his own. So Nihoul was behind it all,
ordered the kidnappings for his ring etc. I imagine people nodding
their heads and going, "Told you so". But this is of course the word
of a patented liar, given after seven years of maintaining another
version altogether.
What do you do in a circumstance like that? Believe he might be
telling the truth after all? Or consider the source and reject it?
--
AH
Alan Hope
>You write TV commentary, Mr. Dope?
Among other things.
>Like, I'm trying to imagine who
>would actually air your pompous drivel. Ooops, I take it back. You do
>have the Big Brother Consortium over there, don't you? Anything ever
>reach our shores? Man, would I ever love to tune in to that sideshow.
>Probably smarmy even by BBC standards. Yep, the Mr. Rogers of the BBC
>educating the great unwashed out there. The blind leading the blind.
Er, I write commentary on or about TV. I don't appear on TV. And I'm
not in Britain.
And Big Brother is a Dutch format.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>I mentioned the rumour that Belgian women may have been impregnated
>only for the purpose of producing children to be killed as ritual
>sacrifices during black masses.
Enough said.
--
AH
Ray Haddad
>Collidors?
Big round things where atoms are smashed?
nan
Correcting devious Alan Hope's misleading attribution: "nan goes:"
The following is a quote from the article re-posted below.
"I mentioned the rumour that Belgian women may have been impregnated
only for the purpose of producing children to be killed as ritual
Black Masses..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read the rest of this message... (330 more lines) Refer to previous
post...
>Enough said.
--
AH
I don't know anything about Black Masses and ritual infant murder.
The thought of it is beyond horrible, and there are horrors in Real
Life.
At the very mention of *it* by the Belgium author in her article you
responded as if a wooden stake was driven into your heart, Alan.
By misattributing the quote to "nan goes", you've made me even more
suspicious of your motives.
Because you are not an honourable person, I want it made clear to all
and to put it on record that you misattributed the quote to me in a
dishonest effort to discredit me.
You are reeking rubbish, Alan, absolute contemptible garbage - a dirty
player.
from Nan
John Stevens
Yes it was. And even though her reply may be interpreted as shooting
her mouth off instead of lying, one thing is certain: Olenka was able
to persuade the lawyers of the BBC and The Observer newspaper that her
accusations of Thily lying were correct, and that they need not fear
any legal recourse. As a person who spends far too much time hanging
out with lawyers (although I am not a lawyer myself), this carries a
lot of weight.
> There's no need of their hairs to convict any of the four accused.
I am not sure of that. We know so little about the circumstances
surrounding the deaths of these children. I did not know about any
initial triage; that's interesting. But I do know that it is
extremely difficult to match hairs with people (or eliminate them)
unless DNA samples are obtained (via roots or skin), so any such
triage would need to be treated with caution. And the 'delay' argument
really doesn't hold water. A scan of the 5000 hairs for possible DNA
analysis, and the carrying out of this analysis, would only take a few
weeks in the UK. In the UK the DNA samples (the ones lifted form the
microtraces, and any extracted from the hairs) would be
systematically compared to the accused, and then compared, in ever
increasing circles, to include Dutroux's neighbours, family, friends
and associates (who would all be 'invited' to give a DNA sample).
> A difference of opinion?
It could simply be that, of course. I simply have the impression (and
it is only an impression, I cannot back this up with proof) that there
is more to it than that.
> Collignon
Yes, it is only Forgeot. But he also named two other members of the
Brussels judicial police, Marnette and Reyniers, and these three
definitely hung out together. Jean Gol and his side-kick were also
named by other witnesses.
> The Dolo and the sex-club took place were two separate places
Forgeot owned them both: the Dolo and The Atrebates. When the
Atrebates were forced to close, Forgeot claimed the sex-party antics
were over, but maybe he would be expected to say this, because he was
the owner. Plenty of other witnesses say different: they say that
Atrebates clientele simply moved a few hundred metres down the road
and carried on their activities as before.
> I can find no such allegation, his name was Georges Ceuppens
Georges Ceuppens is cited by X2: reference 150.567 PIRARD dated
04/03/1997. This P.V. also names the 'brothers XXXX.' of Knokke whom I
mentioned previously.
> I am not sure if Nihoul was 'big'
Yes, he certainly liked to boast of his connections. But Nihoul and
Bouty had a thriving business obtaining visa and residence permits for
a range of individuals (mainly from Africa), and the Parliamentary
Enquiry spoke of clear evidence of corruption when he carried out
these activities. And Nihoul wrote to Gol direct (when he was minister
of justice) when interceding for his 'clients' and received a personal
reply from Gol (I have seen copies of this correspondence myself).
> His link with Nihoul-Bouty were tenuous.
Yes, they are, but still intriguing. Pascale Lamarque was linked to
Nihoul-Bouty (according to the intelligence report, which I have not
seen myself, I am relying on MJ's book here) via Claude Ceresa, who
had very strong links with Bouty in particular. But there is also
another link, and that is via Casper Flier, who wrote Pascale Lamarque
a very friendly letter in June 1984, when Lamarque was still in
prison. In the same letter he discusses INTERMILLS, which if you
recall was the project he worked on with Nihoul in 1984. Flier moved
in with Bouty the following year, in 1985. In the letter, Flier says
how much he is looking forward to employing Lamarque in INTERMILLS.
One thing is certain, Lamarque was never contacted by the Belgian
authorities during or after 1997, even after the Belgian Intelligence
report was received by the investigators. He freely admitted knowing
Nihoul, but he was only ever contacted by journalists.
The link with Flier interests me because Flier himself is such a
mysterious figure. He was a regular part of Nihoul and Bouty's
activities since the early 80's. He spent time in Nigeria in the 80's,
representing Bouty's company Cadreco. He was an active party to many
of Bouty's fraudulent activities. Allegations of paedophilia
(unsubstantiated) were made against him, but one thing is certain: the
house he was using as his own, was found to contain a copy of 'Lolita'
(an absolutely disgusting paedophile magazine) and another paedophile
publication. Given that the only inhabitant of the house was an old
lady who was completely under Flier's influence, it is a reasonable
assumption that either Flier or Lelièvre (who also visited this house
regularly) were the owners of these magazines. It was Flier who met
Lelievre (in prison) and introduced him to Nihoul. Flier also met
David Walsh in prison, who (apart from representing 'British
interest') was of course the ultimate source of the famous ecstasy
tablets. And Lelievre, Walsh and Flier spent time living together (not
sure if it was all three in the same house at the same time, though)
in a small village near Dinant. Flier, a Dutchman, was also the
original contact of the famous 'Eric' in Alkmaar who provided the
drugs for Walsh. 'Eric' provided the stolen Mercedes 500 that Nihoul,
Walsh and Lelievre drove down to Spain. The links with 'Erik' and
Alkmaar were never explored, beyond requesting basic information on
him via Interpol. The links with Algeciras in Spain (the destination
of the stolen car, but also the location of apartments owned by the
old woman who was completely under the influence of Flier), have also
never been explored.
I understand that Walsh is going to be called as a witness, because he
stayed in contact with Nihoul, even though Nihoul double-crossed him.
I am looking forward to this.
> We seems to be off on another case, though.
Could be. My impression is that the Neufchâteau investigators, in
their initial enthusiasm, looked under a lot of rocks in Belgium, and
a lot of nasty things crawled out. But they were not necessarily
connected.
> Inexperience is not a good reason.
It is for me.
> That's not true. I've had her on the phone.
OK.
> It doesn't always do to be agressive, of course.
Sure, but I think it paid off in this case.
> Perhaps you're not aware what a small world Brussels.
I am actually. And I agree that it is always something to bear in
mind.
> He accompanied *Lelièvre* to Slovakia
Diakostavrianos visited Slovakia once with Dutroux. And 3-5 times with
Lelièvre. Diakostavrianos was also the tenant of Dutroux, of course,
and was responsible for introducing Lelièvre to Dutroux.
> Dutroux's new version
As long as it is uncorroborated, it should be treated as just so much
hot air, in my opinion.
Alan Hope
[quotes with >> are mine]
>> A very transparent form of lying, then.
>Yes it was. And even though her reply may be interpreted as shooting
>her mouth off instead of lying, one thing is certain: Olenka was able
>to persuade the lawyers of the BBC and The Observer newspaper that her
>accusations of Thily lying were correct, and that they need not fear
>any legal recourse. As a person who spends far too much time hanging
>out with lawyers (although I am not a lawyer myself), this carries a
>lot of weight.
>> There's no need of their hairs to convict any of the four accused.
>I am not sure of that. We know so little about the circumstances
>surrounding the deaths of these children. I did not know about any
>initial triage; that's interesting. But I do know that it is
>extremely difficult to match hairs with people (or eliminate them)
>unless DNA samples are obtained (via roots or skin), so any such
>triage would need to be treated with caution.
The mass of hairs was examined visually, I believe, and obvious
matches with the victims and the accused discarded.
>And the 'delay' argument
>really doesn't hold water. A scan of the 5000 hairs for possible DNA
>analysis, and the carrying out of this analysis, would only take a few
>weeks in the UK. In the UK the DNA samples (the ones lifted form the
>microtraces, and any extracted from the hairs) would be
>systematically compared to the accused, and then compared, in ever
>increasing circles, to include Dutroux's neighbours, family, friends
>and associates (who would all be 'invited' to give a DNA sample).
And if they refuse? And who draws up the list of possible suspects?
The circles you're talking about could be enormous, and of course the
whole thing would be a fishing expedition. Why would anyone submit to
a DNA comparison in a case like this, guilty or innocent? I'd expect
to see a court order, given the fuck-ups there have been.
>> A difference of opinion?
>It could simply be that, of course. I simply have the impression (and
>it is only an impression, I cannot back this up with proof) that there
>is more to it than that.
>> Collignon
>Yes, it is only Forgeot. But he also named two other members of the
>Brussels judicial police, Marnette and Reyniers, and these three
>definitely hung out together. Jean Gol and his side-kick were also
>named by other witnesses.
>> The Dolo and the sex-club took place were two separate places
>Forgeot owned them both: the Dolo and The Atrebates. When the
>Atrebates were forced to close, Forgeot claimed the sex-party antics
>were over, but maybe he would be expected to say this, because he was
>the owner. Plenty of other witnesses say different: they say that
>Atrebates clientele simply moved a few hundred metres down the road
>and carried on their activities as before.
I was attempting to explain the fact that the name of the
establishment was noted "wrongly": Chez Dolores referred not to the
Dolo but to the other place.
>> I can find no such allegation, his name was Georges Ceuppens
>Georges Ceuppens is cited by X2: reference 150.567 PIRARD dated
>04/03/1997. This P.V. also names the 'brothers XXXX.' of Knokke whom I
>mentioned previously.
>> I am not sure if Nihoul was 'big'
>Yes, he certainly liked to boast of his connections. But Nihoul and
>Bouty had a thriving business obtaining visa and residence permits for
>a range of individuals (mainly from Africa), and the Parliamentary
>Enquiry spoke of clear evidence of corruption when he carried out
>these activities.
My understanding is that that business was essentially Bouty's.
>And Nihoul wrote to Gol direct (when he was minister
>of justice) when interceding for his 'clients' and received a personal
>reply from Gol (I have seen copies of this correspondence myself).
Me too. It wasn't exactly personal (as in "Dear Jean-Mich) though, as
I recall. Personal as in delivered from Gol's hand. But I could be
wrong.
You mean the copies of the magazines, just to be clear. They weren't
publishers or anything.
>It was Flier who met
>Lelievre (in prison) and introduced him to Nihoul. Flier also met
>David Walsh in prison, who (apart from representing 'British
>interest') was of course the ultimate source of the famous ecstasy
>tablets.
Unwillingly, of course. Nihoul ripped him off.
>And Lelievre, Walsh and Flier spent time living together (not
>sure if it was all three in the same house at the same time, though)
>in a small village near Dinant. Flier, a Dutchman, was also the
>original contact of the famous 'Eric' in Alkmaar who provided the
>drugs for Walsh. 'Eric' provided the stolen Mercedes 500 that Nihoul,
>Walsh and Lelievre drove down to Spain. The links with 'Erik' and
>Alkmaar were never explored, beyond requesting basic information on
>him via Interpol. The links with Algeciras in Spain (the destination
>of the stolen car, but also the location of apartments owned by the
>old woman who was completely under the influence of Flier), have also
>never been explored.
>I understand that Walsh is going to be called as a witness, because he
>stayed in contact with Nihoul, even though Nihoul double-crossed him.
>I am looking forward to this.
Flier is also on the witness-list.
>> We seems to be off on another case, though.
>Could be. My impression is that the Neufchâteau investigators, in
>their initial enthusiasm, looked under a lot of rocks in Belgium, and
>a lot of nasty things crawled out. But they were not necessarily
>connected.
>> Inexperience is not a good reason.
>It is for me.
>> That's not true. I've had her on the phone.
>OK.
>> It doesn't always do to be agressive, of course.
>Sure, but I think it paid off in this case.
>> Perhaps you're not aware what a small world Brussels.
>I am actually. And I agree that it is always something to bear in
>mind.
My point about the dictionary of Belgian crime was based on something
very much like that: Dirk Barrez's Pays des 1000 scandales. Pick any
three cases at random and you're almost sure to find two names that
occur in at least two. A big chunk of the book is cross-references.
Draw radiating lines out from, say, Paul Vanden Boeynants, Patrick
Haemers and Franz Reyniers and you'll find they're usually only two
steps at most away from any major case. They all crop up here, as do
Gol, Marnette, Nihoul and José Happart. The point being that
"connection" to a criminal doesn't imply connection to a crime.
>> He accompanied *Lelièvre* to Slovakia
>Diakostavrianos visited Slovakia once with Dutroux. And 3-5 times with
>Lelièvre. Diakostavrianos was also the tenant of Dutroux, of course,
>and was responsible for introducing Lelièvre to Dutroux.
I found that reference by chance after I'd posted, in Knack magazine.
>> Dutroux's new version
>As long as it is uncorroborated, it should be treated as just so much
>hot air, in my opinion.
Even if it corresponds in many ways with what people have long
believed? If the Devil says, "Jesus saves," what's a doubter to think?
--
AH
John Stevens
This is very interesting, because (in theory at least) 'obvious'
matches do not exist. As I said before, matching hairs to people is
extremely difficult, in the absence of DNA. It is this that explains
the 'controversy' (although there isn't one) surrounding the hairs
found in Diakostavrianos's car. First they were matched with An and
Eefje, but subsequent test results were inconclusive. This was manna
from heaven for the people who want to believe in a conspiracy at all
costs, but these inconclusive results simply reflected the reality of
trying to match hairs without DNA. At the best of times it is
extremely difficult (even when subjecting the hairs to a full battery
of tests, as opposed to simple visual inspection), and is often
impossible.
> Of course the whole thing would be a fishing expedition
Absolutely. These DNA dragnets are a fishing expedition in all but
name. And they do rely on cooperation of members of the public. But
crimes against children invariably get a good reponse from members of
the public, and this includes the criminal underworld. They know the
score. The police want to be able to eliminate as many people as
possible, as quickly as possible, and 99% of the population want to
help them do this. And even the unwilling members of the public know
that any refusal to 'volunteer' will mean that police will be paying
special attention to them.
> I'd expect to see a court order, given the fuck-ups there have been.
I don't think Langlois would request one in a million years, but I am
prejudiced against him, I admit it :-)
> Chez Dolores referred not to the Dolo, but to the other place.
Yes, but there is still a problem. 'Chez Dolores' was indeed the name
sometimes used to refer to the Atrebates, and 'Chez Dolores' is the
name that appears in the transcript. But the point that Bille made in
his P.V was that the telephone conversation did not refer to 'Chez
Dolores' at all, it quite explicitly referred to 'The Dolo'. The
conversation even gave the address of The Dolo, rue Philippe Baucq.
The Atrebates was in a different street, so there was no risk of
confusion there.
Now the Atrebates was opened in 1975, and was closed down in 1983
(before the murder of Christine Van Hees, therefore). The anonymous
phone call referring to the Dolo was received in 1987. The incorrect
transcription therefore meant that there was a the risk of
investigators not following up on the 'Dolo' lead at all, and this was
indeed the case. This really was a major omission. The murder of
Christine Van Hees was a truly atrocious crime by any one's standards,
and there were very few leads. Given the reputation of the Dolo, even
at that time, and its proximity to the scene of the murder (about 500
metres or so, I think), such an anonymous call should have generated a
few follow-up enquiries, but there were none.
Was the transcription deliberately misleading? Judging from Bille's
own PV's, I have the impression that he thinks so, although he does
not come out and say so, limiting himself to registering his
astonishment.
> My understanding is that the business was essentially Bouty's
Yes, I think that's true. Nihoul himself wrote a lot of letters
requesting various visa and permits (often using his own 'J.M.Nihoul
et Associés - Cabinet Multidisciplinaire d'Experts' letterhead), but I
am sure it was Bouty calling the shots.
> It wasn't exactly personal (as in Dear Jean-Mich)
No, you're right. All very formal.
> You mean the copies of magazines?
Yes, they were SKOLEBORN School Children No 3 Edition 1973, and LOLITA
Series 20.
The magazines are old (LOLITA also dates from the 1970's), so they
could conceivably have been owned by the husband, who died in 1994, of
Elise Lanis (the old womon, born 1916, who was under the influence of
Flier). But 1970's paedophile magazines had a wide circulation in the
paedophile community, even in 1996 (the penalties for producing this
stuff were very low in the 1970's so there was, and still is, a lot of
it around).
But Flier met, and weaved his spell on Elise Lanis, after the death of
her husband. There is no connection whatsoever between the husband and
Flier. Flier ran the deceased husband's petrol station in Anthée, and
employed in his turn Lelièvre there. Alexis Alewaeters (mixed up in
the Mirano night club scandal of the 1980's, and a client of Bouty,
and her lover, in 1980) also worked at this petrol station.
Flier now lives on a campsite in this neighbourhood. But it would be a
mistake to think that he has somehow discovered a liking for nature,
because it is not that sort of campsite. When it was last raided by
the police, that site was described as being competely under the
control of gypsy and Chechen gangs, and an important hub in the
trafficking of heroin and stolen cars.
> Unwillingly, of course. Nihoul ripped him off
Yes. And Walsh has every reason to be scared of Erik and his mates in
Alkmaar, because he had himself double-crossed them. After Walsh was
finally released he disappeared to Ramsgate for a time (the Dutroux
investigators knew where he went, though). What the Dutroux
investigators did not know was that he shared an address (bed-sits)
with a convicted murderer, Stephen Munnerley, who also came from
Liverpool. The murder was a very nasty one, and was committed by
Munnerley while he was living at the same address as Walsh. And there
were questions marks (indirect ones, admittedly) raised, in court,
concerning the possibility of the murderer having been helped dump the
body into to the sea. There is no evidence that Walsh is involved, but
then again the UK authorities never looked for any (they never found
out Walsh was there, only the Dutroux investigators knew that).
> Flier is also on the witness list.
Another one I am looking forward to.
> Dirk Parrez's: Pays des 1000 scandales
Yes, that's a good book. The way Vandenboeynants crops up everywhere,
especially, is staggering. And I agree that "connection" is not
sufficient. What I do find interesting, however, is Nihoul's possible
capacity for blackmail. He knew the boss of notorious night-club The
Jonathan, Paul-Pierre De Rycke, very well, and this guy was well known
for filming all his clients (friend or foe) in lots of different
compromising positions (no proof that these involved children,
though). Nihoul would certainly have picked up a few ideas. There is
no proof that Nihoul ever did this at the Dolo, however. And even if
he did, would he have been able to lever this to get him off the hook
in the Dutroux investigation in 1996? I am doubtful about this in
1996, but consider it a real possibility in 1987 (when the anonymous
call suggesting a link between Christine Van Hees and The Dolo was
received).
> If the Devil says, "Jesus saves", what's a doubter to believe.
For me it's not a problem. I think Dutroux must be treated as being
full of so much hot air unless what he says can be corroborated. But I
do hope that he will be questioned about video's and photos that he
took. Langlois said some interesting things yesterday. He said that
his 'early' assaults were in many ways a blueprint for the later ones,
and I agree with him. But there is something that Dutroux did earlier,
and that Langlos did not mention. He systematically filmed and
photographed (or had his wife film or photograph) his victims. It is
this that makes me react so strongly to the story of Dutroux's videos.
I feel very strongly that video or photos, of one or more of the 6
girls, must exist somewhere.
Alan Hope
>> The mass of hairs was examined visually, I believe, and obvious matches with the victims and the accused discarded.
>This is very interesting, because (in theory at least) 'obvious'
>matches do not exist.
All right, but obvious non-matches are easy to spot. A curly redhead
has hair of a certain sort -- as does someone whose hair is damaged by
colorant, or a black person, or an Asiatic person -- which, if it does
not match any of the sample of known people -- the suspects and the
victims, will be sent for testing. You can imagine all sorts of hairs
that would stand out as *not* being from any of the known sample. In
addition, hairs which match the sample group on microscopic view --
and I'm given to believe there are certain frank characteristics good
enough for exclusion although they would not be good enough to prove
identity -- can also be excluded. If in doubt, have them tested,
although as you point out, testing may not yield any usable result.
>As I said before, matching hairs to people is
>extremely difficult, in the absence of DNA. It is this that explains
>the 'controversy' (although there isn't one) surrounding the hairs
>found in Diakostavrianos's car. First they were matched with An and
>Eefje, but subsequent test results were inconclusive. This was manna
>from heaven for the people who want to believe in a conspiracy at all
>costs, but these inconclusive results simply reflected the reality of
>trying to match hairs without DNA. At the best of times it is
>extremely difficult (even when subjecting the hairs to a full battery
>of tests, as opposed to simple visual inspection), and is often
>impossible.
>> Of course the whole thing would be a fishing expedition
>Absolutely. These DNA dragnets are a fishing expedition in all but
>name. And they do rely on cooperation of members of the public. But
>crimes against children invariably get a good reponse from members of
>the public, and this includes the criminal underworld. They know the
>score. The police want to be able to eliminate as many people as
>possible, as quickly as possible, and 99% of the population want to
>help them do this. And even the unwilling members of the public know
>that any refusal to 'volunteer' will mean that police will be paying
>special attention to them.
>> I'd expect to see a court order, given the fuck-ups there have been.
>I don't think Langlois would request one in a million years, but I am
>prejudiced against him, I admit it :-)
I meant to say I'd require one. I certainly wouldn't be giving up a
sample of my DNA voluntarily to the Belgian police.
>> Chez Dolores referred not to the Dolo, but to the other place.
>Yes, but there is still a problem. 'Chez Dolores' was indeed the name
>sometimes used to refer to the Atrebates, and 'Chez Dolores' is the
>name that appears in the transcript. But the point that Bille made in
>his P.V was that the telephone conversation did not refer to 'Chez
>Dolores' at all, it quite explicitly referred to 'The Dolo'. The
>conversation even gave the address of The Dolo, rue Philippe Baucq.
>The Atrebates was in a different street, so there was no risk of
>confusion there.
>Now the Atrebates was opened in 1975, and was closed down in 1983
>(before the murder of Christine Van Hees, therefore). The anonymous
>phone call referring to the Dolo was received in 1987. The incorrect
>transcription therefore meant that there was a the risk of
>investigators not following up on the 'Dolo' lead at all, and this was
>indeed the case. This really was a major omission. The murder of
>Christine Van Hees was a truly atrocious crime by any one's standards,
>and there were very few leads. Given the reputation of the Dolo, even
>at that time, and its proximity to the scene of the murder (about 500
>metres or so, I think), such an anonymous call should have generated a
>few follow-up enquiries, but there were none.
>Was the transcription deliberately misleading? Judging from Bille's
>own PV's, I have the impression that he thinks so, although he does
>not come out and say so, limiting himself to registering his
>astonishment.
I think this is all a mountain out of a molehill, and quite
characteristic of the conspiracy case.
>> My understanding is that the business was essentially Bouty's
>Yes, I think that's true. Nihoul himself wrote a lot of letters
>requesting various visa and permits (often using his own 'J.M.Nihoul
>et Associés - Cabinet Multidisciplinaire d'Experts' letterhead), but I
>am sure it was Bouty calling the shots.
Nihoul was a complete chancer. He was no more a real estate expert
than I am (dunno about you). He claimed to have an arm as long as the
Danube, a typically boastful claim unique to those with no influence.
See how long his arm is now.
>> It wasn't exactly personal (as in Dear Jean-Mich)
>No, you're right. All very formal.
>> You mean the copies of magazines?
I don't believe I posed that as a question.
>Yes, they were SKOLEBORN School Children No 3 Edition 1973, and LOLITA
>Series 20.
>The magazines are old (LOLITA also dates from the 1970's), so they
>could conceivably have been owned by the husband, who died in 1994, of
>Elise Lanis (the old womon, born 1916, who was under the influence of
>Flier). But 1970's paedophile magazines had a wide circulation in the
>paedophile community, even in 1996 (the penalties for producing this
>stuff were very low in the 1970's so there was, and still is, a lot of
>it around).
>But Flier met, and weaved his spell on Elise Lanis, after the death of
>her husband. There is no connection whatsoever between the husband and
>Flier. Flier ran the deceased husband's petrol station in Anthée, and
>employed in his turn Lelièvre there. Alexis Alewaeters (mixed up in
>the Mirano night club scandal of the 1980's, and a client of Bouty,
>and her lover, in 1980) also worked at this petrol station.
>Flier now lives on a campsite in this neighbourhood. But it would be a
>mistake to think that he has somehow discovered a liking for nature,
>because it is not that sort of campsite. When it was last raided by
>the police, that site was described as being competely under the
>control of gypsy and Chechen gangs, and an important hub in the
>trafficking of heroin and stolen cars.
Good grief, Flier is not part of this case. Can't you see the Kevin
Bacon stretching that's going on?
>> Unwillingly, of course. Nihoul ripped him off
>Yes. And Walsh has every reason to be scared of Erik and his mates in
>Alkmaar, because he had himself double-crossed them. After Walsh was
>finally released he disappeared to Ramsgate for a time (the Dutroux
>investigators knew where he went, though). What the Dutroux
>investigators did not know was that he shared an address (bed-sits)
>with a convicted murderer, Stephen Munnerley, who also came from
>Liverpool. The murder was a very nasty one, and was committed by
>Munnerley while he was living at the same address as Walsh. And there
>were questions marks (indirect ones, admittedly) raised, in court,
>concerning the possibility of the murderer having been helped dump the
>body into to the sea. There is no evidence that Walsh is involved, but
>then again the UK authorities never looked for any (they never found
>out Walsh was there, only the Dutroux investigators knew that).
Whatever. John, it's a rare pleasure to talk to someone who knows
something about this case, and discusses it with civility, but really.
You can stretch any point as far as you like until eventually somebody
significant is involved.
>> Flier is also on the witness list.
>Another one I am looking forward to.
>> Dirk Parrez's: Pays des 1000 scandales
I meant to type: Dirk Barrez. He's a journalist with the VRT.
>Yes, that's a good book. The way Vandenboeynants crops up everywhere,
>especially, is staggering.
Except he was mayor of Brussels, prime minister at one time, defence
minister at another, a businessman to boot. Think of the masses that
record brings you into contact with.
I happen to believe he was corrupt as fuck, and his kidnapping was
staged. I was there at his fabled press conference when he was
released, and a greater piece of theatre I've yet to see.
>And I agree that "connection" is not
>sufficient. What I do find interesting, however, is Nihoul's possible
>capacity for blackmail. He knew the boss of notorious night-club The
>Jonathan, Paul-Pierre De Rycke, very well, and this guy was well known
>for filming all his clients (friend or foe) in lots of different
>compromising positions (no proof that these involved children,
>though). Nihoul would certainly have picked up a few ideas. There is
>no proof that Nihoul ever did this at the Dolo, however. And even if
>he did, would he have been able to lever this to get him off the hook
>in the Dutroux investigation in 1996? I am doubtful about this in
>1996, but consider it a real possibility in 1987 (when the anonymous
>call suggesting a link between Christine Van Hees and The Dolo was
>received).
A link with the Dolo is not a link with Nihoul, and particularly in
1987. Don't forget, X1 and so on weren't around then. Nihoul only
comes into the picture with X1.
And the punks were a very strong lead at the time of the original Van
Hees investigation. Don't forget they were confessing and singing like
canaries on each other. Why would anyone look elsewhere? One of the
faults of the X-Files book is the way it uses hindsight to make it
look as if the punks piste was wrong. At the time, it was no such
thing.
>> If the Devil says, "Jesus saves", what's a doubter to believe.
>For me it's not a problem. I think Dutroux must be treated as being
>full of so much hot air unless what he says can be corroborated. But I
>do hope that he will be questioned about video's and photos that he
>took. Langlois said some interesting things yesterday. He said that
>his 'early' assaults were in many ways a blueprint for the later ones,
>and I agree with him.
I can't agree. The MO was quite different. So, of course, was the end
result.
>But there is something that Dutroux did earlier,
>and that Langlos did not mention. He systematically filmed and
>photographed (or had his wife film or photograph) his victims. It is
>this that makes me react so strongly to the story of Dutroux's videos.
>I feel very strongly that video or photos, of one or more of the 6
>girls, must exist somewhere.
Except you can't have it both ways, John. Dutroux's first set of rapes
involved taking the girls for short periods, taping up their eyes, no
use of drugs, and setting them off within reach of home after raping
them.
It's said his prison sentence made him realise leaving them alive was
a mistake. By that token, making videos was almost as bad -- a certain
way to incriminate oneself.
It's hard to reconcile his actions as the "lone predator" which he
certainly was in the 1980s with the rejection of that hypothesis in
the late 1990s. He *did* act as a lone predator before. Yet now that
hypothesis is considered by "believers" as ludicrous.
My question really concerned the fact that Dutroux is now following
the "believer" line. How does that make them feel? He's saying no more
than they've been saying all along. Does his lack of credibility not
undermine the thesis?
--
AH
John Stevens
I am going to try and find out more about this initial triage, and
will get back to you on this.
> I mean to say I'd require one.
OK
> I think this is all a mountain out of a molehill, and quite characteristic of the conspiracy case.
If this was the only unusual aspect of the case, I would agree with
you. And I am certainly not claiming that this points to a conspiracy.
But there are plenty of people out there who are demolishing what
Regina had to say (often with little or no knowledge of the facts)
and at the same time claiming that her claims were thoroughly and
professionally investigated.
My problem with the journalists Braeways and Deliege, by the way, is
that I *know* they are extremely well informed. Their articles are
therefore completely inexcusable. They were successfully sued by De
Baets and Bille, of course.
But for me the real devil in this case is the lawyer of Christine Van
Hees's parents, Michèle Hirsch. I don't know if you remember her press
conference. Amazing! After a mere 9 days, she studied the entire file,
and was able to announce the following to an adoring cluster of
journalists: the original policemen were wrong, Regina was not present
at the murder of Christine Van Hees, the current policemen were back
on track and doing a good job, she knew the identity of true
murderers, she would not identify them, she declined to explain all
this because she did not wish to help the murderers.
Biggest load of horse-shit I have heard in my entire life.
> Nihoul was a complete chancer.
Yes, he was. And I agree that his power and influence is grossly
overrated. But he is also a sinister person in his own right. He was
not only a sado-masochist, but he organised sado-masochistic parties
which also (one witness only, but a credible one, in my opinion)
involved animals. This is completely independent of the testimony of
Regina and the other X's. He hung out with the transvestite Roxanne
(and by his own admission attended 'her' film-making sessions; films
that are regularly seized today all over Europe because they are
simply 'too much', consenting adults or not).
And several witnesses talk about Nihoul and Bouty being seen with lots
of African children, And another witness says that Nihoul made trips
to Africa to persuade parents to let him look after their children in
Europe; childen who were never seen again. Given Nihoul and Bouty's
very close (and I mean really close, not just 'Brussels is a small
place' close) relationship with Kenneth Ossai (another UK citizen, the
head of the Celestial Church of Christ in Brussels, and named by
another investigating magistrate as being involved in human
trafficking and prostitution), these witnesses are credible.
So any relationship between Nihoul-Bouty and Dutroux looks like a
recipe, to me, for a marriage made in hell. I give absolutely no
credence to the theory (in the absence of proof) that Nihoul passed
orders on to Dutroux to kidnap the girls. But I do take very seriously
the theory that Nihoul would try and take advantage of Dutroux's
behaviour, in some way. He knew Dutroux quite well, and he knew
Lelièvre very well. I consider it unlikely that Nihoul did not know
that the girls were in the house. And, if you will allow me to
speculate here, an obvious little business venture would be the
marketing of Dutroux's videos, assuming that he made some in the first
place. And, to carry on the speculation further, how would Nihoul
react if he knew (and I think he probably did) that Julie and Melissa
were alone in the cage, following Dutroux's arrest in December 1995?
It would be tempting for Nihoul, or one or more of his
sado-masochistic friends (Roxanne springs to mind immediately) to take
advantage of this window of opportunity. Especially if Dutroux and
Lelièvre were there to take the rap for the original kidnapping...
Pure speculation, for course. But, all too often, speculation is all
we have. The story of Dutroux's video's, plus the unwillingness to
pursue all forensic leads as a matter of urgency, make me very
suspicious. I am not yet ready to join the conspiracy theorists. But
neither am I ready to embrace the 'pure cock-up' supporters.
> I don't believe I posed that as a question
Oops. Sorry about that.
> Flier is not part of this case.
Apart form the paedophile magazines, neighbours said that Flier and
Lelievre were seen acting suspiciously with minors. So there is quite
a lot here. Flier is a possible paedophile, and intimately linked with
Bouty, Nihoul, Lelievre, Walsh and their drugs trafficking and stolen
cars activities. For me he is definitely part of the case, just like
Diakostavrianos, even though he is not one of the accused.
> Whatever. John.
I think the point I would like to make is that, form the 1980's
onwards, Nihoul and Bouty inhabited a little world that was very much
a viper's nest. In 1996 we had Lelièvre and Dutroux as the latest new
additions to this poisonous little world. And Ossai, the renegade
priest form the Celestial Church of Christ, was very much part of this
little world. This priest was one of two that Bouty had close dealings
with, incidentally. The other one (and I have copies of correspondence
between this priest and Bouty) is even worse. In theory a respectable
Roman Catholic priest, he fell out with Bouty because he claimed that
she was holding on to some of his 'possessions'. These possessions can
only be described a list of props for the film The Exorcist.
Unbelievable!
When Walsh was tracked down, and it was found that he shared a house
of a murderer at the time the particularly nasty murder was carried
out, in a quiet seaside town like Ramsgate, alarm bells were set off
in the minds of certain people. Because if Walsh was hanging out with
people like Lelièvre (and they lived together for several months in
1995, don't forget, and several psychiatrists have come forward to say
that Lelièvre is a psychopath in his own right, and not just some poor
unfortunate who fell under Dutroux's spell), one does wonder just what
sort of personality Walsh has...
> A link with the Dolo was not a link with Nihoul, and particularly in 1987.
More than a link, Nihoul was a leading light at the Dolo in 1987, and
in 1984 at the time of Christine Van Hees's murder. If X1 talks about
Nihoul in 1997, and an anonymous phone call in 1987 talks about the
Dolo, then you have two leads, 10 years apart, pointing to Nihoul.
This doesn't mean I necessarily believe Nihoul was there, however.
> And the punks were a very strong lead.
Yes they were, in 1984. But by 1987 (when the anonymous call
connecting the Dolo was made) the investigation had run out of steam.
> The MO was quite different.
There are major differences, of course. But the striking parallel, for
me, is the way Dutroux kidnapped his victims and held them prisoner
for a time. Granted, this was only for a few hours, or overnight, in
the 1980's. Was the cage simply an extension of this compulsion to
'detain' his victims, so that he could enjoy this pleasure for a
longer period of time? I have a feeling that it was. He also kidnapped
the 3 young people in November 1995, don't forget, and probably
imprisoned Weinstein for a period of time (judging from the emaciated
condition of his corpse).
> He *did* act as a lone predator before. Yet now that hypothesis is considered by "believers" as ludicrous.
I agree with you. The "lone predator" hypothesis is a perfectly
reasonable hypothesis, given his previous behaviour. It should never
be dismissed as ludicrous.
> ...making videos was almost as bad - a certain way to incriminate himself
But that's precisely what he did in 1995, but in Slovakia.
> Does his lack of credibility not undermine the *thesis* ?
I suppose it must do, for the people who believe that he acted under
orders in some way.
Alan Hope
>> All right, but certain non-matches are easy to spot
>I am going to try and find out more about this initial triage, and
>will get back to you on this.
Langlois apparently told the court yesterday that DNA had been taken
from the four suspects, relatives and other possible suspects. So,
wider than I'd thought. Nevertheless, DNA some 20 unknowns has been
found -- not necessarily sinister, when you think of all the ways DNA
could be present in your house.
>> I mean to say I'd require one.
>OK
>> I think this is all a mountain out of a molehill, and quite characteristic of the conspiracy case.
>If this was the only unusual aspect of the case, I would agree with
>you. And I am certainly not claiming that this points to a conspiracy.
>But there are plenty of people out there who are demolishing what
>Regina had to say (often with little or no knowledge of the facts)
>and at the same time claiming that her claims were thoroughly and
>professionally investigated.
I have a basic problem with reconciling her narrative with the way she
is. I've met her on several occasions, and she's very sane and very
normal. Yet when you hear and read what she's claiming she went
through, it's very hard not to conclude EITHER that she's a complete
fruitloop making it all up OR, if it's true, a severely traumatised
and damaged person. Yet she seems to fit neither of those
descriptions. It's a mystery.
>My problem with the journalists Braeways and Deliege, by the way, is
>that I *know* they are extremely well informed. Their articles are
>therefore completely inexcusable. They were successfully sued by De
>Baets and Bille, of course.
Yes. I don't know much about Deliege, but Brewaeys has otherwise
excellent journalistic credentials, and it's hard to imagine him as
the mouthpiece of some corrupt official cover-up. I've asked this
question of others who were around in the days when he was getting up
noses, and they're mystified.
>But for me the real devil in this case is the lawyer of Christine Van
>Hees's parents, Michèle Hirsch. I don't know if you remember her press
>conference. Amazing! After a mere 9 days, she studied the entire file,
>and was able to announce the following to an adoring cluster of
>journalists: the original policemen were wrong, Regina was not present
>at the murder of Christine Van Hees, the current policemen were back
>on track and doing a good job, she knew the identity of true
>murderers, she would not identify them, she declined to explain all
>this because she did not wish to help the murderers.
Well okay, that's come to nothing as we can see. Don't you think it's
rather odd, though, that people capable of carrying out such ritual
murders and getting away with it -- people with power to influence
murder inquiries, politicians etc -- would a) do their sick thing in
some abandoned old mushroom facility and b) leave the body lying there
smouldering to attract attention? The place is right in the middle of
a heavily-populated area, very busy at all hours of the day and night,
full of bars and student hang-outs. The last place in the world for a
murder with guests and smoking remains. Not if it was planned that
way, at least.
>Biggest load of horse-shit I have heard in my entire life.
>> Nihoul was a complete chancer.
>Yes, he was. And I agree that his power and influence is grossly
>overrated. But he is also a sinister person in his own right. He was
>not only a sado-masochist, but he organised sado-masochistic parties
>which also (one witness only, but a credible one, in my opinion)
>involved animals. This is completely independent of the testimony of
>Regina and the other X's. He hung out with the transvestite Roxanne
>(and by his own admission attended 'her' film-making sessions; films
>that are regularly seized today all over Europe because they are
>simply 'too much', consenting adults or not).
I'm not aware of that.
>And several witnesses talk about Nihoul and Bouty being seen with lots
>of African children, And another witness says that Nihoul made trips
>to Africa to persuade parents to let him look after their children in
>Europe; childen who were never seen again.
There's a severe danger of Nihoul overload. Since August 1996 I've no
doubt he's been accused of the Kennedy assassination, the murder of
Mozart and the mugging of the man who went down from Jerusalem to
Jericho. Never mind what he's been accused of; which of these many
accusations has any evidence attached?
>Given Nihoul and Bouty's
>very close (and I mean really close, not just 'Brussels is a small
>place' close) relationship with Kenneth Ossai (another UK citizen, the
>head of the Celestial Church of Christ in Brussels, and named by
>another investigating magistrate as being involved in human
>trafficking and prostitution), these witnesses are credible.
They're hearsay witnesses, are they not?
>Oops. Sorry about that.
>> Whatever. John.
--
AH
LOL
> Sharonpo goes:
>
>
>>I think I shall forevermore think of "Mr. Tittle-Tattle" when I see Alan's
>>posts.
>
>
> Like anyone gives a fuck about your opinion.
:)
You gave a fuck enough to reply!
:)
Alan Hope
>:)
>:)
Get out of it, Kenny.
--
AH
John Stevens
Yes. I think the ones in the cage are of particular interest, though.
The traces on the wall of the cage, and another on a pillow case used
by one of the children, do require some explanation. But you are
right, the final explanation need not necessarily be sinister.
> I have a basic problem with reconciling her narrative with the way she is.
Yes, I know how you feel. I just do not know what to believe.
> Don't you think it's rather odd, though... ..?
Definitely. And I understand why the police would have considered the
punks such a good lead at the begining. These sort of people just seem
more *likely* (or, to me at least, less *unlikely*) than rich and
powerful people.
Just in case you don't know already, incidentally, Dutch TV broadcasts
the first part of a two-part documentary on the X's, beginning this
evening (11/03/2004). The program-maker is Zembla, but I do not know
what channel it is on.
> I'm not aware of that.
I don't have a p.v. reference for Nihoul's attendance at Roxanne's
film-making. MJ's book 'Les dossiers X' quotes Nihoul as saying that
the scenes, in Roxanne's films, were so violent that they made the
cameraman throw up, but for once there is no accompanying p.v.
reference. This is not the same as Nihoul claiming that he attended,
of course (which is what I stated earlier). I will try and find the
exact details, because I have somehow got it into my mind that he did.
Roxanne was definitely a Dolo regular, though. And Marlene De Cockere
(another Dolo regular) with whom Nihoul lives today, also worked as
Roxanne's secretary (in the sado-maso film business) for 6 months.
Incidentally, and again according to 'Les Dossiers X', a certain
Doudou once paid a large sum to Roxanne (according to Nihoul) to be
handcuffed and placed in a cage for half a day. Doudou was a lawyer,
future magistrate and Dolo regular.
This leads into a very interesting pv, which is 116.166 dated
19/12/1996 (not mentioned by Les Dossiers X). This was the first and
last police interview of Claude Van Keerbergen. He was interviewed
because, among other things, he knew Doudou, and his interview showed
that he knew a great deal about the Dolo and its clientele. Van
Keerbergen claimed to have heard Nihoul and Doudou discussing cages
for torturing children. This was in the context of paedophile
cassettes from the USA, showing black children in cages being tortured
and burnt. He also claims that another client, Claude Grosjean, turned
up at the Dolo with his wife and 4 year old son. When the son saw
Doudou, the child began to cry, saying to him 'you cannot do that,
because I'm a child'.
Is Van Keerbergen a fantasist? He may not have been, because the story
of Grosjean, Doudou and the child was confirmed by another witness
'Max The Chauffeur', who visited the Dolo frequently. And Van
Keerbergen himself definitely knew the Dolo very well, because he
correctly named so many clients.
> There's a severe danger of Nihoul overload.
Yes. And he's probably been accused of all the things you mentioned.
> They're hearsay witnesses, are they not?
p.v. 10.168 28/02/1987 PJ BXL VAN HECKE - Interview of Philippe
BOUVEROUX. He says that he had known Nihoul for 18 years (via their
respective fathers). Once, during a visit to Nihoul-Bouty in Brussels,
he noticed lots of Asiatic and African children.
This one is hearsay - p.v. 10.112 14/02/1997 PJ BXL GUSTIN - Interview
of Armand TEEWEN - , he discussed Monique, the African friend of his
wife (also African). He says that, according to Monique, Nihoul is the
accountant of her uncle who bought the Grand Hotel in Verviers, and
that he works with Bouty. Again, according to Monique, Nihoul visited
Zaire where he proposed taking children back to Belgium so that they
could study. Several parents profited from this, but lost contact with
their children. During the weekends there were many families with
foreign children at the hotel.
My comments on above p.v. - Although the above p.v. is hearsay, some
elements can be verified. Monique's uncle, Musube, did buy the Grand
Hotel, and it was Nihoul that arranged this, and 'ran' it for him
('run' is not really the correct word, it soon went bankrupt, like all
businesses Nihoul touched). I have never heard or read anything else
claiming that Nihoul visited Zaire, however.
p.v. 113.357 06/09/1996 DE MULDER - Interview of Kisoki LUDIDI. He
claimed to have seen, in Bouty's apartment, a tall, strongly built
Nigerian, a cleaning lady and 5-6 children aged 4 to 8. The children
seemed traumatised, especially a little blond girl.
p.v. 110.897 21/08/1996 BDE BXL - Anonymous witness - The witness
claimed that Bouty had been prosecuted in the past for human
trafficking of Africans, and that she owned a property on the coast.
My comments on above p.v. - The property on the coast is of course
correct, but I have never heard or read anything else about Bouty
being prosecuted for human trafficking.
The links with chief priest Kenneth Ossai and the Celestial Church of
Christ (the biggest Nigerian church) are confirmed by lots of p.v.'s.
Bouty drew up the legal paperwork, and then seems to have hijacked the
Church, and this with the connivance of Ossai, for her own ends. The
reference 'Celestial Church of Christ (CCC)' turns up a great deal,
incidentally, in the telephone records that eventually led to Nihoul
having to stand trial in connection with the kidnapping of Laetitia.
The two telephone lines of the CCC were actually installed in Bouty's
apartment, and routinely used by both Bouty and Nihoul. Although Ossai
had no connection with these, there were other phone calls, in the
week before Laetitia was kidnapped, between Nihoul and Ossai's private
telephone. These have neve rbeen explained. Finally, files concerning
Ossai were found on Nihoul's personal computer. Ossai is of Nigerian
ethnic originin, but definitely (according to the Belgian authorities,
who suspected him of having a false passport for a time) a UK passport
holder.
Ossai himself is the object of the very interesting p.v. below
p.v. 102.950 28/02/1997 BSR BXL GOOVAERT - This states that Ossai
figured in an investigation, by investigating magistrate Van Aelst,
into prostitution and human trafficking. It also states that Ossai
made phone calls to people named in another investigation, this time
led by investigating magistrate Burm, into prostution and human
trafficking. Peter Okafor is also named as being involved.
My comments on above p.v. - Interestingly (although almost certainly
irrelevant to the Dutroux case), someone called Peter Okafor is
currently the head of the Celestial Church of Christ in Bremen,
Germany.
Alan Hope
>My comments on above p.v. - Interestingly (although almost certainly
>irrelevant to the Dutroux case), someone called Peter Okafor is
>currently the head of the Celestial Church of Christ in Bremen,
>Germany.
Forgive me, but we seem to have strayed far from the track.
You mentioned the Zembla docu on Dutch TV, which I've just watched. It
seemed to me to be a restatement of all that we know to date, and sure
enough, there was MJ as researcher.
OT: am I being journalistically anal, or is anyone else repelled by
documentaries with black-and-white footage (not originally b/w but
made to look so) and solemn music in the background? I hope not.
If you understand Dutch, you can find it at:
http://www.omroep.nl/vara/zembla/
by clicking on the link corresponding to your bandwidth connection.
It's about 38' long, with a second part coming next week. You'll see,
if you don't know already, how centred Regina appears to be. The whole
thing is totally one-sided, I suppose inevitably.
On the subject of documentaries, I've been approached by someone
wanting to make a docu for ITV on this case, and soliciting my
cooperation. I've no idea what he has in mind (it often comes down to
setting up interviews, which I'm not prepared to do). If he seems
legit, I would certainly consider suggesting he contact you (he's in
England, as I take it you are) if you're amenable.
I'd suggest at this point we take this off-list, since what interest
there was in this case has run out among the others, and since there
are a couple of matters I'd like to pick up on which are perhaps not
for public consumption.
If you email me with your thoughts on this ITV idea, we can perhaps
continue this discussion in email. I think that would probably be best
at this point.
I'm posting this simply because I don't know if your email address is
real, to be sure you'll see it.
cc: email
--
AH
nan
I am still interested in the Dutroux, et al, case, and I DO hope you
aren't chasing and/or inticing Mr. Stevens away from posting in the
atc.
Considering how unforthcoming the Belgium media is.
from Nan
OzzieAnnie
No no no!!! I've been following this exchange and hate to see it go
to email. I've been tediously reading each post and deleting all the
flame junk involving you know who in order to get to these posts
where the real scoop is. Awwww...
OzzieAnnie
Alan Hope
If he prefers to discuss things in email that he apparently doesn't
want to address in the open, I don't see what that has to do with you.
>Considering how unforthcoming the Belgium media is.
You'd find them more forthcoming if you met them halfway, like by
learning one of the two languages the Belgian media uses. You'd soon
see that a vast amount of information is available. It's just not in
English, that's all. Your problem, though.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>No no no!!! I've been following this exchange and hate to see it go
>to email. I've been tediously reading each post and deleting all the
>flame junk involving you know who in order to get to these posts
>where the real scoop is. Awwww...
Sorry. I've had no response to date. I had one or two questions of a
more delicate nature, that's all. No need to take the whole thing
offlist if you're still interested.
But we'll see what Mr. Stevens says.
--
AH
Sarah Monroe
>No no no!!! I've been following this exchange and hate to see it go
>to email. I've been tediously reading each post and deleting all the
>flame junk involving you know who in order to get to these posts
>where the real scoop is. Awwww...
>
>OzzieAnnie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I hate people that say me too but, in this case, me too. Definitely side with
Ozzie Annie. And I also know the difference between Holland and Belgium.
Gms
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president... is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt
http://gmspider.com/GGHome.htm
OzzieAnnie
Thx Alan. Hope you saw Sarah's post too. I bet plenty of folks are
reading this thread. Now I just hope Mr. Stevens agrees to continue
posting here. This is the meatiest thread around here in aeons.
OAnnie
John Stevens
Susan, I would be delighted to carry on posting on the newsgroup, if
you would like me to. My biggest motivation, incidentally, is my anger
at the way Regina Louf has been treated in the Belgian media. What is
beyond doubt is that she was a *victim* at the age of 12 years, and as
such deserves our respect and compassion. This is independent of the
veracity of her other claims. And although I agree, Alan, that the
Zembla program on Dutch TV was one-sided, I am happy to see anything
that presents a different point of view to the conventional one (the
Dutch media has been little better than the Belgian media, as far as I
can see).
While on the subject of Regina, Olenka Frenkiel's BBC program and
Observer article made one point, which we have not discussed so far,
but which for me was even more disgusting than Anne Thily's interview.
Olenka claimed, and I know that on this point she is correct, that the
producers of the program 'Au Nom de la Loi' depicted the parents of
Regina as adorable people 'who would never do anything to harm their
little girl', even though they had been informed in advance that the
father had (1) admitted that Tony Van Den Bogaert, and adult 'family
friend', went up to Regina's room whenever he pleased, and (2) that
Tony himself had admitted that he had had sex with her when she was
12. The producers of the program knew about this *before* the program
was broadcast, but did not inform the viewers of these facts. The
viewers were instead treated to a long, sympathetic portrait of the
parents (together with plenty of photographs showing Regina as a
happy, contented little girl without a care in the world). And the
final shot of this program, as Olenka said without exaggerating, was
to show Regina's head against a backdrop of crows, and with a Blair
Witch style soundtrack. This is all the more reprehensible because 'Au
Nom de la Loi' is a flagship Belgian program which is held in high
regard by most of the Belgian French-speaking viewing public.
I would *love it* if someone, somewhere, came out of the blue with a
smoking gun that would establish some of Regina's claims beyond doubt.
So, Alan, to pick up were we left off...
You are right, the Celestial Church of Christ in Germany is definitely
off-topic. Before leaving the topic of Celestial Church of Christ for
ever, though, I would like to conclude the discussion on priest
Kenneth Ossai, because the Belgian police files paint such a
astonishing picture of this guy. This is particularly interesting
because there is a potential 'smoking gun' here which could expose
corruption, at the hands of Bouty and Nihoul, on the part of the
Belgian authorities (provided the UK authorities cooperate), even if
the big picture remains a mystery.
It's a long one, but after this I promise not to go off-topic again
:-)
The sequence of events concerning Bouty, Nihoul, The Celestial Church
of Christ and Ossai is as follows
Laetitia was kidnapped on 09/08/1996. Dutroux, Lelievre, Nihoul, Bouty
and Ossai were questioned soon afterwards. Given the phone calls made
between Dutroux and The Celestial Church of Christ (CCC), the police
were of course extremely curious about this Nigerian church. Bouty was
questioned about the CCC on 17/08/1996 (two days after Laetitita and
Sabine were found alive, the Belgian authorities were acting extremely
quickly and efficiently at this point). They would soon have an
explanation for this. Nihoul and Bouty used telephones, opened in the
name of the Celestial Church of Christ, for their own purposes. Bouty
and Nihoul were never practising members of this church (apart form
anything else, they were white Belgians, which would have made them
unusual members, although this is not unknown). The explanation seemed
clear and straightforward. Bouty had drawn up the legal paperwork for
the church and hijacked the church for her own ends.
Although Bouty and Nihoul were separated, and the CCC telephone lines
installed in Bouty's apartments, Nihoul routinely entered Bouty's
apartment (he had permission from Bouty to do this) and made phone
calls from there. Because Nihoul's apartment was in the same building
as Bouty's, this was easy for him to do.
But the police quickly learnt somehting about chief priest Ossai.
Although claiming to be British, according to P.V. 36.161 20/08/1996
PK BXL BOEGAERT he was wanted by police on suspicion of using a false
UK passport. This lead, on 10/10/1996, to a police raid at Ossai's
address. According to P.V 40.121 10/10/1996 PJ BXL BENEUX, Ossai was
present, but using a Nigerian alias - Isaac OSAHON (born 20/09/1959).
Before the search gets underway Ossai/Osahon comes clean about yet
another Alias, a Benin alias in the name of Mouftahou COUCHE (born
02/01/1957). The police then take Ossai/Osahon/Couche's fingerprints
and they match yet another person: Folayan ADEBAYO (born 10/10/1963)
who had been served with an OQT (Order to Quit The Territory)
following his arrest on 27/06/1994.
Our chief priest Ossai (UK) = Osahon (Nigeria) = Couche (Benin) =
Adebayo (Nigeria) was then, not surprisingly, immediately arrested and
interned in Forest prison in Brussels. He could then expect rapid
deportation, assuming he was not charged with anything else.
Ossai sat in prison for 2 months. On 10/12/1996 he was interviewed in
prison. Accoridng to P.V. 46.495 BXL VOGELAIRE Ossai claimed to be the
president of the Celestial Church of Christ, and said that Bouty was
the Legal Representative.
Now at this stage Ossai was in trouble on 2 counts. He was wanted for
having a false UK passport (ie his entire Kenneth Ossai alias was
based on false British papers) and, unconnected to that, his
fingerprints matched another person who had been arrested and ordered
to leave the country two years previously. But then, something
astonishing happened....
According to P.V. 44.782 11/12/1996 PJ BXL DE BROYER (ref: 053.146/96
for case Br.21.93 130189/96 attached to statement 44.781), Ossai was
wanted for use of a false British passport. But upon examination, the
passport was genuine. Also, the fingerprints of OSSAI are unknown.
Advice to the Foreign Office: no further action.
And at this point Ossai was released, and has (as far as I am aware)
never been troubled by the police again. He is now living today,
incidentally, under the name of Isaac Osahon (and has opened a
telephone line in this name) at the same address as the Celestian
Church of Christ in Brussels.
Christmas came early for Ossai on 11/12/1996! He was wanted for using
a false British passport... no problem, the passport is genuine after
all! And the fingerprints matching a completely different person. No
problem! This was a mistake as well. Sorry to have inconvenienced you,
Mr Ossai... er... Osahan... Couche, Adebayo or whatever your name is!
Was Ossai 'protected ' in some way by Nihoul and Bouty? The
possibility has to be taken seriously because, as I said before, The
Belgian Public Parliamentary Enquiry itself drew attention to
suspected corruption on the part of Nihoul and Bouty's activities in
providing visas and residence permits to Africans. But what is
interesting is that the answer to this may lie in the hands of the UK
authorities. They are the ones who could answer, once and for all, if
Ossai (born 26/06/1966) had been issued with a genuine British
passport in 1996. If I was a betting man, I would wager that Ossai has
never been a genuine UK passport holder....
Finally, as I have said before, evidence of Ossai's true nature came
to light 2 months after his release from prison. This is explained in
police statement (p.v.) below
P.V. 102.950 BSR BXL GOOVAERT - INITIAL BR.37.66.102950/97 Information
Charity CELESTIAL CHURCH OF CHRIST - NIHOUL. In the context of
investigation 1397/1021, Investigating Magistrate VAN AELST, for
PROSTITUTION and TRAFFICKING OF HUMAN BEINGS, some telephone numbers
were identified. Among these was 410.42.61 = OSSAI Kenneth
(26/06/1966). His registered charity is avenue Broustin 17 at the
office of the charity CELESTIAL CHURCH OF CHRIST and he is a priest.
His telephone number corresponds with that of address Ch de Ninove 99.
It is a café with mainly black clients. The number makes several calls
to those known as being related to the Brussels and Antwerp
prostitution underworld. Calls are also made to the Petit Château (Ed:
a refugee centre in Brussels). Calls are also made to the private
number of individuals cited in file 08/96 Investigating Magistrate
BURM (PROSTITUTION and TRAFFICKING OF HUMAN BEINGS ). This file
concerns Nigerian asylum seekers who slide into prostitution. In this
file is cited OKAFOR Peter (01/01/1961) and OWOLABI Shola
(25/12/1960).
But this did not lead to any follow-up enquiries regarding Ossai.
Finally. I find Annie Bouty's African connections intriguing in
another respect. Regina's description of the murder of Christine Van
Hees makes me think of some form of ritual murder, such as a
sacrifice. This 'sacrifice' (if it was one) was carried out by Bouty,
and involved some sort of ceremony that included a snake, which was
itself killed and burnt during the proceedings. Does an African
ceremony exist which involves a snake which is itself killed and
burnt? I do not know the answer to that one. But I will end this
'African ' discussion with the wildest speculation, and am fully
prepared to be shot down in flames :-)
Annie Bouty has connections with Black Africa that go back at least 30
years. It started after she qualifyied in law in the early 1970's. She
worked for Mobutu's own personal lawyer in Brussels. It was from this
point onwards that she got involved in African affairs, and made many
high level contacts. These included the president of Guinea. telex's
also exist (and I have copies of these), written by Bouty, telling
business contacts to use the Nigerian diplomatic bag on certain
occasions, so she had very high level contacts there. But she never
acted as a lawyer to African clients; rather she set up her
import-export company Cadreco which was a front for a wide range of
fraudulent activities. And during all this time, form the 1970's to
the present day, she has provided 'services' to asylum seekers and
other Africans who are receiving residence permits.
Now let us imagine for a moment, purely for the sake of argument, that
Regina is telling the truth. *If* she was telling the truth, then this
would point (to me at least) to Annie Bouty having got mixed in
African witchcraft or spiritualism in some way. I base this on Bouty's
contacts with Africa, and the correspondence she had with the totally
insane Roman Catholic priest whose name is Monseigneur Joseph
Hochfelder. Annie Bouty, was (and is) a very strange person. The
account I mentioned to you before, the one of Bouty and Nihoul having
large number of African and Asiatic children in their home, makes me
feel very uncomfortable.
Now if we are assuming, for the sake of argument, that Regina is
correct, let us go one step further and assume, again for the sake of
argument, that I am correct in assuming that this is because Bouty has
developed an unhealthy interest in African witchcraft. Now she has a
close relationship with an African priest, Ossai, of the Celestial
Church of Christ, who we can safely say is bad news, being involved in
trafficking of human beings and prostitution. And if the folowing
information, received direct by Chief Prosector Bourlet, is anything
to go on, it may be worse than this.
Police reference T703/96 BOURLET - CELESTIAL CHURCH OF CHRIST - OGBONI
cult - The cult carried out ritual murders of children. Information
coming from Italy.
The Ogboni, by the way, is an extremely unpleasant West African secret
society. And one murder they are almost certainly involved in, is the
ritual sacrifice of 'Adam', the Nigerian boy whose torso was pulled
out of the River Thames in London on 21/09/2001. In view of this, and
the information received by Bourlet in Belgium, the whereabouts of
Kenneth Ossai, and Bouty herself, could be of interest to the UK
authorites around the time that Adam was killed. But tracking down the
movements of Ossai may prove difficult. We know of 4 aliases,
comprising three different nationalities, but how many others does he
have?
Ossai and the Celestial Church of Christ is Brussels is especially
relevant, of course, because Adam was wearing a pair of shorts that
came from Germany, and Adam himself probably begain his European
journey from Hamburg. The Celestial Church of Christ is one the few
West African organisations that spans Europe from Northern Germany to
the UK. The presence of Peter Okafor (pimp and trafficker, and contact
of Ossai) as head of the Celestial Church of Christ in Bremen, which
is not very far from Hamburg, is therefore particularly interesting.
nan
Thanks to you for continuing your very interesting narrative.
Regina is brave.
Sincerely, from Nan
John Stevens
I was very happy to get that off my chest. And although I agree with
Alan 100% that there is a danger of Nihoul overload as a general
principle, I believe that some of Nihoul's activities have not
received the attention they deserve, and these include possible
(although for me personally it is a certainty, in concert with Annie
Bouty) involvement in trafficking of human beings from Africa in
1995-96. It is a mystery to me how Kenneth Ossai managed to avoid the
spotlight, after an uncomfortable couple of months, given that Nihoul
made phone calls to him personally in the week before Laetitia was
kidnapped, and records in the name of Ossai were found on Nihoul's
computer.
nan
Dear John Stevens,
Nihoul, Bouty (ugh!) and Ossai are fascinating characters. According
to Regina Louf, Nihoul ("Mich")is the main operator. The "Doro" aka
Dolores (orgy) Cafe story is also quite intriguing.
My thinking, so far, is that during the long delay in prosecuting this
Dutroux case, there was a concerted effort by the "system" to
obliterate all traces to higher-ups, clients as well as enablers,
involved in the alleged paedophilia Network. The Network protected
itself by blackmail and extortion, as well as involving prestigous
citizens who naturally fear exposure. To mollify outrage from
Belgium's citizens and from the international communities, the focus
diverts from the greater nefarious picture by finally serving-up
Dutroux and limited accomplices for trial.
How can anyone deny the fact that Belgium's "open society" and it Sex
Trades are a major tourist attraction and a source of national
revenue?
Regards, from Nan
John Stevens
They certainly are. And in Nihoul and Bouty's case, this extends to
other members of the family. Nihoul's brother, Daniel, is just as bad
as he is. And Annie Bouty's brother Georges, with whom Annie is in
regular contact, is a pimp and male prostitute who struts his stuff at
the Place Fontenas in Brussels (the place in Brussels where punters go
to satisfy their...er... most unusual desires). One of George's 'boys'
described Georges as having perverted tastes (police statement 103.116
L914 29/08/1996 BDE WAVRE KOLLER - interview of PRYJMAK Sebastien).
Given the description Sebastien makes of his 'normal' activities,
George's perversions must really be something. Bouty's sister,
however, is a nun! I don't know much about her, but I'll bet there is
a story to tell there.
Dear sweet Georges, by the way, was one of the beneficiaries of the
ecstasy tablets that Nihoul also gave to Leličvre.
> According to Regina...
Just to make things clear. I am very sceptical of many of Regina's
claims. I have particular difficulty with her claims concerning the
presence of Nihoul and Dutroux. I believe that she is sincere, but
that her testimony contains many cases of mistaken identity. But her
descriptions of places and events have made a big impression on me. I
also accept her identification of the two brothers of Knokke, because
of the supporting evidence.
> ...there was a concerted effort by the "system" to obliterate all traces to higher ups
I have an open mind on this. I am suspicious of several things (I have
mentioned them already), but there is no evidence (yet). But I am not
really sure that the Belgian authorities would be capable of it, even
if they wanted to, because they are so totally useless.
Having said that, if there is anyone at all who has the clout to call
in every favour they have ever been owed, and to swing it so that they
get off the hook, it is the two brothers of Knokke that I mentioned
before, in connection with the testimony of Regina, X2, Chantal Storme
and the anonymous letters, plus reports I have received concerning
their activities today in Ibiza. There was a book published a few
years ago listing the 200 most powerful people in Belgium. One of the
two brothers is very high on the list, and he has connections
*everywhere*. By this I mean business, he has enormous personal
wealth, he is part of the Belgian aristocracy, and enjoys a close
personal relationship with the royal family (against whom there is no
credible evidence, in my opinion). But he is not a household name
(unlike, say, a prime minister who is always on television) which
makes the evidence against him all the stronger.
> How can anyone deny that Belgium's "open society" and its Sex Trades are a major tourist attraction.
Belgian society isn't open at all, especially compared to its
neighbour Holland. And I don't think Belgium is in any sense a magnet
for the 'traditional' sex-tourists. I have never seen any figures
supporting your claim that the sex-industry is a major revenue earner
for Belgium.