Disputed book Forbidden

The Breda municipal court has ordered by injunction that the book about the death of Bebe Paña en Divina Urbi by author DJ Barreveld, must be taken out of circulation while distributed books need to be recalled in lieue of a penalty of 1000 Euro's per day. The same goes for a number of websites. The injunction was made against the "stichting Abot Kamay" and "Oriental Decorations", all owned by the female members of the Barreveld family (Spouse Leticia and daugthers Djanicella en Rubinoor). The judge ruled that the statements in the book were slanderous and 'very seriously damaging to the name of Paña's spouse'. The Barrevelds were also condemned to bear the legal cost.

The case was brought forward by the husband of the deceased Bebe Paña. He argued through his lawyer Kay Roderburg (Spong & Hammerstein advocaten) on 19 januari 2008, that the book was a compilation of slander and lies.

The author for instance stated that the husband was guilty of 3 murders while supposedly enjoying special protection of the prosecutors office.

During the proceedings the only counterargument was put up by Barreveld's spouse Leticia, ex-boardmember of Abot Kamay (all board members acutely stepped down when faced with the libel suit), the publisher of the book and also owner of 'Oriental Decorations' the owner of a slanderous website. Her defense was to 'play dumb': In spite of having been married to a Dutchman for 25 years and being on the board of a foundation claiming to facilitate integration of Filipina's in the Netherlands, Leticia Barreveld claimed not to speak Dutch, not to have read the book and not being able to write. This was genuinely playing dumb as she was freely speaking Dutch outside the courtroom and had written letters in Dutch that were included in the files.

The plaintiff showed that even the most simple and easy to check statements in the book were false. This was left uncontested by the defendand other than that the book was 'fantasy' telling how things 'could have happened'.

In an interview with local television, immediately after the proceedings Barreveld already had confessed that he had lied in the book.

It is highly uncommon that a book is forbidden in the Netherlands, the only other book being 'Mein Kampf'.

The Husband of Paña said he would also file criminal charges against Barreveld, slander being a crime with a maximum jail sentence of 2 years.

Barreveld stated after the verdict that he had not suffered any financial damages since the book was being published through on-line publisher Lulu.

On the BOL.com website the following reviews of this book could be found:

Slecht geschreven en verzonnen
Het boek lijkt meer de persoonlijke fantasie van de schrijver: de strekking is "ik weet het allemaal veel beter en als de politie en Peter de Vries nou maar naar mij hadden geluisterd dan was het allemaal goedgekomen". De beweringen van Barreveld zijn kennelijk destijds al tijdens het proces naar het rijk der fabelen bewezen en daarvóór al door Peter de Vries (zoals Barreveld zelf - geirriteerd- optekent). Uit zijn opmerkingen over redenen voor cassatie ('twee rechters zijn tot totaal tegenovergestelde conclusies gekomen") en de functie van de CEAS, blijkt hij geen kaas gegeten te hebben van het juridisch proces in Nederland. Kennelijk inderdaad te lang in het buitenland gezeten. Klaarblijkelijk dacht hij 'als de Vries geld kan verdienen met Joran, dan kan ik het met deze zaak'. Slecht geschreven, langdradige (en ongetwijfeld onware) verhalen over hoe goed hij zelf is en de overige feiten zijn gelogen zoals hij inmiddels zelf in een interview heeft toegegeven. De fantasieën van een marginale getuige met grootheidswaanzin. Als je een boek over een zaak wilt schrijven hou je dan aan de feiten. Als je een verhaal wilt verzinnen, schrijf dan een roman.

Badly written and fantasy
The book seems to be the personal fantasy of the writer, the mantra being: "I know everything better and if the police and crimereporter Peter de Vries had only listened to me, then things would have worked out fine". Barreveld's statements apparently already were discarded as fairy tales during the criminal trial and before that by crime reportre de Vries (as Barreveld himself -clearly irrited- notes). From his statements about grounds for supreme court appeal ('two judges who have come to totally opposite conclusions') and the function of the CEAS, it becomes appearant that he has no knowledge whatsoever of the judicial process. Obviously he has been abraod too long. Clearly he was thinking: "if De Vries can make money on Joran, I can make it on this case". Badly written, longwinded (and no doubt untrue) stories on how good he himself is and the other statements are lies as he now has admitted himself in a TV interview. The fantasies of a marginal witness with Megalomania. If you want to write a book about a case, stick to the facts. If you want to make up a story, write a novel.

taalgebruik
Deze schrijver was OF lange tijd in het buitenland OF hij heeft zijn boek niet laten redigeren. Wat een hoop taal -en tikfouten! Gemiddeld vier per pagina! Ook de opmaak (met regelmatig meerdere spaties tussen woorden) deugt niet. Dan is er nog de inhoud. Er is veel onderzoek verricht, maar de opbouw van het verhaal is onlogisch en soms niet te volgen. Het boek heeft iets weg van een persoonlijke vete van Barreveld tegen de hoofdverdachte. Dat leid ik af uit de drive om de meest stupide zaken te weerleggen, maar ook uit het feit dat Barreveld zelf één van de getuigen was die is gehoord door justitie. Het is te hopen dat een volgende druk er beter uitkomt.

Language
This writer was either abroad for a long time or he has not had his book edited. A lot of spelling mistakes and typo's. On average 4 on every page! Also the formatting (frequently with multiple spaces between words) is horrible. And then there is the content. There has been a lot of research, but the story line is unlogical and sometimes hard to follow. The book seems mostly a personal feud van Barreveld against the main suspect. I gather that from the drive to argue the most insignificant facts but also from the fact that Barreveld was one of the witnesses that was heard by the police. Let's hope that a next print comes out better.

duur
Een overdadig aantal taal -en tikfouten, kromme zinnen, veel zijpaden, verkeerde opmaak: deze uitgave is een amateuristische en ik mag hopen dat de auteur de volgende druk(ken) wat aanpassingen pleegt. Zijn persoonlijke belangen en niet al te feitelijke onderbouwing ("wat ik niet weet heb ik zelf volgens logica ingevuld") voeren de boventoon. Dit boek is erg duur voor wat je krijgt.

expensive
An excess of linguistical errors and typo's, strange sentences, detours and bad formatting: This publication is amateuristic and I may hope that the author makes some adaptations in the next print. His personal interests and the rather non-factual foundation ("What I did not know I made up myself according to logic") are the main focus. This book is very expensive for what you get.

Distributer Lulu.com already had stopped distributing the book prior to the verdict because of breach of agreement.

This criticism on Bareveld seems not to be restricted to this one book. Barreveld seems to make a profession out of writing unfounded, ill-written books in an a continuous attempt to make a 'quick buck'. Customer Reviews on a few more of his books are e.g. as follows:

No wonder the author got this book out so soon after Enron's fall. He filled the book with the work of others and then threw in old essays on the failures of capitalism that have no connection to the Enron scandal. Don' waste your money on this book.

(Over: The Enron Collapse: Creative Accounting, Wrong Economics or Criminal Acts?)

Let's make a quick buck after 9/11 by pumping out a book on terrorism, When I first began reading this book I was taken aback by how horrible the writing was. It is for the most part grammatically incorrect. My fears were partially allayed when I read on the back cover that the author was in fact Dutch, and did not speak English as his first language. While I would have thought the publisher should have taken responsibility for cleaning up the writing, I gave the book a second chance and continued reading. It became abundantly clear that the author had very little in depth knowledge of the Abu Sayaf group. The entire first quarter of the book is nothing but filler explaining Islam and the concept of martyrdom in very generic and in places incorrect terms. What little I could stomach reading further when the author actually began to write about the ASG was also very generic and partially incorrect, or at least in contradiction to other writing on the subject. I have no way to determine if the author's sources are in fact more authentic because he fails to cite anything of significance. The few endnotes that he has for each chapter are almost exclusively from secondary sources. The only explanation I can come up with for the publishing of this book was that the publisher saw an opportunity to make a quick buck shortly after 9/11 by publishing a book with the words "Terrorism" and "Bin Laden" on the cover. If you are looking for a well researched and informative book on this topic I would recommend Militant Islam in Southeast Asia by Zachary Abuza.

(Over: Terrorism in the Philippines: THE BLOODY TRAIL OF ABU SAYYAF, BIN LADEN'S EAST ASIAN CONNECTION)

Amsterdam Court of Appeal orders the criminal prosecution of the Member of Parliament of the Dutch Second Chamber Geert Wilders

On 21 January 2009 the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam ordered the criminal prosecution of the member of parliament Geert Wilders for the incitement to hatred and discrimination based on his statements in various media about moslims and their belief. In addition, the Court of Appeal considers criminal prosecution obvious for the insult of Islamic worshippers because of the comparisons made by Wilders of the islam with the nazism.

The Court of Appeal rendered judgment as a consequence of a number of complaints about the non-prosecution of Wilders for his statements in various media about moslims and their belief. The complainants did not agree with the decision of the public prosecution which decided not to give effect to their report against Wilders.

The public prosecution is of the view, amongst others, that part of the statements of Wilders do not relate to a group of worshippers, but consists of criticism as regards the Islamic belief, as a result of which neither the self-esteem of this group of worshippers is affected nor is this group brought into discredit. Some statements of Wilders can be regarded as offending, but since these were made (outside the Dutch Second Chamber) as a contribution to a social debate there is no longer a ground for punishableness of those statements according to the public prosecution.

The Court of Appeal does not agree with this view of the public prosecution and the considerations which form the basis of this view.

The Court of Appeal has considered that the contested views of Wilders (also as shown in his movie Fitna) constitute a criminal offence according to Dutch law as seen in connection with each other, both because of their contents and the method of presentation. This method of presentation is characterized by biased, strongly generalizing phrasings with a radical meaning, ongoing reiteration and an increasing intensity, as a result of which hate is created. According to the Court of Appeal most statements are insulting as well since these statements substantially harm the religious esteem of the Islamic worshippers. According to the Court of Appeal Wilders has indeed insulted the Islamic worshippers themselves by affecting the symbols of the Islamic belief as well.

Secondly, the Court of Appeal has answered the question whether a possible criminal prosecution or conviction would be admissible according to the norms of the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the European Court based thereon, which considers the freedom of expression of paramount importance. The Court of Appeal has concluded that the initiation of a criminal prosecution and a possible conviction later on as well, provided that it is proportionate, does not necessarily conflict with the freedom of expression of Wilders, since statements which create hate and grief made by politicians, taken their special responsibility into consideration, are not permitted according to European standards either.

Thirdly, the Court of Appeal has answered the question whether criminal prosecution of Wilders because of his statements would be opportune in the Dutch situation (the question of opportunity). According to the Court of Appeal the instigation of hatred in a democratic society constitutes such a serious matter that a general interest is at stake in order to draw a clear boundary in the public debate.

As regards the insult of a group the Court of Appeal makes a distinction. In general the Court determines that the traditional Dutch culture of debating is based on tolerance of each others views to a large extent while Islamic immigrants may be expected to have consideration for the existing sentiments in the Netherlands as regards their belief, which is partly at odds with Dutch and European values and norms. As regards insulting statements the Court of Appeal prefers the political, public and other legal counter forces rather than the criminal law, as a result of which an active participation to the public debate, by moslims as well, is promoted.

However, the Court of Appeal makes an exception as regards insulting statements in which a connection with Nazism is made (for instance by comparing the Koran with “Mein Kampf”). The Court of Appeal considers this insulting to such a degree for a community of Islamic worshippers that a general interest is deemed to be present in order to prosecute Wilders because of this.

The Court of Appeal concludes that the way in which the public debate about controversial issues is held, such as the immigration and integration debate, does not fall within the ambit of the law in principle indeed, but the situation changes when fundamental boundaries are exceeded. Then criminal law does appear as well.

Otherwise, the Court of Appeal emphasizes that this is a provisional judgment in the sense that Wilders has not been convicted in this suit of complaint. The Court of Appeal has only judged whether there are sufficient indications – at the level of a reasonable suspicion – to start a criminal prosecution against Wilders. The penal judge who will ultimately render judgment in a public criminal trial will answer the question if there is ground for conviction, and if so, to which extent.

Malika Karoum not fired

Malika's lawyer Han Jahae informed TV program RTL Boulevard today that his client is currently suspended from her job but that she is not fired.

In itself this is not an uncommon occurrence that a company suspends an employee that is the focus of unwanted attention, guilty or not. When push comes to shove, companies are about the bottom line and profit and they cannot afford to draw unwanted attention, especially in the real estate sector when the accusation is money laundering.

Therefore private-dick Jaques Smits allegations that Malika is fired after the intelligence service in Dubai 'presented convincing evidence' to her employer is again utter bogus.

The intelligence service doing that would be kinda odd. If there is convincing proof that Malika is guilty of anything, she would have been arrested, by the police. The intelligence service or the police would not have gone to her employer with such evidence.

In that same TV program, crime reporter John van de Heuvel confirmed again that in the Netherlands there is no criminal investigation against Malika Karoum.

Arrest warrant out for ex-husband of Malika Karoum

There is a warrant out for the arrest of Mohammed Boulnouar. Several customers of his travelagency have filed charges of fraud against him when they found out that the money they had saved up and paid to Boulnouar for the hadj to Mekka had vanished and that they would not travel.

Boulnouar claims that he was the victim of a robbery on Friday 31 Okt when he wanted to deliver about 300.000 Euro's in cash and several hundred passports to Royal Jordanian Airways. Supposedly, the robbers, who were not seen by any one but Boulnouar had told him they were sent by 'Malika'.

Malika Karoum is Boulnouars ex-wife who is engaged in a fierce custody battle with Mohammed Boulnouar that has led Boulnouar and self proclaimed kid-hunter Jacques Smit to spread serious but unsubstantiated rumours about her.

Boulnouars customers do not believe that he was robbed. Oddly enough some of them were told by another employee of the travelagency that if they paid another 1500 euro's they would be able to travel. Odd of course if the pasports are also stolen.

Boulnouar is in hiding since last monday November 3. His partner in the travelagency however says that he is not in hiding but too shocked to talk to anyone.

The money was not insured. The insurance was only valid during transport with a backup car following the transport but it has never come to that.

Malika Karoum possibly extradited? Doubt it!

According to dutch weekly Nieuwe Revu, Malika Karoum might be extradited by Dubai. Again the by now completely milked out allegations of money-laundering and  organized crime iare mentioned though currently it seem that these allegations solely come from the phantasy of self-proclaimed kid-hunter Jacques Smits and Mohammed Boulnouar, Malika's ex-husband .

Until now, there is no proof that the sole interest of the justice department in Malika is ianything else than in connection with a child custody case between her and her estranged husband.

This ex-husband supposedly was threathened again by an unknown assailant with a gun and silencer. Boulnouar -again supposedly- just barely managed to escape into snackbar Samar on the Amsterdam Bos-en Lommerweg. Indeed, at this snackbar he was seen coming in screamingly but no one say the assaillant. The police is looking for witnesses. Most likely there was no shooting and if I may add, most likely there was no assaillant.

Malika's ex has filed criminal complaints against Malika several times before. These included intimidation, arsony and battery, though his attackers only once -supposedly- indicated 'they had a message from Malika'.

In May the court awarded custody to Boulnouar, but Malika is firecely resisting. Her lawyer has requested revision of the May 2008 verdict. That case will serve December 1.

Boulnouar's lawyer, Emma Swart, wants to raise hell at the DA's office to ensure that Malika attends in person, she tells Nieuwe Revu. "It cannot be that the child that is formally awarded to her father, remains in Dubai".

That of course is a nonsense statement of Ms Swart. Malika can choose to appear in person and that has nothing to do with the whereabouts of her child and on top of that Malika has the right to be represented -at proxy- by legal council.

The arrest of Ryan Pieters- Rounding up the usual suspects

The arrest of Ryan Pieters, a suspect in the recent abduction of Bonaire based dutch pharmacy assistent Marlies van der Kouwe who was abducted on Bonaire in the Dutch Antilles saturday night 20 Sept is based on one fact and one fact alone: his rapsheet

Ryan Pieters has a prior arrest and conviction for rape and abduction of a Chech tourist in 2002 and he was recently released from Curaçao's Bon Futura prison and had returned to Bonaire. In reality that is not the only reason why he emerged on the radarscreen of Bonaire's finest. Another compelling reason was simply that they could not think of anybody else.

So imagine the state at Bonaires Police headquarters where police chief Jan Schagen only heard in the course of Monday 22nd of September that a girl had been abducted the fridaynight before and his constables only action was to pick up her lost slipper and shrug their shoulders.

When they could not find any leads and in a desperate move to avoid the Natalee Holloway disaster that plagued Bonaire's sister island a few years before they turned to the only thing the police is good at: Rounding up the usual suspects. Since Bonaire is aonly a small island, they only had one, which ofcourse makes it easier for the police. They do not have to decide by tossing a coin 'who dunnit' as they only have one suspect.

So after it was decided who must be the culprit, now Bonaire's finest is doing everything they can to prove that Ryan Pieters did it and refuse to be distracted by the facts.
Helped by the media tidbits of info are released that have a single goal: to convince everybody that Ryan did it. This strategy is not unknown in the Netherlands as is proven by many judicial errors in which people were convicted to long jailsentences while a child could see there was no evidence.
Obviuously this strategy is now also being adopted by Bonaire, by Dutch police chief Schagen.

So what is the incriminating evidence:

• A scooter 'similar to the one used in the abduction' was found mud covered and 'hidden' in a shed at Ryan's uncle's house. The mud was of a type that was identical to the mud at the scene of the crime. That is pure bogus. All scooters look basically alike and it is a popular mode of transport in Bonaire. Marlies was abducted on a public thruway, where Ryan or anybody else could have passed on that scooter any given day. Besides on small island like aruba chances are all the mud is basically the same.The scooter was not 'hidden', it was just parked in a shed. Nevertheless finding the scooter was reason for the arrest of Pieters. They might as well have arrested anybody occupying a house where a scooter was parked.
• Then last week suddenly a 'breakthrough' was claimed. There was a 'partial confession' whatever that may mean. Apparently according to the newspapers and many blogs on the subject. Ryan had admitted to have had contact with Marlies the night before and supposedly insinuated that 'something had happened' between the two. For one thing: Kralendijk, the main town on Bonaire is so small it would fit in Yankee stadium with room to spare and everybody runs into eachother when they go out in the towns only watering hole. More importantly however is the fact that yesterday it became clear that Pieters has not said this at all. He only has tolld investigators that he had seen Marlies around and about on the town. Well, as said, it is a small town.

Because the police already made up their mind who the culprit is, any evidence possibly leading to another conclusion or even another perpetrator must be strictly ignored. So ignored is the fact that it might be case of mistaken identity. Last week Wouter van Kouwen (a supposed criminal who turned state evidence) the father of Jaymelee van Kouwen - note the similarity in names with Marlies- a girl who is roughly the same age and has the same looks as Marlies and who works in a shop next to the bar where Marlies partied before her abduction, reported that he received a phonecall demanding a ransome for the release of his daugther Jayme. Even more: Van Kouwen's other daugther -8 year old Bo- fell victim to a failed abduction in Bonaire, on Wednesday 24 sept, only a few days after the abduction of Marlies.

The police however declare the two abductions to be unrelated and just 'coincidental'. Also, they have stated that the ransome phonecall 'did not happen'. Unfortunately they stated this without even investigating and did not even contact Wouter van Kouwen to ask about it. Until today he still is waiting for the police to ask him about it.

Another unfortunate mishap for the police that they are ignoring in order not to be confused by the facts is that Ryan has an alibi for that evening and a large part of the night: his girlfriend. Even though she cannot testify to his whereabouts 'every minute' of that evening and night, it hardly seems likely that Ryan left his girlfriend to go abduct and rape someone and had time enough to dispose of the body in a way that the police has been unable to find her: Bonaire is only 288 sq km.

None of us knows if Ryan indeed abducted and possibly raped and killed Marlies, but it seems that his arrest and the subsequent investigation is done out of a desire to produce results. Who cares if he did it, as long as he can be convicted. Anything to avoid receiving Natalee Holloway like criticism and see tourist numbers to the island dwindle.

British Diver held in Honduras after Dutch student dies

British diving instructor Daniel Ross (30), is being held in Honduras after one of his students, Dutch tourist Mariska Mast (23),  collapsed in his bathroom and later died.

Dan Ross spent several days in a notoriously grim jail in Coxen Hole on the Honduran island of Roatan before being transferred to a police station following the intervention of British diplomats.

Mr Ross, who holds dual British and Australian nationality, has yet to be charged with any crime but, as a foreigner, the Hondurans consider him a flight risk.

He told police that Mariska Mast collapsed suddenly on his bathroom floor at around 3am last Friday after they had gone out drinking.
After monitoring her condition for two hours with a Korean woman with whom he shared the flat, Mr Ross noticed her breathing had stopped and immediately performed cardiopulmonary resusciation (CPR).

According to British officials, Mr Ross took her to hospital but, unable to converse with Spanish-speaking doctors who signaled that he had to leave, he returned to his home in the island's West End district.

Finding his housekeeper cleaning up after the incident, he helped her - unaware that Miss Mast had died and that they were removing vital evidence.
Mat Harper, the British Honorary Consul on Roatan, said he was visiting Mr Ross every day with food and reading materials.

He said: “He's in pretty good shape. He's being detained as a matter of course as, under Honduran law, he was associated with the woman who died.”
He added: “He's being held for questioning because the Hondurans want to ascertain exactly what happened that night.”
An autopsy at the weekend was inconclusive but Mr Ross's fate will become clear at a second hearing when the Hondurans must decide whether to charge or release him.

Mr Ross, who was born in Australia but is understood to have a British mother, had been on Roatan since March. He taught at the British-owned Coconut Tree Divers diving school, where he had completed both his diving and instructor training .
Staff at the school said they were "horrified" by his situation and described Mr Ross as a “great guy”.

A fellow teacher said: “It's really harsh. In the diving industry, we're taught to administer CPR and first aid. Dan went into the mode that all of us go into when that happens.”