|
Стр. 3
the child psychiatrist confirms his earlier findings with the aid
of even more convincing arguments and again calls, insistently,
for a judicial investigation and a further expert psychiatric
report. But to no avail. The unthinkable happens: three days later
the Third Division of the Antwerp Court of Appeal grants Mr X
custody of his children.
The court holds, inter alia: "An expert opinion is not
required and, indeed, is not desirable in that the expert would
inevitably find himself faced with the issue of fault, which must
be left to the courts alone to decide." Those responsible for this
extremely odd judgment are [YA] (the presiding judge), [YC] and
[YB] (the other judges) and [YD] (the Advocate-General).
...
In July, pursuant to the custody award in his favour, the
notary has the children staying with him; they are again raped. In
a tape-recorded interview Jan tells Professor [MA] that his Daddy
has done "the same thing" again, that Daddy "thumped" him and hit
him on his tummy and that he wasn't allowed to tell anyone about
it. Jan doesn't know how many times his father has raped him -
"several times, I can't count them".
Professor [MA] sends his umpteenth letter on the matter to
Principal Crown Counsel [YJ], stating, without mincing his words:
"In an emergency the State is bound to intervene under
section 36 (2) of the Child Protection Act ... It is impossible
and unacceptable for two children to remain exposed to an
extremely dangerous situation as a result of a court decision."
All Professor [MA]'s findings are subsequently confirmed in
"an expert report" by Dr [MB], a child psychiatrist and
psychoanalyst appointed by the investigating judge [YE] of the
Malines tribunal de {premiere} instance. The following few
extracts from Dr [MB]'s report may suffice: "(1) After a little
embarrassment Jan nevertheless finds it fairly easy to talk about
his experiences with Daddy. His clearest memory is of the events
of July 1984. He describes how Daddy sometimes used to sit on him,
how Daddy used to put his sexual organ into his anus, or sometimes
his mouth, and wee-wee. He says that Daddy threatened him, saying
that he would saw Grandma and Grandpa in half, and really hurt
Jan, if he said anything about it all. He says that Daddy didn't
act like that when Daddy and Mummy were still together, Daddy just
used to hit him; (2) Jan describes these experiences fairly
readily and there are no contradictions in what he says. However,
he presents as shocked and embarrassed when recounting certain
things. He blushes and sometimes protests vigorously that Daddy
was hurting him. He does not give the impression of making things
up or merely seeking attention."
Psychoanalysis of Jan's emotional life reveals, moreover, that
the little boy is constantly anxious and traumatised. The findings
concerning the younger child are similar. According to Dr [MB],
"His [Wim's] fantasies create a strong impression that there has
been sexual abuse by the father and that his unconscious is trying
to assimilate these uncomfortable impressions."
In October little Wim is again interviewed by two detective
sergeants and his (female) schoolteacher. The interview takes
place in Wim's usual classroom, in the presence of the
headmistress. The child repeatedly confirms what has happened to
him. The interview was transcribed verbatim and the tape filed as
an exhibit at the Malines tribunal de {premiere} instance.
...
How can a father reach the point of committing such atrocities
against his own children? In his report Professor [MA] says: "The
problems between husband and wife became more serious after Jan
was born. It was then that X, for the first time, overtly
displayed his sympathies with Hitler. Thus, for example:
- The family had to live according to Hitler's principles:
women do not count - at most, they are instruments of procreation.
Anyone who fails to become an "{Ubermensch}" (superman) had better
die. An "{Ubermensch}" can legitimately lie and be dishonest. [X]
is in fact awaiting the coming of a new Hitler. His whole way of
life is dominated by that.
- The children were to be brought up in Hitler's doctrine.
They were made to give the Nazi salute; they were taught not to
play but only to fight and make war. The children were to venerate
their father just as the German people venerated Hitler at the
time; their mother is merely an intruder in the X family.
- Lastly, it is worth noting that Mr X has also declared on
several occasions that he possesses supernatural powers and can
crush anyone who opposes him. In particular, he says "We are
leeches, we squeeze someone like a lemon, then we drop them." He
certainly feels very powerful. He has also spoken to the children
on several occasions about his "supernatural powers", saying that
he was going to change Jan into a brown sheep and leave him in a
field and that he was going to change little Wim into an owl. He
also used to talk to the children a lot about skeletons and
skulls. As a result, little Wim once asked his mother out of the
blue "not to put him under the ground in a box"."
Professor [MA] ends his remarks on the father thus:
"His manifest sympathies with Hitler and his regime, and his
fantasies concerning his own supernatural powers and omnipotence
reveal, at the very least, in my opinion, a pathological
personality. I accordingly consider that a much more thoroughgoing
judicial investigation and psychiatric report are imperative in
this case."
...
The X family's almost daily contacts with the legal world are
not enough to explain how he has remained almost immune. The large
network of contacts which the family has woven over the years is
proving useful in this respect, especially their contacts in
extreme-right-wing and/or Flemish nationalist circles. For
example, members of the X family are militants in the Stracke
Noodfonds, the Marnixring, the Orde van de Prince, the Vlaamse
Kulturele Produkties (an offshoot of Were Di), the Nationalistich
Jong Studenten Verbond (NJSV) and the Vlaams Blok. It is a
well-known fact that the X family gives financial support to the
VMO. In 1971 they helped create the "new" VMPO under Bert
Eriksson, and at the time of the VMO trials they launched an
appeal through the Stracke Noodfonds for members to make a
financial contribution in support of "dozens of young Flemish
people facing ridiculous penalties and fines". Witnesses confirm
that the cellar of the X family's house is decorated with Nazi
swastika flags, the ideal {decor} for nostalgic little "brown"
parties. Equally remarkable are the X family's efforts in support
of apartheid. One of the members of the family was even a founder
of the pro-South-African club Protea. Why is this network of
contacts so important in the notary's incest case?
Most of the judges of the Third Division of the Court of
Appeal, who awarded custody to the notary, also belong to
extreme-right-wing circles. Judge [YB] is the son of a bigwig in
the gendarmerie who was convicted in 1948 of collaboration: he
had, in close collaboration with the "Feldgendarmerie",
restructured the Belgian gendarmerie along Nazi lines. [YB] is no
less controversial as a magistrat. During the judicial
investigation into the VMO training camps in the Ardennes, he
managed, in the teeth of all the evidence, to sustain the theory
that the photographs of the training camp had nothing to do with
the VMO but came from German neo-Nazis.
Another judge in this incest case is [YA]; she is the
President of the Antwerp Court of Appeal. During the VMO trial,
over which she presided, the organisation was acquitted on the
charge of constituting a private militia. This judgment was
subsequently reversed by the Ghent Court of Appeal.
And then there is Principal Crown Counsel [YJ], whom Professor
[MA] has bombarded with reports denouncing the sexual abuse of the
children. It just so happens that Principal Crown Counsel [YJ] has
the same political sympathies as the X family. He was one of the
founders of Protea but had to resign after a question was asked in
Parliament. He is still a member of the Marnixring and of the Orde
van de Prince in Malines, with both of which the X family
maintains very special links.
Since the very beginning of the investigation the gendarmerie
too have played a dubious role. The abused children and their
mother have consistently been treated like dirt, whereas the
notary accused of incest and his father have been treated with the
greatest consideration. Is it a coincidence that the X family
maintains contacts with several of the (present or past) bigwigs
of the gendarmerie: former Lieutenant-General [ZC] (Protea and the
Orde van de Prince), General [ZD] (the Marnixring) and General
[ZE] (the Marnixring and Orde van de Prince)?
...
The children are not in good shape. They are receiving
treatment and, according to well-informed sources, are still "at
risk". There are only two possible solutions. Either the
prosecuting authorities have the courage, in the light of recent
events and findings, to prosecute the notary or else the Youth
Court must begin new proceedings with a view to restoring custody
to the mother. This last point is not unimportant since Mrs X has
been summoned to appear before the Antwerp Court of Appeal on
26 June on the grounds that she has twice attempted to keep the
children with her at the end of an access visit.
In the meantime, the mother and her parents have been duly
acquitted on appeal in proceedings instituted against them by the
notary for making a defamatory witness statement. They had already
been acquitted at first instance. There are only two
possibilities: either the mother's complaint is defamatory or it
is not, in which case the notary is guilty of incest. There is no
other possibility."
20. Mr De Haes and Mr Gijsels published their second article
on 17 July 1986. It included the following:
"...
On Tuesday 24 June Humo published in issue no. 2390 an article
that caused a sensation: "Incest authorised in Flanders". In that
article Mr X, a notary from a distinguished Flemish family with
close links to the highest financial circles in the land, was
accused of having repeatedly raped and beaten his little boys, Wim
and Jan. Those allegations were supported by a number of medical
and psychiatric reports. Despite the evidence, the notary was
awarded custody of the children.
In the report, we paid due attention to the dubious role
played by the gendarmerie and the network of extreme-right-wing
contacts maintained by the X family, whose tentacles have reached
the Antwerp law courts. This network of contacts is principally
centred on staunch brown organisations like the VMO, Protea, the
Stracke Noodfonds and the Marnixring. We also showed how Judges
[YJ], [YA] and [YB] - who saw to it that the father gained
custody - fitted into and around these shady movements.
From the large number of letters we have received, it appears
that half Flanders is shocked by such warped justice. The same
question comes up again and again: what kind of a country are we
living in? In the meantime, we have obtained even more information
about what some of the most highly placed circles have been
allowed to get away with, hand in hand with their lackeys in the
courts and the gendarmerie.
...
Humo had hardly come off the presses when Mr X personally
telephoned one of the authors of the article to say, in a
threatening tone: "I am not a pederast. I am not a paedophile. The
time will come when you will apologise to me!!!" And then he hung
up.
In the course of the legal proceedings, Mr X has devoted
himself to making even more brutal intimidation attempts. For
instance, he assaulted one of his children's uncles in broad
daylight on the Meir in Antwerp. When the children's mother was
acquitted of libel, he hurled abuse at her counsel within the
precincts of the Antwerp law courts and in front of other people.
His own counsel had to intervene to calm him down. One of the
doctors who had found evidence of sexual abuse received a
registered letter threatening him with criminal libel proceedings
unless he withdrew the findings in his examination report. At
least one other doctor has been bombarded with letters containing
the crudest threats. The journalist covering the Antwerp Court of
Appeal hearing on 26 June was pursued by the notary when he went
out for some fresh air during a brief adjournment. The reporter
had no choice but to escape by running between the fairground
stalls of the Whitsun fair.
The management of Humo and of the Dupuis publishing house have
also been put under strong pressure. The X family were tipped off
that an article was about to be published concerning the incest
case. What happened? The printing was held up for hours, but the
article was nevertheless published.
...
This kind of brutal pressurising seems to "work" very well
within the system of justice. After the article was published, a
mass of new information came in from all sorts of quarters. This
unique incest case has been gathering notoriety for quite some
time, not only in the professional circles of paediatricians and
child psychiatrists but also in Crown Counsel offices, the youth
courts and children's refuges. Thanks to the fresh data, we now
have an even better picture of how often and how treacherously the
courts have manipulated the case - with, up to now, only one
apparent aim: to promote, not the welfare of the children, but
that of the notary.
...
- Likewise accepted were the results of an hour's questioning
by Detective Sergeants [ZF] and [ZG], during which Jan was once
again forced to withdraw his accusations. Louis De Lentdecker, who
was on the spot when Jan came out, wrote in De Standaard: "He
started crying, sobbing. He was completely distraught. Shaking
with sobs, he said that he had been questioned again by two men,
that he had said that none of it was true because he had been
afraid and that he didn't want to go home to his father's but
wanted to stay with his mother. And he clung to his (maternal)
grandmother, crying his heart out." What credibility can such an
interview have? One of the statements obtained under duress
certainly does not fit: according to [interview record] no. 2873,
Jan stated that he had never seen his father naked. The notary
himself told Louis De Lentdecker: "It is said I used to stand
around naked in front of them. There were evenings when the
children would come rushing into the bathroom while I was having a
bath. When that happened, I would send them out straight away."
Interviewed by [MN], a psychiatrist, the notary, anxious to defend
himself, was even more categorical: "Prior to the divorce, there
were a few times when the children came upon X naked in the
bathroom. It is understandable that the children's attention was
particularly attracted to the genitals."
Is it also a coincidence that Detective Sergeant [ZG] and his
wife were the notary's guests for Easter lunch?
- In the middle of 1984, following a private meeting with
Principal Crown Counsel [YJ] and the Advocate-General [YD],
Professor [MA], a well-known child psychiatrist, is informally
given the job of studying the criminal case file in detail. To
this end, Principal Crown Counsel's office sends him the various
typescripts and tapes of the questioning sessions. Professor
[MA]'s conclusions are contained in a number of reports sent to
Principal Crown Counsel and the Antwerp Court of Appeal. His
provisional conclusions are contained in a report of 22 June -
just in time, as judgment is due to be given on 27 June. Principal
Crown Counsel [YJ] knows that this supplementary report is being
drafted, and what happens? Out of the blue, the Third Division of
the Court of Appeal sits two days early and awards custody to the
notary, "without taking into account the documents filed by
Professor [MA] after the close of the hearing". Was the Court of
Appeal informed that Professor [MA]'s report, which was very
unfavourable to the notary, might be filed before the close of the
hearing, and is that why the Third Division sat two days early?
What is more, not all Professor [MA]'s reports were filed after
the close of the hearing. In fact, the Third Division had at least
three other reports by Professor [MA] at its disposal, all of them
to the same effect. So the judges are lying in their judgment. On
6 November 1984 the case again comes before the court, and this
time the division relies on a totally different argument in order
to dismiss Professor [MA]'s reports: "Despite what he (Professor
[MA]) appears to believe, he has not been appointed by Principal
Crown Counsel at this Court to assist the Court in any way in
relation to this case." There are only two possibilities: either
Professor [MA] was given Principal Crown Counsel's office's tapes
so that he could study them, or else he stole them and must be
prosecuted and convicted. If he has not been appointed by the
court, Professor [MA] is not authorised to be in possession of
documents from the criminal file. The courts are therefore once
again using dirty tricks to give a veneer of honesty to an
inexcusable judgment.
- On 26 June 1984, to general astonishment, the President of
the Third Division of the Antwerp Court of Appeal, Mrs [YA],
together with her fellow judges [YB] and [YC], award custody to
the notary who stands accused of incest. However, he can exercise
his right of custody only under the supervision of his parents.
Here we find ourselves faced with the most tortuous reasoning:
either the notary is to be wholly trusted as far as his children
are concerned and he can have custody; or he is not to be trusted
and the children are at risk with him. Mrs [YA], however, opted
for a hypocritical judgment. If the notary has to be supervised by
his parents, he is obviously not trustworthy. And yet he is given
custody. Can anyone make head or tail of this? The Third Division
had already moved in this direction. At the hearing on 6 June the
notary's parents had been asked whether they would be willing to
take on this onerous responsibility. To which, of course, they
said "yes". Coincidence or no, it was the only time that the
notary's parents attended a hearing. That fact makes it look very
much like a put-up job. Had they been told in advance that this
question was going to be put to them?
- The grandparents are not the only ones to have been given
information in advance. On 25 June, two days before judgment was
officially given, the notary was waiting to pick his children up
from school. He already knew that the Court of Appeal was going to
award him custody. How could that be?
- In the previous article, we mentioned the mother's complaint
that the detectives constantly twisted her words or simply did not
write down what she said. That is not all. Statements by
eyewitnesses have also been falsified ...
- At a certain point the investigating judge in Malines,
Mr [YE], a former CVP [Christian People's Party] councillor for
Willebroeck, appoints Dr [MB] as a (medical) expert. Dr [MB] comes
to the same conclusions as Professor [MA]: Jan and Wim have been
sexually abused. Dr [MB] warns the investigating judge
unequivocally: "It is important to avoid aggravating the father's
psychological problems and turning him into a confirmed homosexual
or pederast." Despite this, on 6 November Mrs [YA] and her fellow
judges [YB] and [YC] confirmed the custody order in favour of the
father. It is the most cowardly judgment we have ever read. The
children's mother is blamed for not having filed a copy of the
report by the expert [MB], "with the result that it is not
possible to examine its contents". But how could the mother have
filed this report? She is not even entitled to consult it, let
alone to study it. In Belgium the law prevents anyone from
obtaining any information so long as a judicial investigation is
under way, because the investigation is secret. The Court of
Appeal expressly acknowledges in its judgment that the judicial
investigation is still under way, and yet Mrs [YA] blames the
mother for failing to file this report! When it is for Principal
Crown Counsel's office to file an expert's report! Despite the
fact that the investigating judge [YE] has been in possession of
Dr [MB]'s report since the end of August, we read in the Third
Division's judgment that "Principal Crown Counsel's office did not
consider it necessary to inform the Court of this fact". Why did
Principal Crown Counsel's office refuse to forward this crucial
expert report to the Court of Appeal? Because it was too
unfavourable to Mr X? However that may be, Mrs [YA] put her name
to a mass of legal nonsense.
- On 5 September 1984 Louis De Lentdecker publishes his first
article on the incest case under the title, "Justice goes mad. A
young woman fights for her children". Very shortly afterwards the
Advocate-General [YD] summons De Lentdecker by telephone. As De
Lentdecker comments in his second article, on 28 September, "It is
rare for a judge or Crown Counsel to summon a journalist to an
interview in connection with pending legal proceedings."
The following extract from De Lentdecker's article is also
telling: "When I asked why the court had not appointed three
experts to look into the case from the psychiatric, medical and
forensic points of view, the Advocate-General replied, and I quote
his exact words, "These kids (i.e. Wim and Jan) have already had
to drop their trousers too much for all sorts of examinations. The
best thing is to leave them in peace." When I retorted that the
court had, however, appointed an expert (De Lentdecker is
referring to Dr [MB]) and that his report had barely been raised
if at all, presumably because it contained damning findings as
regards the father, the Advocate-General replied: "It is not true
that the expert report ordered by the court damns the father. In
any event, I do not know what it says. Besides, the man's findings
are not valid - he completed his examination in five days." What
crass bias on the part of the Advocate-General [YD] is revealed in
those quotations. And what on earth could have made him take a
journalist to task in this way? That is not one of his duties. The
Advocate-General [YD] has since very properly been removed from
this case for having exceeded his authority and he has been
replaced by the Senior Advocate-General [YK].
...
There are also a few positive developments. On Thursday
26 June the Ninth Division of the Antwerp Court of Appeal upheld
the October 1985 judgment of the Malines Criminal Court, which had
acquitted the mother on the charge of removing the children from
the notary's custody. The important thing about that case, apart
from the mother's acquittal, is that the court duly took into
account the evidence of Professor [MA] and the court-appointed
expert [MB], who both testified under oath at the hearing that the
children had indeed been sexually abused. The bench in this case
was composed of judges other than [YA], [YB] and [YC], and
Principal Crown Counsel was not [YJ]."
21. The applicants published their third article on
18 September 1986. It contained the following:
"...
In this article we reproduce photographs, drawings and
quotations which we would have preferred not to publish. Most of
these documents have been in our possession from the outset, but
we did not want to run the risk of being accused of
sensationalism. The courts are likewise in possession of this
irrefutable evidence, and it is precisely because the Antwerp
Court of Appeal and Youth Court refuse to have regard to it that
we find ourselves obliged to publish it.
The astonishment, anger and incredulity our readers feel are
fully shared by us. Astonishment that such a thing is possible;
anger because it is allowed; and incredulity because the ultimate
guarantee of our democracy, an independent system of justice, has
been undermined at its very roots. This is why, for the sake of
the children Wim and Jan, we are publishing evidence which we
would rather have left to rot under lock and key in cupboards in
our archives.
Guy Mortier
Editor
On Tuesday 2 September a Youth Court judge, Mrs [YL], made an
interim order in the scandalous incest case involving an Antwerp
notary. As everyone knows, this tragedy is being played out in the
most highly placed financial spheres in the country, against the
background of extreme-right-wing circles in Flanders. The Antwerp
notary is accused by his wife of having sexually abused his two
little boys, whom we are calling Wim and Jan, of having physically
ill-treated them and of continuing to ill-treat them. The Youth
Court judge has now decided that the father should be awarded
custody of his children, or rather should retain custody, since he
had already been given it, in defiance of any concept of justice,
by the Antwerp Court of Appeal. Yet the mother, who has not been
accused of anything, and who has already been twice acquitted on a
charge of libelling the notary, is not allowed to see her children
more than once a month.
...
This inexplicable judgment once again stands reason on its
head. The case file is getting thicker and thicker and contains
numerous medical certificates, horrifying drawings by the children
of being raped by their father, photographs of anal irritations
and marks left on the children's bodies after blows from a
cudgel - not to mention detailed psychiatric reports on the
children: one by the court expert [MB], five by Professor [MA], an
eminent Louvain paediatrician, and two, including a very
up-to-date one, by Professor [MC], who recently examined the
children in the greatest secrecy. Each time, it emerges clearly
that the two children have been sexually and physically abused.
Why does the Youth Court judge [YL] refuse to take account of this
solid evidence in her judgment, especially as not one of the
medical reports questions that there has been physical abuse? Does
Mr X's family really have so much influence and money that the
Antwerp courts are incapable of giving an independent ruling?
It is not for the press to usurp the role of the judiciary,
but in this outrageous case it is impossible and unthinkable that
we should remain silent. Up to now, we have dealt with this incest
case as sensitively as possible. Now that the courts have
definitively taken a wrong turning, we feel obliged, in the
interests of the children, to reveal more details, however
horrible and distasteful they may be for the reader.
...
On what evidence did the Youth Court judge [YL] base her
interim order? According to an article (the first of several) in
Het Volk, the source of which appears to be the notary himself,
[YL] allegedly based the interim order on a report by three
experts she had appointed. According to Het Volk, that report
makes it clear that "there can never have been any question of any
sexual abuse". The least that can be said is that Het Volk has
been misinformed (indeed, it has since gone back on its first
article). What exactly is the truth?
Three court-appointed experts, Dr [MI], Dr [MJ] and Dr [MK],
had Wim and Jan for observation during the holidays at the
Algemeen Kinderziekenhuis Antwerpen ("the AKA" [a paediatric
hospital]). Their report is not yet ready and therefore has
certainly not yet been filed. The Youth Court judge and the
parties have nothing in writing from them. The Youth Court judge
[YL] has therefore rushed a decision through even before the
experts' report is finished. This procedure in itself appears
extremely suspect. But what is worse is that it leaves the mother
completely defenceless. Since there is nothing official on paper,
she cannot appeal against the Youth Court judge's decision.
Secondly, contrary to what is suggested, the three doctors
referred to are not independent experts. Dr [MJ] and Dr [MK] work
under Dr [MI] at the AKA. It is therefore difficult for them to
challenge their superior's findings. At the AKA these two doctors
are not known for being the kind to put a spoke in their boss's
wheel.
Thirdly, there is the question whether it was advisable to put
Dr [MI] in charge of the team of experts. We do not wish to
prejudge the report before knowing what it contains, but is it not
singularly unfortunate that a person belonging to the same
ideological camp as the extreme-right-wing notary should have been
appointed in this case, which is already so politicised? Dr [MI]
is married to the daughter of [ZH], who was a governor during the
war. Readers will also remember that Mr X's family has a very
close relationship with "blackshirt" circles. Dr [MI] also boasts,
in front of hospital staff, that he supports the apartheid regime
in South Africa, just like Mr X's family. This is the same Dr [MI]
who, some time ago, treated a maladjusted child by enrolling him
in the extreme-right-wing Vlaams Nationaal Jeugdverbond (VNJ),
just to teach him some discipline. Everyone is entitled to their
political opinions, but in this sensitive case it would have been
reassuring to see a less politically charged expert appointed.
Just as inexplicable is the fact that the Youth Court judge
[YL] keeps Mrs [ZI] on as the Child Protection Department officer
attached to the court. Judge [YL] has to rely very considerably on
the child protection officer for all her information, and
therefore also for her view of the case; yet we have already
disclosed that Mr X knows Mrs [ZI] well. Moreover, that fact
appears in an interview record dated 6 October 1984. In this
interview the notary repeatedly cites Mrs [ZI] as one of the
people whom the courts can ask to testify to his basic
kindheartedness. Is it really impossible to remove from this case
everyone who has ideological or friendship ties with the X family?
...
How does the notary defend himself against his children's
accusation that in May he beat Wim with "a spiked cudgel"? In a
very confused way. It emerges from a transcript of the children's
story and a bailiff's report that he beat Wim on 14 May. That day,
the notary and his little boys were visiting Dr [MJ]. In the
presence of his father, Wim told the doctor some very compromising
things about him. As soon as they got home, the father started
beating Wim. The next day, the notary went to see Dr [MJ] on his
own and, strangely, said not a word about his son's injuries. It
was not until several days later, when the photographs were sent
to the relevant authorities, that he came up with a story about
Wim having fallen downstairs. Why did he not say this at the
outset? The children confirm to Professor [MC] that Wim was beaten
and that he did not fall downstairs at all. So the notary changes
tack. On 2 June he calls in a bailiff who is a friend of his and
who draws up a report according to which the children deny
everything. Strangely, it is not the bailiff but the father
himself who questions his little boys. So this report is
worthless.
On 5 June the notary comes up with yet another idea. A Dr [ML]
issues a certificate stating that he can find no injuries. Which
is quite possible, since three weeks have gone by in the meantime.
Why does the notary have the fact that there are no injuries
certified three weeks later, when he originally stated that the
injuries were caused by a fall downstairs?
The latest version is that Jan hit Wim. This figment of the
imagination comes from the Youth Court judge herself. There's bias
for you.
...
The ill-treatment which occurred in May was not an isolated
incident (as we have already indicated on several occasions). As
early as 10 January 1984 Dr [MG] sent the following results of his
examination of four smear tests to a forensic medical examiner,
Dr [MM]: "Apart from amorphous matter, epithelial and mucous
cells, I observed, in three out of the four samples, a structure
with a triangular head on a long, more or less straight tail,
which matches the description of spermatozoa. I observed the
presence of one such structure in two of the three samples, and
two in the third." Other doctors also made the same findings.
Subsequently, Professor [MA] and the court expert [MB] reach the
conclusion, independently of each other, that Wim and Jan have
been sexually and physically abused. The latest report is by
Professor [MC]. In order to supplement an earlier report, this
expert examined the children on twelve occasions between 1 August
1985 and 31 May 1986 - the elder without his mother present, Wim
normally in his mother's presence because at the beginning it was
practically impossible to examine him without her. As Director of
"Kind en Gezin in Nood" ["Children and Families in Need"], one of
the departments of Leuvense Universitaire Ziekenhuizen [Louvain
University Hospitals], Professor [MC] is one of the principal
authorities in the field. In order to remain entirely uninfluenced
in his work, he expressly decided to refuse any form of payment.
His report contains the most horrific findings. According to it,
the children have been beaten not once but several times with a
spiked cudgel. This abuse is, moreover, inflicted as a form of
ritual. Candles are lit; sometimes, the father wears a brown
uniform and the cudgel has a "sign of the devil" on it. Through
the children, Professor [MC] was also able to discover where the
father took his inspiration from. He found the sign of the devil
in Volume I of the Rode Ridder ("The Red Knight")(!), entitled De
barst in de Ronde Tafel ("The cleft in the Round Table"). The sign
is accompanied by the following text: "This is the symbol of the
Prince of Darkness, an unknown magician and Grand Master of Black
Magic! Even before the Round Table was created, he went away and
no one knows where he is today! He devotes his exceptional
knowledge and power to everything that is evil and negative! His
sole objective is to sow confusion and destruction. He is a symbol
of the violence which reigns in these times over humanity and
justice!"
Professor [MC] does not mince his words in his report: "By way
of conclusion, it can be said that Wim is the victim of repeated
sexual and physical abuse and that his brother Jan is subjected to
the same abuse to a lesser degree but, under very strong
psychological pressure, is becoming increasingly psychologically
disturbed, hence the drop in his school marks and the occasional
inconsistencies in what he says in different interviews. In the
interests of both children a court order should be made
immediately to remove them completely and permanently from their
father's orbit. Any further delay would be medically
unjustifiable."
Appended to the professor's two reports are very precise
descriptions of the children's injuries, the statements made by
the children, sinister drawings by Wim and Jan of sex scenes with
their father (often represented with horns), and photographs. Both
reports are in the hands of the experts [MI], [MJ] and [MK]. Judge
[YL] also has them. Just as she has Professor [MA]'s five reports
and the report by the court expert [MB]. How can Mrs [YL] maintain
that there is no evidence? Do the children have to be beaten or
raped before her eyes before she believes it?
...
Similar accusations by the children against their father were
also subsequently recorded by Professor [MA], the court expert
[MB], the two detective sergeants [ZF] and [ZG] in the presence of
Wim's schoolteacher, and, lastly, Professor [MC]. On the other
hand, there is one retraction of the statements in an interview
(of which there is only a single, confused minute on tape) carried
out by Detective Sergeant [ZJ], since suspended, who intimidated
Jan with a weapon; one in an interview with Detective Sergeants
[ZF] and [ZG], at the end of which Jan broke down completely (as
Louis De Lentdecker happened to witness); and one retraction made
by Jan to Professor [MC], in his father's presence.
The crucial question remains: is any mother capable of
inventing all this? Even more to the point, would two young
children - they will be 6 and 9 respectively this month - be
capable of keeping up their accusations for over two and a half
years if those accusations had been invented and forced on them by
their mother? And when could the mother have coached her children
in accusations such as these?
It should not be forgotten that since 25 June 1984 the notary
has had custody of the children by order of the Third Division of
the Antwerp Court of Appeal. For more than two years the father
has had a great deal more influence over these children than their
mother, who has the right to see her children only from time to
time - a right of access with which the notary has frequently not
complied.
What is more, if the notary has such a clear conscience, why
does he declare war on anyone who puts legal or other obstacles in
his path? Why has he already threatened so many people in
connection with this case? In this article we shall mention only
the most recent threats and acts of intimidation.
...
The case file also contains the report of an interview
Professor [MA] had on 23 May 1984 with Principal Crown Counsel
[YJ] and the Advocate-General [YD]. We realise how delicate it is
to quote from letters that were not intended for publication, but
needs must when the devil drives. Professor [MA] describes how the
interview went: "After I had discussed my problem and my request,
namely that three experts should be appointed, I quickly realised
that Principal Crown Counsel wished to proceed with the case
impartially and without prejudging the issues, but that Mr [YD]
already had a very clear idea of what should be done - "The
children's story was made up, perhaps fed to them by the mother,
and the children should be entrusted to the care of their
grandparents, with the father also being involved in the process."
Mr [YD] brushed aside my request for an expert report rather
brusquely. In his view, judges had far more expertise than doctors
in this field, and subjecting the children to further expert
investigations and interviews could only do them more harm.
Principal Crown Counsel was much more balanced in his response and
considered that an expert report was indeed called for. Moreover,
Principal Crown Counsel expressed serious reservations about
Mr [YD]'s suggestion. He said that the children's paternal
grandfather, to whose care Mr [YD] proposed entrusting the
children, was, and I quote, "mad". At every reception at which he
encountered Mr X, he would see Mr X senior explaining, very
clearly and without attempting to disguise his meaning, that
Hitler should come back to this country. He added that this
impression that the grandfather was "mad" was shared generally by
all the guests at such receptions. And he expressly told Mr [YD]
that he would consider it totally unjustified to entrust the
children to the care of their paternal grandfather."
Despite being in possession of this preliminary information,
the Antwerp courts entrusted the children, at first instance, to
the care of the notary under the supervision of his "mad" father.
In the course of the meeting with Professor [MA], Principal Crown
Counsel [YJ] also cast doubt on the notary's probity. Professor
[MA] gave the following evidence in his own defence before the
Ordre des {Medecins} [Medical Association]: "He (Principal Crown
Counsel) described how Mr X had been made a notary, against the
advice of the judicial bodies, on the last day in office of the
late Mr [ZK] (then Minister of Justice) and that, furthermore, in
a very short space of time (a few years) he had succeeded in
transforming an almost defunct practice into one with an official
profit of 32 million francs a year. He obviously doubted whether a
notary could make such an annual profit by legal and honest means
in view of the property crisis at the time, and thought he
remembered that Mr X had already been the subject of legal
proceedings at the time in connection with his activities as a
notary."
He was right. In 1984 the notary was even suspended by the
Disciplinary Board. Principal Crown Counsel's office (once again!)
took no account of that penalty. In the meantime a fresh criminal
complaint has been lodged against the notary alleging forgery.
The worst thing is the notary's publicly expressed Nazi
sympathies. A statement taken by Malines CID shows that he calls
the genocide of six million Jews an "American lie". At his wedding
the notary and his father gave the Nazi salute and struck up the
"Horst-Wessel Song" at the top of their voices.
But the notary goes much further. He wants to bring his
children up according to Hitler's principles. That is why they
must learn to bear pain and to endure humiliation and fear. Hitler
himself described a Hitlerite education:
"My educational philosophy is tough. The weak must be beaten
and driven out. My {elite} schools will produce young people whom
the world will fear. I want young people to be violent, imperious,
impassive, cruel. That is what young people should be like. They
must be capable of bearing pain. They must not show any weakness
or tenderness. Their eyes must shine with the brilliant, free look
of a beast of prey. I want my young people to be strong and
beautiful ... Then I can build something new."
There is little to add. Except to say that it is high time
that, in the interests of the children, the medical certificates,
the reports and evidence produced by the court expert, the bailiff
and the child psychiatrists should at last be taken seriously and
that a decision in this case be given on the basis of facts and
not on the basis of the influential status of one of the parties.
Public confidence in the judiciary is at stake."
The article was illustrated with what the applicants described
as photos of injuries sustained by "Wim" in May, two drawings said
to be by "Jan" and another said to be by "Wim"; it also contained
a transcript of part of Detective Sergeant [ZB]'s alleged
questioning of "Jan" on 6 March 1984.
22. On 6 November 1986 the fourth article by Mr De Haes and
Mr Gijsels appeared. It read as follows:
"...
Last Thursday the Wim and Jan case took a dramatic legal turn.
On an application by Principal Crown Counsel [YM], the Court of
Cassation withdrew the X case from the Antwerp court and
transferred it to the Ghent tribunal [de {premiere} instance] in
the hope that the Ghent magistrats would adopt a less biased
approach. It is certainly none too soon. The battle between the
legal and medical professions in the Wim and Jan case had reached
a climax. In a final attempt to make the Antwerp magistrats see
reason, four eminent experts sent a joint letter to Principal
Crown Counsel [YJ], declaring on their honour that they were 100%
convinced that Mr X's children were the victims of sexual and
physical abuse. The professional competence of these four experts
cannot be questioned - even by the Antwerp magistrats. They are
Professor [MD] (Professor of Paediatrics at UIA [Antwerp
University Institution], Medical Director of the Algemeen
Kinderziekenhuis Antwerpen and Director of the Antwerp
Vertrouwensartscentrum [medical reception centre for abused
children]); Professor [MC] (Professor of Paediatrics at Louvain
C[atholic] U[niversity], Head of the Gasthuisberg [University
Hospital] Paediatric Clinic in Louvain and President of the
National Council on Child Abuse); Professor [MA] (Professor of
Child and Youth Psychiatry at Gasthuisberg [Hospital], Louvain
C[atholic] U[niversity], who was appointed by Principal Crown
Counsel [YJ] to study the case); and Dr [MB] (a child psychiatrist
and psychoanalyst, appointed as an expert by the court).
With their letter they enclosed a note listing ten pieces of
evidence, any one of which on its own would, in any other case,
have led to criminal proceedings or even an arrest. The aim of
these scientists was clear. They were seeking from the courts a
temporary "protective measure" whereby the children would have
been admitted to one of the three [medical reception centres in
Flanders for abused children] pending a final court ruling. There
was no response. The relevant magistrats did not react. The Ordre
des {Medecins}, however, did - it forbade Professors [MA] and [MC]
to voice their opinions. Yet again the messenger is being shot
without anyone listening to the message.
Politicians also reacted. The Justice Minister, Jean Gol,
asked to see the file and is following the case closely but is
powerless to intervene because of the constitutional separation of
powers. And the MEPs Jef Ulburghs, Anne-Marie Lizin ... and Pol
Staes ... have laid a draft resolution before the European
Parliament requesting a proper investigation and urgent measures
to put an end to the children's dangerous predicament.
The public are finding the case harder and harder to
"swallow". The Justice Minister's office is inundated with dozens
of indignant letters. The weekly silent demonstrations on the
steps of the Antwerp law courts continue and last week, during
Monday night, posters were stuck up all over the centre of town
revealing Mr X's surname and forename. The poster campaign, which
aroused mixed feelings among journalists and lawyers, has given a
new dimension to the controversy surrounding the X case.
..."
23. On 27 November 1986 the applicants' fifth article
appeared. It read as follows:
"...
Our prediction of a fortnight ago that the agonisingly slow
progress being made in the Wim and Jan case was likely to leave
the case stranded in the Antwerp courts has come true. In the
teeth of all the evidence, the Court of Cassation has held that
the Antwerp judiciary cannot be accused of any bias in this incest
case and that the whole case can therefore continue to be dealt
with in Antwerp.
In parallel with the Court of Cassation's decision there have
been some remarkable events. The notary Mr X, so called in order
to protect the identities of Wim and Jan, now shows himself in
public and is giving interviews, sometimes even accompanied by his
children. The fact that his name (and therefore the names of his
little boys) now appears in the press does not appear to bother
him.
Another consequence is that the media are now breaking several
months' silence, and some editors have really gone off the rails.
It is very worrying, for example, that certain daily and
weekly newspapers are trying to play down the X case, depicting it
|
