Dutch authorities were responsible for the death of Suzanne Davies

Information Release: 1^st September 2008

Dutch authorities were responsible for the death of Suzanne Davies

New evidence reveals how the Dutch authorities covered-up the accidental death of Suzanne Davies to avoid liability for the failure of the Dutch police and emergency services to save her life.

In July 1995 Suzanne Davies died in a bedroom fire in the Netherlands. She had been smoking in bed and it caught fire. When the fire started Suzanne left the bed and took refuge in an adjacent dressing room. The alarm was activated at about 02.38hrs and two policemen arrived at 02.47hrs; however instead of saving Suzanne they left the scene within 3 minutes. The reason the two policemen left the scene has never been explained by the Dutch authorities, especially when it was known by the police that the house had been burglarised only a few weeks previously and the alarm had been specifically installed for that reason. Nor have the Dutch authorities explained why the police did not summons the fire brigade when the Dutch government has always said that at that time an explosive fire was raging in the bedroom (2 metres from the two policemen) and witnesses have reported that Suzanne was heard hammering on the dressing room windows at that time.

Suzanne’s neighbours had heard her hammering on a window in a desperate attempt to be rescued at about 02.30hrs; and it was only when a neighbour telephoned the emergency services an hour later, at 03.33hrs, that the fire brigade finally arrived at 03.51hrs.

The fire brigade found Suzanne in a balanced kneeling position which indicated that she was still conscious, but disorientated due to hypoxia and the effects of the smoke. The firemen took Suzanne outside to the pavement (at 03.55hrs) where they administered first aid; however it was not until 04.20 that the ambulance arrived. Suzanne was pronounced dead at 04.37 hours, almost two hours after she had been first abandoned by the Dutch policemen. It is clear that if the Dutch police had done their job, and had rescued Suzanne at 02.47 hours, she would now be alive.

Between July and November 1995 Suzanne’s husband was asking detailed questions about the circumstances of Suzanne’s death and the Dutch authorities, fearing public criticism of their incompetence, then set about fabricating a subterfuge and putting a scapegoat into the frame. The Dutch authorities accused Suzanne’s husband, Kevin Sweeney, of arson and then produced a web of fabricated evidence, lies, and disinformation to divert attention from their failure to save Suzanne’s life.

In December 1995 Sweeney was arrested and charged with arson and the murder of Suzanne. In September 1996 the case came to trial and the Dutch prosecution alleged:-

1.	That Sweeney had started the fire before he left the house; however this was impossible as the house had been locked up and secured from the inside by Suzanne before she went to bed. Furthermore, the fire had been a smouldering bedclothes fire which only affected the bed; and it was not an open fire which would have rapidly produced a ‘Flashover’ fire which would have exploded and blown out the windows within 3-5 minutes.
2.	That Sweeney had given Suzanne drugs and had left her unconscious; however no fewer than 22 forensic blood and tissue tests were done by 3 government laboratories in the Netherlands and the U.K. and all showed that Suzanne had not been drugged. Furthermore the fact that Suzanne had been hammering on the window when the fire started and was even conscious when the fire brigade finally rescued her 2 hours later, shows that this prosecution allegation was entirely fabricated.
3.	That Sweeney had used turpentine as a fire accelerant; however it was later shown (in the police’s own photographs) that the police had fabricated these allegations. Furthermore, the forensic tests of Suzanne blood, hair, tissues, skin, et cetera, showed no signs of any accelerant, nor were there any environmental signs of any accelerants (for example on any surfaces in the room, or on the ceiling or concrete floor, et cetera). Furthermore, the fire has been a smouldering bedclothes fire which only affected the bed; and it was not an open fire which the presence of any accelerants would have produced, and which would have rapidly evolved into an explosive ‘Flashover’ fire.

The Dutch authorities started a campaign against Sweeney to influence the Press and Suzanne’s family (faxes between the Dutch police, the Press and Suzanne’s family have been discovered). The Dutch prosecution alleged to the Press and Suzanne’s family matters which were simply untrue and contrary to the physical evidence. For example:-

1.	The Dutch prosecution alleged to the Press that Suzanne had been given drugged chocolates, however the police knew that the autopsy results revealed that Suzanne had not eaten any chocolates and that she had not taken any drugs. The prosecution suppressed the evidence on these matters.
2.	The Dutch prosecution alleged to the Press and Suzanne’s parents that Suzanne had been unconscious at the time of the fire, however the police knew that she had been hammering on the windows and that indeed she was even conscious when she was rescued by the fire brigade 2 hours later. The prosecution suppressed the evidence on these matters.
3.	The Dutch prosecution alleged to the Press and Suzanne’s parents that Suzanne was already dead when she was found by the fire brigade, however the police knew that this was untrue and that the time of death was recorded by the doctor at 04.37hrs; that being 2 hours after the fire started and Suzanne had been abandoned by the Dutch policemen. The prosecution suppressed the evidence on these matters.
4.	The Dutch prosecution alleged to the Press and Suzanne’s parents that Sweeney had a financial motive for Suzanne death – in fact the opposite was true. The prosecution refused the many requests by Sweeney’s lawyers to conduct a financial investigations into Suzanne’s affairs because they knew that Sweeney was in fact liable for many of Suzanne’s debts for which he had given personal guarantees and thus did not have any benefit from Suzanne’s death. The prosecution suppressed the evidence on these matters.
5.	The Dutch prosecution alleged to the Press and Suzanne’s parents many quasi-scientific and physical matters which were simply untrue and indeed scientifically impossible. The prosecution suppressed the evidence on these matters.
6.	What was most cynical and disturbing was that the Dutch police persuaded Suzanne’s parents that Suzanne had been murdered. Suzanne’s father had given the police a statement the day after Suzanne’s death where he described Suzanne’s husband, Kevin Sweeney, as being a hard working and a good man whom had given Suzanne ‘her heart’s desire’. In order to manipulate and control Suzanne’s parents the Dutch police made many allegations against Sweeney which were entirely untrue and fabricated. New evidence shows how the Dutch police were constantly priming Suzanne’s parents and the Press with false information in their attempt to divert attention from the fact that Suzanne’s death was accidental and that it was the Dutch police themselves which had failed to save Suzanne and had left her to die.

Despite having fabricated and suppressing evidence, the Dutch prosecution had no actual evidence against Sweeney and thus they embarked on a campaign of mud throwing and producing a series of bizarre stories which had no basis in fact, but were designed to influence the Press and divert Suzanne’s family’s attention from the facts and circumstances of the fire.

In 1996, 15 months after the fire, Sweeney was brought to trial and he was unanimously acquitted by the panel of judges (there are no jury trials in the Netherlands). However, this acquittal presented a renewed threat to the Dutch authorities as Sweeney immediately began scientific enquiries to discover exactly what had happened to Suzanne. Sweeney started talking to the best fire experts in the world to try and discover the truth of the matter.

In the Netherlands defendants can be tried over and over again for the same allegations and in November 1997 Sweeney was summonsed to another trial, however with no evidence against him the Prosecution could not proceed. This trial was a warning to Sweeney to keep quiet and not cause problems for the Dutch authorities.

Sweeney did not keep quiet and redoubled his efforts to discover the truth, and again the Dutch authorities were increasingly exposed.

With the published scientific data and the real fire experts saying that the story of the Dutch authorities was false and fabricated, the Dutch State had to fabricate their own fire experts. The first was a man called Reijman who posed as a fire expert to conduct so-called fire tests. Reijman had no experience of arson investigations and had never conducted fire tests before; however his interest in the matter was that he was just about to be made redundant from his job and he needed to re-invent himself as a ‘fire expert’ to stay in employment. Although Reijman produced entirely corrupt and fabricated fire tests, these demonstrated scientifically that arson was impossible in the actual fire. However, Reijman was undeterred and he simply gave perjured evidence to please his employers – the Dutch State. The second so-called fire expert was a man called Postema. It later transpired that he was actually an employee of the Dutch State; Postema was an undercover policeman posing as a fire expert.

Sweeney was summonsed to a third trial in February 2001. This time the Dutch State had squared away the judges; the judges were told to suppress the scientific (and common sense) evidence in favour of Sweeney and the judges were ordered by the Ministry of Justice to ignore the Rule of Law and the Proper Administration of Justice and to Pervert the Course of Justice (as shown in Sweeney’s proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights). The ring leader of the panel of Dutch judges was a woman called Huurman-van Asten and she acted corruptly to prevent Sweeney exposing the truth in open court and she acted to pervert the course of justice, inter alia:-

Just before the trial Huurman-van Asten (as the presiding judge of the court) telephoned Sweeney’s lawyer and said that it was not necessary for the Defence to call their scientific and expert witnesses, and that the Defence should not plead the Defence case.

In addition to reams of scientific data, Sweeney also had a list of over a dozen expert witnesses whose evidence proved that the prosecution case was entirely fabricated.

Sweeney’s lawyers took this to mean that the acquittal of 1996 would stand. Sweeney and his lawyers did not suspect that Huurman-van Asten was actually a corrupt judge determined to pervert the course of justice.

On the day of the trial Sweeney’s lawyer was made to plead the Defence case BEFORE the Prosecutor stated the prosecution case. Thus Sweeney was made to defend himself from unknown allegations.

Sweeney’s lawyer started to read the defence pleadings, however on page 16 of a 164 page submission Huurman-van Asten stopped Sweeney’s lawyer just when it was being proved that the police had fabricated the evidence. The police had said that they had taken bedroom carpet samples when they arrived at the fire scene and that these carpet samples showed traces of ‘turpentine’. However police photographs discovered 3 years after the fire shows the carpet in question spread out in the police station car-park weeks after the fire and no carpet samples had been taken. Thus the police had fabricated the allegations of traces of a fire accelerant.

It was clear that Huurman-van Asten had been ordered by her State bosses to prevent any embarrassing evidence being heard in public and thus she stopped the proceedings and told Sweeney and his lawyer to ‘go and get a cup of coffee’.

An hour later the court re-convened, however it was essential for Huurman-van Asten to stop any further evidence being presented in public and thus Sweeney’s lawyer was prevented from presenting any further evidence and Sweeney was not allowed to speak in his defence.

Sweeney was still acquitted, however, illegally and without any judicial findings, Huurman-van Asten then arrested him and put him into a maximum security prison wing where he was held incommunicado to deny him contact with the outside world.

The Dutch State bosses also wanted to keep their corrupt police out of the witness box. Thus the chief police technical detective (who had produced the allegations of the [non-existent] turpentine traces on the [non-existent] carpet samples) refused to give evidence and instead sent a letter from his psychiatrist to say that he was mentally ill. Even though the policeman’s own evidence, supported by his own psychiatrist, stated that the policeman was psychotic, Huurman-van Asten did not exclude the policeman’s evidence.

It is interesting to note that Huurman-van Asten has since that time absolutely refused to allow the Defence to have a copy of the tape recording of the court proceedings on that day. The Dutch judiciary do not want the taped evidence of their corruption aired in public.

14 days later, the corrupt Huurman-van Asten and the two other corrupt stooges on the bench sentenced Sweeney to 13 years imprisonment.

Huurman-van Asten refused to produce a written and reasoned judgment of her decision to convict Sweeney in February 2001. Months passed and in August 2001 Sweeney had no alternative but to go on hunger strike to protest the failure of Huurman-van Asten to produce a written judgment. Without the written judgment Sweeney could not make a valid appeal to the Dutch Supreme court.

In September 2001 Huurman-van Asten finally produced a written judgment and another incredible piece of Dutch judicial corruption fell into place. 7 months after the sham trial and the corrupt imprisonment of Sweeney, Huurman-van Asten was still struggling with the absurdity of the Prosecution’s case and she had no alternative but to unilaterally change and alter the Prosecution indictment against Sweeney. Months after sentencing Sweeney, Huurman-van Asten said that she did not understand the Prosecution case against Sweeney and thus she had changed the indictment to fit the sentence!

Huurman-van Asten then set about fabricating her own false evidence to pervert the course of justice. Not only did she pervert the course of justice, but most of her pronouncements also perverted the course of common sense, inter alia,

i.	Huurman-van Asten said that Suzanne was unconscious at the time of the fire; whereas the evidence was clear that Suzanne was not only conscious before and during the fire, but that she was even conscious 2 hours after the fire when she was found. Otherwise Suzanne could not have been hammering on the window at 02.30hrs and indeed still been conscious and in a balanced kneeling position when found 03.55hrs.
ii.	Huurman-van Asten said that cigarette fires were impossible; whereas both plain common sense, and the evidence she had in court from the Dutch Fire Brigade, shows that cigarettes cause thousands of fires each year in the Netherlands and indeed the government spends millions of Euros each year on advertisements warnings about the dangers of cigarette fires.
iii.	Huurman-van Asten said that Reijman’s tests showed arson; whereas the opposite was true and Reijman’s test proved that there was no arson. Huurman-van Asten has read the Dutch version of the Raymond Bradbury book Fahrenheit 451 and she knows fully well that paper burns are Fahrenheit 451 or 232°C and thus she knew that Reijman tests showed that accelerants produced a ‘Flashover’ fire where temperatures reached 900°C. Huurman-van Asten could see that the police photographs showed that some 20-30cms away from the bed were newspapers, paper packaging, et cetera, which was unburned (and not even scorched) and thus the temperature 30cms away from the bed did not even reach 232°C; let alone the 900°C corruptly alleged by Huurman-van Asten.
iv.	Huurman-van Asten said that an explosive room ‘Flashover’ fire had occurred; whereas the police photographs show that only the bed was burned, and indeed even part of the bedclothes were unburned and the rest of the room was intact – thus it was pure common sense that no ‘Flashover’ fire had occurred.
v.	Huurman-van Asten said that there were fire accelerants present; whereas she had evidence from over 22 blood and tissue tests from 3 government laboratories in the Netherlands and the U.K. plus 2 separate autopsies all of which found no traces of fire accelerants found in the blood, tissues, internal organs, hair, or skin of Suzanne. Furthermore there were no environmental traces of any accelerants found on the ceiling, or any walls, or other surfaces, nor the concrete floor in the room. Indeed the only allegation of fire accelerants, i.e. the traces alleged by the police on the carpet, had been proven by the police’s own photographs to be a fabrication.
vi.	The list of Huurman-van Asten’s corruption is lengthy. Full details will published shortly on www.JusticeforKevinSweeney.com

So what happened on the night of 16/17 July 1995 when Suzanne Davies died?

On the night in question Sweeney had left the house in the Netherlands to drive to the couple’s home in Belgium where one of their daughters had pneumonia and was being looked after by a nurse. Later that day Sweeney had to take his daughter to see her paediatrician and then to the local hospital for lung X-rays.

The timeline according to eye witness statements:-

Hour
12.00	Suzanne telephones her brother to confirm that he will come to the house that morning. She tells her brother that she is cleaning the house.
12.00-02.00	Suzanne is cleaning the house in preparation for the arrival of her brother that morning.
02.10	Suzanne locks up the house for the night and bolts the doors from the inside. Suzanne goes to bed and smokes a cigarette. Her cigarettes and lighter are later found beside the bed.
02.30	Suzanne is heard by neighbours hammering on the windows.
02.38	The alarm is activated in the alarm company’s control centre.
02.40	The police are alerted by the alarm company.
02.47	The police arrive at the house.
02.50	The police leave the scene.
03.10	The neighbours smell smoke.
03.30	The bedroom balcony door shatters.
03.33	The neighbours see smoke and telephone the fire brigade.
03.41	The police are called to the scene again.
03.45	The fire brigade is alerted.
03.49	The police return to the house.
03.51	The fire brigade arrives at the house and have to break in to the house.
03.55	Suzanne is discovered in the dressing room in a kneeling position. She is taken outside the house and first aid is administered by the firemen.
04.20	The Ambulance arrives and the paramedics attempt to resuscitate Suzanne.
04.37	Suzanne is pronounced dead by the attending doctor.

What happened next?

The Dutch State embarked on a 13 year campaign to prevent the truth of the death of Suzanne being exposed in public; instead they used Kevin Sweeney as a scapegoat for the negligence of the Dutch police and emergency services. Now the Dutch State is forced to cover-up the corruption of the Dutch police, prosecutors and judges; and one anticipates a substantial rear-guard action by the Dutch State.

And, what of the legacy for Suzanne’s daughter, Charlotte, and for Suzanne’s parents and family? They were callously manipulated by the Dutch police, prosecutors and judges; and they were used as pawns to protect the Dutch authorities from liability for the death of Suzanne.

For more information on this case:

Television coverage: 1 2 Video 1 Video 2

Newspaper coverage: 1 2 3 4

Fair Trials International

Wikipedia Kevin Sweeney case

Professor Gill's page