Perjury

The evidence given in Court by Matheus Johannes Marie Velders, Police Technical Researcher, was perjured.

MATHEUS JOHANNES MARIE VELDERS

   Velders had consistently lied, suppressed evidence and fabricated evidence in respect of this case.  Velders commenced to lie in order to propagate the theory that the fire in this case was an arson.  Velders continued to lie in respect of his evidence before the court on 11 October 1996:-

---  Example of perjury in Court on 11 October 1996: Velders said:

- "Ik was op 17 juli 1995 om 04.30 uur ter plaatse.  Op dat moment stonk her naar terpentine in de ouderslaapkamer"

It is clear from the scientific evidence that at no time was there any Turpentine involved with the fire in question.  The reasons being:-

The toxicological examination of Suzanne Davies revealed that there was no Turpentine in her blood, lungs, tissues, hair or skin.   There were absolutely no environmental traces of any 'Turpentine' on the ceiling, walls, concrete floor, et cetera. For these reasons it is impossible that there was Turpentine involved with the fire.

In that Turpentine has a highly distinctive smell and thereby cannot be confused with any combustion product it is clear that Velders lied in his first report and subsequently continued to lie until he perjured himself before the Court.

In fact Velders had lied about the collection of carpet samples and this alleged evidence was fabricated by him.

   MOTIVE FOR THE PERJURY BY VELDERS:

a)   The motive for the perjured evidence produced by Velders is clearly that he was following the orders of his superiors in the Dutch government.

It is certain that Velders (and/or Albers) was under the instructions of his superiors to cover-up the failure of the police to save Suzanne. Velders was ordered to ensure that the Davies family was kept 'on-side'.  The evidence for this was that Velders (and/or Albers) allowed Thomas and Simon Davies (on 19 July 1995) into the room in which the fire occurred and there Simon and Thomas Davies took an embroidery from the wall of that room.  The embroidery is seen in the photographs taken by the police and represented physical and forensic evidence at the scene of the fire.  Why did Velders (and/or Albers) allow Davies to contaminate the scene of the fire and why were they allowed to take items which were actually forensic evidence?  

This embroidery is now in the home of Thomas Davies.

b)   On 19 July 1995 Velders (and/or Albers) then allowed Simon Davies and Thomas Davies to go into every area of the house and take items of personal property.  Then Velders (and/or Albers) allowed Thomas Davies to make a detailed inventory of all the items in the house.  Produced here is part of the inventory made by Thomas Davies (in his own handwriting) on 19 July 1995 at Steensel:-

[431

If indeed the site was a crime scene then why did Velders (a 'scene of crime' police officer) allow the scene to be contaminated and indeed allow the removal of forensic evidence by Simon Davies and Thomas Davies?