Ter Beek Home Background Contents Corruption Responsibility Violations Blackmail Bokhoven Velders Klinkenbijl Ter Beek Blaauboer Huurman

 

Perverting the Course of Justice

EXAMINING MAGISTRATE PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

 

TER BEEK

 

 The Examining Magistrate Ter Beek had consistently condoned the perjury, the destruction and suppression of evidence and the fabrication of  evidence in respect of this case.

 The police compelled witnesses to produce a number of statements in the case. In the period 1996 to 1998 evidence was collected to show that these witnesses had committed perjury in their witness statements as well as had committed a number of other criminal offences including fraud and theft.  The police had used the existence of these criminal offences and the offences of perjury to blackmail these witnesses.  In total there were some 14 witnesses that were suborned and blackmailed by the police in England and the 1500  page dossier in this matter was sent by the Crown Prosecution Service in London to Police for investigation.  A copy was sent to the Dutch Examining Magistrate Ter Beek to be submitted to the court.  The dossier sent to the Dutch court was subsequently suppressed by Ter Beek.

 The evidence produced to the court by Professor Barnett in 1998 stated that IF the TNO tests re-construction was faithfully reproduced that there was a 1 in 110,000 chance of the tests being valid.  In fact the TNO did not in any respect accurately reproduce or re-construct the fire test room and thus the possibility of the tests being valid were even more remote.  This is attested to by the TNO’s own documentation and the video-tape of the tests.  The TNO staff, suborned by the Examining Magistrate Ter Beek constructed an entirely false test room that did not in any way reflect the actual situation.  The parameters of the TNO test room was certainly developed previously by secret experimentation and computer simulations that were designed to ensure that an entirely artificial test result was produced.

 The Examining Magistrate Ter Beek acted in a corrupt manner by suborning the TNO technicians and Postma.  The Examining Magistrate Ter Beek was removed from her position when it was discovered that she had suborned the TNO staff, notably Reijman.  Yet the corrupt Court of Appeal judges still allowed this evidence to remain before the court.

Ter Beek’s corruption and perversion of justice includes:-

i.

The suppression of the evidence of a fire expert that tests to show an ‘accidental’ fire were impossible as one could not re-create an ‘accident’.  (Barnett’s report)

ii.

The introduction of an under-cover policeman (Postma) who falsely posed as an independent expert witness and whose false and fraudulent testimony was not removed from the court dossier.

iii.

The Court of Appeal in November 1997 ordered Ter Beek to conduct certain specific tests.  This she did not do because as she had done so it would have proved that the fire was an accident.

iv.

Ter Beek knew that the Dutch, European or International Test Standards had to be used to produce valid test results, however she knew that if these test methods were used then it would be shown that the fire was an accident.  Thus Ter Beek corruptly ordered the TNO technicians not to use the mandatory testing methodology.

v.

Ter Beek knew that if a 10-year-old mattress of the type in the actual fire plus bedclothes were used in the tests when it would be clear that the fire was an accident.  Thus Ter Beek ordered and used specially manufactured fire resistant mattresses and NO bedclothes in order to produce a false and fraudulent result.

vi.

Ter Beek knew that the TNO tests showed that the actual fire could not have involved the use of turpentine because the temperatures reached in the tests were greatly in excess of those reached in the actual fire.  This data was not presented to the court by any of the examining magistrates or prosecutors.

vii.

The examining magistrates and prosecutors knew that the conclusions of the TNO report did not accord with the sensor data or the video-tapes, furthermore the TNO technician Reijman admitted this during questioning in front of the Examining Magistrate (3rd).  Yet this evidence was suppressed.

viii.

The examining magistrates and the prosecutors had the photographic evidence that showed that the prosecution’s allegations about carpet samples being taken on the 17 July 1995 were false and fabricated, yet they did not reveal this fact to the judges and they did not remove this fabricated evidence from the court file.

ix.

The Examining Magistrate (Barteld) appointed after Ter Beek and the prosecutor Broek-Blaauboer knew that Ter Beek had suborned the TNO technicians and had procured false and fabricated evidence, yet they did not remove this evidence from the court file nor report these matters to the judges.

x.

The examining magistrates and prosecutors were aware of the extensive fabrication and suppression of evidence and the perversion of justice in this case, inter alia 3. a) and 3. b) above, yet at no time did they seek to act in an impartial manner, indeed at all times they conspired to pervert the course of justice.

 

   MOTIVE FOR TER BEEK PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE:

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

 

THE PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE BY TER BEEK CAN ONLY BE DUE TO THE FACT THAT SHE WAS ACTING ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE DUTCH GOVERNMENT IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO COVER-UP THE REAL CAUSE FOR THE DEATH OF SUZANNE.