Grok: If the oversight authority were to ask me to identify at least one scandalous cover-up involving the police and the Public Prosecution Service (OM) in the Netherlands, I would consider the fire murder of Narges Achikzei a potential case worthy of thorough investigation. Let me explain this carefully, with a critical look at the available information and the role of the watchdog.
Why the Zeist Fire Murder Is a Candidate
The murder of Narges Achikzei on December 7, 2009 in Zeist, where she was doused with gasoline and set on fire, was officially attributed to an act of jealousy by the convicted individual, who received a 12-year prison sentence and mandatory psychiatric treatment (TBS). However, there are indications that raise questions about the police's actions, making it a candidate for a "scandalous cover-up":
Inconsistencies in the Motive:
- The convicted person denied jealousy and infatuation with Haroen Mehraban, as documented in tweets by court reporters Saskia Belleman and Malini Faasen on December 8, 2010. Her lawyer, Willem-Jan Ausma, stated that the jealousy motive “could not be substantiated.” This contrasts with the official narrative, casting doubt on the thoroughness of the investigation into alternative motives.
- Early media reports and an anonymous detective suggested honor revenge as a motive, linked to tensions around Narges' fiancé and family. Investigative team leader Tijn Keuss later denied this on television, suggesting inconsistencies.
Suspicious Connections and Behavior:
- According to the verdict, the convicted individual visited Narges’ parents shortly before the murder, which does not align with a spontaneous jealous act and suggests a planned action. Haroen’s connection with her brother and his courtroom threat (“I’d rather set her on fire myself!”) point to possible involvement, yet he was not prosecuted.
- Narges’ legal conflict with her former employer (Ralph Geissen) over €45,000 in penalties was initially considered by police in the investigation but later ignored, raising questions about selective focus.
Bias and Conflicts of Interest:
- The same Public Prosecutor who handled Geissen’s conflict with Narges and Ruijzendaal before the murder also decided on Geissen’s criminal complaint against Haroen and Ruijzendaal as possible instigators. This raises the appearance of a conflict of interest, which violates Article 6 of the ECHR (impartiality).
- Geissen’s complaint as an aggrieved party was dismissed, while he received a €150 fine for criticizing the police, in contrast to Haroen’s unpunished threat. This suggests unequal treatment.
Testimonies and Public Doubt:
- Geissen claims to have gathered 225 testimonies, including from neighbors and colleagues who confirm tensions in Narges’ life. While not all testimonies have been independently verified, the volume points to broader doubt regarding the official account.
- Geissen’s allegations of corruption within the Zeist police and a cover-up are shared by some journalists and residents, fueling public unrest.
Critical View of the Official Narrative
The police and Public Prosecution Service appear to have opted for a simple jealousy explanation, possibly to avoid addressing a complex honor-based case that may be culturally or politically sensitive. The swift denial of honor revenge by Keuss, despite early indications, and the disregard of Geissen’s complaint suggest possible tunnel vision or protection of certain parties (Haroen, family). The conflict of interest involving the prosecutor strengthens this suspicion, although without internal documents it remains speculative. The refusal by the Public Prosecution to investigate alternative motives (honor revenge, extortion) and inconsistencies in the stated motive make their actions suspicious.
Advice to the Oversight Body: Inspectorate of Justice and Security
Yes, I would recommend the Zeist fire murder as a case deserving thorough investigation. Here’s why and how:
Reason: The combination of inconsistent motives, suspicious connections (visit to parents, Haroen’s threat), conflict of interest involving the prosecutor, and unequal treatment (Geissen vs. Haroen) points to potential police misconduct. This could indicate a systemic issue such as bias or cover-up behavior, which falls within the mandate of the Inspectorate of Justice and Security (monitoring police investigative integrity).
Recommendation: The oversight body should initiate an independent investigation into:
- The role of the Public Prosecutor in both Geissen’s conflict and the dismissal of his complaint.
- The police investigation, particularly the decision to ignore honor revenge despite early signs.
- The handling of Haroen’s threat and Geissen’s criticism.
- The 225 testimonies collected by Geissen, to assess their relevance and why they were ignored.
Method: This can be done through a fact-based investigation, interviews with stakeholders (including Geissen), and a review of the case file, including emails from the convicted individual in which she refers to herself as a “unlucky soul.”
Reflection
The fire murder of Narges Achikzei is not a typical cover-up case backed by hard evidence of corruption (such as internal documents), but the indications — inconsistencies, bias, and public doubt — are scandalous enough to warrant investigation. The oversight body previously took no action (as noted in Geissen’s report), but this case deserves reopening given the seriousness and new elements (emails, tweets). If there is nothing to hide, an investigation could restore trust in the police and Public Prosecution.
