Request by R. Geissen to the Public Prosecutor’s Office to inspect the criminal file relating to the murder of N. Achikzei

caret-down caret-up caret-left caret-right
Narges Achikzei, who was set on fire, and her boyfriend had a heated conflict with the woman's 32-year-old former employer in Utrecht. The family is associated with fraudulent practices. In any case, they were accused by an aggrieved man. He himself was summoned to a court one week after the fire murder in connection with the slander. For a long time he is said to have sent e-mails to the woman - an ex-worker - and damaged her honour and good name.

It is very likely that this conflict played a role in the cruel death. The public prosecutor's office never wants to answer questions about the content of the legal conflict. It is clear that the conflict exerted great pressure on Achikzei and other participants.

Court of Utrecht,
Vrouwe Justitiaplein 1
3511 EX Utrecht 

About: Request for access to the criminal file of executor MDNDR021 16/712372-09

Dear employee victim care A. van Doorn,

On behalf of myself and my bankrupt company Advios Assurantiën BV I appeal to article 51d of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure and as victim/injured party I request copies of judicial documents belonging to the criminal proceedings against executor MDNDR021 who poured gasoline over and set fire to my former employee, my legal opponent and my extortionist N. Achikzei, after which her family/friends falsely pointed at me as the instructor/perpetrator, because I was supposed to be the only enemy that N. Achikzei had.

When it concerns N. Achikzei I am in view of the mentioned motives, what everyone has said about this and all the declarations undeniably a party. I find it more than dubious that ‘my’ Narges could not fulfil her appointment with the Public Prosecution Service in preparation for the false criminal case against me because of the fire murder 3 days earlier. From day one I have been hostile to the police, Justice and Narges’ family in both criminal cases. In order to avoid fuss with them, I have not been present at any of the criminal proceedings.

The overview below shows that with every other motive than “jealousy of MDNDR021” because of my alleged/claimed position as victim/man that the victim would have preferred to marry, I would have had direct access to all documents. I am not allowed to ‘bother’ the next of kin with my claimed right of access because of court rulings. According to an internet rumour, judicial documents refer to ‘obstruction of forced marriage’. I want to verify that.

Yours sincerely,

R. Geissen

N. Achikzei vs Geissen 16/440678-09 OM vs A.MDNDR021 16/712372-09
R. Geissen 100 % as an (ex) suspect x % as ……
N. Achikzei 100 % as declarant/’victim’
Z. Mehraban 100 % as declarant / ‘victim’ 100 % as a relative
S. Achikzei 0 %, no declaration made 100 % as a relative
Mr. P.H. Ruijzendaal 100 % as declarant and lawyer 100 % as a lawyer for relatives
MDNDR021 0 %, no party 100 % as perpetrator


Claim Geissen by reason and related right of access to the criminal record of MDNDR021:

Obstruction forced marriage, if I can’t get her then… 100 % as a survivor
Company extortion to enforce payout penalties 100 % as a victim
Completely out of control legal conflict 100 % as a victim
Relationship problems and love issues 100 % as survivor/victim
Honour-related violence/ ‘family honour’/’police honour’ 100 % as survivor/victim
MDNDR021 murdered her Love rival 0 %, ‘no party’, but declaration made

Posted in Dutch authorities, Innovation, Investigation, Murder Narges Achikzei, Timeline, Whistleblower and tagged , , , , , , .