Innovation

The Public Prosecutor’s Office rejects all requests from R. Geissen and does not wish to respond substantively to all accusations

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.

Public Prosecutor’s Office
District Public Prosecutor’s Office Central Netherlands
Postal address: P.O. Box 505, 3500 AM UtrechtR. Geissen
Utrecht

Division              Policy and Strategy
Phone number(s) 088-6991500
E-mail                    *
Date                    4 August 2017
Annex(es)               None
Subject             Response

Dear sir, R. Geissen,

In response to your 28 e-mail messages, sent to the District Public Prosecutor’s Office Central Netherlands in the period from 21 April 2017 to 31 July 2017, I will inform you as follows.

Your messages
From your various e-mail messages, I have made a number of requests.
Firstly, I understand from your reports that you have lodged a complaint with the Press Council about a journalist. You state that the outcome of the complaint procedure with the Dutch Press Council can be very negative for the police (more specifically the police in Zeist) and the Public Prosecution Service. You state that the murder of Mrs. N. Achikzei was not the work of one person, but that there was a group of perpetrators and honour killings. You state that the Public Prosecution and the police deny this and want to cover up the honour killing. You are of the opinion that the police and the Public Prosecutor’s Office should pay for this. You therefore request the Public Prosecutor’s Office to open a National Criminal Investigation.

In addition, you request the Public Prosecution Service to give permission to make available to you the images of a broadcast of a television programme as a result of the murder of Mrs Achikzei. You wish to obtain these images in order to complete your file.

Page 1 of 3

You also request the Public Prosecutor’s Office to give you access to the criminal file that has been drawn up as a result of the murder of Mrs Achikzei. You claim to be the injured party in the case and you state that the Public Prosecutor’s Office has previously refused a request for inspection in order to cover up what you have said.

Visual images of a television program
With regard to your request regarding the granting of permission to obtain the images of Detection Requested, I note that such images cannot be shared due to various privacy aspects. In view of the above, I will not grant permission to make the images available to you.

Access to the criminal file
On 25 January 2016, you submitted your first request for access to the criminal record drawn up on the occasion of the death of Mrs Achikzei. This request was rejected by letter of 24 March 2016 as there is no basis in the Judicial and Procedural Data Act and the accompanying Instructions to allow you access to the aforementioned criminal file. Your current messages do not contain any arguments that give me cause to change the previously adopted beach position.

The National Police Department
Finally, you request the Public Prosecutor’s Office to initiate a National Criminal Investigation into the actions of (different persons of) the Zeist police and the Public Prosecutor’s Office. You do not substantiate this request in any way.

With regard to your assertion that The National Police Department should carry out an investigation into the actions of the police and the Public Prosecution Service, I would like to make the following comment. It appears to me that you have written to the Public Prosecution Service on several occasions since November 2011, requesting that a National Criminal Investigation Service be set up. Your letters have always been responded to in terms of content. Your messages do not give me any reason to deviate from the previously adopted position, which was communicated to you by letters of 5 November 2012, 28 February 2013 and 6 February 2014.

Page 2 of 3

Perhaps unnecessarily, I note that I will refrain from making any statements about the complaints procedure that you have initiated before the Press Council.

Future correspondence
By letter of 6 February 2014 (with reference 300/104/11) you were informed that the Public Prosecution Service reserves the right no longer to respond to your correspondence or requests, since in previous years you have always persistently tried to draw attention to the different view that you have of the murder of Mrs Achikzei by various means. it has become clear to me that, after our letter of 6 February 2014, you have once again addressed various requests or complaints to the Public Prosecution Service with regard to this murder. Since April 2017 alone, you have sent 28 e-mail messages to our public prosecutor’s office.

The frequency with which you write to my public prosecutor’s office results in such a disturbance of the normal conduct of business that I feel compelled to take stricter measures.

I would like to inform you that the Public Prosecutor’s Office will archive your future reports unread for the purpose of file creation, if they in any way relate to the murder of Mrs Achikzei. In addition, the Public Prosecutor’s Office will not maintain telephone contact with you. If you do call anyway, the connection will be cut off immediately.

Yours sincerely,
The Chief Public Prosecutor,
Mrs. H.E. Hoogendijk,
In the absence of this one,

Mr. H.F. Mos
Public Prosecutor’s Office

Page 3 of 3

Ralph Geissen

Next We can inform you that the case you speak of, the "fire murder in Zeist," is not part of the episodes we will broadcast. »

Previous « Shamelessly corrupt Zeist police chief MDNDR011: "Very indirectly, I have also been involved in the investigation into the death by burning of a woman in the elevator of a flat on the Laan van Vollenhove in Zeist (Investigation Gero)."

Published by

Ralph Geissen

Tags: burned aliveMDNDR021narcostate the netherlandsnarges achikzeinargesgaterenounceshame