De Morgen, 8 January 1998
A RE-EXAMINATION WITH MORE FAULTS THAN THE HEARINGS
by Annemie Bulté and Douglas Coninck

What is the value of this idea of "re-examination"? De Morgen has received a sample of the first "re-examination" of the statements of witness XI, presented to investigating magistrate Van Espen on 2 July 1997. The 6-page report is, among other things, one of the reasons behind the decision to dismiss the BSR team led by Patrick De Baets. The content of this report has been widely cited by those who want to demonstrate that XI’s statements were "guided" by her questioners, and that the witness is not credible. The comparison with the file shows that the "re-examination" suffers from the same faults that it claims to be combating.

The report by BSR members Noller, Verhaeghe and Dernicourt is based on three of the seventeen hearings of witness XI, which took place between September 1996 and June 1997. The video recordings of these hearings were not viewed by the authors of the report. They were content to use only passages from the French translation of the hearings.

For example: "As the hearings progressed, XI’s statements were rectified. Thus XI speaks of an axe which was later transformed by the investigators into a knife." A pertinent consideration, it seems. Except that XI never uttered the word "axe". The video recordings (in Dutch) show that she spoke of "a sort of poker" with which one of the victims was tortured. How a poker turned into an axe is a mystery, but we can hardly blame XI for errors of translation. The re-examiners also failed to note that in another statement about the same scene, XI spoke simply of "a metal object".

Other blunders were made in the transcription of XI’s statements. At one point she mentioned a snake constrictor (wurgslang) placed on the body of a victim. In the French translation, this becomes a "boa constrictor". A small language error that can make a difference of ten metres.

The authors of the report also look for examples to prove that the investigators asked "leading questions". "XI was asked to describe Nihoul. She was asked whether Nihoul wore ‘old clothes’", which is supposed to be a leading question. Within the Neufchâteau unit, this type of example has given rise to long debates about how to know what questions a witness like XI can be asked. One common answer is that the only question a police officer can ask is: "What have you got to say?".

XI made her first statements about the Champignonnière murder in Auderghem on 31 October 1996. More than a month before the officers questioning her had access to the old file on the murder (4 December). By this date, XI had already given most of the details about the crime: the nail hammered into the victim’s wrist, the tampax used by one of the torturers, the detailed description of the places. The first re-examination gives no explanation of XI’s knowledge of these facts.

The last argument used by the authors of the first re-examination report to prove that XI could not have witnessed the murder of Christine Van Hees is the following: "She was somewhere else that day." They do not indicate what they base this categorical conclusion on. According to information we have received, it was the class register of the school XI attended at the time. XI has said on several occasions that there was very little control over absences at her school, and that she skipped classes half the time.

The "re-examination" report of 2 July 1997 has circulated in numerous newspaper offices. What the document does not mention is what happened to it: it was judged to be too subjective. In August 1997 investigating magistrate Langlois ordered a second "re-examination" of file 96/109, in particular of XI’s statements. The second re-examination has not yet reached completion. At the beginning of January, Gendarmerie spokesman Els Cleemput indicated that the conclusion of the re-examination was expected "in a few weeks’ time". Marc Verwilghen has mentioned the "remarkable parallel" between the duration of the re-examination by the Brussels BSR and the extension granted to his committee of inquiry. The conclusion of the re-examination had, in fact, been promised for the end of December. But in the meantime the mandate of the committee had been extended until 15 February.