De
Morgen, 9 January 1998
VAN
ESPEN REMOVED FROM THE CHAMPIGNONNIÈRE CASE
by Douglas de Coninck
The investigating
magistrate Jean-Claude Van Espen is no longer in
charge of the investigation into the death of
Christine Van Hees. His impartiality has been
called into question due to the fact that at the
time of the murder he was the lawyer of one of
the current suspects, Annie Bouty. It was also
Van Espen who took the decision to dismiss the
team of investigators who were working on the
statements of witness XI.
Last week the weekly
magazine Télé-Moustique published the copy of
an order from the chamber of council of the high
court of Brussels issued in June 1984. It emerges
from this document that Van Espen was Annie
Bouty’s lawyer on the occasion of a dispute
with her friend Michel Nihoul. Since 27 January
1997 the two - with Marc Dutroux – have been
the main suspects in the inquiry into the murder
fourteen years ago of Christine Van Hees, the
16-year-old girl from Brussels.
When De Morgen asked Van
Espen on Tuesday of last week whether he had once
been Annie Bouty’s lawyer, he replied
categorically: "It is a barefaced lie. I
have never defended Annie Bouty." When we
gave him the exact references of the order in
question, his tone changed abruptly: "Maybe
I did defend her once to replace another lawyer;
that may be possible."
Jos Colpin, the spokesman
for the Brussels public prosecutor’s
department, stated yesterday that Van Espen had
been Annie Bouty’s lawyer on 13 December
1983. We thus have two different dates on which
Van Espen was Annie Bouty’s lawyer.
Even if we forget the fact
that he had been Annie Bouty’s lawyer, Van
Espen had become the subject of controversy in
the investigation into the murder at the
Champignonnière in Auderghem. It was on his
initiative that the team of investigators led by
Gendarmerie Warrant Officer De Baets was
dismissed on 25 August 1997 from the Neufchâteau
unit of the Brussels BSR (3rd Criminal
Research Section). Van Espen accused the three
investigators of working in a
"subjective" manner during the
testimony of witness XI that points to the trail
of Dutroux, Nihoul and Bouty. No proof has so far
been given to back up the suspicions about the
attitude of the investigators.
No clear information was
available yesterday about the way the decision to
remove Van Espen was taken. It is allegedly
Etienne Vandewalle, President of the Brussels
High Court, who made the decision. Rumour had it
that it was Van Espen himself who brought matter
to the attention of the court, but yesterday
evening a completely different version was
already circulating. In his order, Judge
Vandewalle stated that there is "no
criticism" of Van Espen’s work, and
that his professional relation was not in itself
a sufficient cause for removal, but that the
publicity in the press about the affair
threatened to undermine the tranquillity of the
investigation. The whole case is now in the hands
of investigating magistrate Damien
Vander-Meersch. Furthermore, other factors weaken
Van Espen’s position in the Champignonnière
case. At the time he was the brother-in-law of
Philippe Deleuze, the PSC politician whose
election campaigns were orchestrated by Michel
Nihoul. In the file on Nihoul at Neufchâteau,
there is another highly significant statement by
Nihoul himself. During questioning on 8 October
1996, Nihoul said that he met Van Espen "at
the time when he worked occasionally for the
practice of the lawyers of Annie Bouty and
Philippe Deleuze."
|
