Jos B. (Nicky Verstappen) PsyOp now also used to demand client statements to a lawyer?

Filed in NEWS ANALYZES by on 5 June 2019 6 Comments

source: akamaized.net

Today there is another new session around Jos Brech in the Nicky Verstappen case (see Telegraaf). Jos Brech, who is now called Jos B. in the media and is no longer shown with photos but through drawings. The case begins with the statement that the forensic coordinator in this case died in a serious accident. You then immediately wonder if the man was bothered by his conscience when he discovered that he was working on a PsyOp (psychological operation), wanted to talk and therefore had to be cleaned up? We will never be able to prove that. Tidy is neat.

What you can prove is that all attention in the case is put on a false track in the discussion about the DNA obtained. That is suddenly about the Bayesian method of calculating probability instead of the simple legal fact that the DNA of Jos Brech, obtained in his missing case, was used in a "murder case" that was not actually a murder case, because murder was never proven. You are still not allowed by law to use the DNA of case A in case B. The fact that Gerald Roethof again makes no defense against this is yet another indication that we are dealing with a PsyOp case here. This could immediately cancel Jos B.'s custody.

The discussion is also diverted again towards sexual abuse or not:

Lawyer Gerald Roethof cites the report by forensic doctor Rob Bilo and states that the injury to Nicky's anus does not necessarily mean that the boy has been sexually abused: "That could also have been caused by hard stools or hard wiping."

Quite coincidentally, psychiatric research also shows that Job B. is pedophile, and that naturally plays an additional part in the minds of the people accompanying the idea that Jos B. should be the perpetrator, so that nobody asks whether we may be dealing with a psychological operation (PsyOp) to introduce new legislation.

It is clear that there was never evidence of murder or sexual abuse, so the DNA of (PsyOp actor?) Jos B., obtained in his (acted?) Missing, should therefore NEVER have been used in the (non-existent) murder case Nicky Verstappen. However, by playing again on the emotion of the people watching, the attention is diverted from this legally wrong action. In fact, the court is taking an advance on new legislation (by approving DNA use) on new legislation. The simple fact that Gerald Roethof makes no mention of this makes him an unbelievable (PsyOp) lawyer.

But like many things, PsyOp cases are used for multiple purposes. In this case, Jos Brech would also have made a statement to his lawyer. That is of course all the stage for the PsyOp stage, because it is of course about adjusting as much legislation as possible, so the necessary is acted in the direction in which you want to change legislation.

In the Thijs H. case We saw already that the medical-professional secrecy of GGZ institutes had to be redone for a while, because otherwise the camera images and the statements of the staff could not be used. In the Jos B. case they want the statement from Jos B. to his (PsyOp) lawyer Gerald Roethof. And so more and more citizens' rights are being stripped step by step (see here). However, because it happens through major murder cases, hypocritical to the media, the people willingly embrace it. Nobody sees that the introduced changes to the law can affect every citizen, so nobody gets in the way. The ladies and gentlemen in gowns are trained to keep their mouths shut, because they have sworn allegiance to the crown and if the crown introduces new legislation through PsyOp's, they will cooperate or remain silent.

Source link listings: telegraaf.nl

53 Shares

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About the Author ()

Comments (6)

trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Heray wrote:

    When Jos B had just been arrested, Gerald Roethof once said that the DNA had been obtained illegally, but then he remained silent about it. Perhaps backfired, because otherwise a lawyer would just insist on this.
    He was probably instructed to do as he would if it were a real thing. This is done to make the case look as real as possible.

    Because this case is not fair, I am convinced of that. Take the fact that the very real possibility of multiple perpetrators is not mentioned, while the book 'The mysterious death of Nicky Verstappen' shows that camp leader Joos Barten knew where Nicky's body would be found. And there are many more indications in this that at least he was involved as an aid in this case.

    I think the intention was to get Jos B convicted, so that the peace in Heibloem could return. But on closer inspection it turns out to be very difficult. Because how can a logical story be invented with Jos B as the only perpetrator? Including all the facts that are known, such as that he would have cycled on the heath just after Nicky's discovery.
    I suspect that he did not cycle at all here. This was invented so that he had to donate his DNA last year. Had he not cycled there, he would not have come into the picture. The military police who died in Iraq and allegedly arrested him will no longer be able to invalidate this claim.

    The most logical thing would be if Jos would deny B and say he didn't know how his DNA got on the clothes. Then he cannot be sentenced, because there is not enough evidence. But we see that he is stretching the case. They may be working on a conclusive story behind the scenes and this is not yet complete - and I am very curious if it will ever come true. And yes, I do not exclude the possibility that a forensic coordinator has now been killed. Humanity is unfortunately so sick.

    • Martin Vrijland wrote:

      A moment apart from the rest of your story, I would like to see where Roethof once said that. I can't remember or find an interview where I heard him say that. The simple fact that he does not insist on this seems to make him a psyop lawyer.

      • Heray wrote:

        I remember in a short interview on the street just after Jos was arrested. I no longer know where this was and it will no longer be on the internet. But I remember this because I had already wondered whether Jos's DNA had not been obtained unlawfully. When his lawyer said so, I was curious how it would go with this argument. Well we know that by now, never heard of it again.

  2. Sun wrote:

    Half of the lawyers work directly / indirectly for the government. The other half does not do this and is afraid of the Dean, who keeps an eye on the lawyers on behalf of the 'state', and looks up to the first group. Afraid of being disbarred by the lawyers of the first group. That is why they do not do their utmost.
    The lawyers of the first group have very warm and intimate contacts with judges and the Bar Association. Higher chance of success if you find such a lawyer. You should not have legal disputes regarding the status quo of the guys from the script. Then they will not take the case or sabotage your case.

  3. Heray wrote:

    Newspaper Trouw also published the article 'DNA match is only chapter one of the criminal file' last 28 August. In it, Ton Broeders, emeritus professor of criminalism at Leiden University, says: “It is remarkable that the DNA of the suspect was obtained because he was missing. That should be two separate databases: suspects and missing persons. ”According to the Public Prosecution Service gone according to the rules, but B.'s lawyer can argue for exclusion of the evidence.

    It is therefore strange that Roethof does not use this in the defense. By the way, this article seems to have disappeared from the Trouw web archive, but I could still find it via http://www.topics.nl.

  4. Heray wrote:

    Jos is therefore holding a written statement 'as an asset', as Pauw heard yesterday. He doesn't want to reveal his statement yet, because everything is being used against him, he says. Why he thinks that this statement will be an asset later than suddenly is beyond me.

    This fall I had a discussion with someone on social media who claimed that Jos had been sniffing at children's swimming undergarments and that Nicky had been there too. This is how Jos's DNA ended up on Nicky's underpants. That person also claimed that he had heard this from the media. Probably a mistake, because I couldn't find anything about this. The following day this person deleted his response. Jos will probably come up with such a statement later on.

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to 'allow cookies' to give you the best browsing experience possible.If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click on "Accept" below then you agree with these institutions.

close