Open letter to Peter R. de Vries in the Nicky Verstappen case

Filed in NICKY VERSTAPPEN by on 13 December 2018 13 Comments


Dear Peter R. de Vries, with great interest I have followed the trial by media Nicky Verstappen, in which Jos Brech is actually publicly convicted. For the sake of clarity: I am not a defender of Jos Brech nor of any child sexual abuse or murderer. However, it seems strongly that this case is a psychological operation (PsyOp); intended to push through the DNA database and to remove the legislation that restricts the use of that DNA to the research in which it was obtained. Why does this seem to be the case? This is evident from the defense of lawyer Gerald Roethof.

I'm not going to talk about possible created evidence, because if this is a PsyOp, then 'making a murderer' can always be supported with a good story and fabricated evidence (plus the necessary acting). It is of no use to look at that, because you do not get that proof. However, Roethof's defense clearly shows that this is a PsyOp. If this is a PsyOp (and I will show it to you) this means that you have a bad role in pushing through legislation that is a threat to the people. That makes your role a very bad thing. You are in fact a traitor.

Evidence PsyOp

There is a law in the Netherlands that states that DNA obtained in case A may not be used in case B. Twenty years after the death of Nicky Verstappen, the case threatens to expire. This is because the case can not officially be regarded as a murder or manslaughter case, as a result of which the limitation period is introduced. In that context you can speculate that it is very coincidental that suddenly a suspect comes up, but I leave that aside for a moment.

Jos Brech would suddenly have been missing. We will not completely choke that story either, because that's enough done in the media and we can not check if it's not just a spinning.

Let's keep it short. Justice has gathered the DNA of Jos Brech in this missing case. Let's call that as case A. Then this DNA was used in case B, being the Nicky Verstappen case. The choice for this is of course (sentimental) to sell well to the people, because "Finally we have been able to find the perpetrator of the murder of Nicky Verstappen!"But that is nothing more than sentiment, because murder or manslaughter has never been demonstrated, just as sexual abuse is. However, I do not want to be tempted into the PsyOp diversion maneuvers towards this discussion. Gerald Roethof does that well enough himself.

The proof that Roethof is a PsyOp lawyer therefore lies in this: DNA obtained in case A may not be used in case B. That is the legislation. The simple fact that no one has protested in the entire judicial process against the use of DNA obtained in case A for case B shows that we are dealing with a PsyOp.

Yesterday's show, in which Roethof argued for the release of Jos Brech on the basis of all sorts of substantive arguments about alleged child pornography on the PC, the idea that DNA needs support and so on, was nothing more than show for the stage. Roethof had Jos Brech immediately and already from day 1 could get pre-trial (if he would not be a patsy who plays the game), by pointing to the legislation (which is still in force) which clearly states that DNA obtained for case A, may not be used in case B. That would legally undermine the case.

Of course you can say: "Yes, but if Jos Brech is guilty, I understand that the Public Prosecutor is turning a blind eye". But could we perhaps ask the question whether this PsyOp case is meant to suspend this legal limit? And what could be the complications for everyone?

DNA Database

Not only this case, but also previous cases suddenly seem to have been solved with the magic word DNA. After many years of research and contradictory developments, there is suddenly a suspect who ends up behind the bars on the basis of DNA evidence. This is strongly influenced by 'making a murderer', for the acceptance of that magic word: DNA. We have been steaming so slowly for the acceptance of a national DNA database, because we have been psychologically played with matters of emotionally great impact. Of course you have played an important role in Peter, because you can speak seriously and you brush your teeth well.

The game of creating a self-created problem, followed by triggering the reaction via media hypes, and then introducing the solution (Problem, Reaction, Solution), may seem harmless. You could say that the end justifies the means, were it not that the true goal is often something deeper than hearing and seeing people. Of course it would be great if all murder and abuse cases could be solved immediately by means of DNA, but apart from the fact that proof of support is very useful, maybe we should really start worrying about what can happen with that DNA. once that is in a national database.

Remove legal boundary DNA use

And there the importance of this PsyOp suddenly becomes crystal clear! The removal of the boundary for the use of DNA is perhaps the hard core of this Nicky Verstappen - Jos Brech case. Once obtained DNA may therefore be used in the near future without any hindrance. Advocate Gerald Roethof has taken care of that by not invoking this law. You, Peter, play the role of the PsyOp emo-building master, with the TV and Twitter as your most important weapons. You play the people and prepare them for the acceptance of something they do not overlook. So once the DNA is in the national database, the government can do everything with it. Of course, the picture is now outlined that this will only apply to the Nicky Verstappen-like business, but the fact is that the border has already faded and that no one sees what the consequences are.

With everyone's DNA in a national database, the state can put together a complete genetic profile of every citizen. This means that all genetic characteristics can be analyzed. This is allowed from now on, because the legal threshold (in this case you have been spun) has been removed. In combination with all the other Big Data that governments collect from people (think of social media behavior, patient records, income, expenses, taxes, etc.), you can profile very finely and link human behavior to genetic characteristics. If you link this to the current scientific state of affairs in the field of CRISPR-CAS genetic 'find and replace' functionality to adapt DNA, a potential future picture unfolds in which bio-modification of individuals becomes possible.


You Peter, you might dismiss this as a conspiracy delusion, but you have to appease your conscience. Personally, I think you know exactly which agenda is behind this. Do you do it for the money and your nice thick BMW?

Body state ownership

The organ donation law has ensured that the body is legally in fact state ownership. You can only decide whether or not to hand over organs at death, by giving up this in the state register. And to all that is of the state, the state may carry out maintenance. So if you consider the human body as state property, and you have the DNA profile of individuals, you can decide to maintain (without permission). This is also the case with government buildings and national roads and everything that falls under state ownership. Technically, you could say that when a road network decays, the state may feel called to put new asphalt over it. If one of the state properties starts to show deviations, the state can tinker with it. For example, I can imagine that you get people with rebellious behavior through big data analyzes. If you then have their DNA profile in the national database, legally you can use that DNA to make a tailor-made vaccine, with which you make some changes to the DNA via the CRISPR-CAS method, so that you modify such an individual. You are, as it were, conducting maintenance on your state asset.

Vaccination agenda

So I draw it all in a slightly larger context than what this Jos Brech case seems to serve. The appearance that is being awakened by you and the media is that it is good that we have the DNA of everyone, because then big murder cases can be solved sooner. The implications are, however, much greater. Because Gerald Roethof fails to address the legal violation of law in the use of DNA for case A for the benefit of case B, the tone has been set. Everyone's DNA profile will soon be simply state property and the state will no longer have to worry about the question of what it uses for that information.

So if you are able to profile people on social, psychological level through the big data from social media and all kinds of other sources of information and you combine that knowledge with the DNA database, then it is useful if you already have legislation that ensures that you can maintain these state assets without any hindrance. It is handy that there is also a law that makes it possible to put the injection needle in every citizen; whether they want it or not. So it seems that all the pieces of the puzzle fall into place and that all the discussion that we now see in the media and social media are in preparation for changes that will be able to reach our DNA.

If you map out everyone's genetic profile and you can install vaccination legislation that imposes compulsory vaccination on the people, you can therefore make customized (CRISPR-CAS) modifications to your state assets.

Thank you Peter

In fact, I wanted to thank you, Peter R. de Vries, for making an important contribution to this fantastic development! I would rather see nothing more than that Oppositional Rebellious behavioral disorder, which I suffer from, is being programmed away in my descendants. I think that a society full of robots that only nods yes, works much better. I imagine a world where all designer babies get a little bit of Peter R. de Vries DNA, so that we not only see your Prodent smile at TV show A or B, but just everywhere! I imagine a world full of neat puppets of the state, because finally history teaches that power does not corrupt and so we can entrust control of our DNA to your puppet players.

Thank you Peter! And do the greetings to Gerald.


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

About the Author ()

Comments (13)

trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Sun wrote:

    Can not you cc article to the lawyer Roerhof. Ziin mail address on his website I assume.
    Ask questions about his defense?

  2. Do not bother with a "figurant"!

  3. frameworks wrote:

    It might be good to follow the case of "German Maddy" to discover parallels. In addition, all media attention will soon be able to solve the English Maddie case according to the same concept.

  4. Arie wrote:

    Clear Martin! I wonder if an outsider might visit this gentleman in prison, or at least a family member. I am not illusive. But is he entitled to visit if he has not yet been (officially) convicted?

    • Martin Vrijland wrote:

      Seems impossible if you are not a family or something. He is no more convicted than via trial by media.
      But of course you want to keep a patsy away from everyone as much as possible.
      I do not see the point in it.

  5. Sun wrote:

    Link with information for visiting detainees You have to know where he is and he should like to speak to you. So it does not really look good if his lawyer discourages this in the context of a 'good' defense. Kuch, tickling cough.

  6. Camera 2 wrote:

    All media: it is emotional for the next of kin but in the meantime the whole of the Netherlands with the most extreme form of hypocrity rubbed the underpants of Nicky into the eye membrane. Still regardless of the truth of the whole story)

    It is to become despondent that such a matter is brought to 17mlj NLérs by a power TV in a TV show, how sick you are not at first. And then again in the program the word emotion drop in connection with the next of kin, but so in the ether throw and on the retina of all viewers. (hypnotizing is called that)
    The bickering about the underpants, underpants of Nicky underpants is so often mentioned that the average Dutchman with the underpants of Nicky on his retina hypnotized and nowhere else can think about. At least if you still watch this sarcastic low-ground pulp.
    See film in the link below. We do not see the analysis of this blogger in the mainstream, no, we only see the word underpants, every person who participates in that emo-building they forgot to take with them to Spain, they will vomit tafrelen ... (Incomprehensible that such a Jeroen Pauw is not even ashamed shame because he knows that he is turning in the traitors' mess of de Vries and consorte)

    See film clip added to article bottom link Minute 15.05: call emotion and at the same time spread smoldering language in the ears of the viewers. (peak of hypocrity)

    And in this newspaper they are also crazy about the word underpants

  7. SalmonInClick wrote:

    Such a de Vries yes what do you have to .. what will he tell his grandchildren hero or ..

  8. Elien wrote:

    We also have an unsolved murder case that is called suicide for convenience in Wassenaar. Anass Auragh.
    Are nature lovers still away from home for months?
    Then this case can also be solved within 20 year.

  9. Sun wrote:

    Just read that Rkethof wants more money. He works so hard and gets paid so little for it. Well, if you work in the system, you have to complain about the rules that apply to your fee. So do not nag.
    Then he has to step out and do something else. There are so many lawyers who are very bad. I am not saying that he is very bad.
    Most lawyers are summer advisers. I do not say sat he is a zombie lawyer.

  10. Camera 2 wrote:

    Another session today, please note

    So the search app is about missing DNA, not about people anymore

    The 56-year-old suspect did not participate. But because his family had reported him missing and had been sending stuff that had his DNA on to the police, an 100 percent DNA match arrived. B.'s DNA was found on the boy's clothing.

    Roethof with his hypocritical attitude that pretends to be a good lawyer,
    Scripting good actors get well paid in this world, they actually deserve the pillory (tomatoes and eggs, read the article above again, then you know why)

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.