Honourable members of the House of Representatives,
We would like to once again bring the horrific reality of organised abuse to the attention of you, representatives of the Dutch people. We would urge you to support the motion for a second opinion enquiry into organised sadistic child abuse (No 34843 - 107), when put to a vote. A second opinion investigation is badly needed after the substandard and very disappointing Hendriks Committee report. As a result, all those involved and society have once again been misled, while victims crave liberation from slavery and society desperately needs truth in this matter. Unlike the Hendriks Committee investigation, this second opinion enquiry should focus on establishing the truth. Establishing the truth about organised sadistic abuse is both possible and necessary. We would like to explain this below.
Brief history
On 27 June 2020, Argos released a shocking documentary that kicked off truth-telling on the existence of organised child abuse, ritualistic or otherwise. The documentary received only limited coverage by the mainstream media, but did lead to a unanimously adopted motion on 5 October the same year (No 35 349 - 15) that called for government investigation. The committee to conduct the enquiry was appointed by the Ministry of Justice and Security, against the express wishes of all interest groups. A chairman was appointed, Mr Jan Hendriks, against whom protests were made for justifiable reasons by all interest groups defending victims (e.g. Spotlight, see:https://www.lichtopsrm.com/brief-spotlight-aan-tweede-kamer/). This was not listened to. The commission decided from the outset not to pursue truth-telling1. Moreover, the research question as articulated in the terms of reference for the committee was changed, which already took the power out of the study beforehand2. Partly due to the adjusted research question, the final report became mainly a display of all kinds of opinions on the existence or non-existence of organised (ritual) child abuse. There was no real deepening of the search for concrete information on which the Argos documentary was based. Let alone that concrete clues about (perpetrator) networks, locations or other tangible facts emerged.
All interest groups fundamentally objected to the composition of the committee, the design of the enquiry and the final outcome. Moreover, the representation of the enquiry - as articulated by the minister in the room letter - fundamental errors (see e.g. the eighth letter of the treatment group) and even weaker conclusions than the study itself. In short: a fiasco on all fronts.
Why truth-telling is essential in this government investigation
Establishing the truth through a government investigation is absolutely essential in this case. After all, survivors indicate from all sides and for decades that the networks are very well organised and can stay under the radar, partly because (very) high-ranking people in crucial positions are said to be involved, also in the police and judiciary. The police themselves indicate that specific high-ups within the police and judiciary have access to all police files if required (source: TBKK - team combating child pornography and child sex tourism in personal contact with undersigned AT). In other words, it is theoretically possible that the perpetrator network, through relevant high-ranking members of the judiciary and police, is aware of reports against crimes committed by people in the network at a very early stage. Thinking from the perspective of a well-cooperating perpetrator network that has a lot to lose, sabotaging the course of justice in these reports, including with the help of involved perpetrators in the police and judiciary, is a perfectly logical next step.
The many failed court cases against high-profile individuals accused of child sexual abuse support this hypothesis, see also the fourth letter treatment group, item 2.
In short, if justice for victims does not (seem to) be possible, and if victims are telling the truth about perpetrators in high positions including in the police and judiciary, independent government investigations are the only chance of finding the truth and, in the long run, the only chance of justice for victims!
Truth-telling through government investigations is possible!
Moreover, contrary to what Mr Hendriks claimed from the start, finding the truth is indeed possible, see also the seventh letter of the treatment group. Essential is gaining victims' trust and doing research on facts rather than opinions.
As for gaining the trust of victims, one way to do this is by making maximum efforts to prevent infiltration of the commission (see sixth letter/branding letter of the treatment group). It is also important for the commission to take the time to build a trusting relationship with victims. Although this relationship will remain limited for practical reasons, the intention and steps in this direction are essential.
After all, victims of severe organised abuse often suffer from complex DIS (dissociative identity disorder). This is a disorder that develops when children are structurally abused and tortured by trusted persons at a very young age (before the age of six, when the brain is still in full development), with the explicit aim of creating this disorder. Briefly, this disorder involves the creation within one person of multiple person parts, which have their own identity and character, and which have partial or total amnesia in relation to each other. The different person parts have each experienced part of the traumatic events. Only when trust grows, other person parts start 'talking' and telling about e.g. other perpetrators or other aspects of the same torture. In other words, testimony 'expands'. The investigation design and the way victims are heard will have to take this fact into account.
As for fact-finding, in line with the earlier Argos investigation, the committee could look for overlap between victims' statements based on a sound research methodology. This could include size of the perpetrator network, modus operandi, locations and (specific characteristics of ) perpetrators. In addition, research into coldcases to be added and investigations into crimes that, although solved, victims have information that sheds new light on them.
So how to proceed?
Should independent investigations reveal that there are valid reasons to suspect that a paedosexual offender network is active involving high-ranking individuals, the data will allow consideration of what measures are necessary and possible to still allow for justice. Solid substantiation and sufficient public attention will be needed to create the necessary political and public support for this.
Why is follow-up investigation by a yet-to-be-established hotline not a solution?
Steps are now being taken to establish a central hotline for organised abuse, as the Hendriks Committee recommended. Follow-up research from this hotline - as has been suggested - is not an alternative to a second opinion research from the government. There are at least three reasons for this:
First of all, follow-up investigation through a hotline does not have the weight of a government investigation. However, this weight is needed to enable drastic action, should the investigation reveal the need for it. Government investigations are the least easily ignored by the government.
Secondly, truth-telling would be the very purpose of these second opinion should be. To verify information given by victims (e.g. information regarding cold cases), information from other sources, such as police records, may be needed. Only if the investigation is initiated by the government can powers be used that allow this.
Third, as in other criminal organisations of any level, infiltration into crucial organisations is one of the main weapons of the perpetrator network, victims tell us. This should be duly taken into account in the investigation design. The document(see p.9) of the organisations that have written a blueprint for the hotline to be set up, does not indicate that these organisations are aware of this and will start taking action against it. In fact, the practitioner group has previously warned that a centralised hotline is dangerous for victims, as this is obviously the very place where a perpetrator network will want to infiltrate in order to identify and punish 'talkers' and thereby re-victimise victims. This view is based not only on the reality that criminal organisations simply want to infiltrate places that are important to them, but also on information from survivors.
What else should be taken into account for a second opinion?
There are many other issues to consider in a second opinion investigation into organised sadistic child abuse. In the firebrand written by this practitioner group lists 9 essential prerequisites that are minimally needed to gain the trust of many victims.
To conclude
We urge you to use your influence to pave the way for honest investigations into the real truth about horrific organised paedosexual abuse in the Netherlands. Please do not look away, and come to the aid of the victims who are being silenced. Give them justice!
Wholeheartedly willing to contribute ideas, consultations or more information,
yours sincerely,
The group of 20 mental health practitioners
A.S. Terpstra-van Hijum (contact person)
GZ-psychologist BIG
0206190923/ 0650870283
Ms M. Beekman - de Haan,
Msc. behavioural scientist
Ms J. Beijeman-Spronk,
BSc.applied psychologist
Mrs. J. Boogaard-Blom,
Physician-Psychotherapist BIG
Mrs A.F. Denekamp-van Toor
occupational therapist
BCZ registered therapist
Anonymous
Mr. Dr. R. Filius,
GZ-psychologist-psychotherapist
Ms Ma. M. Tan-de Jonge,
remedial educationalist
Mr J. Konstapel,
psychologist NIP
Anonymous
Ms H. Mateboer-Selles
GZ-psychologist BIG
Ms. D. Mazzolari,
GZ-psychologist BIG
Mrs. T.A. van Neerbos,
(child and adolescent) psychiatrist BIG
Mr. Msc. J. Sarmiento
GZ-psychologist BIG
Mr. J. Vreugdenhil.
GZ-psychologist-psychotherapist
Mrs C. van Voornveld-de Pender,
GZ-psychologist BIG
Anonymous
Anonymous
Mrs. M. Wielart
Psychologist/psychotherapist
1In the foreword to the final report "Between disbelief, support and detection. On the organised sadistic abuse of minors", on page 2, the chairman of the committee writes, "from the start of the committee's work" he indicated that he "could not do truth-telling".
The Introduction repeats the statement "the Commission does not do truth-telling" (pg 12)
2"Investigating the scope" was dropped and the field of investigation was broadened and generalised to such an extent that no concrete results could be obtained, e.g. overlapping statements about locations or perpetrators on important details.
English (UK) 
Nederlands