Reactie op uw antwoord op onze open brief aan de EO omtrent de documentaire 'Het complot'

Afzendervijgeboom@protonmail.com ToDirectorate EODate Wednesday, March 18, 2026 at 20:27 Wednesday, March 18, 2026 at 20:27

To the EO management,

We have received your response to our open letter. Given the great importance, we will respond to your response again. You do not address most of our arguments in our earlier letter. Please respond to them. Below is your own text concerning the points you do address, with our response in italics and in green.

‘Damaging simplism’

The makers have tried to present a balanced picture with the aim of exposing the mechanisms through which conspiracy theories take root. In doing so, those involved, including victims, have had their say, content is chosen and a story is told. Not every aspect, and certainly not every aspect to which you attach importance, can be fully elaborated on. Choices are also made here. We do not agree with you that this would lead to ‘damaging simplism’.

Making a documentary about srm, where the preconceived goal is “to expose the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories take root”, could not be more balanced beforehand. After all, the conclusion is already established: it is a conspiracy theory. This means there was no open-minded investigation, but a biased viewpoint.

Your documentary is both simplistic and damaging, partly because

It is claimed that no evidence of ritual abuse has been found. Many legal rulings in which there was ritual abuse are ignored, see e.g. the article ‘recent research again shows hard evidence of satanic ritual abuse’, and international research by e.g. Michael Salter, showing that ritual abuse does occur, is also ignored.
the documentary, based on 2 testimonies and a theory concocted by the makers, casts hundreds of therapists in a bad light.
you are aware that practitioners are already very difficult to find and this makes this much more difficult
the documentary states that I give the same therapy that ‘Jacqueline’ had, without any substantiation (which is not there either). Why must my therapy be brought in and portrayed in such a bad light? This is needlessly damaging, not only to me, but it (again) scares off other (potential) therapists

The points below also confirm the qualification ‘simplistic and damaging’.

‘How many social workers like me like to close their eyes to srm’

It is clear to us that you have actually become a practitioner of srm victims against their will. With your assertion that ‘the programme outlines counsellors who, under the influence of the hype of the day, are only too happy to hear about Satanic rituals and put that in their vulnerable clients’ we do not agree, that conclusion can really not be drawn from the programme.

Your documentary is indeed ‘old wine in new bottles’. In doing so, you as EO align yourself with what also happened in other media in the 1990s: by dismissing therapists as quacks, many survivors who started talking about the abuse were silenced. At the time, the EO showed an honest dissent in this and gave survivors a voice. Rightly so, but also no more than your job, as a broadcaster that claims to follow Jesus who stood up for the disenfranchised. What has changed at the EO that this no longer happens?

‘Sociological explanation not valid’

It is not clear to us why a hypothesis should be scientifically tested before it should be allowed to be put forward in a programme. The programme paints a temporal picture of the period when the issue of ritual abuse from the US also came back into focus in Europe.

According to this theory concocted by its makers, testimonies about satanic ritual abuse are nonsense. Simply throwing this idea with such huge implications for vulnerable people into the world, without solid substantiation or thorough research, is totally unworthy of a Christian broadcaster and any self-respecting broadcaster. Such a production certainly does not deserve the name ‘documentary’.

‘Satanic ritual abuse only diagnosed in extreme Christian circles?’

A positive answer to this question cannot be given on the basis of the programme.

To an unsuspecting viewer, this does suggest your programme. But it is indeed absolutely untrue.

‘Alleged’ ritual abuse, ‘retractors’ and withdrawal of testimony under pressure’

The two women you refer to told about their own experiences. The makers were under the firm impression that they did so voluntarily and were not pressurised in the process. There is no question of an obligation to ‘cross-examine’ the therapists in question.

Applies the journalistic code (see under ‘Fair’ point 4) not for you?

‘Dissociative identity disorder (DIS)’

In our opinion, the fact that DIS is included in the DSM-5 is not necessary information for the viewer.

As you present it in your documentary, DIS is an oddity found only in extreme Christian circles. This is not true. The omission of the information that DIS is an internationally recognised psychiatric diagnosis prevents non-specialist viewers from seeing through this misleading idea in the documentary.

‘Argos broadcasts cast in a bad light’

The broadcast features a Volkskrant journalist who clearly states the reasons for her criticism of the Argos investigation in question. It also reveals, among other things, that the TBKK had conducted lengthy investigations into the Argos cases, without, in short, finding evidence. Argos was informed of this, without any rectification. To the extent that the programme criticises Argos, Argos has itself to blame, in our view.

You do not at all address the argument in my letter, in which I point out that nowhere is it specified what the TBKK then investigated in the Argos cases. This is not verifiable for anyone, to our knowledge. Even questions in the House of Representatives about this have gone unanswered. What has undoubtedly not been investigated by the TBKK are the striking similarities in many witness statements about locations, modus operandi and specific characteristics of said perpetrators. This would require a large-scale investigation and interrogations. As long as such an investigation (independent!) has not been carried out and there is nowhere to verify what has indeed been investigated by the TBKK, the Argos investigation remains squarely in place as a witness to horrific abuse and you as EO should not discredit the truth through the Argos broadcast.

‘What have you done to protect survivors’

The aim of the programme is to expose the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories take root. In doing so, those involved, including victims, were given a chance to speak and thus attention was also paid to the subject of SRM, based on the information gathered by the makers. The aim was never to harm people. That does not alter the fact that some people may find the content of the programme annoying or even harmful. We cannot protect anyone, including survivors, against that.

In our opinion, there is no reason for a rectification and/or removal of the programme. We will therefore not proceed to do so.

Above and in my previous open letter, you will find plenty of reasons to take this documentary offline. I therefore expect you to take action on this.

Awaiting your response,

On behalf of the board of the Friends of Esthers Foundation,

Aline Terpstra

On Wednesday, 22 October 2025 at 16:36, Directie EO wrote:

Dear Mrs Terpstra,

In response to your email of 14 October last, the following.

Your emails will not be forwarded to the EO Council of Members because this is not a matter for the Council of Members. We informed you of this on 15 September last.

Further information regarding the EO Council of Members and regarding how to file a complaint can be found on our website: EO.co.uk.

Thank you very much for the detailed description of your views on the programme ‘The Conspiracy’ in the ‘open letter’ you sent along as an attachment to your email. It is clear that a modus operandi was chosen by the makers that leads to a series of programmes with which you partially disagree.

Below, we briefly address your views.