The_Info_Web/40 - EVENTS/CRIME_INVESTIGATIONS/Rolodex Investigation.md

title	aliases	created	updated	tags	category	summary	start	end	location	relations
Rolodex Investigation	Rolodex Investigation Rolodex-onderzoek Rolodex Affair Bell Boys Investigation	2026-05-17	2026-10-15	Event Investigation Netherlands 1990s ChildTrafficking GovernmentCorruption	Crime Investigation	Dutch inquiry into an Amsterdam brothel and escort agency, reopened in 1998, in which a witness named two chief prosecutors on a card file of the owner's clients that was never found.	1997-02	1999-09-23	Amsterdam, Netherlands	type with reverse role start end fn subject_of Joris Demmink true named in 2012 and 2014 testimony and in 2016 hearing reporting; the government summary states he did not appear in the Rolodex file in any way 1998-08 1999-09-23 3 type with reverse role start end fn investigated Rijksrecherche true team member; reports on the two chief prosecutors (February 2, 1999) and on two legal officials (June 10 and August 25, 1999) 1998-08-25 1999-09-21 4 type with reverse role start end fn participant_in Leendert de Koter true Amsterdam criminal intelligence detective on the Rolodex probe, per his 2014 testimony 1997 1998 2 type with reverse role start end fn participant_in Fred Teeven true named by De Koter as leading the team's work meetings and knowing the names; Omroep Brabant describes him as a prosecutor with criminal intelligence responsibility 1997 1998 18 type with reverse role start end fn subject_of Henry Hans Holthuis true named by De Koter in 2014 as one of three chief prosecutors; the government summary does not name the two chief prosecutors 1998-07-17 1999-06-07 17 type with reverse role start end fn subject_of Jan Wolter Wabeke true named by De Koter in 2014 as one of three chief prosecutors 1998-07-17 1999-06-07 17 type with reverse role start end fn subject_of Karel Maasdam true named by Nick Davies in 1998 as owner of the Bell Boys agency; the government summary does not name the brothel owner, so the identification rests on Davies 1997 1999-02-26 8

The Rolodex Investigation was a Dutch criminal inquiry run by a multidisciplinary team formed in Amsterdam on August 25, 1998, drawn from the Rijksrecherche, the Bureau Interne Onderzoeken and the Amsterdam youth and vice police. The team's third assignment gave the inquiry its name, after an alleged card file (rolodex) of the owner of a brothel for homosexual clients with an attached escort agency. The government summary says the card file held the owner's clients, and that it was never found in searches of the suspects' homes and premises.¹

The brothel probe, 1997 to 1998

The government summary dates the underlying probe of the brothel to February 1997. It states that the probe was halted for tactical reasons, reopened in May 1998 after a pause of several months, and reopened because a suspect in another sex-offence case began describing the brothel's activities in detail, although that case had no apparent connection to the brothel. That suspect was charged with a sex offence against his partner's teenage daughter. The summary refers to him only as "C," and this page does the same.¹

Former detective Leendert de Koter testified in 2014 that the suspicions against Demmink were part of the Rolodex probe from 1997.² A ministerial letter of March 27, 2014 states that the Rolodex investigation started in August 1998 on a statement by a suspect in another sex-offence case, that the statement did not concern the former secretary-general of the ministry, and that his name did not appear in the start-up information.³ The summary dates the brothel probe to 1997 and the team and the Rolodex label to 1998.¹⁴

The July 1998 statement and the rolodex

On July 17, 1998, witness C gave a statement in which he named two chief prosecutors, whose names he said he had seen on the card file of the brothel owner, designated "A," which held the owner's client list. He said that both prosecutors used the brothel's services, which he said included boys under 16. He also described contacts with several officers of the Amsterdam-Amstelland police.¹

The team and its three assignments

The team received three assignments. The first was an inquiry into a criminal organisation that produced child pornography and prostituted boys, some under 16, from the home of the brothel owner. The second was an inquiry into corruption by staff of the Amsterdam-Amstelland police. The third was an inquiry into alleged sexual abuse of boys under 16 by justice officials, in which the organisation of the first assignment was said to be involved. The Rolodex Investigation covered only the third assignment.⁵ The corruption assignment was handled as an integrity inquiry by the police's Bureau Interne Onderzoeken and was closed internally at the time.¹

Members of the team, and the officers directly involved in leading it, signed confidentiality declarations because of the sensitivity of the facts.¹ In July 2015 the minister reported that the Amsterdam police could no longer establish whether the corruption inquiry had been carried out, or how many officers it concerned.⁶

Convictions of the brothel owner and recruiter

The main case against the owner, designated "A," and a recruiter, designated "B," ended in a judgment of the Rechtbank Amsterdam on February 26, 1999, which sentenced them to three years and fifteen months respectively, the latter with six months suspended.⁵ A ministerial letter of July 1, 2015 gives the same sentences for a 1999 conviction of the brothel owner and one of his recruiters, without naming either man.⁷

Nick Davies wrote on October 1, 1998 that the owner of the Bell Boys escort agency was known in Amsterdam as "Alex Privee," that his real name was Karel Maasdam, and that he was a producer of boy pornography and a close friend of Lothar Glandorf, whose Rotterdam operation was the subject of the HIK Investigation.⁸ In the same article Davies described the Festival Bar, one of three bars in the Spuistraat area, as well supplied with boys from Poland, Romania and the Czech Republic.⁹

In April 2016 DutchNews reported that a hearing in Amsterdam would hear that "Charles Maasdam, who was sentenced in 1998 for operating a child brothel in Amsterdam's Oost neighbourhood, is expected to give evidence."¹⁰ NL Times reported the same week that the witnesses set to testify included "Charles Maasdam, who owned a youth brothel in the capital for years."¹¹ DutchNews dates the sentence to 1998, while the government summary dates the judgment to February 26, 1999.¹¹⁰ Whether Charles Maasdam is the Karel Maasdam described by Davies is not established. A detective who investigated the Bell Boys service was reported to have stated that the case was closed with the arrest and sentencing of Karel Maasdam.¹²

The chief prosecutors and two legal officials

On February 2, 1999 the Rijksrecherche issued two reports on the two chief prosecutors named by C, one of 25 pages and one of 16 pages, addressed to the Amsterdam chief prosecutor and the College of Procurators-General.⁴ On March 18, 1999 the Amsterdam chief prosecutor forwarded those reports to the College of Procurators-General, concluding that the main case against the owner and recruiter had produced no supporting information on which a criminal investigation of either prosecutor could be justified.⁴

The summary states that the Rijksrecherche then heard the two prosecutors, who were cautioned, and that the interviews produced nothing incriminating.¹ During the inquiry two other officials with legal government functions also came into view. The summary states that witness statements, wiretaps and observations in the main case indicated that both were customers of the brothel's homosexual services.¹ The Rijksrecherche reports on the two officials are dated June 10, 1999 and August 25, 1999.¹³ The inventory also lists observation reports of the Koninklijke Marechaussee dated December 17, 1998 and January 12, 1999.¹⁴

The College's conclusions, 1999

The College of Procurators-General concluded provisionally on March 24, 1999 that the matter traced back to the statements of a single person, whom the police regarded as unreliable, and that the two chief prosecutors could not be regarded as suspects.¹ The College confirmed this on May 26, 1999 and wrote to both prosecutors on June 7, 1999 that the matter was closed for them.⁴

On September 21, 1999 the College found that it had not been shown that the two legal officials had committed criminal offences, and that a further criminal investigation was not justified. It ruled that their superiors must be informed of the findings.¹⁵ A letter of September 23, 1999 from the College chair to the Amsterdam chief prosecutor concerns the file under the number RR 98/0196.¹⁵

The summary states that the former secretary-general of the ministry did not appear in the Rolodex investigation in any way, and that no information was found showing that he had any involvement with it.³ The minister had said the same in 2007.¹⁶

Testimony of 2014 and the Demmink name

On March 5, 2014 De Koter testified before an examining magistrate in Utrecht, in a civil pre-trial witness hearing sought by Stichting De Roestige Spijker, which is seeking evidence against Joris Demmink.⁵ De Koter said that the Rijksrecherche supplied the names of Demmink and three chief prosecutors, Jan Wolter Wabeke, Henry Hans Holthuis and Wooldrik, that the four were already in the Rijksrecherche's records, and that the suspicion against them was repeated sexual abuse of minors.⁵¹⁷

De Koter also said that the probe produced no further indications against Demmink.¹⁷ He said that a request for an observation team on Demmink and the prosecutors was refused. NOS reported that the Openbaar Ministerie did not grant it.⁵ Omroep Brabant reported that De Koter named the refusing official as the head of the national police investigative information service at the time, Pieter-Jaap Aalbersberg, who is now Amsterdam police chief.¹⁷ De Koter said that the university professor on whom the probe concentrated had been warned in advance of a search, and that the computer, video recorder and videotapes were gone when officers arrived.⁵ Omroep Brabant gave the professor as Ger van R., a professor at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and wrote that he was said to have played a facilitating role at the gatherings under investigation; NOS gave him as professor Van R., the suspect with whom the investigation began.⁵¹⁷

NOS reported that De Koter said the Rolodex probe began in 1997 under the direction of Fred Teeven, then chief prosecutor of the Criminele Inlichtingen Eenheid, and that Teeven knew the names of Demmink and the three prosecutors.¹⁸ Omroep Brabant described Teeven at the time as a prosecutor with criminal intelligence responsibility, and noted that he was then State Secretary of Veiligheid en Justitie at the time of the testimony.¹⁷ Jaap Hoek, a former head of the Amsterdam youth and vice police, testified in the same proceedings that he did not remember Demmink's name, or the names of chief prosecutors, appearing in the investigation.¹⁹

Omroep Brabant wrote that the probe produced no tangible result ("althans niet waar het de hooggeplaatste figuren betreft"), at least where high-ranking figures were concerned.¹⁹ NOS reported that the Rolodex investigation produced nothing.⁵

Government statements, 2007 to 2015

On June 15, 2007 members of the House, Van Velzen and De Wit (both SP) and Teeven (VVD), asked questions about a senior justice official, citing an article in De Telegraaf of June 13, 2007 on incriminating information against senior officials.²⁰ In answers received July 5, 2007, Minister Hirsch Ballin said that the Rijksrecherche had examined extensively whether the two chief prosecutors had committed crimes, that none had been shown, and that the official whom the article appeared to mean was not named in the Rolodex investigation at all.¹⁶ The minister also reported that the president of the Rechtbank Den Haag ruled in summary proceedings on June 25, 2007 that it had not become plausible that the official had committed the offences alleged.²¹

In a letter of March 27, 2014 the minister stated that the former secretary-general did not come up in the Rolodex investigation in any way, and that the College's office had confirmed this in a memorandum of March 24, 2014.²² The letter also says that the Rolodex file had been released under the Wet openbaarheid van bestuur (Wob) with a summary and inventory on December 23, 2013.²²

Answers of July 1, 2015 to questions from the House, prompted by a report in the Algemeen Dagblad of March 21, 2015 headed "Overheid heeft pedofilie jarenlang gedoogd" (roughly, "government tolerated paedophilia for years"), state that the information received from the Openbaar Ministerie and the municipality of Amsterdam did not support that claim.⁷ The same answers list four Wob decisions on the Rolodex file: two dated December 23, 2013, one of December 9, 2014 and one of May 26, 2015.²³

The answers also state that the municipal health worker Raphael Beth, who had told Trouw on August 3, 1998 about the youth prostitution scene, had no documented report of abuse in the GGD archive.²⁴

On January 30, 2015 the MP Bontes submitted written questions. Question 7 asked whether the earlier answers that Demmink did not appear in the Rolodex investigation at all could be wrong, given two statements under oath in civil witness hearings. Question 9 asked whether the state secretary had informed journalists that Demmink had appeared in the Rolodex investigation.²⁵ The minister had answered on January 21, 2015 that, after a second witness statement on April 15, 2014 in the same civil witness hearing, he had asked the chairman of the College of Procurators-General for an assessment, who reported by official message (ambtsbericht) of May 1, 2014 that no information had been found confirming the statement.²⁶

Minister Ivo Opstelten answered the Bontes questions on February 17, 2015. On the criminal investigation into Demmink's alleged involvement in the rape of two then-minor boys in Turkey in the mid-1990s, he stated that it was "still fully under way"; that the Openbaar Ministerie had opened it in February 2014 after the Gerechtshof's ruling; that the requests for legal assistance to Turkey, including for hearing the witnesses named by the court, had not received a positive response; that at the Openbaar Ministerie's request the examining magistrate of the Rechtbank Den Haag had opened an inquiry the previous year and had travelled to Turkey herself; and that a parallel exploratory fact-finding inquiry was examining all signals of possible sexual abuse by the former secretary-general. On the reports of the military intelligence service on Demmink, who worked at the Ministry of Defence from 1971 to 1982, he referred to the answers of 2007. To the questions whether the earlier answers that Demmink did not appear in the Rolodex investigation could be wrong in light of the two sworn statements, he answered that the Openbaar Ministerie was examining other accusations against the former secretary-general and was including the former detectives' statements in that inquiry, and: "In dat licht onthoud ik mij van commentaar" (in that light I refrain from comment).²⁷ He stated that he understood the former official would not appeal the ruling of the Rechtbank Rotterdam in his civil case against the Algemeen Dagblad, and that the legal-assistance costs reimbursed for Demmink between 2007 and 2010, including for a complaint against him and the summary proceedings of June 25, 2007, totalled 16,343.46 euros.²⁷ Asked whether the Rotterdam ruling meant that the accusations of contacts with a boy pimp were presumably true, he answered that the court had not concluded that they were true and had not ruled on alleged criminal conduct, and that it had found it could not establish that the Algemeen Dagblad used unreliable sources.²⁷

On December 17, 2014 the Rechtbank Rotterdam rejected Demmink's claims against the Algemeen Dagblad over its articles of October 6 and 8, 2012.²⁸

The 2012 Helsinki Commission hearing

On October 4, 2012 the U.S. Helsinki Commission (the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe) heard a briefing titled "Listening to Victims of Child Sex Trafficking."²⁹ The chairman, Chris Smith, introduced a witness identified in the transcript only by an initial as a victim who had identified Demmink as the man who abused him as a child, and as the primary witness giving detail of the Rolodex affair. An opening statement at the hearing said that Demmink maintains his innocence.³⁰

The witness's written statement says that he worked as an escort for the same brothel owner, working from the Festival Bar, where a university professor introduced him to Demmink and told him to go outside to meet Demmink in his car. The statement says the witness was a key witness in the Rolodex investigation in 1998, that he was offered police protection, and that the investigation was stopped and never pursued. It also says the professor had a card file of high-ranking officials who were his clients, that the witness accompanied the professor on trips to Poland, and that he was shot at three times in The Hague afterwards.³¹ The witness said that the brothel owner also made child pornography films, that he performed in three of them, and that he knew people who made snuff movies and refused an offer of money to appear in one, because the actor is killed at the end.³¹ Karel Maasdam was stated in Bell Boys victim statements cited in connection with the briefing to have sold boys to Amsterdam child pornographers, some of whom were involved in snuff films.³²

Adèle van der Plas, a lawyer with Bakker Schut van der Plas, who said she represented clients in four cases, among them the two Turkish complainants and a Kurdish businessman, submitted a written statement to the hearing.³³ She told the Commission that a police officer who worked on the Rolodex case had said the professor was waiting for the police team when it arrived, that video evidence and telephone communication between the suspects disappeared, and that officers were required to sign non-disclosure agreements.³³ Her statement says that the two Turkish complainants were 11 and 14 at the time of the alleged offences, and that the Gay Krant withdrew its 2003 accusations against Demmink after a threat of bankruptcy from his lawyer.³³

She also said that Teeven, in a hearing before the Rechtbank Den Haag on April 12, 2007, expressed frustration at the blocking of the investigation, said it had targeted senior officials who abused minors, and said it never led to prosecutions because of what her statement calls "certain contra-actions."³⁴

Driver complaints reported in 2014

The Algemeen Dagblad reported on March 29, 2014 that Tjeerd Postma, a ministry official, had been told by a driver from the ministry's car pool that during a business trip to Brussels Demmink had picked up a young boy and had sex with him on the back seat of the service car, while the driver watched in the rear-view mirror. The driver did not file an official complaint.³⁵

According to John Moeleker, who in 1999 was assigned to reorganise the department, a second driver later filed a formal complaint against Demmink. Moeleker said that the ministry's director of general affairs later told him the driver had died of a heart attack, and that the complaint therefore lapsed. Moeleker said it was remarkable that no one had checked whether the complaint was accurate.³⁶

The widow of the driver told the AD that her husband had filed a formal complaint, but on behalf of another driver. She said he died of a cardiac arrest on January 25, 2000, and rejected accounts that he died in mysterious circumstances.³⁶ An earlier account of the matter held that the driver died shortly after lodging the complaint and that it was never followed up, and that similar complaints were made by other drivers.³⁷ Hans Vrakking, a former chief prosecutor in Amsterdam, told NRC Handelsblad that the driver himself had gone to the Binnenlandse Veiligheidsdienst (BVD) and said he was troubled that Demmink sometimes had sex with boys in the service car.³⁶ Harry Borghouts, then secretary-general of the ministry and later a royal commissioner, denied that the complaint had reached him.³⁶ A justice official, Rinus Brul, said he had heard of a complaint letter that had since been lost, and that he had not known at the time that minors were involved.³⁶

Turkish complaints and the court record, 2014 to 2017

Two Turkish men filed complaints alleging that Demmink raped them in Turkey in the mid-1990s. In answers of December 4, 2012 the government stated that the Openbaar Ministerie had carried out orienting inquiries in 2007 and 2011, and that neither had established grounds for a criminal investigation.³⁸ The Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden ordered on January 20, 2014, in an Article 12 Sv complaint procedure, that prosecution of Demmink be instituted through a request for further judicial investigation.³⁹ The July 2015 answers give the court as the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch and the date as January 21, 2014.⁷ The OM began a criminal investigation a month later, and a rechter-commissaris of the Rechtbank Den Haag examined witnesses and documents.⁴⁰

On June 30, 2017 the OM asked the court to approve dropping the prosecution.⁴¹ The Gerechtshof's release of August 18, 2017 states that timelines built from Demmink's own documents and third-party records, checked against the underlying documents, gave no support to the claim that he had been in Turkey in the years concerned, and that there was no beginning of plausibility that he was in Turkey in 1995, 1996 or 1997. The court approved the request.³⁹ The OM's release the same day states that Turkey was asked for legal assistance and for witnesses, that hearing witnesses in Turkey proved not possible, and that no reasonable suspicion of guilt remained.⁴⁰

The 2016 Amsterdam hearing

In April 2016 an Amsterdam court began hearing testimony from nine witnesses into allegations that senior politicians knew about and used underage male prostitutes in the 1980s. DutchNews reported that the main witness, then 43, said that at the age of 15 he had been forced to have sex in the back seat of a car with Demmink, then a senior civil servant at the justice ministry. The witness's lawyer said the aim was to prove that the government knew of child prostitution at the time and let it happen.⁴²

The same report says that the allegations implicated Prince Claus, Onno Rudding and Ed van Thijn, citing the Algemeen Dagblad.⁴² NL Times reported that the witnesses were questioned under oath in the Amsterdam court on Monday, April 18, 2016, in a case brought by a former child prostitute holding the Netherlands responsible for a child sexual abuse and child prostitution network in Amsterdam in the 1980s, with nine witnesses that week and the reporting relying on the Algemeen Dagblad reporter Koen Voskuil tweeting from the courtroom.¹¹ The first witness, a former child victim, testified under oath that he was abused in an Amsterdam apartment that "belonged to now deceased professor Ger van Roon," and that he saw Ed van Thijn, "top Justice official Joris Demmink" and Onno Rudding there performing sexual acts with boys: "Demmink was there almost every time, Van Thijn at least twice." He also said he saw Prince Claus at a bar "in relation with young boys" and that Prince Claus was in Van Roon's apartment.¹¹ The second witness, Raphael Beth, a former Amsterdam GG&GD field worker in the late 1980s, said that about 350 boys worked as child prostitutes in Amsterdam in the 1980s and 1990s, that there were six or seven youth brothels visited weekly, and that "Pedophile-prostitution was tolerated at the time"; the GG&GD ignored his concerns.¹¹ The witnesses set for that week also included Ivo Opstelten and Fred Teeven, "who was a prosecutor at the time," and Demmink was to be questioned later.¹¹ DutchNews also wrote that the Rolodex inquiry had been leaked in the 1990s after informants told state intelligence authorities that high-ranking justice officials, including Demmink, and prosecutors had been clients of underage prostitution rings, and that the investigation ultimately yielded no tangible results.⁴²

Related investigations

The Rolodex Investigation was described as one of three interlinked investigations into child trafficking networks in the Netherlands during the 1990s, with Operation Framework (1992 to 1993) and the HIK Investigation (1994).⁴³ Davies's 1998 article names the Englishman Warwick Spinks, the target of Operation Framework, as working at Boys For Men in the Spuistraat, the street of the Festival Bar.⁸

Card file accounts and the bookkeeper

S. Dovey wrote that the card file held the private numbers of three district attorneys, Holthuis, Henk Wooldrik and Wabeke, and that it belonged to a university professor who served as an intermediary for clients of the Bell Boys service.⁴⁴ The government summary states that the card file was never found.¹

Dovey also wrote that a man Dovey describes as Maasdam's bookkeeper told the Dutch current-affairs programme EenVandaag that Warwick Spinks frequently supplied boys to Demmink and to Holthuis.⁴⁴ The claim is attributed to Dovey and to the bookkeeper as Dovey describes him.

Footnotes

---

1. "Samenvatting van de aanleiding, het verloop, de resultaten en de besluitvorming in het Rolodex-onderzoek," Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie, December 23, 2013, released under the Wob, https://eerstekamer.nl/9370000/1/j4nvgs5kjg27kof_j9vvkfvj6b325az/vjigib8p5szh ↩︎

2. NOS, "Politie onderzocht Demmink in '97," March 5, 2014, on De Koter's testimony about the 1997 start, the Rijksrecherche names and the refused observation request, https://nos.nl/artikel/619220-politie-onderzocht-demmink-in-97 ↩︎

3. Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 33 750 VI, nr. 116, letter of the Minister of Veiligheid en Justitie, March 27, 2014, https://www.eerstekamer.nl/behandeling/20140327/brief_regering/document3/f=/vjifeja4nlzk.pdf ↩︎

4. "Chronologische inhoudsopgave Rolodex-dossier," Bijlage 2 to the summary of December 23, 2013, items 11 to 13 and 16 to 22, https://eerstekamer.nl/9370000/1/j4nvgs5kjg27kof_j9vvkfvj6b325az/vjigib8p5szh ↩︎

5. "Samenvatting" (note 1), pp. 1 to 2, on the team's assignments, the confidentiality declarations and the College's 1999 decisions ↩︎

6. Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 31 015, nr. 115 (note 7), answer 8, on the corruption inquiry and the Rijksrecherche reports ↩︎

7. Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 31 015, nr. 115, answers of the Minister of Veiligheid en Justitie, July 1, 2015, answers 1 and 2, and the answers to the CDA questions on the court and date of the Turkish ruling, https://eerstekamer.nl/9370000/1/j4nvi0xeni9vr2l_j9vvkfvj6b325az/vme26leaeuex/f=/vjvdn6hc42z9.pdf ↩︎

8. Nick Davies, "Paedophile network trafficks young boys across Europe," previously unpublished, dated October 1, 1998, https://www.nickdavies.net/1998/10/01/paedophile-network-trafficks-young-boys-across-europe/ ↩︎

9. Nick Davies (note 8), on the three bars in the Spuistraat area ↩︎

10. "Politicians and officials named in court as 'boy brothel' case begins," DutchNews.nl, April 18, 2016, https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2016/04/politicians-and-officials-named-in-court-as-boy-brothel-case-begins/ ↩︎

11. "Forced child prostitution case: Netherlands elite, royalty under microscope," NL Times, April 18, 2016, 14:08, https://nltimes.nl/2016/04/18/forced-child-prostitution-case-netherlands-elite-royalty-microscope ↩︎

12. Statement of a detective who investigated the Bell Boys service, on the closure of the case with the arrest and sentencing of Karel Maasdam ↩︎

13. "Chronologische inhoudsopgave Rolodex-dossier" (note 4), items 23 and 28, Rijksrecherche reports of June 10, 1999 and August 25, 1999 ↩︎

14. "Chronologische inhoudsopgave Rolodex-dossier" (note 4), items 7 and 8, Koninklijke Marechaussee observation reports of December 17, 1998 and January 12, 1999 ↩︎

15. "Chronologische inhoudsopgave Rolodex-dossier" (note 4), items 31 and 32, College decision of September 21, 1999 and letter of September 23, 1999 ↩︎

16. Tweede Kamer, Aanhangsel Handelingen 2006-2007, nr. 2109, answers of Minister Hirsch Ballin received July 5, 2007, answers 1 to 3, https://repository.overheid.nl/frbr/officielepublicaties/ah-tk/20062007/ah-tk-20062007-2109/1/pdf/ah-tk-20062007-2109.pdf ↩︎

17. Omroep Brabant, "Oud-hoofdofficier justitie Jan Wolter Wabeke uit Best genoemd in zedenzaak Joris Demmink," March 5, 2014, on the names, the refused observation request, the professor and the role of Teeven, https://www.omroepbrabant.nl/nieuws/1720283/oud-hoofdofficier-justitie-jan-wolter-wabeke-uit-best-genoemd-in-zedenzaak-joris-demmink ↩︎

18. NOS (note 2), on De Koter's account of Teeven's role and of the names ↩︎

19. Omroep Brabant (note 17), on Jaap Hoek's testimony and on the probe's results ↩︎

20. "Belastende informatie tegen topambtenaren, Seksdossiers in doofpot beland," De Telegraaf, June 13, 2007, as cited in the questions reproduced in note 16 ↩︎

21. Aanhangsel Handelingen 2006-2007, nr. 2109 (note 16), answers 3 to 5, on the summary-proceedings judgment of the Rechtbank Den Haag of June 25, 2007 ↩︎

22. Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 33 750 VI, nr. 116 (note 3), on the College's memorandum of March 24, 2014 and the Wob release ↩︎

23. Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 31 015, nr. 115 (note 7), answer 3, on the four Wob decisions ↩︎

24. Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 31 015, nr. 115 (note 7), answer 5, on Raphael Beth and the GGD archive, citing Trouw, August 3, 1998 (question 4) ↩︎

25. Tweede Kamer, written questions of MP Bontes, 2015Z01581, submitted January 30, 2015, questions 7 and 9, https://berthub.eu/tkconv/getraw/2015D03269 ↩︎

26. Tweede Kamer, Aanhangsel Handelingen 2014-2015, nr. 1305, note 2 to the questions, quoting the answers of January 21, 2015. https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/ah-tk-20142015-1305.html ↩︎

27. Tweede Kamer, Aanhangsel Handelingen 2014-2015, nr. 1305, answers of Minister Opstelten received February 17, 2015 to the questions of MP Bontes of January 30, 2015 (answers 1 to 12). https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/ah-tk-20142015-1305.html ↩︎

28. Rechtbank Rotterdam, judgment of December 17, 2014, C/10/419404 / HA ZA 13-226, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2014:10259. https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBROT:2014:10259 ↩︎

29. U.S. Helsinki Commission, briefing page "Listening to Victims of Child Sex Trafficking," https://www.csce.gov/briefings/listening-to-victims-of-child-sex-trafficking ↩︎

30. U.S. Helsinki Commission, hearing transcript "Listening to Victims of Child Sex Trafficking," October 4, 2012, opening remarks, https://www.csce.gov/sites/evo-subsites/csce.house.gov/files/migrated/uploads/2016/02/Transcript-Listening-to-Victims-of-Child-Sex-Trafficking-2012-10-04.pdf ↩︎

31. Written statement of the witness identified as B, U.S. Helsinki Commission, October 4, 2012, https://www.csce.gov/sites/evo-subsites/csce.house.gov/files/migrated/uploads/2016/02/Mr-B-Testimony.pdf ↩︎

32. 'Listening to Victims of Child Sex Trafficking,' U.S. Helsinki Commission briefing, October 4, 2012; Bell Boys service victim statements ↩︎

33. Written statement of Adèle van der Plas, U.S. Helsinki Commission, October 4, 2012, https://www.csce.gov/sites/evo-subsites/csce.house.gov/files/migrated/uploads/2016/02/van-der-Plas-Testimony.pdf ↩︎

34. Appendix 2 to the written statement of Adèle van der Plas (note 29), report of the hearing of Fred Teeven before the Rechtbank Den Haag, April 12, 2007, in the case Paul H./OM, file number 09/754023-06, described as a closed hearing under oath ↩︎

35. "Zaak Demmink," Algemeen Dagblad, March 29, 2014, p. 11, on the account of Tjeerd Postma ↩︎

36. Algemeen Dagblad (note 31), p. 11, on the accounts of John Moeleker, the widow, Hans Vrakking, Harry Borghouts and Rinus Brul ↩︎

37. Reports of driver complaints about Demmink's government car and the driver's subsequent death ↩︎

38. Aanhangsel Handelingen Tweede Kamer 2012-2013, nr. 691, answers of December 4, 2012, on the orienting inquiries of 2007 and 2011, https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/ah-tk-20122013-691-n1.html ↩︎

39. Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden, press release of August 18, 2017, on the order of January 20, 2014 and the timelines, https://www.rechtspraak.nl/organisatie-en-contact/organisatie/gerechtshoven/gerechtshof-arnhem-leeuwarden/nieuws/2017/08/beslissing-gerechtshof-over-bewilligingsverzoek-in-de-beklagzaak-tegen-j-demmink ↩︎

40. Openbaar Ministerie, "OM tevreden met beslissing hof om Demmink niet verder te vervolgen," August 18, 2017, https://www.om.nl/actueel/nieuws/2017/08/18/om-tevreden-met-beslissing-hof-om-demmink-niet-verder-te-vervolgen ↩︎

41. Openbaar Ministerie, press release of June 30, 2017 on the request to approve dropping prosecution, https://www.om.nl/actueel/nieuws/2017/06/30/om-vraagt-bewilliging-van-verzoek-af-te-zien-van-vervolging-demmink ↩︎

42. DutchNews (note 10), on the nine witnesses, the main witness, the named allegations and the Rolodex inquiry ↩︎

43. Summary of interlinked Netherlands investigations, 1992 to 1998; Dutch police investigation files and media reports ↩︎

44. S. Dovey, Eye of the Chickenhawk, Thehotstar, 2023, on the card file and on the bookkeeper's account ↩︎