The_Info_Web/40 - EVENTS/CRIME_INVESTIGATIONS/X-Dossier.md at 706d8820a2df7ee175df7395cfabc7c1916e51ae - disinfozone/The_Info_Web

disinfozone/The_Info_Web

Fork 0

disinfo.zone 3ed1ea5f1b

vault backup: 2026-10-09 18:00:33

2026-10-09 18:00:33 -04:00

33 KiB

Raw Blame History

aliases

Origins in the Inquiry

Members of the Brussels 3e SRC volunteered on August 19, 1996, in response to a call from the Neufchâteau magistrates to police forces nationwide, and were assigned mainly to the financial investigation under file 86/96. The commission says that they came to the sex-crime files that became the related files somewhat by chance. On the basis of the anonymous witness's statements, files 109/96, 110/96, 111/96, 136/96 and 139/96 were opened and their investigations entrusted to the 3e SRC investigators. The antenna at Neufchâteau was created and installed in separate premises shortly after November 25, 1996. The commission gives its strength as 32 members in five teams, under Commander Jean-Luc Duterme as officer in charge, with a coordinator of the files and a deputy to the antenna head.²

The commission's own telephone line, a free 0800 number for people who had worked on or knew of the investigation into the disappearances of minors, became operational on November 6, 1996. The commission decided to disregard anonymous communications received through it.³

The commission's chapter on the Neufchâteau antenna opens with the information that an anonymous witness had associated Annie Bouty (given in the report as A. Bouty) and Nihoul with an unsolved murder in the Brussels region. The commission then charged its councillor-investigator Etienne Marique with inquiring whether protection mechanisms had operated in that case for Nihoul and Dutroux. After Marique's contact with several antenna investigators, the commission learned that the Brussels investigating judge Jean-Claude Van Espen, who had led the inquiry into that murder in the 1980s, was displeased with the contact, and it records its surprise at the judge's violent reaction.⁴ The Senate proposal places the earlier inquiry under Van Espen in the file on Christine Van Hees.¹

The Witnesses

The writer S. Dovey wrote that X1 described childhood prostitution at a villa in Knokke-Heist run by her grandmother, Cecile Beernaert, and parties at which she said children were abused and killed, naming among others Paul Vanden Boeynants, members of the Lippens family, Melchior Wathelet, Baron Benoit de Bonvoisin, the lawyer Jean-Paul Dumont and Nihoul. Dovey wrote that X2 named Nihoul, Dumont and de Bonvoisin, that X3 alleged royal involvement, and that X4 identified friends of X1 in pornographic films. The same account says that X1 led investigators to a factory site connected with ASCO Industries NV at Zaventem, where no physical evidence of films was found.⁵ The testimonies were published in 1999 by the journalists Annemie Bulté, Douglas De Coninck and Marie-Jeanne Van Heeswyck as De X-dossiers: wat België niet mocht weten over de zaak-Dutroux.⁶

La Libre Belgique summarized in 2004 that X1 reported having been enrolled from the age of two until 1995 in a prostitution network in which torture and murder were the rule, and that her account was recorded over more than 1,500 pages.⁷

Louf gave up her anonymity in January 1998, in part to protest the stalling of the inquiry since the removal of De Baets and Aimé Bille, amid a press campaign against her that the Senate proposal attributes in part to leaks from police and judicial circles. The Liege prosecutor-general opened a series of investigations into the leaks. The proposal adds that the telephone of the Neufchâteau prosecutor Michel Bourlet was at one point placed under surveillance and that at least one judicial police officer was charged.¹ She later published her account as Zwijgen is voor daders. De getuigenis van X1.⁸

The statements of the X witnesses led to the reopening of the unsolved murders of Christine Van Hees, Carine Dellaert, Veronique Dubrulle, Katrien de Cuyper and Hanim Ayse Mazibas. The Senate proposal states that these leads were in the meantime abandoned by the prosecutors-general concerned, without the murders being solved.¹ A motion tabled in the Chamber of Representatives on October 21, 1998 names the Van Hees and Mazibas files among the investigations into the statements of the so-called X witnesses.⁹

A programme on Zembla broadcast on March 11, 2004 described the reopening of the Van Hees and Dellaert inquiries on the basis of X1's statements. Its programme description states that X1 had "daderkennis" (knowledge of the perpetrators) in both cases, that the Belgian gendarmerie had been able to confirm much of what she said, and that the investigators of the time described meeting growing internal obstruction from above. The same description states that most media depicted her as a disturbed fantasist, as did the Belgian judiciary, which closed the X file after a few months.¹⁰

The Neufchâteau Antenne and the Rereading

The antenna's internal dispute is recorded in detail in the parliamentary commission's complementary report of February 16, 1998. The commission records a dispute over whether the antenna head had to be informed of initiatives taken towards magistrates, which it calls a "pomme de discorde", and it notes that Bourlet and Connerotte had preferred direct contact between magistrates and investigators, while Jacques Langlois, the Neufchâteau judge, preferred to go through the antenna head. By 1997 the commission records that the team had split along two lines, one between members who accepted the antenna's rigid organization and those who did not, and one between members who believed the anonymous witness's statements and those who were sceptical of them. The commission observed that these lines did not coincide.¹¹

On June 3, 1997 Duterme told the commander of the Brussels BSR that he could no longer work with the team that had conducted the interviews of an anonymous witness. His note accused one investigator of manipulation and of lacking basic objectivity, and complained of a direct contact between that investigator and Bourlet, through which the investigator informed the prosecutor unilaterally. The note nonetheless said that a disciplinary inquiry would be inopportune at that stage, since the investigator's position in the inquiry was important.¹¹ The same note, as the commission quotes it, reports that the five victims heard by the antenna had yielded little that could objectify their statements, despite all the investigative measures taken. Duterme also records that he had another team reread the anonymous witness's statements relating to the Brussels file.¹² The Senate proposal describes the same period from the other side: from April 1997 the tension between Duterme and De Baets rose, Duterme asked colleagues of De Baets to reread the interviews and report on the credibility of the witness's statements, with attention to possible manipulation of the interviews by De Baets's team, and the first report, which was very negative for De Baets, itself totally lacked credibility according to the proposal, so that a second reading was ordered.¹

The commission records that the Brussels judge was sharply irritated that members of the team named in Duterme's note had spoken with the commission's councillor. At a coordination meeting on May 22, 1997 he asked that the college of prosecutors-general be seized of the attitude magistrates and investigators should adopt when invited by the commission. On June 16, 1997 the college decided that those invited should attend, ask for closed doors, invoke the existence of a coordinated inquiry in several judicial districts, and refer further questions to the directing magistrate.¹²

On June 22, 1997 Van Espen withdrew his confidence from the antenna's team and asked the Brussels district command that it be restructured to avoid any risk of pollution of the investigation. He ordered the suspension of all investigative acts requested by his office or announced on his own initiative and wrote that, provisionally, he would continue the investigation without further assistance from their services. The commission notes that the team had carried out about 250 of his instructions without any comment from him on their quality.¹³ On July 7, 1997 Van Espen replied to the Brussels district commander, who had asked his opinion on Duterme's report of June 3 and the person cited in it, that there was indeed convergence, but that he could not individualize the grievances without an inquiry, and that he was passing them to the Brussels prosecutor. The prosecutor sent them to the prosecutor-general, who, "vu la gravité des faits", seized the Minister of Justice, who asked Anne Thily, the prosecutor-general of Liège, to inquire. She put the question to the College of prosecutors-general, which on September 15, 1997 decided to put the affair to an investigating judge.¹³

On July 10, 1997 a meeting was held at the Brussels BSR headquarters between the Brussels judge, the Neufchâteau magistrates, the Neufchâteau investigation heads and the antenna's management. The investigators suspected of manipulation were not invited.¹³

On July 11, 1997 the Neufchâteau investigating judge decided on a general rereading of all the related files except file 110/96, to be carried out by investigators other than those who had conducted the interviews. His service note for files 109, 110, 111 and 139/96 said that the investigation had to be reoriented. For file 109 it prescribed a reread on an adversarial basis, with further interviews where necessary, and a list of steps aimed at making the X witnesses credible (crédibiliser les X). For files 111 and 139 it called for a reread, a list of steps, and possible connections with files 86 and 87/96.¹³ On July 14 Duterme told the antenna that the Ghent prosecutor no longer wished to use its investigators, that the Brussels judge had suspended his requests, and that the team was placed at rest pending the rereading.¹³

The commission's figures show the effect. From October 24, 1996 to June 24, 1997 the file on the unsolved murder had been fed with some 20 reports a week. From June 24, 1997 the average fell to one report a week.¹⁴ On August 20 Duterme told the Neufchâteau judge that he intended to return the team to the 3e SRC, and on August 26 the Brussels BSR commander confirmed the team's temporary withdrawal pending an inquiry into the dysfunctions alleged against it. On September 2, 1997 the Neufchâteau judge opposed a definitive removal, writing that such a measure could not be taken until the persons concerned had been able to explain the grievances against them. The same day the Brussels district commander wrote to the Brussels judge that, besides the return of certain investigators to the BSR, a division of tasks among investigators had been made for instruction 64/85.¹⁴

The commission heard Patrick De Baets, Bille, Bourlet and others on October 14, 1997, and Duterme, Langlois, Van Espen and others on October 15, 1997. The hearings were held largely behind closed doors.¹⁵

Removal of the Investigators

Connerotte was removed from the Dutroux case on October 14, 1996 by the Court of Cassation, in the ruling known as the Connerotte or "spaghetti" ruling.¹⁶ The petition came from the person under investigation in files 86/96 and 87/96, referred to in the ruling as the requérant. It relied on press articles reporting that on September 21, 1996 the Bertrix branch of the non-profit association Marc et Corinne had held a dinner for about 400 people, with proceeds to go notably to the legal costs of one of the victims of the case, that Connerotte had attended as a guest of the association together with the prosecutor, and that a gift had been handed to him. The Court found those facts established and relevant, noted that the association had filed a civil-party claim before Connerotte against the petitioner, removed him at once from files 86/96 and 87/96, and ordered them sent to another investigating judge of the Neufchâteau court of first instance.¹⁷ Langlois replaced him.¹ Spontaneous protests followed, and on October 20, 1996 between 200,000 and 300,000 people took part in a "marche blanche" in Brussels called by the families of missing children or victims of Dutroux, the largest gathering in the capital since the Second World War, according to the Universalis chronicle of the week; the White Marches is that event.¹⁸

The Senate proposal states that Bille, assigned to the Van Hees file, found that the original investigation under Van Espen presented multiple gaps, and that Bille's problems began the day the information reached Marique. It states that the first incident marking a possible interference with the De Baets antenna was a request by the Brussels investigating judge Gruwez for two apparently harmless house searches, addressed with insistence to the gendarmes of the antenna although the file was then with the Brussels judicial police; this is the origin of his file 218/96. According to the proposal, in the summer of 1997 Langlois ordered a complete rereading of all the related files and temporarily removed a number of gendarmes from the Brussels BSR investigation cell, and De Baets and Bille have remained off the inquiry since. The commission's own account of July to September 1997 describes the team being placed at rest and then temporarily withdrawn from the antenna on the initiative of the antenna and BSR commands, with Langlois opposing a definitive removal on September 2, 1997.¹⁴

The proposal states that the inquiry into De Baets and Bille conducted by the investigating judge Pignolet was closed without further action and that a preliminary gendarmerie disciplinary inquiry ended in the complete acquittal of the investigators concerned, and that the gendarmerie hierarchy stated very explicitly that both had carried out their duties in an exemplary manner. It states that once they obtained access to the rereading files they found that procès-verbaux had been falsified, and that they have filed more than 80 complaints for calumny, defamation and forgery against the colleagues and magistrates who compiled that file. It adds that colleagues who had done the rereading organized a petition to prevent the two from returning to their former duties, that it succeeded, and that the two are kept from all judicial police missions.¹ The Zembla description of the second part, broadcast March 18, 2004, states that the gendarmerie leadership judged after some months that the inquiry was being conducted incorrectly, that the investigators were even suspected of falsifying a procès-verbal and that a judicial procedure was started, and that three years later an internal gendarmerie commission reported that they had done their work with integrity and professionally. It states that forgery was never proven and that the inquiry nevertheless remained closed. It also states that the murdered girl Katrien de Cuyper, who disappeared in Antwerp in 1991, resembles a photograph found on a CD-ROM in the Zandvoort child pornography case.¹⁹

Five interpellations in the Chamber of Representatives in 1998 took up the removals. The Chamber record of October 21, 1998 lists interpellations by Marc Verwilghen, Lozie, Gerolf Annemans, Charles Janssens and Vincent Decroly. Their subjects were, respectively, the high command of the gendarmerie having misled the judiciary in the related files, the accusations against that command over the information given to the judiciary, the statements of gendarme De Baets on the manipulation of justice, the public statements of numerous gendarmes who said their superiors were pressuring them, and the astonishing circumstances of the removal of De Baets and Bille from the Neufchâteau antenna together with the aims of the secondary victimization of persons declaring themselves victims of pedophile networks and the role that several senior gendarmerie officers and magistrates may have played.⁹ Among the motions tabled that day was a recommendation, signed by Annemans, that the minister press the college of prosecutors-general for an independent rereading of the X witnesses' files (among them Van Hees and Mazibas), separate from the Neufchâteau investigating judge and from Duterme, with a report to the parliamentary follow-up commission within three months. A pure and simple motion, signed by C. Eerdekens, R. Landuyt and J. Vandeurzen, proposed moving to the order of the day. The document does not show the vote.⁹

On May 13, 1998 a Lozie interpellation on possible manipulation of the related files of the Neufchâteau cell produced a recommendation asking the government to inform the president of the former Dutroux commission, without delay, of the conclusions the investigators drew from the rereading of the X1 interviews; a pure and simple motion was tabled one minute later.²⁰ On September 28, 1998 a further Lozie interpellation, on the systematic intimidation of the Neufchâteau prosecutor by the Liège prosecutor-general's office, produced a recommendation that the government do everything to let the Neufchâteau prosecutor continue his work in full freedom and, if necessary, relieve the Liège prosecutor-general of her functions if her conduct continued to obstruct the serene functioning of justice in her district.²¹ On November 27, 2002 the justice committee tabled motions on an interpellation by Decroly concerning statements by Thily to BBC journalists about Louf. Decroly's recommendation described the statements as mendacious and disqualifying, stated that Louf was proven to have suffered repeated and serious sexual abuse, and asked that a disciplinary file be opened against Thily over her statements to the BBC of January 16, 2002; a pure and simple motion signed by Jacqueline Herzet and Yolande Avontroodt proposed moving to the order of the day.²²

The Senate proposal of October 9, 2000 asked for a fifteen-member parliamentary inquiry commission into the removal of the two investigators, reporting eight months after its installation. The Senate took it into consideration on November 16, 2000 and sent it to its justice committee, and it lapsed on April 10, 2003 with the dissolution of the Chambers.²³

The Parliamentary Record

The parliamentary commission's report of April 14, 1997 recorded its findings and recommendations on the Dutroux inquiry.²⁴ The plenary of the Chamber approved the findings on April 18, 1997 and approved the commission's request to extend its mandate to September 30, 1997 for an inquiry into protections éventuelles, possible protections.²⁵

The complementary report of February 16, 1998, prepared by the rapporteurs Renaat Landuyt and Nathalie de T'Serclaes, devotes its chapter V to the antenna's internal problems. It concludes that the Neufchâteau judge had endorsed the reread decisions but had set no deadlines for them. It also records that the rereading had not been finished at the date of drafting, after it had been announced as nearly complete several times, for October, mid-December and the end of February.²⁶ The Senate proposal states that the commission deposited its report on February 16, 1998, that the rereading was closed a week later, and that the file went to Langlois and the prosecutor-general of Brussels, who had still not drawn their conclusions on the position of De Baets and Bille.¹ The Chamber approved the complementary report's findings on February 19, 1998.²⁷

On the question of protection, the commission concluded that it was not in a position to say whether the antenna's problems were linked to protection mechanisms. Only the judicial inquiry, or an inquiry into the inquiry, such as a chamber of accusations under article 136bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure or a parliamentary commission, would give certainty on the point. The commission held that the point had to be cleared up. It also found that the Brussels judge had given particular, in fact disproportionate, attention to the contacts between Marique and certain investigators.²⁶

Closure

La Libre Belgique reported in 2004 that at an exceptional press conference on January 30, 1998 magistrates charged with verifying the witnesses' statements in the districts of Antwerp, Brussels, Ghent and Neufchâteau stated that no element of proof supported their statements, which in addition contained many contradictions.⁷ On April 23, 1998, the Senate proposal states, the prosecutors-general of Antwerp, Ghent and Brussels decided at about 5 p.m., the afternoon Dutroux briefly escaped, that no proof had been found that Regina Louf could make any contribution to the investigations, and the related files were closed, except the main file before Langlois.¹

La Libre Belgique reported in 2004 that on March 17, 2000 it became known that semen recovered from the body of Van Hees had been analyzed and corresponded genetically neither to Nihoul nor to any known suspect in the Dutroux affair, which the paper described as a factual element that destroyed the credit of X1. The same article reports that the chambre du conseil at Neufchâteau removed the Louf file, which it called "le plus emblématique des témoins 'X'", from the prosecutor's office on October 30, 2003.⁷ Michel Clippe, a former adjudant of the Brussels BSR who carried out checks after Louf's statements, told La Dernière Heure in 2020 that he was able to verify a great deal of the information she gave and that it proved accurate, and that over six months of inquiry her account was confirmed by material evidence and by concordances with other X witnesses who, after verification, did not know her.²⁸

The Arlon Trial

At the Arlon trial in 2004 the jury split on whether Nihoul had taken part in the kidnappings, and the court then sent the jury back to consider a lesser charge of complicity in the kidnappings, on which it acquitted him. The jury convicted him of membership of a gang that smuggled drugs and people into Belgium.²⁹ On June 22, 2004 the court sentenced him to five years.³⁰ La Libre Belgique reported in 2019 that seven of the twelve jurors had found him guilty of the abductions, that the professional judges acquitted him of all facts linked to the abductions of children, and that he received five years for drug trafficking and criminal association.³¹ According to the Zembla programme description, Dutroux's lawyer had asked that X1 be heard at the trial.¹⁰ Dovey wrote that the X witnesses were not heard at the 2004 trial.⁵ La Libre Belgique reported on June 1, 2004 that the prosecutor Bourlet had told the court that Nihoul was certainly guilty, that counsel for the families of a surviving victim and of An Marchal argued that the inquiry of Langlois had been badly done, and that counsel for the family of Eefje Lambrecks said that "la responsabilité de ceux qui ont jeté la suspicion sur le juge Langlois et ses enquêteurs est écrasante et accablante".³²

Footnotes

Sénat de Belgique. Proposition visant à instituer une commission d'enquête parlementaire chargée d'enquêter sur l'éloignement de deux enquêteurs de la cellule d'enquête bruxelloise « Neufchâteau », déposée par M. Frans Lozie, Doc. 2-563/1, October 9, 2000, développements; translated from the French. https://www.senate.be/www/?MIval=/publications/viewPub.html&COLL=S&LEG=2&NR=563&VOLGNR=1&LANG=fr ↩︎
Chambre des Représentants de Belgique. Enquête parlementaire sur la manière dont l'enquête, dans ses volets policiers et judiciaires, a été menée dans l'affaire Dutroux-Nihoul et consorts, rapport complémentaire, Doc. 713/8-96/97, February 16, 1998, chapter V, p. 152; translated from the French. https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/49/0713/49K0713008.pdf ↩︎
Chambre des Représentants de Belgique. Enquête parlementaire sur la manière dont l'enquête, dans ses volets policiers et judiciaires, a été menée dans l'affaire Dutroux-Nihoul et consorts, rapport, Doc. 713/6-96/97, April 14, 1997, p. 25, § 7 "Numéro vert"; translated from the French. https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/49/0713/49K0713006.pdf ↩︎
Chambre des Représentants de Belgique. Doc. 713/8-96/97, February 16, 1998, chapter V, pp. 150-151; translated from the French. https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/49/0713/49K0713008.pdf ↩︎
Dovey, S. Eye of the Chickenhawk. Thehotstar, 2023. The witness accounts in this section are the writer's, and are published in the 1999 book footnoted below. ↩︎
Bulté, Annemie, Douglas De Coninck and Marie-Jeanne Van Heeswyck. De X-dossiers: wat België niet mocht weten over de zaak-Dutroux. Antwerp: Houtekiet, 1999, 543 pp., ISBN 90-5240-536-0 (catalogue record from the Library of Congress, LCCN 2002406745, as listed in Open Library). https://openlibrary.org/isbn/9789052405360 ↩︎
Planchar, Roland. "Des 'X' sans crédit." La Libre Belgique, February 16, 2004. https://www.lalibre.be/belgique/2004/02/16/des-x-sans-credit-LKLTKQICABBWXKFUTUJNXL6NRY/ ↩︎
Louf, Regina. Zwijgen is voor daders. De getuigenis van X1. Houtekiet / Linkeroever Uitgevers, 1998, 310 pp., ISBN 90-5240-487-9. https://openlibrary.org/isbn/9052404879 ↩︎
Chambre des Représentants de Belgique. Motions of October 21, 1998 on the interpellations of Marc Verwilghen, Frans Lozie, Gerolf Annemans, Charles Janssens and Vincent Decroly, Doc. 25/370-1995; translated from the French and Dutch. https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/49/0025/49K0025370.pdf ↩︎
BNNVARA Zembla. "De X-dossiers, deel I," broadcast March 11, 2004; programme description in Dutch, translated. https://www.bnnvara.nl/zembla/artikelen/de-x-dossiers-deel-i ↩︎
Chambre des Représentants de Belgique. Doc. 713/8-96/97, February 16, 1998, chapter V, pp. 153-154; translated from the French. https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/49/0713/49K0713008.pdf ↩︎
Chambre des Représentants de Belgique. Doc. 713/8-96/97, February 16, 1998, chapter V, p. 155; translated from the French. https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/49/0713/49K0713008.pdf ↩︎
Chambre des Représentants de Belgique. Doc. 713/8-96/97, February 16, 1998, chapter V, pp. 156-157; translated from the French. https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/49/0713/49K0713008.pdf ↩︎
Chambre des Représentants de Belgique. Doc. 713/8-96/97, February 16, 1998, chapter V, pp. 157-158; translated from the French. https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/49/0713/49K0713008.pdf ↩︎
Chambre des Représentants de Belgique. Doc. 713/8-96/97, February 16, 1998, section on hearings, p. 34; translated from the French. https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/49/0713/49K0713008.pdf ↩︎
Chambre des Représentants de Belgique. Projet de loi modifiant le Code judiciaire et le Code d'instruction criminelle en ce qui concerne la procédure en dessaisissement, rapport de la commission de la Justice, Doc. 866/7-96/97, October 8, 1997, p. 2; translated from the French. https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/49/0866/49K0866007.pdf ↩︎
Cour de cassation de Belgique. Arrêt du 14 octobre 1996, P.96.1267.F (2e chambre), ECLI:BE:CASS:1996:ARR.19961014.2; translated from the French. https://juportal.be/content/ECLI:BE:CASS:1996:ARR.19961014.2 ↩︎
"14-20 octobre 1996." Encyclopaedia Universalis, chronicle entry "Belgique. Vives réactions au dessaisissement du juge chargé de l'enquête sur le réseau de pédophilie"; translated from the French. https://www.universalis.fr/evenement/14-20-octobre-1996-vives-reactions-au-dessaisissement-du-juge-charge-de-l-enquete-sur-le-reseau-de-pedophilie/ ↩︎
BNNVARA Zembla. "De X-dossiers, deel II," broadcast March 18, 2004; programme description in Dutch, translated. https://www.bnnvara.nl/zembla/artikelen/de-x-dossiers-deel-ii ↩︎
Chambre des Représentants de Belgique. Motions of May 13, 1998 on the interpellation of Frans Lozie concerning possible manipulation of the related files of the Neufchâteau cell, Doc. 25/339-1995; translated from the French and Dutch. https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/49/0025/49K0025339.pdf ↩︎
Chambre des Représentants de Belgique. Motions of September 28, 1998 on the interpellation of Frans Lozie concerning the Liège prosecutor-general and the Neufchâteau prosecutor, Doc. 25/365-1995; translated from the French and Dutch. https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/49/0025/49K0025365.pdf ↩︎
Chambre des Représentants de Belgique. Motions of November 27, 2002 on the interpellation of Vincent Decroly concerning statements of the Liège prosecutor-general on files opened in the Dutroux-Nihoul affair, DOC 50 0025/415; translated from the French and Dutch. https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/Pdf/50/0025/50K0025415.pdf ↩︎
Sénat de Belgique. Fiche du dossier S. 2-563 (Proposition Lozie): filed October 9, 2000; taken into consideration November 16, 2000; sent to the Justice committee November 16, 2000; lapsed April 10, 2003. https://www.senate.be/www/?MIval=/dossier&LEG=2&NR=563&LANG=fr ↩︎
Chambre des Représentants de Belgique. Rapport, Doc. 713/6-96/97, April 14, 1997. https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/49/0713/49K0713006.pdf ↩︎
Chambre des Représentants de Belgique. Motion adopted in plenary, Doc. 713/7-96/97, April 18, 1997, p. 2; translated from the French. https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/49/0713/49K0713007.pdf ↩︎
Chambre des Représentants de Belgique. Doc. 713/8-96/97, February 16, 1998, chapter V, pp. 159-160; translated from the French. https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/49/0713/49K0713008.pdf ↩︎
Chambre des Représentants de Belgique. Motion adopted in plenary, Doc. 713/9-96/97, February 19, 1998, p. 2; translated from the French. https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/49/0713/49K0713009.pdf ↩︎
"Régina Louf, témoin X1 dans l'affaire Dutroux, brise le silence," interview with Régina Louf and statement of Michel Clippe. La Dernière Heure, online, 2020; translated from the French. https://www.dhnet.be/actu/faits/regina-louf-temoin-x1-dans-l-affaire-dutroux-brise-le-silence-marc-dutroux-libere-je-m-y-prepare-5e652e1e9978e2051e15c16c ↩︎
Associated Press. "Notorious child rapist-murderer convicted." NBC News, June 17, 2004. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/5233011 ↩︎
"'Most hated' Belgian in jail for life." Al Jazeera, June 22, 2004. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2004/6/22/most-hated-belgian-in-jail-for-life ↩︎
"Michel Nihoul est décédé." La Libre Belgique, October 23, 2019; translated from the French. https://www.lalibre.be/belgique/societe/michel-nihoul-est-decede-5db04ec39978e218e36b29be ↩︎
"Au plus vif de la polémique." La Libre Belgique, June 1, 2004; translated from the French. https://www.lalibre.be/belgique/2004/06/01/au-plus-vif-de-la-polemique-FBRY7S2PXJCR7JBHRC5T5HWYYU/ ↩︎

33 KiB Raw Blame History