A sentence will be pronounced today in the Mallorca case. Who is responsible for the death of Carlo Heuvelman? Are there any culprits? And if so, what do we know about that fateful night in 2021?
Charles’s death is central to this case. There’s more to this case than just Carlo’s death, but it mostly pertains to the question of what happened to the then 27-year-old from Waddinxveen.
Especially since the roles of the nine suspects in the other violent incidents of that night in July last year have been fairly established. These incidents are partly recorded on camera and are also known to the people involved.
But what happened to Carlo in front of the café de Bierexpress is not on the screen. The judge has to settle for forensic evidence (DNA), witness statements and the history of the suspects themselves. That story can be summed up to: I didn’t do it and I didn’t see it either.
Sixty witnesses were heard. It can be seen that Carlo was beaten, he fell to the ground and was kicked on the head as he lay there. Four days later, on July 18, Charles died of his wounds in a Spanish hospital.
Most of the witnesses talk about different guys around Carlo, but they don’t really know who. We had been drinking a lot and besides he went very fast.
A witness statement stands out. There is a witness who says he was there that night and hadn’t been drinking. He points to Sanil B. and Hein B. as those involved in Carlo’s death.
There is also a comment about this witness. According to an expert, Peter van Koppen, mistakes were made during the questioning of this witness. Plus, he’s started stuffing things involuntarily, according to the forensic psychologist.
Mees T. is also explicitly mentioned. A witness describes a person involved in the violence against Carlo, and that description matches T’s appearance. In mutual conversations, the same suspects also point to T.
Then there’s Carlo’s DNA on Sanil’s shoe. This is material of which so little has been found that it has not been possible to determine what kind of DNA it is. This is important because DNA moves easily. Can it therefore be designated as a so-called perpetrator path?
According to the Public Prosecutor (OM), yes. This is because of where the DNA was found. Namely at a spot on the shoe “where you can expect it if you kick someone,” according to police.
All in all, which is why the prosecutor is seeking ten years in prison against Sanil and eight years in prison against Hein and Mees.
How does the court arrive at a verdict? A court weighs the evidence. An example of this is determining whether a witness statement is reliable. If so, it can be used as evidence.
In the case of DNA, the court decides whether it is a trace of the author. If so, Sanil’s conviction is a step forward.
Explanation of suspicions also plays a role. Did they tell a reliable story about what happened that night? A decision will be made today on the basis of these considerations.
Yet the true story of that fateful night can only be told by those present. Aside from pointing out one or more culprits, the story is never complete without an explanation. It’s why courts often say they blame defendants for failing to provide an explanation for the next of kin as to exactly what happened, and more importantly why.
The decision will not close the case because an appeal seems inevitable. Who knows, maybe there will be answers. The Lelystad court verdict can be followed live on NU.nl from 10am.
Curious to know what happened in Mallorca? Then listen to our true crime podcast The secret of Mallorcaon the deadly assault on the Spanish island.
