Peter R. de Vries. Always the first to get inside information. Always able to get the “criminal” (sometimes secretly) on film. How does he do that? And why would suspects be willing to talk to him? That is odd. Most people do not even want to talk to the police, when a crime is committed.
We noticed before, how Peter R de Vries discusses certain crime cases extensively for many years. The odd thing is, the main players in these cases, look so much like certain actors, it would be easy to do casting for a film, in case there would be a film about these cases (not unlikely).
But we now see another coincidence. Relatively many of Peter R. de Vries’s “main cases” are solved after many years through a DNA-match. So we are not surprised, how Peter R. de Vries states on TV the importance of a general DNA-database. Like it is normal to demand medical material from all Dutch people, material that contains sex, ethnic background, looks, medical data.
But, but, but: miracles happened with DNA! :
- Marianne Vaatstra, solved with DNA after many years.
- Deventer Moordzaak, solved with DNA.
- Nicky Verstappen, solved with DNA after many years.
- Cristel Ambrosius, so many discussion on tv about the DNA-traces.
- Andrea Luten, solved with DNA after many years.
- Sybine Jansons, solved with DNA after many years.
To name a few examples. Cases Peter R. de Vries is known for.
Odd cases as well. And they are linked together by these people who are demanding a DNA-database. [Also, for these four cases, casting with actors is not that difficult, in case they would make a movie. Good for the Justice department. Good for the media.] Not so good for normal people in the Netherlands. Who wants to be registered with the Justice department in a database forever? God knows what they will do next with the material. Can we blindly trust a Justice department with that data?
The Justice department and secret services: they want to tap your phone and internet, view your medical data, and now have your DNA-cells. How can we be certain all this is used wisely, with respect to all our human rights? We are not convinced at all.