• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mass DNA study to find killer of Marianne Vaatstra (killed and raped aged 16)

It is a waste of money even if they find a connection.
There is absolutely no need to go through such an expense to solve on e crime.
It just isn't reasonable.

the Dutch prosecution, police and the public do not agree with you. And I hope it will lead to a result.
 
the Dutch prosecution, police and the public do not agree with you. And I hope it will lead to a result.
Based on what they are doing, your observation may very well be accurate as well as obvious.


But I am sure opposition within the Country, will raise it's head after the fact of it's expenditure.

And as it was my opinion, I will stand by it. It is a waste.


A crime happened 11-12 years ago?
Let it go.

Find the person who's DNA was on a cigarette lighter, then what?
As it is, that may not solve the crime.
It surely doesn't indicate who killed her.

But lets say they do charge the person and even find them guilty.
Then what? A pathetic sentence all at an exorbitant cost?

A massive expenditure to give the person what? A few years at best?
Hell they may not even be able to get a conviction based on the flimsy evidence.
Sorry, not really worth it to society as a whole.
Not every crime need s to be solved.
 
Based on what they are doing, your observation may very well be accurate as well as obvious.


But I am sure opposition within the Country, will raise it's head after the fact of it's expenditure.

And as it was my opinion, I will stand by it. It is a waste.


So far there is little to no opposition for it as most Dutch people want this murder solved.

A crime happened 11-12 years ago?
Let it go.

No, this is like the Natalee Holloway case on Aruba. It deserved to be solved no matter how long it takes.

Find the person who's DNA was on a cigarette lighter, then what?
As it is, that may not solve the crime.
It surely doesn't indicate who killed her.

The DNA will be compared to DNA found on her body which is in all most likely from her killer.

But lets say they do charge the person and even find them guilty.
Then what? A pathetic sentence all at an exorbitant cost?

He will get the sentence that the Dutch law/judges find appropriate for his crime.

A massive expenditure to give the person what? A few years at best?
Hell they may not even be able to get a conviction based on the flimsy evidence.
Sorry, not really worth it to society as a whole.
Not every crime need s to be solved.

Every crime that can be solved should be solved even though it might cost a lot of money or a long period. That is my opinion as a Dutch person and I think a lot of people here feel the same way.
 
So far there is little to no opposition for it as most Dutch people want this murder solved.
Exactly.
And when the public finds out how much it costs, as compared to the outcome of the case? It will happen.



No, this is like the Natalee Holloway case on Aruba. It deserved to be solved no matter how long it takes.
I understand your opinion, I just think it is wrong. Probably as much as you think mine is wrong.
Do you have any limit to cost that would make you object?



The DNA will be compared to DNA found on her body which is in all most likely from her killer.
Enlighten us. Since you didn't provide any link to the story and I had to find my own. The story said the DNA they had was found on a lighter.
You don't think they already compared that to which is on the body? Because that is the match they are looking for. That which was on the lighter.
Which of course would have been compared to that which is on the body. And as stated they are looking for the match with the lighter. Not that found on the body.
Or do you know something that hasn't been presented here yet?



He will get the sentence that the Dutch law/judges find appropriate for his crime.
If there is a trial, and if they find the person guilty (and those if's are large hudles, especially with the flimsey evidence of DNA on a lighter.) of course the person will receive a sentence in accordance with Dutch Law.
I figured that was understood by my saying a few years?



Every crime that can be solved should be solved even though it might cost a lot of money or a long period. That is my opinion as a Dutch person and I think a lot of people here feel the same way.
I would say that most people when considering serious crimes, feel that way everywhere.
I just am not one of them.
I believe in statutes of limitations, and the belief that not all crimes need solving, especially with something such as an exorbitant cost is involved. Especially when there there is no guarantee of a conviction.
 
Exactly.
And when the public finds out how much it costs, as compared to the outcome of the case? It will happen.

sorry, but I am not sure most Dutch will see it like that.


I understand your opinion, I just think it is wrong. Probably as much as you think mine is wrong.
Do you have any limit to cost that would make you object?

For murders? No, no limit.


Enlighten us. Since you didn't provide any link to the story and I had to find my own. The story said the DNA they had was found on a lighter.
You don't think they already compared that to which is on the body? Because that is the match they are looking for. That which was on the lighter.
Which of course would have been compared to that which is on the body. And as stated they are looking for the match with the lighter. Not that found on the body.
Or do you know something that hasn't been presented here yet?

It came from the website of the Dutch police and it said that the DNA samples will be compared to DNA evidence found on the body of Marianne Vaatstra but as it is in Dutch I am unable to post it here.

In English it says:

The DNA-profile will exclusively be compared to the DNA evidence from the perpetrator that was found on the body of Marianne Vaatstra but it will not be compared to DNA evidence from other criminal investigations.

Politie.nl - Grootschalig DNA onderzoek moord Marianne Vaatstra

If there is a trial, and if they find the person guilty (and those if's are large hudles, especially with the flimsey evidence of DNA on a lighter.) of course the person will receive a sentence in accordance with Dutch Law.
I figured that was understood by my saying a few years?

The evidence was from the body and if he is found he will be tried and most likely convicted to a sentence that is anywhere from 15 years to life.

I would say that most people when considering serious crimes, feel that way everywhere.
I just am not one of them.
I believe in statutes of limitations, and the belief that not all crimes need solving, especially with something such as an exorbitant cost is involved. Especially when there there is no guarantee of a conviction.

There are plenty of statutes of limitations in the Dutch law but for crimes longer than a certain number of years (murder, rape, etc. etc.) there is no limitation.
 
sorry, but I am not sure most Dutch will see it like that.
I didn't think I said anything about "most"?
Do you deny that some are opposed now?
Do you deny that as more become aware of the cost, they will also be opposed?



For murders? No, no limit.
Honestly, I find that hard to believe.

Are you going to bankrupt the city just to get one conviction? I would hope not.
How about the Country?
Those things would be foolish to do.

There are limits.
I asked what yours were.



It came from the website of the Dutch police and it said that the DNA samples will be compared to DNA evidence found on the body of Marianne Vaatstra but as it is in Dutch I am unable to post it here.

In English it says:
The DNA-profile will exclusively be compared to the DNA evidence from the perpetrator that was found on the body of Marianne Vaatstra but it will not be compared to DNA evidence from other criminal investigations.
Politie.nl - Grootschalig DNA onderzoek moord Marianne Vaatstra
And in Google translate it says the same. Or close enough.
The DNA profile is exclusively against the perpetrator found DNA trace on the body of Marianne Vaatstra and not with other tracks from other studies.
Google Translate

Here is what is odd about that, as I previously mentioned.
In English even.


The Amsterdam Herald said:
The public prosecutor’s office (Openbare Ministerie) said DNA found on a cigarette lighter recovered from the scene did not match the dead girl.

Because the lighter was bought near the scene of the murder in Veenklooster, prosecutors say the killer is likely to be from the local area.

The Amsterdam Herald - Largest ever DNA sweep planned in 13-year-old unsolved murder case

It would seem to me that the more specific story of the lighter, coming from the public prosecutor’s office, would be the more accurate one. While the statement on the Police's site was formulated to cause the least objection amongst the populace.

Regardless, there are two conflicting stories here.



The evidence was from the body and if he is found he will be tried and most likely convicted to a sentence that is anywhere from 15 years to life.
Again. The more specific was the lighter as released by the public prosecutors office. So I will stick with that for now.


There are plenty of statutes of limitations in the Dutch law but for crimes longer than a certain number of years (murder, rape, etc. etc.) there is no limitation.
Since I was speaking from the point of an opinion, you are just listing that which I already said I disagree with. There is a limit to solving any crime.
 
I didn't think I said anything about "most"?
Do you deny that some are opposed now?
Do you deny that as more become aware of the cost, they will also be opposed?

No, my most comment was directed on your comment:

Excon said:
Exactly.
And when the public finds out how much it costs, as compared to the outcome of the case? It will happen.

To that my answer was "sorry, but I am not sure most Dutch will see it like that." as in, sorry, but even when the costs are known most Dutch people will not mind even if the result is not what everyone hopes it will be. But that is still some way in the future and I cannot say how it will turn out. Who knows, maybe it will lead to her killer and then nobody (or almost nobody will say anything about how much it cost).

And FYI just in case you did not know ;), the Dutch are world class complainers about anything from tot weather to the latest installment of the voice of Holland or how the referee made a bad decision that cost ones favorite club to loose, etc. etc. etc.

Honestly, I find that hard to believe.

Are you going to bankrupt the city just to get one conviction? I would hope not.
How about the Country?
Those things would be foolish to do.

There are limits.
I asked what yours were.

But investigations are a matter of the state, not the city police and anyway, no city will ever go bankrupt due to a police investigation into a murder.

And my limit? As long as it concerns something like murder I do not want to limit it at any price, it will costs what it will cost. You cannot put a price on justice IMHO.

And in Google translate it says the same. Or close enough.

Here is what is odd about that, as I previously mentioned.
In English even.



It would seem to me that the more specific story of the lighter, coming from the public prosecutor’s office, would be the more accurate one. While the statement on the Police's site was formulated to cause the least objection amongst the populace.

Regardless, there are two conflicting stories here.



Again. The more specific was the lighter as released by the public prosecutors office. So I will stick with that for now.

I can assure you, my translating skills are way better than Googles :lol:

The cigarette lighter issue is not more specific, it is just the matter of not being able to read Dutch news stories I would assume.

This comment was made by SBS evening news:

Daarna gaat het NFI al het verzamelde materiaal vergelijken met het DNA van de dader. Dit werd gevonden op het lichaam van Marianne en op een aansteker die in haar tas zat. Over een half jaar hoopt het NFI te weten of er een match is.

or translated in English, and hopefully I will not get in trouble for leaving the Dutch comment here too because it is against the rules to post foreign language here:

Ater that the NFI will compare all the collected material with the DNA of the perpetrator. This was found on the body of Marianne and on a lighter that was in her purse. In about 6 months time the NFI hopes to know whether or not there was a match

Here is the link so you can google check it too if you want to.
Voorbereidingen grootschalig DNA-onderzoek in volle gang – Hart van Nederland

And here is a news story from the AD newspaper:

Aansteker met DNA
In de tas die Vaatstra bij zich had toen ze werd omgebracht, zat een aansteker, die niet van haar was en waarin onlangs een haar is gevonden met hetzelfde DNA-profiel als het eerder gevonden DNA in het sperma dat op het lichaam van Vaatstra werd gevonden.

Op het lichaam van Vaatstra werd destijds een volledig DNA-profiel gevonden. Door de sterk verbeterde technieken is het nu beter mogelijk om geografisch herkomst van DNA te vinden. Daaruit komen aanwijzingen dat de dader uit de buurt zou kunnen komen.

and translated in English it reads,
Lighter with DNA
In the purse Vaastra had with her when she was killed, there was a lighter that did not belong to her and in which not too long ago a hair was found with the same DNA profile as the DNA proflie that had earlier been found in the seamen that was found on the body of Vaatstra.

On the body of Vaatstra they previously found a full DNA profile. Due to the greatly improved forensic techniques, it is easier to correlate geographic origins of DNA profiles. This has lead to clues that the perpetrator could be a local man.

the link is 'Vaatstra kende wellicht haar moordenaar' - AD.nl

The lighter is important because it also contains the same DNA profile as the seamen on her body. Also, the DNA profile is from around there and the lighter was also sold in the area of where she went missing. Combine this with the fact that the killer used a bike (push bike, not a motorized one) and it becomes pretty clear to the police that most likely the killer was a local man.

The police also suspect that she knew her killer but this hopefully will all be found out in the investigation that will follow the DNA results. So, as you can read it is not a case of 2 stories but combined stories.

Since I was speaking from the point of an opinion, you are just listing that which I already said I disagree with. There is a limit to solving any crime.

And I was just saying that we in the Netherlands to have loads of crimes with statutes of limitations but that these do not apply to cases like murder. How is that listing that which you already said you disagreed with.

You might have giving your opinion but I am also allowed to give you mine IMHO.
 
But that is still some way in the future and I cannot say how it will turn out.
Thank you for acknowledging the point being made.


But investigations are a matter of the state, not the city police and anyway, no city will ever go bankrupt due to a police investigation into a murder.
Which doesn't change the point being made.
No one is going to bankrupt a nation to just to find and convict a person.
So there are limits.



And my limit? As long as it concerns something like murder I do not want to limit it at any price, it will costs what it will cost. You cannot put a price on justice IMHO.
Ah... So you are saying that it is ok for a 5 Million Euro expenditure to be made to solve one crime. 50 Million? 500 Million? A Billion? 10 Billion? 50 Billion?
Sorry, I just don't buy that.
There are limits.
And I can almost guarantee that most of those in charge of your Government would agree.



I can assure you, my translating skills are way better than Googles :lol:
Didn't say they weren't. :cool:


The cigarette lighter issue is not more specific,
Actually it was. As provided by the The Amsterdam Herald.

But thank you for providing more information which clears up the perceived discrepancy as well as much more of the actual case history as well.

Much appreciated.



How is that listing that which you already said you disagreed with.
Because you were stating something that was already understood and a given.
Had I not understood that, I could see you stating it again.
But under the circumstances, no.



You might have giving your opinion but I am also allowed to give you mine IMHO.
Didn't, nor wouldn't say you weren't.
 
Now Marianne Vaatstra was found raped and murdered in 1999 and even though Dutch police have done a lot of investigation and already DNA tested 900 people, the killer of this young girl was never found.

The police are almost certain that the killer is a local man and in an unprecedented move, the police has asked 8,000 people who lived within a 3.5 mile radius of the murder scene to voluntarily donate DNA. These were all the men who were between 16 and 60 who lived within the 3.5 mile zone from the murder scene at the time of the murder. The police can then try if they can trace the killer through familial DNA from one or more people from the 8,000 men who were asked to voluntarily participate.

Yesterday the operation started with the 3,300 people in the first group of people asked to volunteer their DNA. In one day 2,300 people came forward to have their DNA swatch taken to further the investigation. The other 1,000 can still go to several posts to have their DNA samples taken and the rest that after 2 weeks have still not volunteered their DNA will get a home visit from where they will be asked if they want to participate in the testing or not. Some people will have grown too old to go to one of the 7 sites where the samples are to be taken and some will have moved away from the area and they will get a personal visit from the testing agency.

Then the Dutch Forensic Institute will compare all taken DNA samples with that from the killer in the hope to find a familial link to the killer and with that the police and the prosecution office will try and arrest/convict the killer of Marianne Vaatstra.

Like hell I'd voluntarily give up my DNA to the government!
 
Personally, I think everyone's DNA should be taken at birth. It'd save a whole lot of time and money. Bring on the conspiracy theorists!!

My DNA falls under the 4th. Get a warrant.
 
Oh, interesting. It pays to read the whole post!! Looking for a familial connection. Brilliant.

This has got to cost a fortune.

Personally, I think everyone's DNA should be taken at birth. It'd save a whole lot of time and money. Bring on the conspiracy theorists!!


Conspiracy theorists? And would police be able to search our dna data without probable cause that we were involved in any crime? Not that it really matters, just trying to understand what sort of police state you plainly support.
 
Conspiracy theorists? And would police be able to search our dna data without probable cause that we were involved in any crime? Not that it really matters, just trying to understand what sort of police state you plainly support.

I think it'd be important that the DNA database could only be used to cross-check. Could not be used for any medical/social/whatever purpose. I've got the DNA from a rapist. I don't know who he is. I enter it into the mass database, and voila'!! I've got my guy.

We do that now. Most felons are entered into a master database. Our entire military. The U.S. DNA database currently contains over 9 million records. It would certainly help identify victims' bodies. And it's certainly better than a baby's footprint.
 
If I do not participate, will I then be seen as a suspect?

No. Participation is on a voluntary basis. If you refuse to participate you will not be seen/elevated to the level of a suspect. A suspect is someone who according to the law has been found to be a suspect based on facts and relevant circumstances. Not participating in the test is not one of those circumstances that can lead or can be seen as suspicious.

They say that, and that is the "correct" answer, but I don't believe them. To some extent I believe that it is unavoidable human nature to be suspect of a person who doesn't cooperate. I'm one of the most mindful people I know regarding this issue, and even I catch myself thinking that way at times.

I do believe that they wouldn't officially raise such a person to suspect, but I also believe the notion would stick in the backs of their minds.

That's not much of an answer by the state though, is it?

They've basically designated "suspect" as a legal status here and say failure to volunteer won't result in the paperwork raising someone to that status. What they don't say is if failure to volunteer will result in further suspicion and attention by the department, which is a bit more germane.

I'm with radcen on this. I just don't think you could not look at those who refuse to participate as being suspicious.
 
I think it'd be important that the DNA database could only be used to cross-check. Could not be used for any medical/social/whatever purpose. I've got the DNA from a rapist. I don't know who he is. I enter it into the mass database, and voila'!! I've got my guy.

We do that now. Most felons are entered into a master database. Our entire military. The U.S. DNA database currently contains over 9 million records. It would certainly help identify victims' bodies. And it's certainly better than a baby's footprint.

Sure but a person does have a right not to incriminate himself.
 
Last edited:
Sure but a person does have a right not to incriminate themselves.

If DNA is collected at birth, the process of taking the DNA does not incriminate them. Using your theory, no DNA database could currently be used. And, of course, that's not the case.
 
I think it'd be important that the DNA database could only be used to cross-check. Could not be used for any medical/social/whatever purpose. I've got the DNA from a rapist. I don't know who he is. I enter it into the mass database, and voila'!! I've got my guy.

We do that now. Most felons are entered into a master database. Our entire military. The U.S. DNA database currently contains over 9 million records. It would certainly help identify victims' bodies. And it's certainly better than a baby's footprint.

What you suggest would mean you would not need any level of suspicion to conduct a search. That would wipe out the 4th.

I don't know why you think only "conspiracy theorists" would be opposed. You made a statement and if codified into some sort of law it would be a fact. There is no theory needed. The information would not be limited to a select group and so it would not be a conspiracy. Is this just a term you throw around to denigrate anyone that demands that our legal rights be preserved?
 
If DNA is collected at birth, the process of taking the DNA does not incriminate them. Using your theory, no DNA database could currently be used. And, of course, that's not the case.

As of now DNA is pretty much collected through volunteering by accepting certain jobs or arrests for crimes. You're talking about taking it by force from someone who has neither consented nor committed a crime. Surely you see a difference between the two!
 
What you suggest would mean you would not need any level of suspicion to conduct a search. That would wipe out the 4th.

I don't know why you think only "conspiracy theorists" would be opposed. You made a statement and if codified into some sort of law it would be a fact. There is no theory needed. The information would not be limited to a select group and so it would not be a conspiracy. Is this just a term you throw around to denigrate anyone that demands that our legal rights be preserved?

Actually, I was referring to myself being accused of trying to begin a conspiracy to deprive US citizens of their rights. Sorry you took it another way; that wasn't my intention.

Again, as I posted a few posts back, we already have DNA databases of perfectly innocent people taken where they've had no choice but to provide them. The precedent is there. Its creation would be extremely helpful to law enforcement and to those families where bodies are discovered and no one knows who they are.
 
If DNA is collected at birth, the process of taking the DNA does not incriminate them. Using your theory, no DNA database could currently be used. And, of course, that's not the case.

To what DNA database are people that have not been convicted of a felony forced to contribute?
 
As of now DNA is pretty much collected through volunteering by accepting certain jobs or arrests for crimes. You're talking about taking it by force from someone who has neither consented nor committed a crime. Surely you see a difference between the two!

Yes, of course, I do. I think the good it would do far FAR outweighs any intrusion in our lives.

To what DNA database are people that have not been convicted of a felony forced to contribute?

The military, for one.
 
What still remains unexplained is how they know they have the killer's DNA. Do they know with certainty that she was raped and that the sexual contact wasn't consenual? Perhaps the murder was a separate event from the sex, a different person.
 
Yes, of course, I do. I think the good it would do far FAR outweighs any intrusion in our lives.

Does that mean you would scrap the entire Bill of Rights?

Catching criminals would certainly be a lot easier if law enforcement didn't have to worry about pesky things like illegal searches and seizures, speedy trials, due process, etc.


The military, for one.

We have a volunteer military though.
 
Yes, of course, I do. I think the good it would do far FAR outweighs any intrusion in our lives.
*IF*... it is used for good. That's not always the case. This is just a re-phrasing of "If you have nothing to hide...", and that rationale has been used countless times for purposes of abuse. I'm sorry, it's not what I have to hide, it's what I have to protect, and that's my own self.

However, in the interest of full disclosure, there is a similarity between keeping DNA databases and fingerprint databases, and fingerprint databases have a long and established and (pretty much) universally accepted precedent.
 
Actually, I was referring to myself being accused of trying to begin a conspiracy to deprive US citizens of their rights. Sorry you took it another way; that wasn't my intention.

Well, again, you stated publicly that you desire to deny US citizens of their rights. No conspiracy, no theory. You are apparently proud of the fact that you support police state tactics.


Again, as I posted a few posts back, we already have DNA databases of perfectly innocent people taken where they've had no choice but to provide them. The precedent is there. Its creation would be extremely helpful to law enforcement and to those families where bodies are discovered and no one knows who they are.

You mentioned felons and military soldiers. The soldiers are not "forced" to submit DNA. But is the state permitted to search through their dna in criminal cases? I would oppose that for many reasons.
 
If DNA is collected at birth, the process of taking the DNA does not incriminate them. Using your theory, no DNA database could currently be used. And, of course, that's not the case.

No permanent data base should exist on this level. And the only proper way to collect DNA is either through crime scene investigation or warrant.
 
Back
Top Bottom