The Lowest Crime
A European true crime podcast about cases that happened in the Netherlands.
The Lowest Crime
Mary de Meijere: Accident or Murder? The Controversial Case of the Deadly Pen
What if a simple pen could become a murder weapon? In today's episode, we dive into the intriguing Big Pen Case—a true crime mystery that has left experts and the public baffled for decades. On the evening of May 26, 1991, 21-year-old Jim returned to his mother’s home, only to discover her lifeless body with an intact pen buried deep in her brain. We’ll explore the false accusations, complex family dynamics, and the forensic puzzles that have led investigators down winding paths filled with more questions than answers. Join us as we unravel this chilling case and examine the twists and turns that continue to captivate true crime enthusiasts.
Follow The Lowest Crime on instagram to get all images related to the case: https://www.instagram.com/thelowestcrime/
Hi and welcome to the Lowest Crime, where we take a look at some of the most perplexing and controversial true crime cases from the Netherlands. My name is Eline and today we examine the details of a case that has puzzled experts and interested the public for many years. It involves forensic challenges, judicial mistakes and constantly changing theories. We'll have a look at what is called the Big Pen Case. Was it an accident or maybe not? Before we start, please know that today's episode contains subjects like violence and murder that might be disturbing to some listeners and, as always, even though I try my best to bring you all the known facts, I am just an amateur podcast creator and there is always a chance of me making an error. Let's dive in. On May 26th 1991, a cool and heavily overcast Sunday, 21-year-old Jim entered his mother's home at the Witte Roosestraat in Leiden for their usual Sunday dinner. Upon entering, jim immediately noticed the unusual silence. When he reached the back room, he discovered his mother, 53-year-old Marie de Meyre, laying face down on the floor, showing no signs of life. Shocked, jim called the police, who immediately sent a medical examiner to the scene. The investigation at the house presented the detectives with a mystery. There were small bloodstains on Mary's clothes and the carpet, but without a clear source. Bloodstains on Mary's clothes and the carpet, but without a clear source. When the medical examiner took a closer look at her face, he saw a small wound next to her swollen right eye. Though the cause wasn't clear, the examiner deemed it suspicious enough to consider an unnatural death. The next day, on the orders of the judiciary, the body was seized and transported for an autopsy to the judicial laboratory in Gijswijk.
Speaker 1:The case quickly became a media sensation. After performing the autopsy, the pathologist initially suspected a brain hemorrhage. However, he was astonished to find a fully intact pen deep in Mary's brain. The pen, a black big, had entered through her right eye socket and lodged at an angle. The pen was embedded so deeply that it was no longer visible externally. The pen did not have its protective cap and its length of 14.5 centimeters had almost entirely penetrated the brain tissue. The pathologist concluded that Marie must have lapsed into a coma within one or two seconds and could not have lived more than 15 or 30 minutes after the injury. His report included the term stab wound, prompting a major investigation. The theory that Marie might have fallen into the pen tripping over a loose rug was quickly discarded.
Speaker 1:As is common in major criminal investigations, the detectives first looked at Mary's life. Who was she, what did she do in her daily life and what was her family situation like? The detectives soon realized that they were dealing with an intellectual and unusual environment. Marie de Meyre had married Rob Tervel, a professor of theological physics at Leiden University in 1962. At that time, marie had been studying Arabic language and literature at the same university and worked at an educational institution in Leidschendam. She had many friends and had been a driving force behind the children's theater group Tierlantijn for many years. Rob and Marie had three children, a son and two daughters, and outwardly the family seemed perfect. Insiders, however, knew better. The marriage was failing and at the time of Marie's death there was an ongoing divorce procedure. This was caused to consider Rob's involvement as a physicist. He might know exactly how to discreetly murder someone with a pen. He may have been frustrated with the divorce proceedings. It seemed possible, but the detectives quickly discarded the theory, as Rob had an alibi for the weekend of Mary's death. However, the police's suspicion of a murder within the family remained. There were questions about the origin of the big pen, as no traces of black ink were found anywhere in the house. Additionally, marie's sister informed the police that Marie never wrote with a black pen and always warned her children against walking with sharp objects.
Speaker 1:Suspicion quickly shifted to Marie's son, jim, who was accused of shooting her with a crossbow. Although this theory initially seemed far-fetched, it gained traction due to the peculiar nature of the injury and the assumption that only a powerful force like a crossbow could embed a pen so deeply into a human skull. This specific accusation stemmed from a session Jim had had with a therapist. The therapist had come forward stating that Jim had confessed to the murder during therapy, giving a detailed description of how he had used an extra small crossbow to shoot the pen into his mother's eye. The ongoing divorce between Marie and Rob created a stressful and conflict-ridden home environment. This made already existing familial conflicts worse. Jim reportedly felt neglected or misunderstood by his mother. Additionally, growing up with a father who was a professor of theoretical physics and a mother actively involved in intellectual and social activities placed immense pressure on Jim, possibly leading to feelings of inadequacy. His detailed confession during therapy suggested significant psychological turmoil, potentially influenced by underlying mental health issues. The confession was taken seriously by the police and the prosecution, leading to Jim's arrest and subsequent trial In 1995, jim was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Speaker 1:Despite protests from several experts who argued against the plausibility of the crossbow theory, the judicial process was fraught with complications and controversies. Forensic experts were divided on the nature of the injury and the likelihood of a crossbow theory. In the initial trial the court relied heavily on the therapist's testimony and the prosecution's argument that Jim had the means and motive to commit the murder. However, the defense presented numerous counter-arguments, including the inherent improbability of a big pen being used as a projectile with a crossbow. The case drew significant media attention, with many questioning the validity of the evidence and the fairness of the trial. The therapist's testimony, which implicated Jim, was a pivotal point in the case. The therapist claimed that Jim had confessed to killing his mother with a crossbow had a significant influence on the initial conviction. Jim's defense challenged the reliability of this statement, arguing that it could have been a product of Jim's psychological distress and not a factual account. The defense highlighted the potential for confessions made in therapy to be influenced by guilt, fantasies or other psychological factors rather than being rooted in reality.
Speaker 1:The defense also focused on forensic analysis. To discredit the crossbow theory, they introduced the fall theory suggesting that Marina Meijeren had fallen into the pen, causing it to lodge into her skull. Professor Vorst, a professor of ophthalmology from Groningen, was among the first to suggest this theory. Vorst and other experts, including forensic physician Cohen, maintained that the injury was more consistent with an accident. Cohen, who had examined the case at the request of the police, vehemently argued that the death was accidental and criticized the police for suspecting the family of murder without substantial evidence.
Speaker 1:They also conducted experiments to replicate the conditions under which the pen was found in marie de meyres's skull and tested out if it was possible to do with a crossbow. These experiments, which involved shooting pens into animal and human heads, demonstrated that a pen fired from a crossbow would show signs of damage, such as the plastic casing separating from the ink cartridge. The pen found in Marie's skull did not exhibit such damage. Further supporting the fall theory, dr Peck van Andel, an internationally renowned researcher, initially used pig heads to simulate the conditions of Marie's injury, later obtaining human cadavers for more accurate testing. Despite his best efforts, dr van Andel was unable to replicate the injury without causing significant damage to the pen, something that had not been observed in Marie's case. Dr van der Pol, an eye specialist from the Amsterdam Medical Center, also conducted tests using human cadavers. He performed contact shots with a small crossbow and concluded that it was possible, albeit very difficult, to achieve the trajectory seen in Marie's injury. However, the crossbow theory remained controversial and did not provide a definitive explanation.
Speaker 1:In 1996, based on this new evidence, the appeals court overturned Jim's conviction and acquitted him. The court acknowledged the new forensic evidence as crucial, highlighting the flaws in the original investigation and the prosecution's case. The acquittal was a significant moment not only for Jim and his family, but also for the Dutch judicial system, as it highlighted the potential for errors and the importance of thorough and unbiased forensic investigation. The case left a lasting impact on all involved. Two police officers and an officer of justice were removed from their positions for destroying evidence related to the case. The destruction of crucial documents that could have shown police tampering with the therapist's testimony sparked further outrage. The controversy surrounding the handling of evidence and the misconduct by the police and the prosecution underscored the need for transparency and accountability in the judicial process. Years after the acquittal, the case continued to stir controversy and debate.
Speaker 1:In 2013, forensic toxicologist Professor Donald Uges proposed a new theory self-mutilation or intercranial self-stabbing. This phenomenon, described in the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, involves individuals inserting objects into their skulls through the eye socket. Uges cited cases from New South Wales, australia, where 55 instances of self-stabbing with objects like pens and chopsticks were recorded over 40 years. In 17 cases, the objects were pushed so deeply that they were no longer externally visible, much like the big pen in Marie de Meyre's skull. Professor Uges argued that this theory was plausible, especially given the detailed similarities between the documented cases and the circumstances of Marie de Meyre. He pointed out that self-mutilation does not necessarily indicate the desire for suicide, but could stem from severe psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Despite Marie de Meyre not having a known psychiatric history, Uges suggested that such tendencies could manifest suddenly or might have gone undiagnosed. Neurosurgeon Martin van Duinen, who had studied similar injuries, disagreed with the self-mutilation theory. He argued that the pen was embedded too deeply to have been self-inflicted without external force, such as being shot from a crossbow or a similar device. Van Duinen also noted that the victim did not exhibit any known psychiatric issues that could lead to such behavior. He maintained that the pen's depth of penetration and the resulting brain damage indicated a significant external force.
Speaker 1:Despite Jim's acquittal, the Big Pen case remains one of the most complex and controversial legal sagas in Dutch history. It exemplifies the challenges of forensic science, the intricacies of psychological evidence and the potential for judicial errors. Despite extensive investigations, multiple trials and numerous expert testimonies, the true nature of Marie de Meyres' death remains a mystery. Whether it was an accidental fall, a deliberate act of self-mutilation or a sinister murder, the Big Pen case continues to intrigue and baffle experts and the public. It stands as a testament to the complexities of forensic science and the importance of rigorous, unbiased investigations in the pursuit of justice. What do you guys think happened? I'm very curious to hear your opinions. Thank you so much for joining me. If you enjoyed this episode of the Lowest Crime, be sure to subscribe and leave a review. Also, don't forget to follow the Lowest Crime on Instagram to get all images related to the case. I look forward to seeing you in the next one.
