The Lowest Crime
A European true crime podcast about cases that happened in the Netherlands.
The Lowest Crime
Marianne Vaatstra: The 14-Year Search for Truth in a Cold Case Mystery
In this episode, we delve into the tragic case of Marianne Vaatstra, a vibrant 16-year-old from Friesland whose life was cut short on May 1st, 1999. We’ll explore how the initial investigation was marred by unfounded suspicions against asylum seekers and the challenges faced in the pursuit of justice. With advancements in DNA testing, we discuss how new evidence ultimately led to the capture of the real murderer. Join us as we unravel this haunting cold case and reflect on its lasting impact on the community.
Follow The Lowest Crime on instagram to get all images related to the case: https://www.instagram.com/thelowestcrime/
Hi and welcome to another episode of the Lowest Crime, a podcast about the most notorious Dutch true crime cases. I am Eline and today we'll talk about the case of Marianne Vaatstra. This case is very well known in the Netherlands, in part because it remained unsolved for such a long time. Before we start, please be advised that today's episode contains details of violence and sexual assault that some listeners may find disturbing. And even though I try my very 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. So let's dive in.
Speaker 1:Marianne Imke Vaatstra was born on August 10th 1982, in the quiet village of Zwaagwesteinde in Friesland. She was the youngest in a large family, with two older brothers and three older sisters. She was the youngest in a large family, with two older brothers and three older sisters. Her parents, father Bauke Vaatstra and mother Maaike Terpstra, were loving and supportive. Marianne, being the youngest, got quite pampered by the rest of the family. From a young age, marianne was full of life. She loved being with her friends and was known for always being cheerful. She had a passion for music and was always the life of the party. Marianne's big dream was to become a hairdresser and she therefore loved experimenting with different hairstyles.
Speaker 1:On April 30th 1999, 16-year-old Marianne was excited to celebrate Queen's Day, a national holiday in the Netherlands. After working all day, she looked forward to a night out with her friends. Marianne planned to meet her boyfriend, spencer, and another friend, wietse, at the Paradiso bar in the nearby town of Colum. Marianne arrived at the bar around midnight. The bar was filled with people who had been celebrating all day and Marianne, who had just finished work, felt out of place. After a few minutes they decided to leave the bar and head to Spencer's hometown of Buitepost, five kilometers away. They rode their bicycles with Marianne sitting on the back of Spencer's bike. When they reached Buitepost around 1am, the boys decided to steal a bicycle from Marianne so she could go home. This was quite out of character for Marianne. She had discussed with her parents that she would take a taxi home, but despite being afraid of the dark and reluctant to cycle alone, marianne set off on her bike alone into the night. This would be the last time anyone would ever see her alive.
Speaker 1:The next morning, on May 1st 1999, mariana's parents realized that she had not returned home. Panicked, her father Bauke called Mariana's best friend, afi, who confirmed that Mariana had not stayed with her. Deeply concerned, afi and her boyfriend, as well as Afi's little sister, started to search for Mariana. Their search led them to Veenkloster, where Afi spotted something shiny in the grass. It was the handlebar of a bicycle there dumped in a ditch. They found Mariana's bike there, dumped in a ditch. They found Mariana's bike. Afi's boyfriend ventured further into the adjacent field while Afi and her sister stayed in the car. Here he made a horrifying discovery Mariana's lifeless body. She was found laying on her stomach, partially undressed. Her throat had been slashed and she had been strangled with her own bra. Later forensic examinations revealed that she had also been sexually assaulted. The sight was devastating, and the fact that it was her friends finding her added to the trauma.
Speaker 1:The news of Marianne's murder spread rapidly through the small village of Zwaagwesteinde and beyond. The community was in shock, unable to comprehend the brutal crime that had shattered their peaceful existence. The Vaatstra family was overwhelmed with grief and the entire village mourned the loss of the bright and cheerful teenager. The police quickly established a special investigative team to handle the case. The area where Mariana's body was found was thoroughly examined and forensic experts collected DNA evidence from the crime scene. But despite this crucial evidence, the investigation faced significant challenges from the get-go. Early in the investigation, attention turned to the nearby as seeker center AZC in Colum, housing around 400 refugees. Given the proximity to the crime scene and existing prejudices within the community, many residents quickly blamed the asylum seekers for Mariana's murder. The idea that a local resident could commit such a terrible act seemed unimaginable to many, especially the way her throat was slashed. That was only something an outsider would do.
Speaker 1:In August of 1999, the police focused on two asylum seekers who had left the Azatze shortly after the murder, renowned Dutch crime journalist Peter R de Vries showed the pictures and full names of the two former residents of the AZC in his crime watch show. The fact that the two men, one marked as a suspect and the other a witness, had disappeared from the center on the day of the murder seemed to substantiate and legitimize earlier rumors. Although the public prosecutor stressed that one of them, ali H, was marked as a suspect and not the perpetrator, in media reports he had already been convicted of the crime. The incrimination of Ali H became a true trial by media. When Ali H was arrested in Istanbul on October of 1999, it was insinuated by the media that his place of residence confirmed his presumed guilt. He did not pick another European country where his fingerprints would have been filed in police computers. No, he must have traveled over land with a false passport, since those are easily attainable through criminal organizations. Ali H was thus guilty until proven innocent. However, he was exonerated when his DNA profile did not match the DNA that was found on the crime scene. Nevertheless, ali H continued to figure in the media as a suspect in the Wadstra case In 2007 and 2010,. It was repeatedly suggested that the man arrested in 1999 was not the right Ali.
Speaker 1:The idea that an asylum seeker had murdered Mariana never disappeared from the media. The belief that the perpetrator was an asylum seeker actually continued to gain traction, leading to increased hostility towards the AZC. Demonstrations and protests were held, with some residents calling for the closure of the center. The situation escalated to the point where the AZC required additional security to protect its residents from potential violence. But it was not just the AZC facing false accusations. Another suspect, a local man named Peter, was also investigated after a neighbor reported seeing him with bloodstained clothing on the night of the murder. However, this turned out to be a false lead as well, and Pieter was cleared through DNA testing.
Speaker 1:The repeated focus on individuals who were ultimately innocent hindered the investigation and caused unnecessary distress. The investigation and caused unnecessary distress. As the investigation struggled to make progress, peter R de Vries became more involved, bringing national focus to the case. He urged the public to come forward with any information and highlighted the need for a thorough investigation. The Vaatstra family, desperate for answers, supported the Vries efforts. Bauke Waadstra, marianne's father, made emotional appeals to the public and authorities, pleading for justice for his daughter. The intense media coverage kept the case in the public eye, but it also led to misinformation and heightened tensions.
Speaker 1:Despite the challenges, the investigation team continued their work. In June 2002, the police released a criminal profile suggesting that the perpetrator was likely a white European man. At about the same time, the results of the analysis of six behavioral experts were also made public. They concluded that the perpetrator most likely lived within a radius of 15 kilometers from the crime scene. This shift in focus marked a significant change in the direction of the investigation. In October 2000, there was a call for a large-scale DNA investigation involving nearly 20,000 men in Colum and surrounding areas. However, this proposal faced political resistance. Nonetheless, around 900 men voluntarily provided DNA samples, but no matches were found Between 2004 and 2012,. Numerous police investigations yielded no significant results. The Wadstra family grew increasingly frustrated, accusing the authorities for mishandling the case.
Speaker 1:In 2007, the police and the public prosecutor's office took a fresh look at the case by April 2012,. New legislation allowed for kinship DNA testing, raising hopes for a breakthrough. Investigators aimed to find a match in the DNA database that could lead them to the perpetrator's family. In May 2012, the police suggested that Mariana's killer might actually have been somebody she knew who lived nearby. This theory was supported by a lighter found in Mariana's bag, which had DNA matching that found on her body. The investigation progressed, but no direct matches were found. On June 22nd 2012, it was announced that the DNA database did not contain any direct relatives to the perpetrator. The public prosecutor's office then expressed a desire to conduct a large-scale kinship DNA investigation among local men.
Speaker 1:The introduction of new legislation in 2012 allowed for that kinship DNA testing, which was a pivotal moment. This type of testing can identify relatives of a DNA profile found at the crime scene, significantly expanding the pool of potential suspects. The large-scale DNA screening conducted in Friesland was one of the first of its kind in the country and set a precedent for future cases. In September and October of 2012, a massive DNA screening was conducted, involving thousands of men from the surrounding area. Over 7,300 men were invited to provide DNA samples voluntarily, with a participation rate of about 90%.
Speaker 1:Everyone was desperate to finally find the one who was responsible for Mariana's death death On November 19th 2012,. Crime journalist Peter R de Vries tweeted early in the morning that a 100% DNA match had been found. This meant that it was not just a relative of the perpetrator who had given his DNA, but the actual murderer himself. The suspect was identified as 45-year-old Jasper S, a dairy farmer from Oudwoude, a village less than two and a half kilometers from where Marianne was murdered. He said that he had voluntarily given his DNA because he knew his family was doing the same, meaning that he would get caught anyway.
Speaker 1:Jasper S was arrested at his farm and taken into custody. During police interrogations, he confessed to the murder of Marianne Vaatstra. He explained that on the night of April 30th 1999, he cycled around the countryside to clear his head. He met Marianne when she was cycling home alone. After the night out To have sex with her, he pulled her off her bicycle. Mariana resisted and while Jasper S held his hand over her mouth, she bit his finger. Jasper then put a knife to her throat and took her over to the meadow Behind a tree wall. He brutally raped Mariana. He then turned Mariana onto her stomach and strangled her with her bra. When he realized she was still breathing, he lifted her head and slit her neck three times. Marianne died from a combination of strangulation and massive blood loss. When Jasper heard the blood flowing, he left. The confession provided the long-awaited answers to Marianne's family and the community and, while it brought some closure, it also raised new questions about how such a crime could be committed by someone who had lived among them for such a long time without suspicion.
Speaker 1:Jasper S was charged with the rape and murder of Marianne Vaatstra. His trial began in 2013 and he pleaded guilty to the charges. Jasper's confession, while providing answers, also left gaps that did not fully satisfy Marianne's grieving family. He claimed that on the night of April 30th 1999, he was under significant stress due to marital and work-related issues, which led him to take the late-night bike ride. According to Jasper, upon seeing Marianne, an uncontrollable impulse took over Jasper. Upon seeing Marianne, an uncontrollable impulse took over. After he assaulted her in a nearby field, he realized the gravity of his actions and feared that she would report him. This made him panic and to silence her, he decided to kill her. The community was shocked by the revelation that Jasper, a seemingly normal dairy farmer, a husband and father, could commit such a horrible crime. His actions left a permanent scar on the community and on Marianna's family. During the trial, the prosecutor deemed Jasper fully accountable for his actions and the court sentenced him to 18 years in prison, slightly less than the 20 years requested by the prosecution. Jasper expressed remorse during his final statement, hoping his confession and conviction would provide some closure to Marianne's family. However, the family remained unsatisfied, as Jasper's confession left many questions unanswered and his story contained inconsistencies. His trial and subsequent imprisonment meant that justice was finally served, yet it could never undo the pain and loss experienced by Marianne's loved ones.
Speaker 1:Marianne's murder took place against the backdrop of a changing Dutch society grappling with issues of immigration and integration. The proximity of the crime scene to the asylum seeker center in Colum fueled existing prejudices and tensions. The case became a focal point for debates about the presence of asylum seekers in small communities, often overshadowing the primary goal of finding Marianna's killer. For years, the case was mired in speculation and conspiracy theories. Some believed that the authorities were covering up the involvement of asylum seekers to avoid public unrest. This belief was so strong that it persisted even after DNA evidence cleared the suspect from the asylum center. The fixation on this theory hindered the investigation and diverted attention from other possible leads. The breakthrough in Mariana's case was largely due to advantages in forensic science, particularly in DNA profiling and kinship testing forensic science, particularly in DNA profiling and kinship testing. In 1999, when the crime occurred, dna technology was still developing and large-scale DNA screenings were not yet common practice in the Netherlands. The successful resolution of the case through kinship DNA testing demonstrated the effectiveness of this method and paved the way for its use in other investigations. It also highlighted the importance of community cooperation in solving crimes, showing how collective efforts can lead to breakthroughs that might otherwise be impossible.
Speaker 1:Through the years of investigation, marianne's family endured immense emotional strain. Bauke Vaatstra in particular, who had become a public figure, tirelessly advocated for justice for his daughter. His public appeals and engagement with the media kept the case in the spotlight and underscored the personal devastation behind the headlines. The eventual arrest and conviction of Jasper S brought a complex mix of relief and continued pain. While the family finally had answers, the reality of Marianne's death and the manner in which it occurred remained a source of deep sorrow.
Speaker 1:The community, too, was left to grapple with the fact that the perpetrator had lived among them undetected for so long. The fact that the perpetrator had lived among them undetected for so long. The Marianne Vaatstra case shows how we all have to be careful with our prejudices, with the unfair accusations wasting valuable time. It also shows, however, that with persistence and new forensic developments, crimes can be solved even after such a long time, giving hope to other families desperately waiting for answers. Thank you all so much for listening. Be sure to subscribe and leave a review, and also don't forget to follow the podcast on Instagram to find all images related to the case. I look forward to seeing you in the next one.
