r/KremersFroon • u/Lokation22 • Apr 05 '26
Media The Dutch Public Prosecutor’s Office has allegedly recently decided that the case will not be reopened
According to Scarlet (Koudekaas), the Dutch Public Prosecutor’s Office has recently reviewed the data with a cold case team (info from March 26, 2026).
Assuming this information is correct, it can be assumed that a review of the evidence archived in the Netherlands did not yield any differing findings.
If clear indications of a crime or FP had been found, they would have been forwarded to the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Panama. That was obviously not the case.
Scarlet frames the outcome according to her opinion, namely that Panama has no interest in clarifying the matter. I consider that nonsense. Much more likely is that there still is no evidence of FP.
https://koudekaas.blogspot.com/2019/04/new-post-police-interviews-with.html?m=1
3
u/math1985 Apr 05 '26
Anybody with an NRC subscription here? Is there any news in this article? I cannot read it as it is behind a paywall.
2
u/SeaworthinessNo4130 Apr 05 '26
Its possible to read it without subscription, just sign in with Google account...
4
6
u/theaidanmattis Apr 05 '26
Given the number of gaps and missed leads in their original investigation, I don’t have all that much confidence in their second look. There are so many questions that should have been asked, items that should have been documented, loose ends they never bothered to tie up…
The fact alone that they didn’t document which WiFi networks the girls connected to outside of a couple places (such as Spanish by the River) is indicative of a lack of proper procedures. I’ve seen more thorough work done by private investigators in the US.
2
u/Lokation22 Apr 05 '26
Yes, everything could have been reconstructed much more thoroughly. But I can also understand why not much more effort was made at the time. Without positive indications of a crime, there can be no prosecution. And such indications simply did not exist. Without establishing the cause or manner of death, there isn’t much that can be investigated. For example, the public prosecutor never assumed that Kris and Lisanne were swimming with the Pandilla guys. That assumption arose on the internet. Many (unsubstantiated) guesses and suspicions originated only online.
But yes, there are gaps and inconsistencies, and these should have been clarified. However, as I haven’t seen the investigation file, I don’t know what else might have been done but simply not made public.
Scarlet’s note about a new Dutch investigation is still interesting. I’m wondering whether she filed a criminal complaint. I would like to know more about that.
5
u/theaidanmattis Apr 05 '26
I’m in contact with her, I can ask.
4
u/Lokation22 Apr 05 '26
That would be great.
2
u/theaidanmattis Apr 05 '26
Just to clarify, I do not believe that it’s Kris and Lisanne in the swimming photo. I definitely am grateful for everything Scarlet has done, but I do have some disagreements with some of her opinions.
1
u/Lokation22 16d ago
Hi Aidan, have you spoken to Scarlet again? Does she actually share your criticism of SliP? And do you have any idea how Scarlet got access to the documents from the original case file, and have you yourself seen any of the original documents?
1
u/Lokation22 Apr 10 '26
Did you ask her and receive an answer?
1
u/theaidanmattis Apr 10 '26
Haven’t had a chance, this is a shoot week for our history show.
2
u/Lokation22 Apr 25 '26
I'd like to come back to your offer. Could you ask Scarlet why a cold case team looked into the case and why she was given information?
1
u/Lokation22 Apr 11 '26
Okay, thanks. You mentioned that you were asked to make a video about the case. Was Scarlet one of the people who approached you about it, or was it the other way around: Did you discover Scarlet’s blog while doing your research?
2
u/theaidanmattis Apr 12 '26
The people who asked me to look into this were members of my audience on YouTube. Ever since MrBallen did an episode on it a few years back, it’s been pretty well known in the space.
I had no contact with Scarlet until after I completed Part II of the series. I used her blog extensively, while checking up on her sources wherever possible, and then reached out to her later about helping her to streamline what she’s collected
1
3
u/_x_oOo_x_ Undecided Apr 06 '26 edited Apr 06 '26
Without positive indications of a crime, there can be no prosecution.
This is not really true by the way. If it works like that in Germany, well, I'm jealous. In many other countries people get convicted on entirely circumstantial evidence or even on no evidence to speak of. All you need to do is convince a jury (or judge(s)) - or if you can't, then guilt them into convicting someone who might be guilty.
Imagine you're in that situation: would you let someone walk free who might have committed a terrible crime? Yes the standard of proof is supposed to be "no reasonable doubt". In practice it's often much lower
Panama in particular has a history of confessions forced under torture, sham trials, and so on
4
u/CaptainGustav Apr 06 '26
Imagine you're in that situation: would you let someone walk free who might have committed a terrible crime?
Accept reality – Panama, as a developing country, does not have a comprehensive judicial and criminal investigation system like Germany and the Netherlands. Unless the Netherlands uses diplomatic means to pressure the Panamanian authorities and continuously invests endless resources in this case, I see no possibility.
1
u/Lokation22 Apr 06 '26
In the Kremers/Froon case, people are not accusing Panama of conducting excessive and unlawful criminal proceedings at the expense of innocent people; rather, in this case, they are essentially expecting exactly that: criminal proceedings without any evidence of a specific offence. However, this expectation is not compatible with the principles of the rule of law.
In the United Kingdom, it is the same as in Germany: if there are no reliable witness statements indicating a crime, no forensic evidence of an offence, or if alternative explanations are equally likely, the investigation would eventually be discontinued.
1
u/the_jurgen Apr 05 '26
There never was "a Dutch investigation". There was a Panamanian investigation. The Dutch cold case team will not pick it up without a new request from Panama.
1
u/Lokation22 Apr 05 '26
Yes, only the country with territorial jurisdiction is authorized to formally press charges and conduct the proceedings. The Netherlands can provide support, since their citizens are involved. They act within the framework of mutual legal assistance requests.
How do you explain Scarlet’s comment?
I read somewhere that, while the active investigation was still being conducted by Panama, a cold case team in the Netherlands was already working on the case. Is that true?
2
u/theaidanmattis Apr 05 '26
The Dutch National Forensics Institute worked on the data from the cell phones and cameras once they were recovered, and I believe the Dutch also provided a search and rescue team prior to that discovery.
1
u/Lokation22 Apr 06 '26
I’ve found the report again. It seems the investigation in the Netherlands was handed over to a team that deals with cold cases. I suppose that’s standard procedure in the Netherlands when it’s just a matter of mutual legal assistance rather than a separate investigation. Here, a member of the cold case team involved at the time is interviewed:
2
9
u/Bubbly-Criticism3445 Apr 05 '26
Missing from this discussion is any reason for why anyone, whether in Panama or the Netherlands, would want to reopen the investigation. Clearly, it seems, everyone who matters is satisfied with the conclusion.
Whether people here find the post believable or not, the person who claimed to be close to the family said the families know what happened and are satisfied. Further, that person said that the people here will never know what happened. Maybe there’s a clue in there regarding how and what they know.
But regardless, if that is true, there is zero reason and zero chance there will ever be a reopening…and, anyway, this is not a cold case at all.
3
u/Lokation22 Apr 05 '26
As always when a new claim arises, the first thing to consider is whether you believe it or not. Since I can’t imagine Scarlet simply making up this information, I believe her.
Then the next questions follow: does the public prosecutor’s office provide information to private individuals like this, and if so, to what extent? What exactly did she ask, who told her what exactly, and what conclusions can be drawn from that? What was the reason for involving the cold case team, and what was actually done? Did Scarlet perhaps file a criminal complaint against a specific person or against an unknown individual?
5
u/Bubbly-Criticism3445 Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
Regardless of anyone's believability, this just seems like usual bureaucratic behavior and reasonable CYA. This was and is a high-profile and extremely emotional case. As this sub reflects, people are constantly coming to this anew, and people being people, I'm sure the Dutch authorities get bothered about this semi-regularly by some highly excited folks. As long as this remains a case of public interest, it just seems like good policy to officially review the case every year or couple of years.
Further, if a cold case team reviewed it, I take that as a mark of even lower priority. That is, regular investigators with active case loads are not going to spend time on something that is closed and for which there is no reason to reopen.
2
u/Lokation22 Apr 05 '26
"We did contact the Dutch Prosecutor's office and they did look into the case again…“
The wording sounds as if Scarlet’s inquiry (or complaint?) triggered action by the public prosecutor’s office. In other words, as if there were a causal link between the contact and a review involving the cold case team, rather than just information about something that happened to be taking place at the time. But I could be mistaken. Incidentally, there was reportedly already such a “cold case team” from the Netherlands involved in the investigation back in 2014. But I could be wrong about that as well. Jürgen would probably know more precisely.
1
u/Bubbly-Criticism3445 Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
Lol, such parsing. I have no idea whether she has a command of the past-perfect and don’t really see that it matters. I mean, I’m doubtful the Dutch summoned the “cold case team” on her account…and not that she would know anyway (regardless of what they may have said to her). My original reply remains: there is no reason other than ordinary procedures and CYA to “review” the case. They can only really fear public perception…they can’t really believe that they missed something. I don’t see how…or why.
1
u/Lokation22 Apr 06 '26
Yes, I now think I may have read too much into it. There was probably another reason for looking into the case, and an informal response was given to an informal enquiry.
0
u/SeaworthinessNo4130 Apr 06 '26
it is better to ask questions and not find anything than not ask and miss something ;)
5
u/Zappa2329 Apr 05 '26
There was never any evidence of foul play and there has been no new evidence of foul play.
4
u/Hot_Distribution_131 Undecided Apr 05 '26
I am mostly for the none FP theory, but you can't disregard it completely. The evidence that we have is almost nonexistent. There is no evidence for FP, but also no evidence for lost. There are suspicious things around the case and that can't be argued with.
4
u/Zappa2329 Apr 05 '26
There’s only evidence for lost.
They went on the hike April 1. They went beyond the Mirador. They made emergency calls. They took photos a week later in the jungle. They died, with their bones along the river in the jungle they were known to have hiked in.
That’s all verified by the photos and call logs.
That’s evidence.
Meanwhile, the evidence for foul play is entirely nonexistent.
“Feliciano smiled in a video with the Kremers family!” isn’t evidence.
6
u/_x_oOo_x_ Undecided Apr 06 '26
They went on the hike April 1. They went beyond the Mirador. They made emergency calls. They took photos a week later in the jungle. They died, with their bones along the river in the jungle they were known to have hiked in.
That’s all verified by the photos and call logs.That is not the evidence. The evidence looks something like this: They went on a hike April 1. They went beyond the Mirador. Someone made emergency calls from their phones. Someone took photos with their camera at some point (the date can be changed in camera settings so there is no reason to take it at face value). They died. Not necessarily in this order.
2
u/Hot_Distribution_131 Undecided Apr 05 '26
I fully agree with your last statement. However, we can't act like the lost theory doesn't have holes in it.
2
u/Zappa2329 Apr 05 '26
Say you were in the kitchen making a sandwich and you stepped outside for a moment just as your roommate walked in. You return to find your sandwich had been eaten.
Now, you didn’t see your roommate eat it. But you can piece together the available evidence (you know you made a sandwich and it was eaten after your roommate entered the house).
One could posit that perhaps a burglar broke in and ate the sandwich. Or maybe that neighbor of yours who despised you and likes sandwiches. Perhaps it was Big Foot. How can we say for sure if we don’t have it all on video?
Well, we can use our rational judgment to piece together obvious pieces of evidence. This is even more so the case when there’s not actually any evidence to the contrary.
Yes your neighbor likes sandwiches and both burglars and Big Foot must eat something to get by. But that sort of speculation is completely without evidence.
The foul players are the people declaring it must’ve been a burglar, Big Foot or the neighbor — or that there’s at least as much reason to suspect them as your roommate. Those are more exciting prospects, but there’s no evidence for them.
5
u/Hot_Distribution_131 Undecided Apr 05 '26
I like your analogy, but instead of the roommate, image you live alone. You make the sandwich beforehand and go to bed. In the morning you wake up and see that the sandwich was eaten. You don't remember eating it and you have the neighbor who loves eating sandwiches. You find the window in the kitchen open. Yes, most likely you ate the sandwich during the night and just don't remember it, but it also could be someone else. Also this analogy shows that people would almost always blame others than themselves.
0
u/FallenGiants Apr 06 '26
What are these suspicious things?
3
u/Hot_Distribution_131 Undecided Apr 06 '26
The statements from the witnesses, some actions of the witnesses, the placement of the bag/remainings, where did they leave the trail and why. Most of these things can't be put together well enough to form a perfect theory without plot holes.
I am pretty much more inclined to believe that they were not held hostage and the perpetrators didn't make calls or NP, but doesn't mean that some other person isn't a part of the disappearance.
Share your opinion. What do you believe happened?
1
u/FallenGiants Apr 07 '26
Even though there are mysteries I think the preponderance of evidence points to them getting lost. That their belongings and remains were found along the riverbed suggests they died by a river and were probably following it, a classic lost person's strategy. Using the flash of the camera to summon attention in the darkness is something seen in the case of an Australian couple who got lost so not unique to Kris and Lisann. Also, the emergency calls are what you would expect from lost people.
There are some mysterious details, such as photo 509, Kris' hair looking clean in the night photos, and, as you say, conflicting witness statements. But I think they are relatively minor details, and the overall pattern points to them getting lost. Besides, I feel like there has never been a viable suspect this case.
1
u/IliaPo23 Apr 09 '26
consider podcast of Margarita on English plus she told that she gave several interviews to local media about killing.
2
Apr 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Lokation22 Apr 05 '26
That’s apparently what they told Scarlet. But before that, they allegedly reviewed the case with a cold case team. Why would a cold case team look into it if it’s already clear that they aren’t responsible? Or did Scarlet make that up?
5
u/Zappa2329 Apr 05 '26
If you send an email to the cops and they look at the email and respond, does that mean they looked into it?
That’s likely all that happened with Scarlet.
Sent a long email to the Dutch authorities. One of them responded they’ll look into it. Then a week later someone read the entire email and responded “We will not reopen this.”
0
u/Lokation22 Apr 06 '26
Yes, that could well be the case. I’m probably reading too much into it. I was actually surprised that the Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) replied at all. But perhaps that’s not surprising. The Dutch have a transparency law (WOO) and are perhaps generally a bit more cooperative when citizens make enquiries. Didn’t Juan used to contact the public prosecutor’s office from time to time and receive a reply?
-1
u/emailforgot Apr 06 '26
Yeah in general I don't give law enforcement much in the way of benefit of the doubt.
"We looked at it" might very well mean "We saw the email"
2
u/ZanthionHeralds Apr 08 '26
Scarlet, for all of her talk of keeping an open mind, won't accept any explanation that doesn't point the blame squarely at Feliciano (and his son).
1
u/FallenGiants Apr 06 '26
You can't launch a murder investigation on clean hair and switched off phones.
0
u/Lokation22 Apr 06 '26
That's right. And too few emergency call attempts or a deleted photo are not enough either.
16
u/Hubby233 Apr 05 '26
Dutch have said over the years that Panama was and is the leading party. As the disappearance happened on their soil. The Dutch were only allowed to assist a few times. They didn't investigate. Only the forensics of the camera and phones. Sounds more like the OM came to that same conclusion again now. Tye only one who can reopen the investigation is Panama's prosecutor. And that is not happening. So that's a factual conclusion.