following EO documentary 'The plot'

The EO's controversial documentary, 'The Conspiracy', also features the TBKK, the police's TeamBestrijding Kinderporno en Kindersekstoerisme. In it, an interview with an employee of the TBKK is used to support the undermining of the Argos documentaries on organised sadistic abuse. In a open letter To the EO, I addressed this in substance.

Seeing the team TBKK in the documentary reminded me of my own experiences with this team. My personal conclusion from these experiences is that it is quite understandable that victims of srm do not dare to speak freely with this team. In this blog, I want to share my findings with you.

On a Monday afternoon in 2021, two team members from the TBKK showed up at my doorstep unannounced, in response to the website's www.lichtopsrm.com which had not been online very long at the time. I had a home practice at the time, and the two team members from the TBKK arrived exactly at the time I normally received a victim of srm for therapy. That particular Monday afternoon was an exception to this. I was very surprised to hear from my husband that two officers had turned up on my doorstep unannounced. Why not just call or email for an appointment, surely that is much more obvious in such a situation? Besides, anyone who knows anything about srm knows about the tremendous anxiety of victims when police show up on their doorstep unexpectedly, and it was clear that I had home practice. I found this strange.

Following this, this police team contacted me by phone. Their request was for supporting evidence from one of the survivors I work with to be provided to them so that they could investigate. In consultation with the client in question, I began discussions with them to explore the possibility of doing so.

When asked, the TBKK investigator indicated that their research did not comply with certain rules, so it could not be completely shielded within the police data processing system. When I asked whether senior members of the judiciary could then access the information, the detective indicated that he did not know; he thought that certain data analysts in particular with a high level of authorisation would be able to access the information. In doing so, he indicated that the 'heads of justice' were far removed from the shop floor, that he did not know whether they had the authorisation and the skills and abilities to be able to get in. I found that a curious and vague answer and strange that he indicated that he didn't know quite who could access the information.

He also indicated that if hard evidence emerged that high-ranking officers were involved, it could be reconsidered to shield the investigation altogether from perusal by other police employees. In short, senior police officers, some of whom are named by victims as perpetrators, are very likely to be able to access the information. Only if evidence of involvement of certain high-ranking officers is provided, and if this is investigated, can the investigation be shielded.

For victims of srm, this is a very unsafe investigative setting. After all, if other police staff and very likely high-ranking people also have access to information that victims provide, it means -from their perspective- that there is a very good chance that the perpetrator network is aware of what they have told police. Victims talk about how they are punished in the perpetrator network based on this kind of 'leakage', for example when they report to police.  

In addition, because survivors report knowing people from police, it was important to know who were on the TBKK's team. When the supervisor I spoke to about this blatantly contradicted himself within one phone call about who was on his team, an uncomfortable situation arose in the conversation. The investigator promised that for further information a concerned prosecutor would contact me, but I never heard back from this. It was now clear to the survivor that even the TBKK was not a place she dared entrust her supporting evidence to.

Aline Terpstra