Rrman, you just ain't seen nothin' yet.... I tell you, your Monica-grope-story is a B tear-jerker when compared to our hardcore sex-scandals....
Strasbourg, 14 February 2000
Dear Colleague,
More than three years after the arrest of M. Dutroux, a growing number of Belgian citizens are beginning to doubt the real will of the authorities to get to the bottom of what has become known as the Dutroux-Nihoul affair, although it actually involves a very long series of abductions, acts of torture and rape, and child killings. These doubts emerge very clearly in a survey published last week (Le Monde, 1 February 2000) which shows that 72 % of Belgian citizens have no faith in the judicial system of their country.
Moreover, there are elements that suggest that we cannot exclude the possibility of links between this affair and various other criminal cases which have characterised the Belgian scene over the last twenty years, and on which the Belgian police have not been able to cast any light.
I strongly believe that this affair, due to the extreme gravity of the crimes involved, its many implications, its duration and the context of impunity that surrounds it, deserves our full attention.
To this end, I have decided to circulate information on the issue: although only partial, I believe it can help to collocate the affair within a wider context, thus making the various hitches that have gradually led to a genuine cover-up more comprehensible.
I remain at your disposal for any further information, and invite you to let me know whether you would give your support to an initiative that the European Parliament could take with respect to this affair, and, more generally, with respect to the issue of the abduction and murder of children within the European Union.
Yours sincerely,
Olivier Dupuis
THE KING'S BACKACHE
In Belgium the gaff's always open as soon as it's blown.
Alternative Libertaire, issue 225, February 2000
Tribune Libre: ( users.skynet.be )
Three months ago a young biographer created a scandal by making allusions to the fact that [Belgium King] Albert II has an illegitimate daughter. The next day, many of the papers published a complete dossier on Delphine Bo‰l, an artist in London. Others announced that they would not publish what they knew. All of them, however, had clearly known for a long time. Two months later, in his [1999] Christmas message, Albert II talked of the crisis which our marriage passed through over thirty years ago, a period which we have recently been reminded of. The clearest acknowledgement possible of Delphine. Those who have still not understood never will.
The fact that Prince Laurent is not Albert's son is not officially acknowledged. Laurent himself, however, does not make much effort to hide the fact: I know I have been treated as a bastard. But despite this, I wasn't there the day I was conceived! So I can't say - and I never have said - that I am not the King's son [La DerniŠre Heure, 30/10/98]. We await Albert's next Christmas message, if any.
Since Belgium can cope with everything, and since we are dealing with open secrets, why don't we go back to the most interesting one: the relation between the Dutroux affair and the Royal Palace? This obliges us to go beyond the picture - updated though it may be - of the Royal Family.
Delphine was the fruit of a marital crisis that belongs to the "private life" of Albert and Paola. This is the toned-down version of the story. In actual fact the crisis has lasted over thirty years, and its consequences go far beyond the private sphere. It is common knowledge - although no-one says so openly - that Albert has always appreciated the company of prostitutes, both in Ostend over thirty years ago (when he created a scandal at the La Renomm‚e Hotel) and recently in Cannes, where a call-girl, whom he had offered Cartier jewels, robbed him of his cheque-book after his hurried return to Brussels following Dutroux's escape [Le Soir 29/5/98; La Libre Belgique 30/5/98; La DerniŠre Heure 6/6/98].
Recourse to prostitutes, as we know, is a royal tradition. Leopold II, the nephew of Queen Victoria, was the client of an English prostitution ring specialising in very young girls. Later he met Caroline, a 16-year-old prostitute, whom he married under the name Baroness Vaughan [Baroness Vaughan, Presque Reine, Le Cri, 1998; A. Hochschild, King Leopold's Ghost, p. 221-224.].
On the subject of Leopold III, the Chief of German Security in Belgium during the war, Gen. Canaris, stated during questioning that he had served the King by undertaking certain missions of a private character to Knokke and Berchtersgaden; these missions were what we now call an "escort service", that is procuring prostitutes [E. Raskin, Princesse Lilian, ‚ditions Luc Pire, 1999, p. 109; Le Peuple et Le Monde du Travail 25/4/49].
It is not the private aspect of this sort of conduct that should attract our attention, but its social and political repercussions. The statute of the King has two consequences. In order to conserve his moral authority, these misconducts must be kept hidden, which leads to the development of a double language and a double face; moreover - and this is much more serious - the democratic institutions are regularly diverted to cover up royal misdemeanours and to enforce the law of silence.
Thus, for example, in 1949 King Leopold's secretary informed the Minister of Justice of the King's desire to prevent the divulgation of those parts of the Canaris file regarding the private life of the King and the Royal Family during the Occupation [Archives G‚n‚rales du Royaume, M‚moires in‚dites of Jacques Pirenne, p. 535]. Fifty years later - despite the abdication of Leopold III - it is still not possible to consult these sections, while the files of the period have never been subject to such censoring [E. Raskin, Princesse Lilian, ‚ditions Luc Pire, 1999, p. 108].
The inviolability of the Sovereign, guaranteed by the Constitution, allows him to satisfy his most perverse desires. This leads to the probable expansion of both his debauchery and the cover-up provided by the institutions. What relation does all this have with the Dutroux-Nihoul case (1)? Buried in the sea of data on this case, two short articles have pointed to the link between the current events and the old Ballets Roses [ie Circus Love] affair (2). The police have apparently discovered that many of the names that feature in the old address-books of the wife of Dr. Pinon - thanks to whom the Ballets Roses scandal exploded - are also present in the address-books of Michel Nihoul. This is why the police apparently reopened the Ballets Roses file [Dimanche Matin, 2/2/97]. Another anonymous article in Le Soir claims that Nihoul's company supplied sea-food products to various bars, including Le Dolo (3), but also a golf club in Wavre (...) [Le Soir, 4/4/97]. The very golf club that was one of the venues of the Ballets Roses orgies.
Once again what matters in this affair is not private conduct, but the social and political role of the figures. These orgies, it should be remembered, were said to have been attended by leading exponents of the world of politics, business, the military, and the judicial system, like VDB (4), Prince Albert, [Gendarmerie] General Beaurir, [real-estate tycoon] Blaton and [shady politico] Guy Mathot (5) [J. Mottard, R. Haquin, Les Tueries du Brabant, ‚ditions Complexe, 1990, p. 207; PV 15.538-348/81]. We should also remember the fire at the Pour newspaper in 1981, as it was about to publish an interview with a woman who had participated in the orgies and had named the well-known figures. After the fire, Jean-Claude Garot, the chief-editor of Pour, gave the police a recording of the interview which - after passing through the hands of Superintendent Marnette (6) - turned out to be impossible to decipher. Shortly after the fire, Garot found a way to settle in the USA and set up a new business. Dr. Pinon, who had revealed that his wife took part in these orgies, was persecuted (with tax inspections, INAMI inspections, death threats, etc.). His wife, who boasted of being the best blow-jobber in North Brabant, had a successful career as the secretary of Jean Gol (7), then of De Donnea (8). As for the file, it has collected dust in the archives of the Courts.
What was shocking in these files was not the orgies between consenting adults - including princes - but the testimonies stating that minors took part and lost their lives in obscure circumstances. As Claude Semal has pointed out: It is possible to fight crime without false shame [Claude Semal, La triple alliance du crime, du secret et du silence, Alternative Libertaire 224, January 2000)]. However, a lack of zeal in the investigations has meant that these facts have not been cleared up. The most astonishing thing, to tell the truth, is not the contents of the Ballets Roses file, but the fact that a police file existed. For anyone who examines the open secrets of the last thirty years discovers many similar affairs that have not led to criminal proceedings. Like the encounter that took place in around 1980, in the presence of Albert, when the young lover of a certain Bebelle died during what he thought was an erotic game. Suicide, or erotic hanging, people whispered the next day at the Sablon [Brussels' posh district].
These perverse circles at the beginning of the 1980s were exactly those in which Nihoul, soon to call himself the Prince of the Night, was a dominant figure. In his "autobiography" Nihoul talks about orgies populated not only by businessmen and women, but also by politicians, lawyers, magistrates and even their wives, as well as by certain persons of both sexes belonging to the nobility [M. Nihoul, Rumeurs et v‚rit‚s, Dark and Light publication, 1998, p. 46]. Numerous sources confirm that the shady Prince crossed paths with the real Prince on numerous occasions. This is the scandal that had to be covered up at all costs. Patrick Moriau (9) was the first to hit the nail on the head - without knowing very much about it - when he spoke of the Nihoul's powerful protection within the entourage of the Royal Palace. [P. Moriau, Journal d'un commissaire, ‚ditions Luc Pire, p. 311]. The hate campaign and police surveillance to which he was subjected convinced him that he was right.
In a recent book [J. Noterman, La r‚publique du roi, 1999, p. 215], we read that X-Witnesses, in any case X1, allegedly recognised Albert among their torturers. This is incorrect as far as the testimony of X1 is concerned. But X1 does name a number of Albert's close friends, recently raised to the peerage, or members of the Privy Council and guests at the wedding of Philippe and Mathilde. While the testimony of X3 does implicate the royal family and undoubtedly constitutes the main cause of the cover-up of the Neufchƒteau enquiries [see: Jacques Bertin, Qui est l'inconnu de l'affaire Dutroux?, Politis 577 of 2/12/99 and A. Bult‚, D. De Coninck, MJ Van Heeswyck, Les dossiers X, Ce que la Belgique ne devait pas savoir sur l'affaire Dutroux, EPO, 1999]. Such is the reason of State that also explains the removal of [examining judge] Connerotte (10), the statement of public prosecutor Bourlet (11) (I will get to the bottom of it, if they let me), his being placed under surveillance, the anomalies in the enquiry about Julie and Melissa, the disappearance of witnesses, the removal of De Baets' team (12), and the release of Nihoul and his bragging. The fact that the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation, Jean-Marie Piret, is the former head of the King's staff may be related to the acceleration of the cover-up of the Dutroux affair.
At the same time as the enquiry into the abduction of children has come to a standstill, there are signs that the King is about to abdicate. The hurried engagement and marriage of Philippe and Mathilde (who has come from nowhere). The spectacular back pain of Albert II (nervous backache, he has confided to his closest friends). The royal couple have also bought a lavish property in the South of France.
Everything points to the fact that the King is about to go, neither seen nor recognised. Should he be allowed to do so? By virtue of the Constitution, the King is irresponsible. He is safe from any criminal action; he enjoys complete immunity; he is not liable to any form of repression or charges for crimes. But this principle of the irresponsibility and inviolability of the King goes hand in hand with ministerial responsibility. If the King has committed a deed judged to be serious enough for a minister not to agree to cover for him, the only sanction would be abdication [J. Noterman, La r‚publique du roi, p. 222].
Consequently, if it transpired that Albert's misconduct has served to protect Nihoul, VBD, Mathot and others, the government will have to stop covering up such misdoings (as the all-powerful CVP-PSC [coalition] has done for decades). A parliamentary Committee of Enquiry will also have to cast light on this network of protection and the King will eventually have to abdicate, without leaving behind those who have organised the system of cover-ups. The country will not fall apart because of this. On the contrary, the Belgian state and the people demand that the enquiry into the abduction and murder of children be completed. The impudence of an 18-year-old boy [Hugo Danneels] has fortunately shown us that we were not condemned to live under the law of silence.
Th‚s‚e
Notes
(1) Jean-Michel NIHOUL, a Brussels crook, lurking from the 1980s in certain business and political circles. Sentenced on various occasions for financial embezzlement. He was recognised by numerous witnesses at the site of the abduction of Laetitia Delhez in the company of Marc Dutroux 24 hours before the crime. According to many witnesses he was one of the main masterminds of the abduction, rape, torture and murder of children. Indicted in the context of the case of the child kidnappings, he was released on probation at the beginning of this year.
(2) "BALLETS ROSES", the name given to a scandal in the 1980s involving orgies attended by numerous well-known figures.
(3) LE DOLO, a caf‚ in Brussels, named on various occasions as a meeting place for persons linked to the disappearance and traffic of children.
(4) Paul VAN DEN BOEYNANTS, alias VDB, Christian Social Party, former Minister and Prime Minister.
(5) Guy MATHOT, Belgian politician, Socialist, former Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.
(6) Georges MARNETTE, Superintendent of the Brussels Investigative Police, at the centre of delicate enquiries in Belgium (murders in North Brabant, Ballets Roses, the Raemakeers affair [abduction, traffic, and rape of children], the Dutroux affair, the Neufchƒteau enquiries [the so-called X-witnesses]).
(7) Jean GOL, Liberal, Minister of State, former Minister of Justice, former President of the (Francophone) Belgian Liberal Reform Party. Former member of the European Parliament. Died in 1995.
(8) Fran‡ois Xavier DE DONNEA, Belgian Liberal, former Defence Minister, currently Mayor of Brussels.
(9) Patrick MORIAU, Belgian politician, Socialist, member of the committee of enquiry chaired by the current Minister of Justice Marc Verwilghen, "into the manner in which the enquiry into the Dutroux-Nihoul affair has been conducted from a police and judicial point of view".
(10) Jean-Marc CONNEROTTE, investigating magistrate in Neufchƒteau, charged with the enquiry into the kidnapping and death of Julie and Melissa. He also opened the file on the so-called witnesses X. In the past he dealt with enquiries such as those on the "stolen bonds" and the murders in North Brabant. He was removed from the Dutroux case because he had accepted a gift (a ballpoint pen) on the occasion of a dinner organised by some of the victims' parents.
(11) Michel BOURLET, King's Prosecutor in Neufchƒteau at the time of the arrest of Marc Dutroux.
(12) Fr‚d‚rick DE BAETS, Chief of the Brussels Gendarmerie charged with handling the enquiries relating to the Dutroux affair and witnesses X in Neufchƒteau. Accused of having falsified the file on witness X1, De Baets and his team were removed from the enquiry in 1997. In January of this year they were acquitted of all the charges made against them.
_______________________ |
