Even though this case has some international links, there really isn't that much information available for the international crowd. So I did my best to translate the full case to English!
On Sunday, October 24, 1976, at around 5 pm, a forester and his wife walking their dog found the naked body of a young woman in a pit, covered by leaves, branches, and dirt. Police was called to the scene. Due to circumstances, the girl’s section had to be done on the scene itself, but since it was getting dark, pathologist doctor Zeldenrust was unable to perform the section that evening.
The next day, the pathologist presented his results. He concluded her death was likely not caused by poisoning. Neither was there any sign of gunshot or stab wounds. According to him, it was possible she either had her throat slit or that she was strangled. Due to the state of decomposition of the body (she was suspected to have died somewhere two to three months prior), however, he was unable to find the definite cause of death. He also revealed the girl was not pregnant and had not given birth.
Detectives in the meantime searched the area. First by combing the area, then sifting through the earth around the crime scene, going over it again with a metal detector, and asking questions in the neighborhood.
The investigation turned up nothing that could help police to progress. So police decided to focus on the list of missing girls that fit with the description of the girl they found. The girl was estimated to be somewhere between 15 and 20, was around 1.55 to 1.60 meters tall (5ft2/5ft3), had sleek autumn brown/chestnut hair at a length of 43 centimeters (about 17 inches), and had a well-kept denture (no fillings), though she was missing a molar on the lower right (the 4.6) that had to have been pulled out in her final year.
Especially her denture was something police held onto since having a denture without any fillings is extremely rare. In 1976 only 1 out of 1500 children aged 12 had a denture without fillings. The fact that she was missing a molar was also something people in her environment should have known. So police tried to compare dental records in The Netherlands with her denture. They were unable to identify her through this method. One particular thing that may have played a part in the inability to find matching records might be that dentists at this time would destroy records from their patients that were a year old.
But they didn’t give up on the possibility her teeth would be the outcome of identity. They submitted her dental record to Interpol in Paris, as they suspected they had a foreign girl on their hands. Interpol further distributed the information in Western-Europe and when that didn’t give a hit, to the rest of the world.
By December of 1976, police still hadn’t been able to identify the girl (though they were able to limit her age to a maximum of 18 and possibly a couple of years younger). So they decided to try something that hadn’t often been done before: they wanted to take a look at her hair to figure if they could say something on the way the girl had lived. The results of the investigation weren’t published, but we do know it didn't lead to the identification of the body.
Since police couldn’t identify the young woman, people made up a name for her. She was named ‘Heulmeisje’, after parking lot De Heul (which no longer exists) The parking lot was located at the A12, a busy highway near Maarsbergen, The Netherlands, close to the location of the remains, and about a 40-minute drive from the border with Germany.
In 1986, police tried a completely new technique to try and identify Heulmeisje. By comparing photo projections of Heulmeisje’s skull and photos of the missing 18-year-old student Monique Jacobse. Monique grew up Bilthoven and disappeared from her parental home on April 7, 1975. They matched.
Monique didn’t just pop up on the police’s radar. Right after the remains of Heulmeisje were found in 1976, they asked Monique’s dentist to compare the two dentures, but the dentist concluded they didn’t match. Based on these results, Monique was ruled out.
But then came the news that the dentist had made a mistake. The records he had on Monique’s denture turned out to be dated, too old to be compared to Heulmeisje’s denture. Suddenly police had a possible identity again.
The identification, however, didn’t break the case wide open. It was deemed too old to be investigated with a successful result. Her file was put away. And it wasn’t opened again until 1994.
In the summer of 1994, police received a tip pointing to a 73-year-old man from Groenlo as the murderer of Monique Jacobse.
The man, referred to as A. or A.A., taught at a school near the locations of where the remains were found in the ‘70s. After his retirement, he and his wife moved to Groenlo, where he started experiencing a deterioration of his health. Before his arrest, he also stayed at a mental institute twice. His wife wanted him to be admitted to a retirement home, but he didn’t. This supposedly led the couple fighting and becoming suspicious of one another. This suspicion allegedly led to the wife thinking her husband was keeping a horrible secret from her, related to the remains that had been found in 1976. She confronted him several times, asking him if he had any involvement, but he denied every time. She reported her suspicion to the police.
Which led to his first questioning in July. After this interrogation, A. spend, yet again, sometime in the mental institute. When he was brought in for a second time, he had no longer a desire to resist and agreed with the police on every question they asked him and confessed to the crime, according to his lawyer D. Fasseur.
The police, on the other hand, took the confession into serious consideration. A police officer received a napkin filled with scribbles in 1993 delivered by a man in his 30s with wavy medium length brown hair on a yellow/green racing bike to the officer’s home. When the napkin was received, they couldn’t make sense of what was written, but according to the police, after questioning A., the napkin started to make a lot more sense. In 2014, it was revealed what was written on the napkin: 197…
(possibly 1976) Groenlo Melkrijder
(could either point to a street in Nijkerk about 20 minutes’ drive from Maarsbergen or the person who delivered milk to people’s doorstep) Impregnation Housekeeping
They also took into consideration that he supposedly confessed the crime to his family as well before they were notified.
In November of the same year, the man committed suicide, ending the investigation into his involvement in the case as the law states criminal proceedings are stopped when a suspect dies.
No news surfaced on the case for several years. Until 2006 came around.
Up until 2006, no one doubted the identity of ‘het Heulmeisje’. No one doubted that it may not have been Monique Jacobse. And then Monique contacted her sister, Marion, through email to wish her happy birthday on her 50th birthday. Her sister didn’t immediately believe it was Monique, but she started believing her more and more when she realized this person knew details only Monique would know.
Monique did end up coming out to The Netherlands to meet her family face to face. But police were never informed on Monique’s reappearance. The family only informed the police when they revealed they were planning to open up Monique’s supposed grave as part of an investigation into suspected serial killer Peter C. At the time, he lived near the location of where the body was found and the justice department wanted to take a look into a possible connection. Police stated he remained as a possible suspect in the case.
Monique’s family gave police a DNA sample to test against the DNA of the remains from the girl buried under Monique’s name. Monique herself didn’t want to take part in a DNA investigation, initially, to stay out of publicity. But in September 2012, police confirmed through DNA investigation that Monique was indeed Monique. The court officially gave her back her identity in 2013.
Monique left her home in 1975 and moved to Germany, to build a new life under a new name, without anybody knowing about her past life. She said she never knew people thought she had died.
Police had to start again to find the identity of the Heulmeisje. Police ordered a facial reconstruction to be made based on the skull of the girl by the end of 2006. In 2007, a photo of this reconstruction
was spread through an episode of “Opsporing Verzocht”, a collaborative TV show by the justice department, the police, and TV channel AVROTROS.
At the beginning of 2007, the police send a detective to Cologne to make some inquiries on the possibility of ‘Heulmeisje’ being Pauline Sybille Breuer, a 22-year-old who was reported missing on May 5, 1976. Pauline was last seen by her sister Gertrud, in the summer of 1975, when she showed up to her doorstep heavily intoxicated with a beer in her hand, carrying a gun, brass knuckles and another beer in her purse. She told her sister she had some important business to take care of. She also told Gertrud to take care of herself and her children, and that she would hear from her later.
Pauline came into the picture after police broadened their search on possible missing persons to neighboring countries after coming up empty-handed by going through Dutch databases. Police was very surprised by the similarities between the reconstructed face of Heulmeisje and Pauline’s face. Gertrud too thought it could be possible the remains that were found belonged to her sister.
But when the results of the DNA research came back, it was revealed their DNA did not match.
Police also received their first major lead that year. A man came forward to police saying he may have given Heulmeisje and another man a ride. He said he saw a girl and a man hitchhiking and thought it would be unsafe for them to continue on foot so he let them into his car. The girl and man spoke German and got into an argument during the ride. The girl supposedly said she wanted to return to Germany, while the man wanted to stay in The Netherlands. He also remembered that the girl smoked Stuyvesant cigarettes and that they had worked in the catering industry, either in The Hague or Scheveningen.
The girl and man left the man’s car about 1 kilometer (0.6 miles) away from parking lot De Heul.
In 2008, police compared Heulmeisje's DNA to another missing girl from The Netherlands. 17-year-old Marjo Winkens from Schimmert disappeared between the night of September 1 and the morning of September 2, 1975, after visiting a fair. Police earlier had conducted a skull investigation but concluded Marjo’s skull did not match with the skull of Heulmeisje. They also compared dental records in 1976. But they still wanted to test her. To do so, police opened up Marjo’s mother’s grave to collect DNA (even though her parents had already given DNA to the police in 2006). The test result confirmed Heulmeisje was not Marjo Winkens.
Around the end of 2010/the beginning of 2011, a Dutch lawyer came forward to police with a theory on who Heulmeisje was and who killed her. She claimed Heulmeisje was the Austrian Gerta Hof and who was suspected to have lived in Graz around that time. Gerta Hof met the lawyer’s ex-husband during a ski vacation in Salzburg in February of 1976 and allegedly traveled to him when her vacation was over. The lawyer accused him and his brother of raping and murdering Gerta (among other severe crime allegations).
While Dutch police focused on questioning the ex-husband, German police went through records to find any proof of Gerta Hof’s existence. They found no one by the name of Gerta Hof in Graz, so they decided to widen their search and include names that sounded like Gerta Hof. And they found one woman who looked like the girl on the picture provided by the lawyer. When they paid a visit to the woman and told her the story, she was surprised. She had met the ex-husband during her ski vacation, but she says she has never seen him since.
Police could rule out Gerta Hof as Heulmeisje.
In 2012, two researchers from the VU (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam), Gareth Davies and Laura Font Montales, conducted isotope research on Heulmeisje. By looking at the girl’s hair, teeth and bones, they were able to tell where she had been.
The first noticed a low balance between strontium atoms in the girl’s teeth, which is compliant with a volcanic area. Since they only focused on searching are within Europe, they were left with the possibilities that she either grew up in Eiffel (Germany), Auvergne (France), Bohemia (Czech Republic), Greece, or Italy. By looking at the oxygen isotopes, they were able to rule out Auvergne, Greece, and Italy. By looking in the lead in her teeth, they were able to rule out Bohemia. The lead in her teeth came from a mine in Australia and only western countries get their lead from Australia. This meant Heulmeisje grew up in the region of Eiffel, Germany.
Then, they looked at her hair. Hair grows on average about one centimeter (0.3 inches) a month and can tell a researcher where you have been during that time. Since Heulmeisje had her hair at a length of 43 centimeters, they had information on the last three years and seven months. During those years, she spent some time, at least four months, living behind the Iron Curtain in Eastern-Europe. The last seven months of her life she spent in Western-Europe again, possibly in Germany but likely around the area of either Maastricht or Utrecht-Amsterdam.
Her hair also told investigators that she had been starving before her death. They could see she originally had a normal eating pattern, consistent with that of Western-Europe, but that she had a major change in her diet. She ate the same things every day and her body wasn’t getting enough proteins from it. What caused this change in diet is unknown, but police are considering kidnapping. Other possibilities include anorexia or that she was living in extreme poverty.
Police also created a DNA profile for Heulmeisje, which they wanted to use conduct further research, including finding out what color her eyes where.
The discovery that the girl grew up in Germany gave both significances to the lead they received in 2007 and to a new tip that came in in 2012. A taxi/cab driver came forward with a conversation he overheard. He overheard a drunk man say he had killed a young girl from Essen.
After an episode of “Aktenzeichen XY unglöst”, the German version of “Opsporing Verzocht”, police received twenty new tips. One girl was named in two different tips. This girl, who remains unnamed, supposedly went to The Netherlands for an abortion, something that was illegal at the time in Germany.
At the beginning of 2013, the Dutch Forensic Institute researched Heulmeisje’s age. They looked at whether her epiphysis was opened or closed, the hairs in the dental roots, the development of the denture, and how far the femur had developed. By combining the results, her age was estimated to be between 13,5 and 15 years old. A lot younger than the original believe that Heulmeisje had been between 18.
Because the old reconstruction of Heulmeisje’s face didn’t resemble a child between the ages of 13 and 15, they decided to make a new reconstruction.
The new reconstruction
, made in Scotland at the University of Dundee, was premiered in “Opsporing Verzocht”’s latest episode on Heulmeisje. During the same episode, police spokesman Thomas Aling revealed they had received a ‘serious lead’ in the case in 2012. An anonymous tip revealed there may have been two perpetrators. Two men, who were between 30 and 40-years-old at the time, supposedly dumped the body of the girl near the parking lot. The person who called in the tip also revealed multiple people knew who the two men were who were responsible.
In 2013, police proposed a DNA kinship research to the German police. The idea is that they compare Heulmeisje’s DNA profile to DNA in police databases across the two countries in the hopes of finding a relative of the girl. So the public wouldn’t be asked to provide DNA, they would be going through the DNA they had already available. This does mean that, if they want this investigation to succeed, a relative of hers had to have come into contact with the police, whether through committing a crime or by being reported missing.
The research was approved by Germany in 2016.
The same year, police revealed they were looking to get some help from the United States in the search of the American soldier. Two years prior, in 2014, they had received a tip that an American soldier had been living with a German girl in the vicinity of Maarsbergen. Specifically at Bergenweg 39 in Maarn. The soldier was estimated to be in his late 30s and had a wife and children in Germany. He had brought the girl he was living with, who had run away from home, from Germany. Two siblings who lived next to them said he would make sure there was always food in their home so the girl didn’t have to go outside and that the man would go back and forth between Germany, which could mean he was stationed in Germany. But police are also considering the possibility he was stationed in Soesterberg, which is located near Maarsbergen. The American soldiers stationed at this base were never registered and that’s why police were looking to get the names from the US.
In 2014, police also revealed they were looking for a student from the same school as the elderly suspect taught. This student, who lived in Woudenberg, supposedly spoke to a German girl on several occasions at motel Maarsbergen. The motel was on the route he had to take on his bike to get to and from school. The motel is also near where Heulmeisje’s body was found, about 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) away. But since the school’s record were all destroyed, they had not been able to find the student. Whether they eventually did is not known.
The latest update, in this case, is from 2018. Police revealed the DNA kinship research had not begun yet. Reason for this being that the police had been given new information and clues that they first had to follow-up on before starting the DNA research will start. When this will be is unknown.
This case passed the statute of limitations period back in the ‘90s, so the perpetrator(s) cannot be tried for the murder in The Netherlands (The Netherlands no longer has a limitations period on murder, but since this case passed its period before the law was changed, still no charges can be filed against the perpetrator(s)). Finding out who killed Heulmeisje is therefore much less of a priority to Dutch police then finding out who this girl is. They want to be able to tell the girl’s family and friends where their loved one is.
If this case does end up getting solved and the perpetrator(s) turn out to be German or the murder was committed on German soil, a trial could still be held. Germany didn’t and doesn’t have a limitations period on murder committed with a special kind of intent or to cover up a different crime.
Van Rossum Du Chattel, Marc (November 5, 2018). DNA-onderzoek Heulmeisje nog steeds niet gestart. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://www.rtvutrecht.nl/nieuws/1838044/dnaonderzoek-heulmeisje-nog-steeds-niet-gestart.html
Osterloh, Yvo (March 14, 2016). Wie is het Heulmeisje?. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://panorama.nl/nieuws/wie-is-het-heulmeisje
Algemeen Dagblad (May 9 2016). Doorbraak mogelijk in moordzaak ‘Heulmeisje’. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://www.ad.nl/home/doorbraak-mogelijk-in-moordzaak-heulmeisje~a3c5c91c/
ter Voorde, Marlies (March 4, 2013). De zoektocht naar de herkomst van het ‘Heulmeisje’. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://www.nemokennislink.nl/publicaties/de-zoektocht-naar-de-herkomst-van-het-heulmeisje/
NOS (March 14, 2016). Dna-verwantschaponderzoek om te ontdekken wie het Heulmeisje is. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://nos.nl/artikel/2092648-dna-verwantschapsonderzoek-om-te-ontdekken-wie-het-heulmeisje-is.html
OpsporingVerzocht (2012. January 11). Maarsbergen: Heulmeisje [video]. Viewed on October2, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykjWuTdt_Qo
OpsporingVerzocht (2013. November 13). Maarsbergen: Heulmeisje [video]. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKMaP0Yq5iw
RTV Utrecht (2012. January 6). Reconstructie moordzaak Heulmeisje 1976 [video]. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbI-CT17OPg
Opsporing Verzocht (November 19, 2013). Het Heulmeisje. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://opsporingverzocht.avrotros.nl/zaken/item/het-heulmeisje/
Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant (March 15, 2016). Politie wil hulp VS in zaak Heulmeisje. Viewed on October 2, 2019. https://krantenbankzeeland.nl/issue/pzc/2016-03-15/edition/null/page/9?query=Heulmeisje
Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant (June 8, 2007). Heulmeisje nog raadsel. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://krantenbankzeeland.nl/issue/pzc/2007-06-08/edition/null/page/83?query=Heulmeisje
De Volkskrant (November 30, 1994). Verdachte oude moord doodt zichzelf. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?coll=ddd&query=%28Monique+Jacobse%29&cql%5B%5D=%28date+_gte_+%2201-01-1976%22%29&redirect=true&identifier=ABCDDD:010866740:mpeg21:a0146&resultsidentifier=ABCDDD:010866740:mpeg21:a0146
Wetboek van Strafrecht. Titel VIII. Verval van het recht tot strafvordering en van de straf. Viewed on October 2, 2019. https://www.uwwet.nl/wetten-en-regelingen/strafrecht/wetboek-van-strafrecht/11-verval-van-recht-tot-strafvervolging-en-van-de-straf.htm
Trouw (December 1, 1994). Verdachte (73) van moord slaat hand aan zichzelf. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?coll=ddd&query=%28Monique+Jacobse%29&cql%5B%5D=%28date+_gte_+%2201-01-1976%22%29&redirect=true&identifier=ABCDDD:010822055:mpeg21:a0173&resultsidentifier=ABCDDD:010822055:mpeg21:a0173
De Volkskrant (September 21, 1994). Oppakken man gevolg van ‘misverstanden’. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?coll=ddd&query=%28Monique+Jacobse%29&cql%5B%5D=%28date+_gte_+%2201-01-1976%22%29&redirect=true&identifier=ABCDDD:010866526:mpeg21:a0158&resultsidentifier=ABCDDD:010866526:mpeg21:a0158
De Hoog, Michiel (November 24, 2006). Doodgewaande vrouw uit De Bilt leeft in VS. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/doodgewaande-vrouw-uit-de-bilt-leeft-in-vs~b5c42fe1/
RTV Utrecht (September 10, 2012). Doodgewaande Monique Jacobse krijgt identiteit terug. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://www.rtvutrecht.nl/nieuws/850596/
Seher, Dietman (June 10, 2018). Wenn Tote keine Name haben. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/panorama/kriminalitaet/id_83890142/-heulmeisje-wenn-tote-keine-namen-haben.html
Schrikkema, Marc (May 5, 2013). DNA-verwantschapsonderzoek in oude zaak Heulmeisje. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/item/dna-verwantschapsonderzoek-in-oude-zaak-heulmeisje/
Algemeen Dagblad (August 31, 2016). Moordzaak Heulmeisje neemt nieuwe wending. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/moordzaak-heulmeisje-neemt-nieuwe-wending~a27e21bd/
Politie (November 11, 2014). Maarsbergen – Heulmeisje. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://www.politie.nl/en/wanted-and-missing/unidentified-persons/1976/oktobe03-maarsbergen-heulmeisje.html
NU (September 7, 2012). 20 tips na Duitse uitzending Heulmeisje. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://www.nu.nl/binnenland/2903597/20-tips-duitse-uitzending-heulmeisje.html
L1mburg (March 3, 2008). DNA-onderzoek: Heulmeisje is niet Marjo Winkens. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://l1.nl/dna-onderzoek-heulmeisje-is-niet-marjo-winkens-103420?pagina=6
Riedler, Peter & Loibnegger, Klaus (February 11, 2011). Angebliches Grazer “Mordopfer” ist quicklebendig. Viewed on October 2, 2019 https://www.krone.at/245592
Morchener, Tobias & Wilkens, Bianca (January 5, 2007). Mord nach 30 Jahren vor der Aufklärung? Viewed on October 3, 2019 https://www.ksta.de/mord-nach-30-jahren-vor-der-aufklaerung--13198318
De Volkskrant (November 17, 2006). Familie: lichaam in graf is niet van Jacobse. Viewed on October 3, 2019 https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/familie-lichaam-in-graf-is-niet-van-jacobse~bf269276/
De Telegraaf (November 27, 1976). Wie kent her vermoorde meisje van “De Heul”? Viewed on October 3, 2019 https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?query=wie+kent+het+vermoorde+meisje+de+heul%3F&coll=ddd&identifier=ddd%3A011199361%3Ampeg21%3Aa0240&resultsidentifier=ddd%3A011199361%3Ampeg21%3Aa0240
Leeuwarder courant (October 26, 1976). Lijk van ontkleed meisje gevonden bij Maasbergen. Viewed on October 3, 2019 https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?cql%5B%5D=%28date+_gte_+%2201-10-1976%22%29&query=maarsbergen+meisje&coll=ddd&redirect=true&identifier=ddd:010620352:mpeg21:a0088&resultsidentifier=ddd:010620352:mpeg21:a0088
De Telegraaf (December 27, 1976). Haaronderzoek moet identiteit meisje opleveren. Viewed on October 3, 2019 https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?cql%5B%5D=%28date+_gte_+%2201-10-1976%22%29&query=maarsbergen+meisje&coll=ddd&redirect=true&page=2&identifier=ddd:011200044:mpeg21:a0115&resultsidentifier=ddd:011200044:mpeg21:a0115
De Telegraaf (September 14, 1994). Familie te biecht bij burgemeester Groenlo over moord Bilthovense. Viewed on October 3, 2019 https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?coll=ddd&query=%28meisje+heul%29&cql%5B%5D=%28date+_gte_+%2201-10-1976%22%29&redirect=true&page=4&identifier=ddd:010692122:mpeg21:a0681&resultsidentifier=ddd:010692122:mpeg21:a0681
De Telegraaf (November 4, 1976). Identiteit vermoord meisje niet bekend. Viewed on October 3, 2019 https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?cql%5B%5D=%28date+_gte_+%2201-10-1976%22%29&query=maarsbergen+meisje&coll=ddd&redirect=true&page=2&identifier=ddd:011199341:mpeg21:a0264&resultsidentifier=ddd:011199341:mpeg21:a0264
Udo, Joop (October 26, 1976). Wandelaars vinden halfbegraven lijk van meisje in bos. Viewed on October 3, 2019 https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?coll=ddd&query=%28maarsbergen+meisje%29&cql%5B%5D=%28date+_gte_+%2201-10-1976%22%29&redirect=true&page=1&identifier=ddd:011199385:mpeg21:a0304&resultsidentifier=ddd:011199385:mpeg21:a0304
Limburgs dagblad (October 27, 1976). Gegevens over Marjo Winkens naar Doorn. Viewed on October 3, 2019 https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?query=%28maarsbergen+meisje%29&coll=ddd&cql%5B%5D=%28date+_gte_+%2201-10-1976%22%29&page=3&redirect=true&identifier=ddd:010563655:mpeg21:a0238&resultsidentifier=ddd:010563655:mpeg21:a0238
Limburgs dagblad (November 20, 1976). Moord los je alleen op met een goed team. Viewed on October 3, 2019 https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?query=%28maarsbergen+meisje%29&coll=ddd&cql%5B%5D=%28date+_gte_+%2201-10-1976%22%29&page=3&redirect=true&identifier=ddd:010563676:mpeg21:a0180&resultsidentifier=ddd:010563676:mpeg21:a0180
Het Parool (November 3, 1976). Zoeken naar vermisten. Viewed on October 3, 2019 https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?coll=ddd&query=%28maarsbergen+meisje%29&cql%5B%5D=%28date+_gte_+%2201-10-1976%22%29&redirect=true&page=1&identifier=ABCDDD:010840113:mpeg21:a0217&resultsidentifier=ABCDDD:010840113:mpeg21:a0217
Sant, Roelfien (September 14, 1994). Vervolging in zaak Jacobs hangt af van moorddatum. Viewed on October 3, 2019 https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?query=%28maarsbergen+meisje%29&coll=ddd&cql%5B%5D=%28date+_gte_+%2201-10-1976%22%29&page=4&redirect=true&identifier=ABCDDD:010842280:mpeg21:a0225&resultsidentifier=ABCDDD:010842280:mpeg21:a0225
Trouw (September 13, 1994). Strafvervolging of verjaring. Man bekent na bijna twintig jaar moord op meisje. Viewed on October 3, 2019 https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?query=%28maarsbergen+meisje%29&coll=ddd&cql%5B%5D=%28date+_gte_+%2201-10-1976%22%29&page=6&redirect=true&identifier=ABCDDD:010826189:mpeg21:a0064&resultsidentifier=ABCDDD:010826189:mpeg21:a0064
De Volkskrant (May 22, 1013). Doodverklaarde vrouw krijgt identiteit terug. Viewed on October 3, 2019 https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/doodverklaarde-vrouw-krijgt-identiteit-terug~b33d9ff0/
AVROTROS (2014. December 9). Vermist [video]. Viewed on October 3, 2019 https://www.uitzendinggemist.net/aflevering/298209/Vermist.html#
Hvis du ikke har opdaget det, så er internettet blevet spammet af folk der råber vagt i gevær over en traktat der bliver debatteret i EU lige nu. Ikke bare det, men det relevante udvalg har lige accepteret lovteksten, der nu bliver sendt til EU Parliamentet. I den traktat er det specifikt 2 artikler, nummer 11 og 13, som folk er sure på. De er sure over artikler 11 fordi den skulle indeholde en såkaldt "link skat" og artikler 13 fordi den skulle tvinge alle websteder til at tage indhold ned der potentielt overtræder folks copyright. Jeg besluttede mig for rent faktisk at læse de 2 artikler for at se hvad folk er så sure over. Jeg indrømmer gerne at jeg ikke er jurist, så det kan sagtens være at jeg misforstår noget i processen. Anyways, her er lovteksten hvis du selv vil danne en mening
Første delparagraf af første paragraf definerer hvad artikel 11 dækker
Member States shall provide publishers of press publications established in a Member State with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the online use of their press publications by information society service providers
Jeg er ikke helt sikker på hvad "press publications" med de rettigheder der er defineret i "Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC" dækker over. Det kan være det bare er nyhedssider eller bogproducenter og jeg gider ikke til at læse Directive 2001/29/EC. Det her er tørt nok i forvejen. Det korte af det lange er at artikel kun dækker over "press publications". Menr den anden subparagraf af paragraf indeholder to meget vigtige pointer:
The rights referred to in the first subparagraph shall not apply in respect of uses of insubstantial parts of a press publication. Member States shall be free to determine the insubstantial nature of parts of press publications taking into account whether these parts are the expression of the intellectual creation of their authors, or whether these parts are individual words or very short excerpts, or both criteria.
Pointe 1: Det her bliver virkelig tørt. Pointe 2: De rettigheder som artikel 11 omfatter ikke
brug af ting kun er en uvæsentlig del af værket og det er de individuelle medlemsstater der bestemmer hvad "uvæsentlig" betyder. Det betyder, eksempelvis, at hvis Polen beslutter at "uvæsentlig" betyder "hvad man kan forvente i dag på reddit", så gør reddit ikke noget strafbart hvis de har base i Polen, selv hvis Holland beslutter at "uvæsentlig" betyder "alt hvad der er lavet nogensinde".
Den næste interessante del af artikel 11 er paragraf 4
The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 1 year after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication.
Kort sagt, hvis du har copyright på noget, så er det kun omfattet af artikel 11 1 år plus løbende år. Fair nok, det er relativt lang tid hvis vi snakker nyhedsartikler. Men, igen, det er op til de enkelte stater at bestemme hvad "væsentlig" dækker over. Og jeg ville blive stærkt overrasket hvis medlemstaterne besluttede at de dækkede over links.
Det var sådan set hele artikel 11. Som jeg læser den, så er den eneste måde du kan tolke den som en link skat er hvis du antager at alle medlemsstater beslutter sig for at selv et link er en "væsentlig del" af at indlæg. Ville jeg foretrække at Parliamentet selv definerede det? Ja, uden tvivl. Men der er sikkert en eller anden polak eller ungarer der har råbt op om "SELVSTÆNDIGHED!!!", hvilket har medført den usikkerhed.
Igen, lad os få defineret hvad artikel 13 taler om helt til at starte med:
An online content sharing service provider shall obtain an authorisation from the rightholders referred to in Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC in order to communicate or make available to the public works or other subject matter. Where no such authorisation has been obtained, the service provider shall prevent the availability on its service of those works and other subject matter, including through the application of measures referred to in paragraph 4. This subparagraph shall apply without prejudice to exceptions and limitations provided for in Union law
Basically, hvis du er en side som Reddit eller Youtube og du vil give adgang til noget der er beskyttet af artikel 3(1) og (2) i Direktiv 2001/29/EC, så skal du have lov til det først. Hvis webstedet ikke har fået lov til at give adgang til det værk, så skal man forhindre brugerne i at tilgå de værker. Og her er der ikke mulighed for at Sverige har lempligere regler end Tyskland.
Hvis vi kombinerer den her paragraf med artikel 11, så kommer jeg frem til at det er ok at linke til andre værker. Det er også ok at citere andre værker, så længe det bliver vurderet til at være en "uvæstenlig del" af indlægget. Webstederne kan holdes straffrie hvis de følger processen der bliver lagt frem i paragraf 4. I paragraf 4 står der nemlig at
In the absence of the authorisation referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, Member States shall provide that an online content sharing service provider shall not be liable for acts of communication to the public or making available to the public within the meaning of this Article when:
it demonstrates that it has made best efforts to prevent the availability of specific works or other subject matter by implementing effective and proportionate measures, in accordance with paragraph 5, to prevent the availability on its services of the specific works or other subject matter identified by rightholders and for which the rightholders have provided the service with relevant and necessary information for the application of these measures; and
upon notification by rightholders of works or other subject matter, it has acted expeditiously to remove or disable access to these works or other subject matter and it demonstrates that it has made its best efforts to prevent their future availability through the measures referred to in point (a).
Basically, webstederne holdes straffrie hvis de prøver "effektivt og proportionelt" at forhindre brugere i at tilgå "specific works or other subject matter" på deres platform OG
de fjerner ting de har fået at vide bryder copyrighten.
Som jeg læser det her, så er det "bare" DMCA i Europa. Youtube og Google fjerner allerede automatisk ting som der indeholder ting der er copyrightet. Det her betyder bare at alle websteder der gerne vil have adgang til Europa skal implementere noget der minder om det som Youtube har kørende.
I paragraf 5 bliver "effektivt og proportionalt defineret"
The measures referred to in point (a) of paragraph 4 shall be effective and proportionate, taking into account, among other factors:
(a) the nature and size of the services, in particular whether they are provided by a microenterprise or a small-sized enterprise within the meaning of Title I of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC, and their audience;
Dermed bliver små sider bliver ikke tvunget til at implementere copyright beskyttelse.
(b) the amount and the type of works or other subject matter uploaded by the users of the services;
Medmindre, selvfølgelig, at webstedet kun fungerer på grund af brud på den copyright
(c) the availability and costs of the measures as well as their effectiveness in light of technological developments in line with the industry best practice referred to in paragraph 8.
Dermed behver man ikke have anti-copyright "measures" hvis det bliver vurderet at de er for dyre i brug eller ikke er tilgængelige. Alt i alt synes jeg sådan set at det er ok defineret. Små websites bliver ikke omfattet af artikel 13 og hvis man ikke kan implementere anti-copyright measures på en måde der giver mening, så behøver man heller ikke gøre det.
Alt i alt, så mener jeg ikke at der er det store at hidse sig op over når man reelt har læst teksten igennem. Hvis du automatisk antager at medlemsstater vurderer at "væsentlig" betyder "alt der bare lugter af copy paste", så fair nok, der er noget at bekymre sig over. Men hvis du er en EU stat der gerne vil lokke websteder til landet, så laver du automatisk meget løse vilkår for webstederne. Artikel 13 er en smule vag, især i paragraf 5. Hvis du antager at embedsmændene automatisk antager at alle kan have Youtubes anti-copyright filter, så er der måske lidt problemer. Men det tvivler jeg stærkt på kommer til at ske, især efter de første par store sager