On Friday evening, March 25, 2011, one of the most serious crimes of recent years in the province of Groningen took place. On that evening in Hoogezand, the Turkish evening store Perya Impex was robbed. Two masked men, both with guns in their hands, thundered into the store at a quarter to nine. One of the robbers jumps on the counter and demands money.
The owner's 37-year-old son yells that there is no money, resists and is shot.

A bullet pierces his left shoulder. The robbers get away - without loot.
Just before they leave the storefront, another shot is fired at the then already badly wounded son. A second bullet hits the abdomen. With life-threatening injuries, he is taken to the hospital.

The events have a huge impact in the neighborhood. In the evening, the mayor comes to investigate. It is not the first violent incident in Hoogezand. The mayor therefore wants extra police. The newspaper reports the next day that the perpetrators are on the run and that no trace of them has been found.

What follows should be called bizarre. First, weeks pass. Then, in mid-May 2011, the police report that with the arrest of two men, the robbery of the Turkish convenience store has been solved. The media just take that over. Sometimes we and the police pretend that life is simple: that with the arrest of men, crimes are solved. Such an arrest is, of course, only the beginning in a state under the rule of law.

The arrested men are 19 and 24 years old. The youngest is named say Charles, the oldest Gianni. They deny.

The trial will be held on November 17, 2011. The suspicions are based on statements from witnesses. And there is a DNA match that proves nothing but is incriminating.
Charles and Gianni continue to deny. One says of witness statements, "People talk poo. The other: "We're being framed.

The victim gets to address the judges and tells how scared he is, how he feared for his life, how scared his aging parents are.

Witnesses are also said to be anxious. Statements made are recanted; others, fearful of reprisals, refuse to testify. One witness denies being a witness and is being prosecuted for perjury. A witness was called to the hearing, but did not show up.
That's a problem. The judges decide that the criminal case should be stayed so that that witness can still be heard.

The two lawyers think that is fine, provided Charles and Gianni are allowed to go home to await the remainder of the trial in freedom. After all, the delay is not their fault. The prosecution opposes their release, but the judges decide that Charles and Gianni can leave prison that same day. They will have been detained for six months.

Then it becomes silent and will remain silent for a very long time. Three months go by, eight months, a year. Two years and a few weeks. The witness yet to be heard lives just next door to the convenience store.

On Dec. 13, 2013 - 26 months after the break - the criminal case will finally get a continuation. By the way, Charles did remain in Courtroom 14 in 2012 in connection with a street robbery for which he received (net) 18 months in prison. He has already served that sentence.

Charles faces eight years in prison and Gianni, who has no criminal record, seven years, both for attempted manslaughter and attempted extortion. Statements from witnesses provide the legal and convincing evidence, the prosecution believes. Charles and Gianni are not present, they do look link out.

That it has taken so long, the prosecutor finds annoying. He tells the judges. Annoying for the suspects, but certainly also for the victims. The reason for the long duration, the prosecutor says, is that in 2012 and 2013 the prosecution was swamped with large investigations.

It was just too busy. Could that really be true? That police and prosecutors didn't have time for two years to properly investigate one of the most serious crimes in years?

This week, the court issued its ruling. Although the evidence gathered is legally obtained, it is not conclusive. Alternative scenarios are conceivable, it cannot be ruled out, the judges judged, that others than Charles and Gianni committed the robbery. The lack of conviction should lead to acquittal. And that is also the verdict.

The judges criticize the quality of the police investigation: there was (too) much time between the robbery and the hearing of witnesses. Involved parties were therefore able to reconcile statements. In addition, the judges found that the police did not make an official record of various contacts with witnesses. Judges: "That is not acceptable.

Finally, it is noted that the prosecution did not provide a plausible reason for the long lapse of time since the November 2011 hearing.

By the end of 2013, the conclusion must be that the March 25, 2011 robbery of the Turkish convenience store has not been solved. The mayor of Hoogezand needs to take another look somewhere.