WILLEMSTAD - Also the testimonies of former head of the Curaçao Security Service (VDC) Edsel Gumbs, and those of his informant, "are not valid, so they should be disregarded". That was the conclusion of George Jamaloodin's defense attorney, Stijn Franken, last Wednesday during day six of the appeal in the Maximus case.
This was registered by the former Minister of Finance, after he was sentenced to 28 years in first instance in 2019 for provoking the death of the popular politician and former Member of Parliament Helmin Wiels.
The day before, Franken had embarked on a 200-page plea in which the main purpose was to demonstrate that the entire investigation and criminal process in the Maximus case is not watertight. In addition, according to the lawyer, the testimonials are not solid and therefore unreliable.
According to Franken, the testimonies should therefore be omitted by the judges. During the first part of his plea, Franken razed the testimonies of, among others, the employees of Jamaloodin's security company Speedy Security and Givenchy Maria.
On Wednesday it was the turn of the testimonies of former VDC head Edsel Gumbs and those of his informant. On day 2 of the appeal, in which the lawyer asked general questions to these witnesses, it was discussed, among other things, that Edsel Gumbs (who was placed under mandatory leave of absence in 2010 shortly after Gerrit Schotte had formed his first cabinet) via an informant has received information about plans to murder the politician Wiels.
The informant is said to have told Gumbs that George Jamaloodin was behind the plans. The informant says he was there when Jamaloodin first offered the murder job to a group of men who came to sell stolen goods such as expensive watches to Jamaloodin. Wiels' name was mentioned. The men would have thanked for the job and drove away.
Later that day, that same car returned with Burney “Nini” Fonseca and Luigi “Pretu” Florentina. Jamaloodin would have glanced at the informant as a sign that he had to go because he had something to discuss that the informant should not hear.
Gumbs stated that he had been called on his work cell phone by the informant. But Gumbs had turned in all his work materials in 2012 because he had been placed under mandatory leave and the murder of Wiels took place in 2013. Gumbs did not come forward until 2015 with his statement about the informant.
Franken says he doubts whether there really is an informant. An informant should have a code name under which it is registered together with his / her personal details, so that the government knows who it is. When asked for the code name of the informant at VDC, they did not have that information.
The VDC has concluded that the informant in question does not work for the secret service. Franken, however, thinks that either Gumbs is unwilling to reveal the informant's code name or that there is no informant at all. Franken also considers that there is always talk of an informant, while in reality it is simply about witness J. Boutisma, Florentina's brother.
Edsel Gumbs has made a statement twice. First in 2015 and then again in 2017/2018. When Franken compares the two statements, he sees several deviations. For example, Gumbs said in 2015 that he received the information from the informant after the robbery of a jeweler in the Renaissance Mall in 2012. In 2017/2018, however, Gumbs says that he received the information after the death of Helmin Wiels.
Franken also says he has requested an overview of calls to and from the work telephone from which Gumbs says he was called. But between May 5, 2013 - the day of Helmin Wiels' death - and May 13, 2013, no conversations were recorded. According to Franken, Gumbs did not receive a call from the informant. At least not after Wiels' death, as Gumbs claims.
Finally, Franken points out that Gumbs stated on December 1, 2014 that he had been officially fired from the Security Service of Curaçao, but that is not true. Gumbs was fired in 2013. Then he no longer had his work phone.
The counselor said it earlier in the trial and repeated it later: The informant could not have called Gumbs on his work phone. Both the story of Gumbs and his informant are, according to Franken, not plausible and should therefore not be taken into account by the judges.