WILLEMSTAD – The trial of Urvin ‘Nuto’ Wawoe, the main suspect in the high-profile Themis case, began last week Monday and continues this week. Wawoe is accused of multiple crimes, including involvement in several murders, drug trafficking, and money laundering. However, defense attorney Laura Versluis has sharply criticized the Public Prosecution Office (OM) over what she describes as a deeply flawed investigation.
In the opening of her plea, Versluis questioned the legitimacy of the OM’s approach, accusing prosecutors of building their case on assumptions rather than evidence. She stated that the prosecution has shown an unwavering belief in the existence of the alleged criminal organization "No Limit Soldiers," yet has failed to provide direct or verifiable proof of its structure or operations.
“Instead of presenting solid evidence, the OM has relied on assumptions, anonymous statements, scattered messages, and vague connections between individuals—many of whom don’t even appear to know each other,” Versluis argued in court.
According to the defense, there is a lack of concrete proof demonstrating communication or cooperation between the accused—such as phone records, in-person meetings, or financial transactions—that would indicate an organized criminal network. Even after years of investigation, no compelling evidence has surfaced to support claims of coordinated activity, she said.
Versluis also criticized the use of anonymous witnesses, the absence of context in presented evidence, and what she described as a one-sided interpretation of the data. She contended that the prosecution’s case does not meet the standards required by the European Court of Human Rights for a fair trial, lacking transparency, accountability, and a fair opportunity for the defense to respond.
The defense further argued that the case is built primarily on unproven assumptions regarding loyalty, interpersonal relationships, and suggestive information—none of which have been substantiated with solid legal proof. On this basis, Versluis concluded, the foundation of the trial is fundamentally flawed, and her client should be acquitted.
