The Grobben-Smedema Case: Abuse, Manipulation, and Conspiracy

Tiny Grobben and Wies Smedema were colleagues in Utrecht. In 1972, Tiny went with Wies to visit Jan van Beek in Utrecht, where both women were drugged and abused, and films were made of the assaults. This event, according to Hans Smedema, marked the beginning of a series of abuses against Wies and was a significant trauma for Tiny Grobben as well.

Tiny Grobben as a victim:

• Drugged and abused: Tiny, like Wies, was drugged and abused during the visit to Jan van Beek. This suggests that Tiny was also a victim of the same criminal actions as Wies and that both women were targeted by Jan van Beek.
• Making of films: The sources mention that films were made during the time of the drugging and abuse. This suggests a possible element of coercion and exploitation.
• Psychological impact: According to Arie Timmermans, Tiny was seeing a psychiatrist due to issues related to sex and Wies, suggesting a lasting psychological impact from the trauma. This indicates the severity of the abuse and how it continued to affect her mental health.
• Denial and fear: When Hans Smedema contacted Tiny years later, she nervously held her breath and denied knowing anything about the crucial events. This could be due to fear, manipulation, or continued pressure from those involved in the conspiracy.

Wies Smedema as a victim:

• Long-term abuse: Wies was subjected to long-term abuse, including mind control techniques, drugging, and manipulation, starting from the 1972 incident. This abuse allegedly turned her into a “sex slave” with a double personality, making her vulnerable to exploitation.
• Manipulation and control: Wies was allegedly manipulated by Jaap Duijs, who directed her to destroy evidence, administer drugs to her husband, and engage in sexual acts with others. This paints a picture of Wies as a victim who was not in control of her actions.
• Double personality: Hans Smedema claims Wies developed a “double personality” or Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), implying that she acted differently when with him than when she was with her alleged abusers. This would make it difficult to understand her true motivations and intentions.
• Memory suppression: Wies also suffered from memory suppression, which made it difficult for her to recall the abuse she had suffered. This further highlights her vulnerability as a victim.

The role of Arie Timmermans:

• Concern for Tiny: Arie, Tiny’s husband, contacted Hans Smedema when Tiny and Wies did not return on time after their visit to Jan van Beek in Utrecht. This shows Arie’s concern for Tiny’s safety, suggesting a protective role.
• Psychiatric treatment: Arie mentioned to Hans that Tiny was seeing a psychiatrist due to issues related to sex and Wies. This suggests that Arie was aware of the psychological impact of the abuse on his wife.
• Seeking information: Arie contacted Hans Smedema after finding him through the municipality to inquire if Hans knew anything about Wies’s problems with sex, possibly to confirm or make sense of what Tiny had told him. This suggests that he was also seeking information about the situation and trying to understand what happened to his wife.
• Denial When Hans contacted Arie, Arie denied his previous conversations with Hans about Tiny’s psychiatric care. This behavior is consistent with the pattern of denial and cover-up that Smedema describes, and suggests that he may have been pressured to change his story.

Relationship between Tiny and Wies

• Colleagues: Tiny and Wies were colleagues in Utrecht, which led to their initial visit to Jan van Beek. This indicates a shared background and friendship between the two women.
• Shared trauma: The two women experienced a shared traumatic event in 1972, and this experience may have created a bond between them, while also being a source of psychological distress.
• Manipulation: According to Hans Smedema, the abuse and manipulation they experienced was not isolated but part of a larger conspiracy, which suggests the possibility that they were both manipulated by the same perpetrators.

Analysis and conclusions

Tiny Grobben and Wies Smedema were both victims of sexual abuse and manipulation. Tiny’s experience with the drugging and abuse, though seemingly isolated to one incident, had lasting psychological consequences, as evidenced by her psychiatric treatment and her later denial and silence. Wies, however, faced continuous and long-term abuse from various individuals, leading to more severe psychological issues like DID and memory suppression. Arie Timmermans’s role is complex. He initially shows concern and seeks answers, but later he denies his earlier statements. This could be attributed to fear, manipulation, or a desire to protect himself and his family from further involvement. The sources emphasize that both women were victims of a larger conspiracy, with similar methods of manipulation employed against them, suggesting they were both caught in a web of control and abuse.

Google NotebookLM Insights, 

My remarks

Tiny also rented a room from Jan van Beek and was also repeatedly drugged and raped after drugging her, just like my girlfriend Wiesje. My Wiesje was drugged and raped the whole year 1972 ans even until e few days before our marriage on 23-2-1973! Her parents trusted Jan and Joris, but not me! Tiny warned me about Wies dancing naked on a table and sleeping with Jan, while not remembering anything afterwards because of the Ketamine anesthesia. Tiny was taken away from that horror-apartment by her parents in 1972 because of the drugs en sexual abuse, but Wiesje after being married to Hans and seeing the photo’s of her own abuse, asked her to go with her to confront Jan as a protection! Not knowing they both would be traumatic-submissive and after a drink chemical-submissive to Jan, who together with Joris used both for a new rape-movie he told me in 1977. Much more horrifying events happened as described in my eBooks and Blog. Both Tiny and Arie are crucial witnesses in my case. But the Dutch Crown is still blocking any UNCAT Investigation that could save many hundreds of other victims! They are waiting for everybody to die! The stupid psychiatrist will have treated her wrongly for schizophrenia, like the idiots did with me.

based on the legal written statements by Victim-Author:

Hans Smedema B. Sc., in forced exile surviving in beautiful ‘El Albir, Costa Blanca, Spain