This page will focus on how Cor van L. misled the press. It wil provide a general overview of factually proven lies, followed by specific cases in which he used the media to his advantage. The reason Van L. was able to get these untruths published in the press can be found on the News page.
Due to the lack of understanding and the information on the Plough forgery cases being incomplete, Van L. was able to sneak untruths into the media coverage of the case. A prime example is the news article in Nieuwsblad van het Noorden of 20 September 1995. In this article, it is stated that appraiser Auke van der Werff had authenticated the works, and had found the works to be of high quality. Van der Werff later testified in the Altink II case that this report never stated anything of the kind, and that he had rescinded his original report immediately. This is not only an example of how Van L. cunningly used the chaos to his advantage, but also of bad journalism, as this would have been easily checkable with Van der Werff. What is even more surprising is that a year earlier in February that same newspaper had reported on Van L. abusing the aforementioned appraisal. Although this was a clear-cut mistake by the newspaper, it is a prime example of Van L.’s working method relating to the press. In numerous articles, he manages to sneak in untruths, such as non-existent sales to German museums, supposed authentications by experts, and damaging remarks about the incompetence of art experts. All these remarks, however, are proven either untrue or untraceable. If it were not for the chaos surrounding these cases, it would never have gotten past fact-checking. In general, it can be said that fact-checking severely lacked in the Plough forgery cases’ press coverage.
The most aggravating example of how Van L.’s untruths managed to get into news articles was published in De Volkskrant on the 10th of August 1991. In the article, the journalist stated, based on a statement by Van L., that Smithuis had seen the paintings and had said that they were outstanding examples of The Plough works. Furthermore, Smithuis had supposedly bought several works and then resold them. The first strange part about this is that Smithuis is one of the first experts to have raised the alarm on the forged The Plough works. As a reaction to this article, she filed a complaint against the journalist responsible, stating that she had not been properly consulted and that the article contained untruths that damaged her reputation. The Dutch Board for Journalists sustained the complaint and ordered De Volkskrant to print a rectification, as well as a publication of board’s ruling. This case shows that Van L. not only managed to sneak blatant lies into the press but also that the press (in this case) had not acted according to the code of conduct.
Civil Case against De Telegraaf
Van L. did not only use the press to his advantage; if he didn’t like the reporting done, his litigious nature arose. This resulted in a civil case. At the very start of the entire forgery case on 6 June 1991, Van L. sued De Telegraaf and demanded rectification of their article stating that Van L. and his wife had sold forged The Plough works. The appointed judge decided that De Telegraaf was not obliged to rectify the article. The reasoning behind this verdict was the fact that De Telegraaf had been diligent, and were allowed to state the works were inauthentic based on the statements of consulted experts. The judge deemed the article neither untrue, nor unnecessarily aggravating.
The problems identified on this website’s News page led to opportunities for Van L. to get his untruths into the press. However, the apparent chaos and the complexity of the case do not excuse the conduct of the journalists involved. As shown in the examples, many untruths were able to get into the articles through simple mistakes made by journalists and their breaking of the code of conduct, which even resulted in a complaint case (which was sustained). Also in his dealing with the press, Van L.’s strategy becomes very transparant: once he feels threatened, he chooses to start litigation as a defense mechanism. But, as with all litigation started by Van L., his claims are judged unsubstantiated.
*Where able translations of the news articles are given by Google Translate. Please note that these are automated translations and therefor may contain mistakes. For the original text please consult the Dutch version of this page.
DISCLAIMER: All rights reserved. All content (texts, trademarks, illustrations, photos, graphics, files etc.) on this website are protected by copyright and other protective laws. The contents of this website are to be used only in accordance with Internet regulations. Without the explicit written permission of the website’s controller it is prohibited to integrate in whole, or in part, any of the protected contents published on these websites into other programs or other web sites or to use them by any other means. This website can contain elements that are protected by copyright and by other laws that are subject to the copyright or other rights of third parties and that are correspondingly protected for these third parties.
The website’s controller has carefully compiled the contents of this website in accordance with their current state of knowledge. Access to and use of this website, as well as web sites related or connected to this by links, are at the user’s own risk and responsibility. Damage and warranty claims arising from missing or incorrect data are excluded. The website’s controller bears no responsibility or liability for damage of any kind, also for indirect or consequential damages resulting from access to or use of this website or websites related or connected to this by links. The website can contain links (cross references) to websites that are run by third parties. The website’s controller takes no responsibility for the content of these other websites.