Nicole van den Hurk was 15 when she disappeared in Eindhoven, Netherlands, in October 1995. Her body was found weeks later in woodland near Lierop. The case stayed unsolved for years until DNA testing led to an arrest in 2014.
Nicole was born on July 4, 1980, in Erkelenz, Germany. She later lived in the Netherlands and used the surname Van den Hurk. Her family situation was complicated, and custody arrangements changed during her childhood.
Her mother, Angelika Tegtmeier, had a relationship with Ad van den Hurk, and Nicole took his surname. After the relationship ended, Ad became her guardian. Later reporting also stated that Nicole’s biological father lived in Germany.
In April 1995, Nicole’s mother died in Tilburg. By the time Nicole vanished, she had been staying with her grandmother in Tongelre, a neighborhood of Eindhoven. She was attending school and also had a part time job.
Nicole had a holiday job connected to a supermarket in Eindhoven, linked to the Woensel area. The shift required an early start, and she traveled by bicycle. People around her understood that the route was familiar and routine.
On Friday, October 6, 1995, Nicole left her grandmother’s home early in the morning. The time is commonly reported as about 5:00 a.m., with some accounts stating it was slightly after five. She cycled toward her workplace.
Nicole never arrived. Colleagues at the supermarket became concerned when she failed to show up, and the situation quickly shifted from late arrival to missing person. Police were notified and the first searches began that day.
Later on October 6, police found Nicole’s bicycle in the Dommel, a river that runs through the area. The discovery raised immediate concern that her disappearance involved foul play, since the bike was not simply abandoned on a street.
Search activity expanded in the days that followed. The investigation focused on likely cycling routes, bridges, water edges, and paths near where the bicycle was found. Officers treated the river discovery as a key pivot point.
A large search effort also drew public attention. A television program called Deadline organized a major search action shortly after Nicole disappeared, using search teams and dogs. The search concentrated around areas discussed in the early tips.
One location repeatedly mentioned in coverage was the Wasvenpad area. Despite coordinated searches, Nicole was not found in the initial sweep. As days passed, the case produced more tips but no confirmed sightings.
On October 19, 1995, another item linked to Nicole was found. Her small backpack was discovered near a canal area in Eindhoven, reported as in the berm between the DAF complex and Kanaaldijk Zuid. Police searched the canal zone.
The backpack finding widened the geographic footprint of the case. It suggested movement between different areas of Eindhoven and strengthened the sense that Nicole’s disappearance was not a simple accident. Investigators collected and logged the item.
By late October and into November, police had received a large number of tips. Some reporting described “hundreds” of calls by around November 20. The volume showed public attention, but tip volume did not translate into a clear suspect.
On October 24, 1995, police received an anonymous call from a man who claimed he could identify the killer. The call ended abruptly before a full statement was taken. A recording later became part of public appeals.
In January 1996, the recorded call was broadcast on national television in an attempt to identify the caller. Investigators hoped the voice would be recognized, or that the caller would come forward again with details strong enough to investigate.
The case took its darkest turn on November 22, 1995. A passerby discovered Nicole’s body in woodland between Mierlo and Lierop, near Lierop. The body was concealed under branches and pruning waste.
The concealment mattered to investigators. It indicated deliberate effort to hide the body and delay discovery. The location also suggested the offender knew or selected a place with low visibility, away from the most searched urban areas.
An autopsy concluded Nicole had been killed through violence. Public summaries have described serious injuries, including trauma to the head and face. Investigators treated the case as a homicide from that point forward.
Some reporting also stated the autopsy documented a fatal stab wound. Other described fractures to the jaw and injuries to the fingers. The public record consistently emphasized that the injuries reflected a violent assault rather than an accident.
Nicole was buried on November 28, 1995. The investigation continued through 1995 and 1996 with forensic work, interviews, and suspect review. At that time, DNA techniques existed but had limits, especially in complex samples.
The body had remained outdoors for weeks before discovery. That exposure mattered for forensics, because decomposition and environmental contact can complicate DNA interpretation. Investigators still collected biological samples, clothing traces, and hair evidence.
In the years after the murder, various people were treated as suspects. Public attention frequently focused on Nicole’s immediate household, including her guardian, Ad van den Hurk, and her stepbrother, Andy van den Hurk.
Police detained Andy van den Hurk in 1996 and released him after several days. Authorities also detained Ad van den Hurk in 1996 and released him after several days. Neither detention resulted in charges at the time.
Family relationships in the case were also publicly dissected. Reporting later stated that Ad van den Hurk was not Nicole’s biological father, even though he had been her guardian. The distinction mattered socially, but did not resolve the murder.
Other leads surfaced and collapsed. One account involved a friend of the family who, while under arrest for drug trafficking, claimed he had been forced into smuggling by men tied to Nicole’s killing. Police said the story lacked reliable support.
A magazine reward was also offered for information. Tips kept coming, yet the investigation did not develop evidence strong enough for prosecution. Over time, active staffing was reduced and the case settled into long term unsolved status.
In 2004, a cold case team reviewed the file. That review did not produce an arrest. The investigation remained open, but progress depended on either new witness information or new forensic capability.
A dramatic shift came in 2011. Andy van den Hurk was living in England when he posted a confession on Facebook on March 8, 2011, claiming responsibility for Nicole’s death. British police arrested him on the basis of the post.
Andy was extradited to the Netherlands on March 30, 2011. He was released about five days later because the Facebook confession was the only evidence supporting the allegation. The confession alone was not enough for charges.
After his release, Andy withdrew the confession and accused his father instead. In later interviews, he said he had confessed to force renewed attention, including exhumation and DNA testing, because he believed the case would otherwise stay frozen.
In September 2011, Nicole’s body was exhumed for new forensic testing. The Netherlands Forensic Institute used updated methods to re examine biological material and clothing traces. Investigators also raised the reward and appealed for new tips.
The renewed testing produced what earlier work could not. Authorities announced that foreign DNA had been found on Nicole’s remains. The discovery redirected the case away from family suspicion and toward identifying the unknown profile.
During this period, investigators also confirmed publicly that Nicole had been raped. Reporting indicated that earlier teams had not shared that fact with the public. From a case perspective, the rape finding made DNA evidence central to identification.
In late 2012, a dedicated cold case team re evaluated unsolved sexual violence cases and offender methods. During that review, they discussed known sex offenders and compared patterns, including cases involving cyclists and sudden violence.
One comparison point was a 2000 case in Valkenswaard where a young woman was taken from her bicycle and raped at knifepoint. The offender in that case was convicted in 2001, and a DNA sample had been taken from him.
When usable DNA could be derived from Nicole’s evidence, investigators compared it to stored profiles. The comparison produced a match to a man from Helmond known publicly as Jos de G, a privacy shortened name used in Dutch reporting.
On January 14, 2014, police arrested the suspect, then 46, based on the DNA match. He had a record of violent sexual offenses and had been under a tbs measure, the Dutch system of compulsory forensic psychiatric treatment.
Prosecutors initially treated the case as rape combined with unlawful killing. As legal proceedings developed, the prosecution strategy shifted. In July 2014, the accusation was framed as rape and manslaughter rather than premeditated murder.
The physical evidence described publicly focused on biological traces and a hair found on Nicole’s clothing. The appeal court later described multiple traces of the suspect’s cell material in Nicole’s intimate zone, treated as high value evidence.
A hair described as a pubic hair was also found on the jacket Nicole wore. Prosecutors argued the hair’s location and context pointed to contact close to the time her body was concealed. The defense disputed that interpretation.
A complicating factor was the presence of additional DNA. Investigators reported DNA from Nicole’s boyfriend, and also a small unknown trace from an unidentified male. The meaning and timing of that unknown trace became a central courtroom fight.
The first public court hearings took place in 2014. The defense challenged the DNA evidence and argued that mixed samples and environmental exposure could produce misleading results. Prosecutors argued the traces were strong and consistent.
The full trial began in November 2015. The case depended heavily on forensic testimony and on how judges interpreted complex mixed DNA. Experts explained how the samples were obtained and how conclusions were reached.
The prosecution argued Nicole had been forced into sexual contact and then killed, followed by concealment of the body. They pointed to the hidden disposal, the injuries, and the sexual assault findings as one connected sequence.
The defense maintained the suspect denied involvement. At different points, the defense suggested alternative scenarios, including the claim that any sexual contact could have been consensual and occurred earlier, separate from the killing.
The courts also had to address how the body’s weeks outdoors affected evidence quality. Judges evaluated whether contamination or degradation could create false attribution, and whether the statistical strength of the DNA links remained persuasive.
Witness statements became another contested area. Prosecutors referenced statements from people who claimed the suspect had spoken about killing a girl. Early courts treated some of those statements as too vague, and later proceedings revisited them.
The district court decision came on November 21, 2016. The court convicted Jos de G of raping Nicole and sentenced him to five years in prison. The court acquitted him of manslaughter due to doubt about the killing itself.
The main doubt centered on the unknown DNA trace. The district court reasoned that the presence of material from an unidentified male could not be fully dismissed, leaving open the possibility of another perpetrator for the fatal violence.
The 2016 court also considered mental health findings about the suspect’s condition at the time of the crime. The court did not impose an additional tbs order, since he had already been under tbs measures in earlier cases.
Both the prosecution and the defense appealed. The prosecution challenged the manslaughter acquittal, and the defense challenged the rape conviction. The appeal process reopened the evidence and demanded a new assessment of the unknown trace.
Appeal hearings took place in 2018, with prosecutors again seeking a far longer sentence. They argued the evidence supported a single offender who raped Nicole, killed her, and concealed the body to prevent discovery of both crimes.
On October 9, 2018, the Court of Appeal in s Hertogenbosch overturned the manslaughter acquittal. It convicted Jos de G of both rape and manslaughter and sentenced him to 12 years in prison.
The appeal court treated the unknown DNA trace differently. It described the trace as very small and of uncertain origin, with many possible explanations for transfer. The court concluded it lacked real evidentiary weight.
Against that, the appeal court emphasized three traces of the suspect’s cell material in Nicole’s intimate zone and the hair on her jacket. It concluded the sexual contact was forced and that the same offender committed the killing.
The appeal court also described the body concealment as part of the offender’s effort to avoid detection. It held that Nicole was killed with violence and then hidden under pruning waste in the woodland, linking disposal behavior to guilt.
After the appeal conviction, the defense sought cassation at the Supreme Court. The complaints focused heavily on how the appeal court relied on DNA evidence and how it handled defense requests and arguments about expert testimony.
On June 16, 2020, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal court conviction. The ruling made the 12 year sentence final. By that point, the legal system treated the case as resolved in court, with the conviction standing.
The case file still contains unresolved details even with a final conviction. The small unknown DNA trace has never been publicly linked to a named person, and courts treated it as non decisive rather than fully explained.
The stepbrother’s 2011 confession remains part of the public history of the case, but he was never charged for the murder. His later explanation was that he confessed to force exhumation and renewed DNA testing.
Another unresolved question involves the exact abduction point. Nicole left Tongelre by bicycle and did not arrive at work, but public summaries do not pin down the precise moment she was intercepted or the exact location of the assault.
Even so, the core timeline is consistent. Nicole vanished early on October 6, 1995, her bicycle was found in the Dommel that evening, her backpack was found on October 19, and her body was found on November 22, concealed in woodland.
The investigative arc is also clear. Initial forensic work could not identify the offender, exhumation and improved DNA testing created a usable profile, a 2014 arrest followed, a 2016 conviction covered rape only, and a 2018 appeal conviction added manslaughter.
As of the final court rulings, the Dutch legal record holds that Jos de G raped Nicole van den Hurk and killed her in 1995, then concealed her body to avoid discovery. The conviction has been upheld through the highest court.
