Police chief in email to colleagues about Hajar murder case: ‘Terrible outcome, but careful action was taken’

Hajar was killed before she was reported missing. That timing matters because an earlier response might have changed the opportunity to find her or protect her. The available source headlines do not establish whether an earlier intervention could have saved her. They do show why the police response has become controversial.

Hajar reportedly sent messages saying, “help me, he is murdering me.” The Telegraaf headline says police did nothing and refers to a rule that a case becomes urgent only after 24 hours. Other headlines ask why the disappearance was not immediately urgent despite the alarming messages. A police chief later described the outcome as terrible but said officers acted carefully.

The source also reports that the suspect is suspected in an attempted killing involving Hajar’s foster father. It does not give a full timeline, explain the classification decision, or state whether anyone has been charged or convicted. Those missing details are important for judging responsibility fairly.

The messages are important because they reportedly described an immediate threat, not an ordinary unexplained disappearance. The quoted wording was, “help me, he is murdering me.” Such a statement can provide police with a direct warning about possible violence. However, the supplied source does not reproduce the messages’ full contents or identify the exact time they were sent.

The headlines connect the messages with the later missing-person report. They also state that Hajar had been killed hours before she was reported missing. That means the central issue is the sequence: alarming communication, police awareness or response, and the missing-person report. The source does not provide clock times, so the precise interval cannot be calculated.

The 24-hour reference concerns urgency, according to the headline from De Telegraaf. It should not be confused with a confirmed timestamp for Hajar’s messages. To establish the exact chronology, investigators’ records, message metadata, and the report time would be needed, but those details are not included here.

A missing-person urgency classification is a way for police to assess risk. It considers signs such as immediate danger, vulnerability, threats, and unusual circumstances. The purpose is to match police action to the likely danger. A high-risk classification normally prompts faster checks, searches, information gathering, and coordination. The source itself does not define the official classification system.

In Hajar’s case, the controversy concerns whether the alarming messages should have led to immediate urgency. The reported words, “help me, he is murdering me,” suggested a direct threat. Yet the headline says police did nothing and refers to the idea that a disappearance becomes urgent only after 24 hours. The source does not confirm the exact decision process or category assigned.

In practice, classifications should be revised when new information arrives. A message describing a possible killing could change the risk assessment quickly. The police chief’s statement that officers acted carefully conflicts with the public criticism reflected in the headlines. A fair conclusion requires the full case file and an independent review.

The clearest timing fact is that Hajar was already dead hours before she was reported missing. This matters because the missing-person report came after the fatal event, making the timing of the police response central to the controversy. The source does not provide clock times or a precise duration for the gap.

The messages reportedly said, “help me, he is murdering me.” The supplied text does not state exactly when those messages were sent relative to Hajar’s death or the missing-person report. It also does not say when police saw them or what action followed. Therefore, no reliable calculation can be made from the available facts.

The phrase “after 24 hours” appears in the Telegraaf headline about urgency. It may describe a reported police practice or explanation, but the source does not establish that exactly 24 hours passed in Hajar’s case. The safest conclusion is that the report came hours after her death, while other intervals remain unspecified.

Hajar is the 29-year-old woman at the center of the case. The source reports that she was killed before being reported missing and that she sent messages asking for help. Her identity is the only personal name provided in the supplied headlines. The other individuals are described by their roles rather than named.

The suspect is the person accused in connection with Hajar’s death. NOS reports that this suspect is also suspected of attempting to kill Hajar’s foster father. The foster father is therefore a second alleged target connected to the case. The source does not state the suspect’s name, the foster father’s name, or whether charges have been formally filed.

Police officers and a police chief are also part of the public debate. The chief reportedly wrote to colleagues that the outcome was terrible but that officers had acted carefully. The available text does not identify that chief. It also does not provide statements from Hajar’s family, the suspect, or the foster father.

When a disappearance is not treated as urgent, police may begin with fewer immediate resources or slower checks. That can matter when a person faces violence, because time may affect the chance of finding them or stopping an attacker. This is general policing knowledge; the supplied headlines do not describe the exact operational consequences in Hajar’s case.

Hajar’s reported message, “help me, he is murdering me,” is the concrete warning at the center of the criticism. The headlines say police did nothing and question why the disappearance was not urgent. They also state that Hajar had been killed hours before she was reported missing. The source does not show which searches or checks were delayed.

A delayed response can also affect a criminal investigation by reducing opportunities to secure evidence or locate suspects. That does not prove that delay caused Hajar’s death or changed the outcome here. The police chief said officers acted carefully despite the terrible result. Determining consequences requires the case timeline and an independent assessment.

Police decide urgency by assessing available warning signs. Common factors include a person’s vulnerability, threats of violence, unusual behaviour, and information suggesting immediate danger. The classification should guide the speed and scale of action. These are general principles, not details supplied by the article’s headlines. The exact Dutch procedure is not described in the source.

For Hajar, the strongest reported warning was the message, “help me, he is murdering me.” A safeguard should ensure that such information is recorded, assessed promptly, and passed to the right decision-maker. New evidence should also trigger a fresh assessment. The headlines question why the disappearance was not immediately urgent despite those messages.

The police chief reportedly told colleagues that officers had acted carefully, while the public reporting highlights the terrible outcome. That conflict makes review important. Safeguards can include clear escalation rules, supervisory checks, documented decisions, and later evaluation. Whether those safeguards were used in Hajar’s case cannot be established from the supplied text.