[9] In January 2014, DNA collected from Nicole's remains and the crime scene led to the arrest of a man who had been convicted in other cases with the same modus operandi.

[5][2] The prosecution appealed the acquittal, and in 2018 de G. was convicted of both rape and manslaughter, increasing his sentence to twelve years.

[1][17] In February, a friend of the van den Hurk family (who was under arrest for drug trafficking) claimed to have been forced to smuggle heroin by men involved in the killing.

[6] The suspect—known by the pseudonym Jos de G. due to a privacy code commonly accepted by Dutch media—was previously convicted of three rapes and had been sentenced to three years preventive detention and compulsory treatment for one of them.

[32] The DNA sample obtained from van den Hurk's remains was the prosecution's main piece of evidence in the 2015 trial.

However, it was also used by the defence as evidence against the manslaughter charges due to uncertainty surrounding the number of DNA profiles present in the samples.

The experts utilised various computer programs which analyse DNA profiles using statistical methods in a process called probabilistic genotyping.

The explanation from the experts about the inconclusive test results was misinterpreted by many as evidence for a "third DNA profile"; Nicole's stepfather and stepbrother were accused of being involved.

The court came to the conclusion that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the two distinctive profiles were from Jos de G. and van den Hurk's then-boyfriend.

During the appeal, the Dutch Supreme Court concluded that the second explanation was highly unlikely based on the evidence from the tactical investigations and forensic research of the case.

[35] The defence argued that van den Hurk may have had consensual sex with multiple partners including de G., and that she could have been pregnant when she died.

[3][38] At a hearing in October 2015, de G. claimed to have never met van den Hurk and denied having contact with her at the time of her disappearance.

Due to the hard evidence against this statement, the suspect and his defence team argued that de G. may have had consensual sex with van den Hurk a few days before her disappearance and did not remember.

[44] A trace of semen containing DNA from at least two persons—believed by experts to be de G., van den Hurk's then-boyfriend and possibly a third suspect—had been found on her remains.

[46] On 12 October 2016, the prosecution demanded that de G. be sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment, asserting that he could not have had consensual sex with van den Hurk as she had no time for a second relationship.

[47] On 21 November 2016, de G. was found guilty of rape, but acquitted of manslaughter on the basis that there could another suspect due to the inconclusive DNA analysis.

[51] On 9 October, the acquittal was overturned and de G. was sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment for the rape and manslaughter of van den Hurk.