Editing Volkert van der Graaf (section)

== Investigations and trial==

=== Initial investigations and conspiracy theories ===
For several months Van der Graaf refused to make any statement about the murder, on the advice of his lawyers. He was represented by [[Britta Böhler|Böhler]], Koppe and Franken, with Böhler leading.

In the months following the murder, many [[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]] were put forth by supporters of Fortuyn and others. Officials investigating the murder dismissed these popular rumours, declaring that no evidence had been found for the involvement of others.{{Citation needed|date=February 2021}} No evidence was found to support rumors that Van der Graaf had committed the earlier murder in 1996 of Chris van de Werken, an environmental official from [[Nunspeet]], or that he attended other appearances by Fortuyn.

On 7 July 2006, the national daily newspaper ''[[De Telegraaf]]'' published an article alleging Van der Graaf's connection with the murder of Van der Werken. ''De Telegraaf'' printed extracts of a secret police report on the murder of Van der Werken on its website. Quirijn Meijnen, a Dutch-based media lawyer who represented Van der Graaf, said the accusations were grave and unfounded, and that the publication of extracts of the secret police report infringed Van der Graaf's privacy rights. ''De Telegraaf'' failed to mention that Van der Graaf was never a suspect in the murder case of Van der Werken.

After Van der Graaf's arrest, he was held in strict isolation until 1 June. He could speak only to his lawyers and police and justice officials. He was kept under constant observation by [[video camera]].{{Citation needed|date=February 2021}}

A second search of Van der Graaf's home on 24 June found a chemical mixture, [[calcium chlorate]] and sugar, hidden in 35 condoms in his garage. Nearby were flasks of [[Sulfuric acid|sulphuric acid]]. Experts said the substances could be combined to make a [[Incendiary device|fire bomb]] or [[explosive]] material. Van der Graaf later said that he had fabricated the materials around 1990–1992 for experimentation purposes and had forgotten about them. Detectives also conducted a search on Graaf's [[personal computer]] and found he had used the internet to gather information about Fortuyn.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dw.com/en/fortuyn-murder-case-opens/a-608342|title = Fortuyn Murder Case Opens &#124; DW &#124; 12.08.2002|website = [[Deutsche Welle]]}}</ref>

=== First hearing ===
The first "[[pro forma]]" hearing in his trial started on 9 August, which Van der Graaf watched on television from his cell in the [[Bijlmerbajes]] prison. The prosecution outlined its evidence, which included the finding of DNA matching Fortuyn on Van der Graaf's clothes and gun, matching of the bullets used in the attack with the gun, and eyewitnesses who pursued him continuously from the murder scene to the point of arrest. The defence complained that lack of discretion in reporting by the press and statements by public officials would make it difficult to obtain a fair trial. It requested calling as witnesses several politicians who had made public comments about the murder, including the past [[Prime Minister of the Netherlands|Prime Ministers]] [[Wim Kok]] and [[Jan Peter Balkenende]], as well as various members of [[Pim Fortuyn List|Lijst Pim Fortuyn]] including [[Mat Herben]] and [[Jim Janssen van Raaij]].

On the morning of 3 September, Van der Graaf's girlfriend was arrested at her workplace in connection with the chemicals found at their former home. Her lawyer and the lawyers of Van der Graaf denounced this as an attempt to pressure Van der Graaf into making a statement. She was released two days later and eventually cleared of any suspicion after Van der Graaf made a statement on her behalf.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/vriendin-van-der-g-niet-langer-verdacht~a624997/ | title=Vriendin Van der G. niet langer verdacht | date=13 November 2002 | newspaper=de Volkskrant | access-date=25 January 2017 | archive-date=2 February 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170202052103/http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/vriendin-van-der-g-niet-langer-verdacht~a624997/ | url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Second hearing ===
During a second "pro forma" hearing on 4 November, it was decided that the trial would be delayed while Van der Graaf was sent for seven weeks of [[Psychiatric assessment|psychiatric observation]] at the [[Pieter Baan Centre]], starting in the first week of January 2003. In a press statement of 23 November, the prosecution (Public Ministry) announced that Van der Graaf had confessed to the murder. He said he planned it for some time and that nobody else was involved in the plans or knew about them. He believed Fortuyn was a steadily increasing danger for vulnerable groups in society. He saw no other possibility than to end the danger by killing Fortuyn.

In response to the confession, Mat Herben said he was still not convinced that Van der Graaf had acted alone. Fortuyn's brother Marten said he was not surprised by the confession but feared that Van der Graaf was setting himself up as "saviour of the fatherland".

The confession has not been made publicly available. Reports have asserted that Van der Graaf said he was "not proud" of the deed. He said if he could consider the decision again, he would not do it. He said that he did not see himself as "the saviour of the Netherlands" or as a [[martyr]].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/Nieuws/article/detail/1784559/2003/03/10/Van-der-G-niet-trots-op-moord.dhtml | title=Van der G. niet trots op moord | date=10 March 2003 | newspaper=Trouw | access-date=25 January 2017 | archive-date=2 February 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170202021722/http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/Nieuws/article/detail/1784559/2003/03/10/Van-der-G-niet-trots-op-moord.dhtml | url-status=live }}</ref>

On 6 January 2003, Van der Graaf was moved to the Pieter Baan Centrum (PBC) to begin the seven-week behavioural investigation. Disagreements between the Ministry of Justice and the management of the PBC over the conditions of his supervision delayed it. The Ministry wanted Van der Graaf under video surveillance 24 hours per day and isolated from other patients for his own safety. The PBC believed such cameras would prevent establishing the trust needed for the multi-disciplinary behavioural investigation. It took responsibility to supervise him in a small group so that the investigation could proceed optimally. On 20 January, Van der Graaf said he was suspending his cooperation for the investigation. The Minister of Justice, [[Piet Hein Donner]], resolved the dispute by dropping the demands for video surveillance and isolation.

=== Third hearing ===
On 29 January 2003, a third "pro forma" hearing was held in which the dates for the trial were set. Since the subject of the trial was expected to be not so much the question of the guilt of Van der Graaf, but instead the degree of the punishment, the report of the Pieter Baan Centrum was considered highly significant, in case it found that he was of "diminished responsibilities". After the completion of the investigation on 14 March, he was returned to his prison cell in the Bijlmerbajes.

The report from the PBC was complete by about 21 March. It found that Van der Graaf could be held completely accountable for the killing. The report also stated that Van der Graaf has a severe [[personality disorder]],<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/1427685/Fortuyn-killer-gets-18-years.html |title=Fortuyn killer gets 18 years |access-date=3 April 2018 |archive-date=26 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181026182742/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/1427685/Fortuyn-killer-gets-18-years.html |url-status=live }}</ref> which explains his rigid moral judgements. Menno Oosterhoff, a child psychiatrist from [[Groningen]], publicly suggested that the Pieter Baan Centrum may have overlooked the possibility that Van der Graaf has [[Asperger syndrome]]; Oosterhoff later withdrew his theory. The PBC report stated that nothing could be said about the chance of another similar crime occurring, since the disorder had nothing to do with the murder. Van der Graaf agreed that he was accountable and that he had compulsive urges. The outcome of the investigation ensured that he would receive a prison sentence and not "[[Involuntary commitment|TBS treatment]]".

=== The trial ===

The trial was held in a high-security court in [[Amsterdam]]-Osdorp over three days: 27 March, 31 March, and 1 April. About 15 supporters of Fortuyn demonstrated outside the building, with banners such as "for less than 20 years we will smash the place up", "better Fortuynist than socialist" and "the leftist church is criminal". The proceedings were followed by about 80 people, including a woman who disturbed the occasion by screaming at Van der Graaf, accusing him of such things as "destroying the whole of the Netherlands". Van der Graaf was counseled by the high-profile German-born attorney, [[Britta Böhler]].

Van der Graaf was charged with the premeditated murder of Fortuyn, two counts of possession of illegal weapons, namely the gun and the explosive mixture at his house, and a charge of threatening the life of Fortuyn's [[chauffeur]] by pointing his gun at him during the chase following the murder.

The prosecutor asked for life imprisonment for the killing, saying that an example must be set for anybody else attempting to frustrate the democratic process through criminal means. He said the crime was serious because of its victim and the consequences, and that to a certain degree it was a "political murder". Van der Graaf had irrevocably damaged the democratic political progress of Fortuyn, and had done it intentionally. For an exceptional crime, he deserved an exceptional punishment.

During the trial, Van der Graaf described his reasons for killing Fortuyn. He claimed he hoped that the leaders of other political parties would criticize Fortuyn, but that it never happened (which was not true as other party leaders had openly criticized and derided Fortuyn in debates). He claimed that Fortuyn had the talent to channel criticism so that it never touched him. Van der Graaf said he had spoken to no one about his plan. He finished his planning just the day before the murder. Perhaps looking for sympathy, he said he was wrestling with regret for the killing, finding the killing of somebody morally reprehensible. On 6 May he had felt justified, saying that he wanted to fight the danger of what Fortuyn represented, not the man. He did not find it easy to talk about feelings. Asked about the danger of accidentally injuring somebody other than Fortuyn in the attack, he said that he had been confident that that would not happen. However, the 3FM [[disc jockey]] [[Ruud de Wild]] said that he barely escaped with his life, as he received a bullet in the bag used for a shield. De Wild also stated that witnessing the shooting had left him suffering from [[PTSD]].

To the argument that Fortuyn would have been chosen through democratic means, Van der Graaf said that that was also the case for [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]]. He compared the rise of Fortuyn to the rise of Nazism in the 1930s.<ref name =BBC/> In his final argument, he said that he had acted from his conscience, but that did not justify murder. He said it was absolutely not normal to shoot somebody to death.

Van der Graaf said he murdered Fortuyn to defend Dutch Muslims from [[religious persecution|persecution]]. He wanted to stop Fortuyn from targeting "the weak parts of society to score points" and exploiting Muslims as "scapegoats" in an attempt to seek political power.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.volkertvandergraaf.net/Volkert/bekentenis.htm |title=Volkert van der G<!-- Bot generated title --> |access-date=3 August 2006 |archive-date=15 May 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060515024139/http://www.volkertvandergraaf.net/Volkert/bekentenis.htm |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/03/27/netherlands.fortuyn.trial/ "Fortuyn killer 'acted for Muslims'"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081210081312/http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/03/27/netherlands.fortuyn.trial/ |date=10 December 2008 }}, CNN 27 March 2003</ref><ref>Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose and Joan Clements [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/1425944/Fortuyn-killed-to-protect-Muslims.html "Fortuyn killed 'to protect Muslims'"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180428020432/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/1425944/Fortuyn-killed-to-protect-Muslims.html |date=28 April 2018 }}, ''Telegraph'' (28 March 2003)</ref>

Van der Graaf said that he would not have committed the murder, at least not on that evening, if Fortuyn had been accompanied by security guards; this is relevant to accusations that the government should have provided security.{{Citation needed|date=February 2021}} On Tuesday, 15 April 2003, Van der Graaf was convicted and sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment.

=== Appeals ===
The prosecution and the defence both made appeals against the sentence. Prior to the appeal, suggestions in the media that Van der Graaf may have had [[Asperger syndrome]] were rejected by workers at the PBC. They said they had considered and rejected the possibility. A psychiatric report read in court said that Van der Graaf had an [[Obsessive–compulsive personality disorder|obsessive compulsive personality]] but was sane and could be held accountable for his actions.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/04/22/fortuyn.appeal/index.html "Fortuyn's killer to appeal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170228090049/http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/04/22/fortuyn.appeal/index.html |date=28 February 2017 }}, ''CNN'' (22 April 2003)</ref> The prosecution argued that the court had not taken account of the political nature of the murder, and asked again for life imprisonment. The defence argued that the sentence did not take account of the harsh conditions under which Van der Graaf had been held, nor the damage that had been done by unsubstantiated allegations that had appeared in the media (such as the connection with Van der Werken), and requested a reduction in sentence to 16 years. The appeals court accepted some of the arguments from both parties, but on 18 July 2003 reiterated the sentence to 18 years' imprisonment.