ZaZara
AstraZaZara
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 8,425
- Reaction score
- 18,000
Quite so. Why would he need a knife if he was on a burglary tour? Asking for a friend.
Found Deceased Netherlands - Anne Faber, 25, Utrecht, 28 Sept 2017 *Arrest*
- Thread starter Denise884
- Start date
Quite so. Why would he need a knife if he was on a burglary tour? Asking for a friend.
ZaZara
AstraZaZara
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 8,425
- Reaction score
- 18,000
MICHAEL P. HAS ADMITTED KIDNAPPING, RAPING AND MURDERING ANNE FABER
RTL Nieuws
https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nederland/...enis-af-over-moord-en-verkrachting-anne-faber
Michael P. has confessed that he kidnapped, raped and murdered Anne Faber on the day on which she went missing.
That became clear this morning in the court in Utrecht. There is today a so-called pro forma hearing on the case, a non-substantive hearing. Anne disappeared 29 September last year after a bike ride, her body was found two weeks later. At that time, P. was detained in a clinic in Den Dolder for various sexual and violent crimes in 2010.
According to his lawyer, P. has made a' comprehensive, confessing' statement. P. himself was not present in court. Several friends and family members of Faber were. A number of them attended the session from another room. "The family and friends ask for privacy. This is very difficult for them," according to the public prosecutor.
The next session is scheduled for 23 March. It is a non-substantial session. The content of the case is scheduled to be dealt with on 11 and 12 June.
P. will be taken to the Pieter Baan Centre next week for observation. This observation will take more than a month.
BBM
RTL Nieuws
https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nederland/...enis-af-over-moord-en-verkrachting-anne-faber
Michael P. has confessed that he kidnapped, raped and murdered Anne Faber on the day on which she went missing.
That became clear this morning in the court in Utrecht. There is today a so-called pro forma hearing on the case, a non-substantive hearing. Anne disappeared 29 September last year after a bike ride, her body was found two weeks later. At that time, P. was detained in a clinic in Den Dolder for various sexual and violent crimes in 2010.
According to his lawyer, P. has made a' comprehensive, confessing' statement. P. himself was not present in court. Several friends and family members of Faber were. A number of them attended the session from another room. "The family and friends ask for privacy. This is very difficult for them," according to the public prosecutor.
The next session is scheduled for 23 March. It is a non-substantial session. The content of the case is scheduled to be dealt with on 11 and 12 June.
P. will be taken to the Pieter Baan Centre next week for observation. This observation will take more than a month.
BBM
ZaZara
AstraZaZara
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 8,425
- Reaction score
- 18,000
'MICHAEL P. MURDERED ANNE FABER WITH A KNIFE'
RTL Nieuws
https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nederland/michael-p-bracht-anne-faber-met-mes-om-het-leven
According to the Public Prosecution Service, Michael P. killed Anne Faber with a knife. This came to light during the second non-substantive hearing in the process.
According to the OM, P. killed the 25-year-old student 'by cutting or stabbing her one or more times with a knife, or at least with a sharp or pointed object in her throat'. He had previously forced her at knifepoint to go with him on his scooter.
During the meeting it also became known that P. had been involved in a violent incident at the Pieter Baan Centre (PBC), where he had been admitted for observation. The PBC has filed a report against P. It has not become clear what exactly happened, only that it has been sometime in the past few months.
Faber disappeared at the end of September after a bike ride. Her body was found after being missing for almost two weeks on 12 October last year in Zeewolde. At that time P. was imprisoned in a clinic in Den Dolder for various sexual and violent offences in 2010. Because he was at the end of his sentence, he was allowed to go outside under certain conditions.
P. came into the picture after his DNA had been found on Faber's coat. That jacket was found during a search organised by Faber's family and friends in the area where it disappeared. Also, his blood traces from the student were found in the car that P. had at his disposal.
BBM
RTL Nieuws
https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nederland/michael-p-bracht-anne-faber-met-mes-om-het-leven
According to the Public Prosecution Service, Michael P. killed Anne Faber with a knife. This came to light during the second non-substantive hearing in the process.
According to the OM, P. killed the 25-year-old student 'by cutting or stabbing her one or more times with a knife, or at least with a sharp or pointed object in her throat'. He had previously forced her at knifepoint to go with him on his scooter.
During the meeting it also became known that P. had been involved in a violent incident at the Pieter Baan Centre (PBC), where he had been admitted for observation. The PBC has filed a report against P. It has not become clear what exactly happened, only that it has been sometime in the past few months.
Faber disappeared at the end of September after a bike ride. Her body was found after being missing for almost two weeks on 12 October last year in Zeewolde. At that time P. was imprisoned in a clinic in Den Dolder for various sexual and violent offences in 2010. Because he was at the end of his sentence, he was allowed to go outside under certain conditions.
P. came into the picture after his DNA had been found on Faber's coat. That jacket was found during a search organised by Faber's family and friends in the area where it disappeared. Also, his blood traces from the student were found in the car that P. had at his disposal.
BBM
ZaZara
AstraZaZara
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 8,425
- Reaction score
- 18,000
SUSPEC T IN ANNE FABER MURDER CASE ALSO PROSECUTED FOR ASSAULT OF THREE EMPLOYEES OF PSYCHIATRIC CENTRE
RTL Nieuws
Moordverdachte Michael P. mishandelde drie medewerkers Pieter Baan Centrum
The man suspected of killing and raping Anne Faber is also being prosecuted for the assault on three employees of the Pieter Baan Centre (PBC) where he was admitted for observation.
This incident occurred at the beginning of February. Michael P. first attacked an employee in the afternoon and two other employees in the evening.
During the previous session of the court in Utrecht, it turned out that there was a report of a 'violent incident' in the PBC, but no more information was given at that time.
It has now become clear that P. will also be prosecuted for the three assaults. These will be added to the case that will be dealt with in substance next Monday and Tuesday, the Public Prosecution Service announced.
Faber disappeared at the end of September after a bike ride. Her body was found in Zeewolde after she had been missing almost two weeks.
BBM
RTL Nieuws
Moordverdachte Michael P. mishandelde drie medewerkers Pieter Baan Centrum
The man suspected of killing and raping Anne Faber is also being prosecuted for the assault on three employees of the Pieter Baan Centre (PBC) where he was admitted for observation.
This incident occurred at the beginning of February. Michael P. first attacked an employee in the afternoon and two other employees in the evening.
During the previous session of the court in Utrecht, it turned out that there was a report of a 'violent incident' in the PBC, but no more information was given at that time.
It has now become clear that P. will also be prosecuted for the three assaults. These will be added to the case that will be dealt with in substance next Monday and Tuesday, the Public Prosecution Service announced.
Faber disappeared at the end of September after a bike ride. Her body was found in Zeewolde after she had been missing almost two weeks.
BBM
ZaZara
AstraZaZara
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 8,425
- Reaction score
- 18,000
FATHER OF ANNE FABER PUBLISHES AN OPEN LETTER ABOUT HOW THE COURTS FAILED HIS DAUGHTER
Volkskrant.nl
Wim Faber: Anne is dood door het falen van de rechtsgang | De Volkskrant
Wim Faber's open letter: 'The murder of our Anne should have been prevented."
In the evening of 29 September 2017, my dear daughter Anne disappeared on a bicycle tour in the vicinity of her home town of Utrecht. With all our strength, we searched for her for almost two weeks. On 12 October 2017, Anne was found in Zeewolde. She was raped and murdered by Michael P., or at least he is suspected of being raped and murdered.
I have been defeated and I am deeply saddened. The pain in my heart can be felt every second of the day. I miss her very much. From one day to the next, my life has changed completely.
In the afternoon of 12 October 2017, there was a press conference at which Hans Faber, my brother and Anne's uncle, asked the following three questions on behalf of the family: "What exactly happened? Why did this man walk around freely? Could this terrible event have been prevented?"
That last question is the subject of this letter.
Because I still haven't received answers to these questions, I went looking for them myself.
After Anne's death, various investigations were started. Let me say first of all that I see the importance of these investigations. At the same time, I note that most of the energy is being put into the course of events after P.'s conviction in 2012. While, at the moment, my displeasure goes precisely to the period prior to the conviction.
What happened is beyond description. The rape and murder of Anne should and could have been prevented. I come to this painful conclusion after studying the public documents of the trial against P. in 2010 and the appeal in 2012. P. was prosecuted for the brutal rape of two underage girls and a number of robberies. While reading, I found various signals from which it can be deduced that P. was already life-threatening at the time. More and more, I began to wonder whether the judiciary has reacted adequately to this. Surely we, as a society, can expect judges to make an effort to protect society? I miss this effort when I read what the Arnhem Court of Appeal has done under the leadership of Prof. Dr. Otte and what they have taken into account in the judgment in terms of considerations.
Why did P. not have compulsory TBS imposed on him? Everywhere I hear that the problem was that P. did not cooperate in investigations, so that no disorder could be established. But is that really the case? Was there really no reason for the judiciary to assume that P. was disturbed?
There were so many signals that should have prompted the court to take a particularly critical stance.
Someone who does what P. did with the child victims in 2010 m has to be disturbed. This is also what the public prosecutor literally says in his 2010 indictment. The facts are bizarre, degrading and perverse. The brutal and humiliating way in which he carried out the rapes alone would justify a TBS measure. Society must be protected from people who commit such acts. Judges have a duty to make an effort to this end.
Parole probation reporting shows an alarming picture: there is a high risk of recidivism. For the avoidance of doubt: experts report that there is a good chance that P. would once again violate a girl. The high risk of recidivism is not even mentioned in the Court's judgment.
Than the shocking remarks P. made. He was proud of the rapes and happy that a dream had come true. About these statements Wineke Smid (a PhD graduate in risk assessment for sex offenders) says in the tv programme Buitenhof that she knows of no other offender who makes such statements.
Hjalmar van Marle (former director of the Pieter Baan Centre) is even more forceful in Nieuwsuur. When interviewer Twan Huys asked whether TBS would have been appropriate, Van Marle replied: 'That is what I can conclude now, on the basis of the crime at the time. Because as a psychiatrist you see the mental distortions, the distortions, the perversions. You can see these emerge from the entire staging. And then I think that you can round off towards perversions and then you still have a disorder." The judges of the Court knew P.'s perverse statements. I do not read them back in the judgment. The Court does not pay any attention to this issue. No questions were put to the experts of the Pieter Baan Centre about this.
Another signal that was not recognised was P.'s drug use. He used cocaine from an early age. An addiction can be sufficient to accept a disorder, whether or not in combination with other circumstances. Why was this not referred to the experts?
Also the well-known history of P. creates a picture. Even before the rapes he was in the spotlight of the judiciary; he had been convicted of acts of violence and had to follow a forced aggression control training course. It is also known that P. had often changed schools in his youth because of behavioural problems. Isn't his past an opportunity to investigate further or to conclude that there was something seriously wrong with this man?
In short, there were plenty of signs that the man was disturbed. There is nothing I have seen to suggest that the court has done anything about these signals. The Court of Appeal was complacent when it established that the Pieter Baan Centre could not conduct an investigation because P. refused to cooperate. That is what my anger is all about.
The judges should have been more critical. With a more critical attitude it would have been possible to substantiate a disorder, I am convinced of that. There are so many starting points for putting questions to the experts, but nowhere do I read that questions were asked. Nor do I see a critical attitude towards the conclusion that no disorder could be established because P. did not cooperate. Why? Was speed and efficiency perhaps more important than the safety of society? Or was this related to Otte's vision of imposing fewer TBS measures?
The court ruled on 21 June 2011. A year and four months later, the higher court's ruling followed. What happened in that year? What was P.'s situation after a year in prison? Nowhere do I read that the Advocate General or the three Counsel in the Court requested a re-examination of P.'s state of mind.
Precisely because of the high risk of recidivism and the various signals, we as a society could have expected more from the court of justice. Judges must base their decisions on facts on the file. The reports of behavioural experts play a crucial role in this, but the judges have to make their own assessment and adopt a critical attitude. This also concerns the question of whether there is a disorder. The judge should seek advice from experts, but should not hide behind his report. I fail to see a critical attitude when I read the 2010 papers of the horrific case. As a result, the potential for protecting society has not been mobilised.
Precisely because of the horrible nature of the rapes, in combination with the bizarre statements of the accused, the lower court considered that society should be protected from the accused for as long as possible. The court came to a term of imprisonment of 16 years.
The big difference between the sentences of 16 years by the court and 11 years by the higher court is very remarkable. The judges of the court of appeal simply remove five years from the sentence. In the same Buitenhof broadcast, Geert Corstens, former President of the Supreme Court, also indicates that he finds the large difference between the sentences incomprehensible, and even appeals to the judges and the counsellors to meet.
Judges know that the risk of recidivism after treatment is significantly lower than after serving a prison sentence. Society had to be optimally protected. No matter how much I accuse the court of not having carried out a further investigation, the lower court did show in its ruling that it had an eye for the security of society.
It is incomprehensible that the court of appeal did not take the perverse statements of the accused into account as evidence and used them in the punishment. It is also incomprehensible that the Court of Appeal did not adopt a critical stance or make its own assessment of P.'s disorder. The fact that society had to be protected against P. is not reflected in the statement either. The only consideration about the (reduced) level of punishment in the Court's judgment: the nature and seriousness of the offences do not justify a 16-year penalty...
The risk of recidivism was sky-high.
The court was sitting idle.
I note that the court has lost sight of the objectives of criminal justice, which are to prevent repetition and to protect society. If these are two objectives in criminal law, this entails a duty of effort. Mr Otte, I believe that you, as President of the Court, were largely responsible for the failure of the judicial process at the time, and I think that you should resign from your current position as Attorney General in the interests of credibility and trust in the administration of justice.
The murder of our Anne could have been prevented.
I am convinced of that.
Wim Faber, father of Anne Faber
BBM
Volkskrant.nl
Wim Faber: Anne is dood door het falen van de rechtsgang | De Volkskrant
Wim Faber's open letter: 'The murder of our Anne should have been prevented."
In the evening of 29 September 2017, my dear daughter Anne disappeared on a bicycle tour in the vicinity of her home town of Utrecht. With all our strength, we searched for her for almost two weeks. On 12 October 2017, Anne was found in Zeewolde. She was raped and murdered by Michael P., or at least he is suspected of being raped and murdered.
I have been defeated and I am deeply saddened. The pain in my heart can be felt every second of the day. I miss her very much. From one day to the next, my life has changed completely.
In the afternoon of 12 October 2017, there was a press conference at which Hans Faber, my brother and Anne's uncle, asked the following three questions on behalf of the family: "What exactly happened? Why did this man walk around freely? Could this terrible event have been prevented?"
That last question is the subject of this letter.
Because I still haven't received answers to these questions, I went looking for them myself.
After Anne's death, various investigations were started. Let me say first of all that I see the importance of these investigations. At the same time, I note that most of the energy is being put into the course of events after P.'s conviction in 2012. While, at the moment, my displeasure goes precisely to the period prior to the conviction.
What happened is beyond description. The rape and murder of Anne should and could have been prevented. I come to this painful conclusion after studying the public documents of the trial against P. in 2010 and the appeal in 2012. P. was prosecuted for the brutal rape of two underage girls and a number of robberies. While reading, I found various signals from which it can be deduced that P. was already life-threatening at the time. More and more, I began to wonder whether the judiciary has reacted adequately to this. Surely we, as a society, can expect judges to make an effort to protect society? I miss this effort when I read what the Arnhem Court of Appeal has done under the leadership of Prof. Dr. Otte and what they have taken into account in the judgment in terms of considerations.
Why did P. not have compulsory TBS imposed on him? Everywhere I hear that the problem was that P. did not cooperate in investigations, so that no disorder could be established. But is that really the case? Was there really no reason for the judiciary to assume that P. was disturbed?
There were so many signals that should have prompted the court to take a particularly critical stance.
Someone who does what P. did with the child victims in 2010 m has to be disturbed. This is also what the public prosecutor literally says in his 2010 indictment. The facts are bizarre, degrading and perverse. The brutal and humiliating way in which he carried out the rapes alone would justify a TBS measure. Society must be protected from people who commit such acts. Judges have a duty to make an effort to this end.
Parole probation reporting shows an alarming picture: there is a high risk of recidivism. For the avoidance of doubt: experts report that there is a good chance that P. would once again violate a girl. The high risk of recidivism is not even mentioned in the Court's judgment.
Than the shocking remarks P. made. He was proud of the rapes and happy that a dream had come true. About these statements Wineke Smid (a PhD graduate in risk assessment for sex offenders) says in the tv programme Buitenhof that she knows of no other offender who makes such statements.
Hjalmar van Marle (former director of the Pieter Baan Centre) is even more forceful in Nieuwsuur. When interviewer Twan Huys asked whether TBS would have been appropriate, Van Marle replied: 'That is what I can conclude now, on the basis of the crime at the time. Because as a psychiatrist you see the mental distortions, the distortions, the perversions. You can see these emerge from the entire staging. And then I think that you can round off towards perversions and then you still have a disorder." The judges of the Court knew P.'s perverse statements. I do not read them back in the judgment. The Court does not pay any attention to this issue. No questions were put to the experts of the Pieter Baan Centre about this.
Another signal that was not recognised was P.'s drug use. He used cocaine from an early age. An addiction can be sufficient to accept a disorder, whether or not in combination with other circumstances. Why was this not referred to the experts?
Also the well-known history of P. creates a picture. Even before the rapes he was in the spotlight of the judiciary; he had been convicted of acts of violence and had to follow a forced aggression control training course. It is also known that P. had often changed schools in his youth because of behavioural problems. Isn't his past an opportunity to investigate further or to conclude that there was something seriously wrong with this man?
In short, there were plenty of signs that the man was disturbed. There is nothing I have seen to suggest that the court has done anything about these signals. The Court of Appeal was complacent when it established that the Pieter Baan Centre could not conduct an investigation because P. refused to cooperate. That is what my anger is all about.
The judges should have been more critical. With a more critical attitude it would have been possible to substantiate a disorder, I am convinced of that. There are so many starting points for putting questions to the experts, but nowhere do I read that questions were asked. Nor do I see a critical attitude towards the conclusion that no disorder could be established because P. did not cooperate. Why? Was speed and efficiency perhaps more important than the safety of society? Or was this related to Otte's vision of imposing fewer TBS measures?
The court ruled on 21 June 2011. A year and four months later, the higher court's ruling followed. What happened in that year? What was P.'s situation after a year in prison? Nowhere do I read that the Advocate General or the three Counsel in the Court requested a re-examination of P.'s state of mind.
Precisely because of the high risk of recidivism and the various signals, we as a society could have expected more from the court of justice. Judges must base their decisions on facts on the file. The reports of behavioural experts play a crucial role in this, but the judges have to make their own assessment and adopt a critical attitude. This also concerns the question of whether there is a disorder. The judge should seek advice from experts, but should not hide behind his report. I fail to see a critical attitude when I read the 2010 papers of the horrific case. As a result, the potential for protecting society has not been mobilised.
Precisely because of the horrible nature of the rapes, in combination with the bizarre statements of the accused, the lower court considered that society should be protected from the accused for as long as possible. The court came to a term of imprisonment of 16 years.
The big difference between the sentences of 16 years by the court and 11 years by the higher court is very remarkable. The judges of the court of appeal simply remove five years from the sentence. In the same Buitenhof broadcast, Geert Corstens, former President of the Supreme Court, also indicates that he finds the large difference between the sentences incomprehensible, and even appeals to the judges and the counsellors to meet.
Judges know that the risk of recidivism after treatment is significantly lower than after serving a prison sentence. Society had to be optimally protected. No matter how much I accuse the court of not having carried out a further investigation, the lower court did show in its ruling that it had an eye for the security of society.
It is incomprehensible that the court of appeal did not take the perverse statements of the accused into account as evidence and used them in the punishment. It is also incomprehensible that the Court of Appeal did not adopt a critical stance or make its own assessment of P.'s disorder. The fact that society had to be protected against P. is not reflected in the statement either. The only consideration about the (reduced) level of punishment in the Court's judgment: the nature and seriousness of the offences do not justify a 16-year penalty...
The risk of recidivism was sky-high.
The court was sitting idle.
I note that the court has lost sight of the objectives of criminal justice, which are to prevent repetition and to protect society. If these are two objectives in criminal law, this entails a duty of effort. Mr Otte, I believe that you, as President of the Court, were largely responsible for the failure of the judicial process at the time, and I think that you should resign from your current position as Attorney General in the interests of credibility and trust in the administration of justice.
The murder of our Anne could have been prevented.
I am convinced of that.
Wim Faber, father of Anne Faber
BBM
ZaZara
AstraZaZara
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 8,425
- Reaction score
- 18,000
Monday, June 11. First day of trial against Michael Panhuys, confessed murderer of Anne Faber.
Tweets by reporter Saskia Belleman @SaskiaBelleman
A long queue in front of the court in Utrecht, where the criminal case against Michael P., suspected of raping and murdering #Anne Faber, starts at around 9 o'clock.
In addition to the courtroom, the court has set up 3 rooms where the case can be followed via a video link. In one of those halls the family of #Anne Faber is sitting.
Apart from the murder and rape, Michael P. (27) must also account for the abuse of five employees, including two security guards, of the Pieter Baan Centre. He kicked, beat and bit them. #Anne
Two days have been set aside for the case. It is expected that the Public Prosecution Service will come up with the demand tomorrow. The lawyers of P., Niels Dorrestein and Sander de Korte, have announced that they will be asking for TBS.
The lawyers' request to impose TBS is special. It indicates that the investigation in the PBC has shown that Michael P. suffers from a disorder. It can also be an attempt by the defence to protect P. from a long prison sentence.
The front row of seats in the courtroom has been removed. The parquet police will sit right behind Michael P. and must have 2.5 metres of room to manoeuvre. That is telling.
Uncle Hans Faber enters the room with his lawyer.
Michael P. is coming in. He looks around in the full room, somewhat dazed, and sits down between his lawyers.
Two officers of the Procurator General's Office sit behind Michael P. and his lawyers. The court has arrived. Michael P. is reminded of his right to remain silent.
It appears that another witness was heard last week. Soon it will become clear what he witnessed. The public prosecutors are now going to tell of what Michael P. is suspected of.
Michael P. is being prosecuted for murder. He stabbed #Anne dead with a knife after raping her. Further of deprivation of liberty. He tied her hands and forced her to step on his scooter under threat with a knife.
New to the indictment is the assault on 3 employees of the Pieter Baan Centre on 8 February, in the afternoon. In the evening he attacked 2 security guards.
The court will discuss the facts in this way. That may sound businesslike, but it means reviewing in detail what happened on 29 September 2017. Very confrontational for the family
After the disappearance of #Anne her coat, T-shirt, backpack and bicycle were found. Dna on the jacket led to Michael P.
Michael P. was silent after his arrest, but after a few days he started talking. "That was my conscience," he says. He thought he could no longer remain silent.
He remained silent for the first three days because he was angry, says P. "Because I was mistreated during my arrest".
A "information seeker" from the police tried to make him talk. " Hey old chap, there' s a life sentence hanging over your head. Make sure you are ahead of them, it has to come from you".
"I'm not going to be released anyway," Michael P. Now he says he was already planning to talk, "just not with him. Moreover, he wanted to wait for his lawyer. He was in a course, says P. "I was already planning to speak.
On 11 October around 10 o'clock he confessed. And he said it was important for #Anne's parents to be informed immediately. "I also will have a daughter myself".
He told me that he had been "walking around with it for 2 weeks. When I look at my hands, I see the hands of a murderer.
Anne's body was found on Spiekweg in Zeewolde.
Michael P. declared that on the day of the disappearance of #Anne he wanted to do some jobs in a building on the grounds. But first he was going to refuel. He put the tools away in the forest.
After refuelling he drove back, picked up the tools, and then collided with #Anne on a forest path. She threatened to call in the police, he claims. He flipped.
In the forest he raped her. Then came a fight with #Anne, who would have stabbed him in his hand with a knife. He declared that he first intended to leave her in the forest, but changed his mind.
He ties the hands of #Anne, forces her to step on the back seat of his scooter and starts riding. Near the place where she was found, he throws her over a fence. She tries to call for help, he holds the knife to her throat. Then he stabs her dead.
#Anne's belongings were found in different places. "I didn't know what to do with it. He denies that he had any intention of killing Anne.
Murder is punishable by a considerably higher penalty than manslaughter. But the Public Prosecution prosecutes him in 2nd place for qualified manslaughter: killing someone to conceal another crime, such as rape. It carries the same high penalty as murder.
The court will discuss the run-up to the murder. The day started early for Michael P.. He left the clinic at a quarter past seven to buy a gift for the birthday of his mother.
That was strange, because he had done that already before. In addition, the stores were not yet open. Moreover, he was "high on the ritaline". He grinded it and sniffed it.
Why did he do that? "It was nice. Your heartbeat goes up, you feel quite nice for a while. Active and energetic, is the court asking? He confirms that. "But at some point you become suspicious and paranoid.
Michael P. took between 10 and 15 a day. Bought them for 30 cents each. Why did he use so much? How did he feel if he didn't use ritaline? "Good", says P.
His practitioner spoke to him that day, and knew nothing of the Ritalin. Did not notice anything about him either. "You can put on a mask. Just talk, how's it going, this, that, such, so", says Michael P.
He behaved normally towards staff. Not towards co-residents. Why did he turn pull the wool over his therapists' eyes? "In order to be able to do my own things.
On the day of the disappearance of #Anne, near the place where Anne was later found, acquaintances saw Michael P... "I know him", said the friend. "He is an absolute madman.
According to Michael P., no one could have seen him in Zeewolde on 29 September. "I can't be in 2 places at the same time. From the clinic in Den Dolder to Zeewolde it is according to him 1.5 hours by scooter.
In the afternoon he bought a cardigan at the Action in Zeist. He stood out because of his strange behaviour. "Yes, paranoia", he says. "My girlfriend had my other cardigan.
He didn't buy a cardigan to throw it away later on? "No, it would be a shame," he says. Both the fact that he was spotted in Zeewolde, as well as the fact that he bought the cardigan, is seen by the OM as preparation for the murder.
Later in the day he started demolition work in the old kitchen. He usually did this with 2 fellow patients, including the one from whom he bought the ritaline. But that day he wanted to work alone to get the full amount of 60 euros.
It was already dark when Michael P. went out of the door to demolish. With a bag with an impressive amount of tools.
For that demolition he used, among other things, a serrated bread knife to cut open the plasterboard from the ceiling, he told us.
That bread knife does not seem to have been the murder weapon. Michael P. later hid the tool at the track in Den Dolder, close to what he describes as the powerhouse.
He drove through the heavy rain to the old kitchen, picked up the tools, and made sure that people in another building, called the Fifth Season, didn't see him.
Apparently he decided not to demolish, because light was burning in the other building. He left again, and hid the tools in another place.
Why was he hiding the tools? "Because I was afraid I would be caught on an uninsured scooter with all the tools. I was afraid of that.
Michael P.'s phone was off that evening for a long time. Earlier in the evening he apped his girlfriend to say that his phone was malfunctioning. "Was it to prepare your girlfriend for the fact that you wouldn't be available for a long time that evening and she wouldn't get any suspicion?
"That doesn't matter," says Michael P. who then bursts into a tirade about his girlfriend's suspicion, who flipped if he didn't answer the phone immediately.
He told her that he would go to the birthday of his mother, but he did not go. He told that in order to prevent his girlfriend from bothering him during the demolition, says Michael P.
He could easily tell his girlfriend that he was at his mother's birthday party, because his girlfriend and his mother had had a fight. "They had no contact.
He didn't deliberately turn off his phone, says Michael P. "This happened when I threw it into the buddyseat. It has often turned out to be out of order".
Between half past seven and half past eleven that evening he was off the network. "As I said, it fell out before," says Michael P.
Investigations showed that Michael P. must have actively switched off his telephone. Could not have happened because there was no coverage.
Michael P. sticks to it. He did not turn off his phone that evening. "I can't do anything about it if my phone seriously doesn't work. That's why I bought a new one.
His telephone could not be investigated. He threw it away, " simply in the trash. Or did he not want people to discover where he had been? "That doesn't mean anything, they know it now, don't they?
Why did he break the phone in half? "To prevent someone else from walking away with my phone.
That evening Michael P. went to Baarn to refuel his scooter, drove back, and turned into Turfweg. There would have been a collision with #Anne somewhere.
He drove along a kind of riding path to hide his tools. He had a helmet on, "which was fogged by the rain. Still he drove faster than 40 km p/h. At the exit of the forest path he smashed against #Anne.
A reconstruction showed that the distance from the gas station to the site of the collision takes 8 minutes. Michael P. took 40 minutes to do so. "I drove quietly." He denies that he stopped on the way. #Anne
Both Michael P. and #Anne drove over the Biltseweg, from different directions. They passed the intersection at almost the same time. Maybe 30 seconds in between.
Police officers who drove the route on their bikes, and on P.'s scooter, saw each other arrive and recognised each other as well. "I haven't seen anyone," says Michael P.
Did Michael P. wait for her further down the road? "No," he says immediately. He had enough time to do so.
The probability of a collision was investigated. The bike path leads towards the forest path slightly upwards. The agent who cycled the route says that #Anne could easily have come to a quick stop, or could have avoided a clash.
She would also have heard the scooter arrive. But it was much quieter at the time, says Michael P. The exhaust probably cracked when they saty on it together.
Michael P. says that he hit against #Anne who was cycling. He claims that he asked her how she was doing. And realized that his scooter was not insured. "Can we leave it at this?"he would have asked.
"I said something like sorry, sorry, and took off my helmet," Michael P. explained. When he picked up his scooter, the hood fell off. "Oh, I have damage. #Anne wanted to call the police.
Incidentally, that hood has disappeared. Michael P. says he has no idea where it has gone. Investigation of the bicycle and the scooter showed that there was no damage that could have been caused by a collision.
Has there actually been a collision? "Yes", says Michael P. The co-owner of the scooter saw damage to the hood of the scooter. That is gone. Michael P. told him that he had gone down somewhere on a roundabout.
During the collision, the registration plate of the scooter would also have fallen off.
Michael P. was shocked that #Anne wanted to call the police. He says he saw the knife in his bag and pulled it out. "Give me that cancer phone." He forced her to walk into the path. "I don't know why, but it happened.
Why did he force her to walk into the path after he had already disabled her phone? Why did he not leave? "Yes, if only I had done so." Judge: "That is not an answer."
"At that moment it seemed like a good idea," says P. "then she was off the path. The judge finds it implausible that a young woman in a dark forest will make problems with a total stranger who has collided wit her.
================
more later
Tweets by reporter Saskia Belleman @SaskiaBelleman
A long queue in front of the court in Utrecht, where the criminal case against Michael P., suspected of raping and murdering #Anne Faber, starts at around 9 o'clock.
In addition to the courtroom, the court has set up 3 rooms where the case can be followed via a video link. In one of those halls the family of #Anne Faber is sitting.
Apart from the murder and rape, Michael P. (27) must also account for the abuse of five employees, including two security guards, of the Pieter Baan Centre. He kicked, beat and bit them. #Anne
Two days have been set aside for the case. It is expected that the Public Prosecution Service will come up with the demand tomorrow. The lawyers of P., Niels Dorrestein and Sander de Korte, have announced that they will be asking for TBS.
The lawyers' request to impose TBS is special. It indicates that the investigation in the PBC has shown that Michael P. suffers from a disorder. It can also be an attempt by the defence to protect P. from a long prison sentence.
The front row of seats in the courtroom has been removed. The parquet police will sit right behind Michael P. and must have 2.5 metres of room to manoeuvre. That is telling.
Uncle Hans Faber enters the room with his lawyer.
Michael P. is coming in. He looks around in the full room, somewhat dazed, and sits down between his lawyers.
Two officers of the Procurator General's Office sit behind Michael P. and his lawyers. The court has arrived. Michael P. is reminded of his right to remain silent.
It appears that another witness was heard last week. Soon it will become clear what he witnessed. The public prosecutors are now going to tell of what Michael P. is suspected of.
Michael P. is being prosecuted for murder. He stabbed #Anne dead with a knife after raping her. Further of deprivation of liberty. He tied her hands and forced her to step on his scooter under threat with a knife.
New to the indictment is the assault on 3 employees of the Pieter Baan Centre on 8 February, in the afternoon. In the evening he attacked 2 security guards.
The court will discuss the facts in this way. That may sound businesslike, but it means reviewing in detail what happened on 29 September 2017. Very confrontational for the family
After the disappearance of #Anne her coat, T-shirt, backpack and bicycle were found. Dna on the jacket led to Michael P.
Michael P. was silent after his arrest, but after a few days he started talking. "That was my conscience," he says. He thought he could no longer remain silent.
He remained silent for the first three days because he was angry, says P. "Because I was mistreated during my arrest".
A "information seeker" from the police tried to make him talk. " Hey old chap, there' s a life sentence hanging over your head. Make sure you are ahead of them, it has to come from you".
"I'm not going to be released anyway," Michael P. Now he says he was already planning to talk, "just not with him. Moreover, he wanted to wait for his lawyer. He was in a course, says P. "I was already planning to speak.
On 11 October around 10 o'clock he confessed. And he said it was important for #Anne's parents to be informed immediately. "I also will have a daughter myself".
He told me that he had been "walking around with it for 2 weeks. When I look at my hands, I see the hands of a murderer.
Anne's body was found on Spiekweg in Zeewolde.
Michael P. declared that on the day of the disappearance of #Anne he wanted to do some jobs in a building on the grounds. But first he was going to refuel. He put the tools away in the forest.
After refuelling he drove back, picked up the tools, and then collided with #Anne on a forest path. She threatened to call in the police, he claims. He flipped.
In the forest he raped her. Then came a fight with #Anne, who would have stabbed him in his hand with a knife. He declared that he first intended to leave her in the forest, but changed his mind.
He ties the hands of #Anne, forces her to step on the back seat of his scooter and starts riding. Near the place where she was found, he throws her over a fence. She tries to call for help, he holds the knife to her throat. Then he stabs her dead.
#Anne's belongings were found in different places. "I didn't know what to do with it. He denies that he had any intention of killing Anne.
Murder is punishable by a considerably higher penalty than manslaughter. But the Public Prosecution prosecutes him in 2nd place for qualified manslaughter: killing someone to conceal another crime, such as rape. It carries the same high penalty as murder.
The court will discuss the run-up to the murder. The day started early for Michael P.. He left the clinic at a quarter past seven to buy a gift for the birthday of his mother.
That was strange, because he had done that already before. In addition, the stores were not yet open. Moreover, he was "high on the ritaline". He grinded it and sniffed it.
Why did he do that? "It was nice. Your heartbeat goes up, you feel quite nice for a while. Active and energetic, is the court asking? He confirms that. "But at some point you become suspicious and paranoid.
Michael P. took between 10 and 15 a day. Bought them for 30 cents each. Why did he use so much? How did he feel if he didn't use ritaline? "Good", says P.
His practitioner spoke to him that day, and knew nothing of the Ritalin. Did not notice anything about him either. "You can put on a mask. Just talk, how's it going, this, that, such, so", says Michael P.
He behaved normally towards staff. Not towards co-residents. Why did he turn pull the wool over his therapists' eyes? "In order to be able to do my own things.
On the day of the disappearance of #Anne, near the place where Anne was later found, acquaintances saw Michael P... "I know him", said the friend. "He is an absolute madman.
According to Michael P., no one could have seen him in Zeewolde on 29 September. "I can't be in 2 places at the same time. From the clinic in Den Dolder to Zeewolde it is according to him 1.5 hours by scooter.
In the afternoon he bought a cardigan at the Action in Zeist. He stood out because of his strange behaviour. "Yes, paranoia", he says. "My girlfriend had my other cardigan.
He didn't buy a cardigan to throw it away later on? "No, it would be a shame," he says. Both the fact that he was spotted in Zeewolde, as well as the fact that he bought the cardigan, is seen by the OM as preparation for the murder.
Later in the day he started demolition work in the old kitchen. He usually did this with 2 fellow patients, including the one from whom he bought the ritaline. But that day he wanted to work alone to get the full amount of 60 euros.
It was already dark when Michael P. went out of the door to demolish. With a bag with an impressive amount of tools.
For that demolition he used, among other things, a serrated bread knife to cut open the plasterboard from the ceiling, he told us.
That bread knife does not seem to have been the murder weapon. Michael P. later hid the tool at the track in Den Dolder, close to what he describes as the powerhouse.
He drove through the heavy rain to the old kitchen, picked up the tools, and made sure that people in another building, called the Fifth Season, didn't see him.
Apparently he decided not to demolish, because light was burning in the other building. He left again, and hid the tools in another place.
Why was he hiding the tools? "Because I was afraid I would be caught on an uninsured scooter with all the tools. I was afraid of that.
Michael P.'s phone was off that evening for a long time. Earlier in the evening he apped his girlfriend to say that his phone was malfunctioning. "Was it to prepare your girlfriend for the fact that you wouldn't be available for a long time that evening and she wouldn't get any suspicion?
"That doesn't matter," says Michael P. who then bursts into a tirade about his girlfriend's suspicion, who flipped if he didn't answer the phone immediately.
He told her that he would go to the birthday of his mother, but he did not go. He told that in order to prevent his girlfriend from bothering him during the demolition, says Michael P.
He could easily tell his girlfriend that he was at his mother's birthday party, because his girlfriend and his mother had had a fight. "They had no contact.
He didn't deliberately turn off his phone, says Michael P. "This happened when I threw it into the buddyseat. It has often turned out to be out of order".
Between half past seven and half past eleven that evening he was off the network. "As I said, it fell out before," says Michael P.
Investigations showed that Michael P. must have actively switched off his telephone. Could not have happened because there was no coverage.
Michael P. sticks to it. He did not turn off his phone that evening. "I can't do anything about it if my phone seriously doesn't work. That's why I bought a new one.
His telephone could not be investigated. He threw it away, " simply in the trash. Or did he not want people to discover where he had been? "That doesn't mean anything, they know it now, don't they?
Why did he break the phone in half? "To prevent someone else from walking away with my phone.
That evening Michael P. went to Baarn to refuel his scooter, drove back, and turned into Turfweg. There would have been a collision with #Anne somewhere.
He drove along a kind of riding path to hide his tools. He had a helmet on, "which was fogged by the rain. Still he drove faster than 40 km p/h. At the exit of the forest path he smashed against #Anne.
A reconstruction showed that the distance from the gas station to the site of the collision takes 8 minutes. Michael P. took 40 minutes to do so. "I drove quietly." He denies that he stopped on the way. #Anne
Both Michael P. and #Anne drove over the Biltseweg, from different directions. They passed the intersection at almost the same time. Maybe 30 seconds in between.
Police officers who drove the route on their bikes, and on P.'s scooter, saw each other arrive and recognised each other as well. "I haven't seen anyone," says Michael P.
Did Michael P. wait for her further down the road? "No," he says immediately. He had enough time to do so.
The probability of a collision was investigated. The bike path leads towards the forest path slightly upwards. The agent who cycled the route says that #Anne could easily have come to a quick stop, or could have avoided a clash.
She would also have heard the scooter arrive. But it was much quieter at the time, says Michael P. The exhaust probably cracked when they saty on it together.
Michael P. says that he hit against #Anne who was cycling. He claims that he asked her how she was doing. And realized that his scooter was not insured. "Can we leave it at this?"he would have asked.
"I said something like sorry, sorry, and took off my helmet," Michael P. explained. When he picked up his scooter, the hood fell off. "Oh, I have damage. #Anne wanted to call the police.
Incidentally, that hood has disappeared. Michael P. says he has no idea where it has gone. Investigation of the bicycle and the scooter showed that there was no damage that could have been caused by a collision.
Has there actually been a collision? "Yes", says Michael P. The co-owner of the scooter saw damage to the hood of the scooter. That is gone. Michael P. told him that he had gone down somewhere on a roundabout.
During the collision, the registration plate of the scooter would also have fallen off.
Michael P. was shocked that #Anne wanted to call the police. He says he saw the knife in his bag and pulled it out. "Give me that cancer phone." He forced her to walk into the path. "I don't know why, but it happened.
Why did he force her to walk into the path after he had already disabled her phone? Why did he not leave? "Yes, if only I had done so." Judge: "That is not an answer."
"At that moment it seemed like a good idea," says P. "then she was off the path. The judge finds it implausible that a young woman in a dark forest will make problems with a total stranger who has collided wit her.
================
more later
ZaZara
AstraZaZara
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 8,425
- Reaction score
- 18,000
(Continued) Monday, June 11. First day of trial against Michael Panhuys, confessed murderer of Anne Faber.
Tweets by reporter Saskia Belleman @SaskiaBelleman
P. is becoming impatient because of the persistent questions. "I don't know, I don't know," he shouts with a raised voice. #Anne wasn't angry, according to him. She was shocked and scared.
His intention was to send #Anne into the woods, says P. "And then I could go to the right, to Altrecht. #Anne
He repeats: "That seemed like a good idea at the time. He told the police that he saw his world collapsing. "My VI, my girlfriend. It was a blow to my face.
VI is conditional release. He was still in that phase of an earlier conviction.
He also told the police that he was outside of himself. "When I am dealing with feelings, I explode. He had that before, he said. P. says he doesn't remember what he did with #Anne's phone. Thrown away.
"I said "walk", on that path. #Anne said, "You're going to rape me, aren't you? He became angry, said P. Something snapped. "When she said that, I thought, What the do you say? He said that he hated himself because of the previous rapes for which he was convicted.
So why did he do exactly what he hated himself for? He was angry, says P. And he also says that he "took it easy." Just taking each other into account. Judge: "That is a remarkable statement.
Did he realize what this meant for #Anne? "In hindsight," he says. But then he was angry and suspicious. He cannot explain why this led to the rape.
He stopped when it started to thunder and struck lightning close by.
He claims that #Anne didn't resist, didn't say anything. He claims that Anne pulled the knife out of his waistband and attacked him. She stuck in his hand. "My claw bleeding like hell."
Michael P. grabbed #Anne's hand with the knife in it, and hit her face with a fist. According to the police, there were more blows.
#Anne turned out to have 46 bruises on her arms and legs. Michael P. cannot explain this. According to the pathologist, the injuries were inflicted alive.
#Anne also had cuts on the wrists. They came into being when he loosened the tiewrapse with which he had tied her up after her death, says P. He talks flat, emotionless.
Judge begins by listing the injury of #Anne. Every single haemorrhage. Did Michael P. also hit her with a hammer or concrete cutter? This is indicated by certain injuries. Michael P. denies.
He tied her wrists with tiewraps, and ordered her to sit on the back of the scooter. He put her his helmet on his head. #Anne
He gave her the helmet because he did not want his vision to be hindered by a fogged flap in front of his eyes. Judge: "Or did you not want her to call for help"?
"I thought, I'll leave her in the forest, and then I'll see," Michael P. said to the police.
He had put the tiewraps he used to tie her up in the buddyseat a few weeks before, says P. He turned the sleeves of #Anne's jacket around her. But despite his "bleeding claw" there was no blood on the jacket.
Judge on the absence of blood traces: "That is remarkable. Michael P.: "I know that.
The trip on the scooter led along the airbase Soesterberg. Further on he lifted #Anne over a high fence. She simply landed on her legs, Michael P. said.
How did he do that? "At the time it worked," says P. Despite the allegedly fiercely bleeding hand. "I lifted her up and put her over it." He thinks his blood may have washed away from her clothes because of the rain.
He claims that he planned to leave her behind somewhere. At one point #Anne began to shout. "Keep your mouth shut, keep your mouth shut", he screamed at her.
Michael P. claims that he saw someone cycling past. He clasped his arm around her neck. Picked up the knife. "And then .....I ....." Silence. Was he afraid of being caught? "I think so.
"I just wanted to deter her with the knife," he said to the police.
[ Reporter Saskia Belleman: ] I will not go into the worst of details. So you know. #Anne
According to the court, #Anne also had injuries that indicate that she was trying to push away Michael P.
Michael P. is no longer very talkative at this stage of the trial. A lot of "could" and a lot of denials. He says he doesn't know where the knife has gone with which he killed #Anne.
Michael P. claims that he ended #Anne's life with "a quick stroke". Her injuries point to a completely different scenario.
Michael P.'s story sounds as if he was only reacting to what #Anne did or said. Every word or action of her, had a consequence that he seems to place outside of himself.
The court asked Michael P. about this. Michael P.: "I have made the mistakes. She has done nothing wrong. I did it wrong. She was always the trigger, and he reacted violently "because I had problems."
Break 15 to 20 minutes.
Case has resumed. Lawyer Sander de Korte rises. And says that the court before the interval still regularly shows an opinion. This isn't happening, is it? An objection?
The lawyer says he agrees very well that the questioning is critical. But.... He finds the objection "not chic", says the lawyer. It is simply a warning.
Expressions such as "hard to imagine", and similar contain a judgement according to the lawyer. The President said that this is a search for answers. "Sometimes certain issues that are difficult to follow are formulated in a certain way. But there must be no crossing of borders."
This ends with a whimper. The court promises to pay attention to their words.
We continue with the facts. After the murder of #Anne Michael P. drove back to Altrecht with his scooter. A slightly different route.
He was already at the barrier of Altrecht, and then decided to go back. He cut the wrists of #Anne loose. Pick up some of her clothes, and put them all in her jacket.
Why did he change his mind? "I don't know." Had there been a panic when you drove away? "Yes". He also says he has no idea why he took off her clothes. "No idea. I just did it that way. Maybe I wanted to get rid of the traces."
He lifted #Anne's body across the buddyseat on the scooter and drove away with her.
The seat of the buddyseat was broken. The court is of the opinion that blood must have flowed into it anyway. "I later sprayed it clean with a high-pressure cleaner."
He hid the body behind a building on the airbase under a lot of leaves. He took her clothes, the knife, and drove back to the place where her bicycle was lying.
He stuffed #Anne's stuff into her backpack. Broke down the lamps that were still burning on her bicycle. And hid the stuff behind the mortuary on the grounds of Altrecht. He later dumped the bicycle.
He threw some of #Anne's stuff that didn't fit in her bag into a container on the Altrecht grounds. He says he has "no idea" why he didn't throw everything into that container.
In the end, he drove #Anne's bike, a shovel, and the young woman's bag back to the air base, to the place where he had left her.
He failed to dig a grave on the spot. "Too many roots and so on. A little further on he succeeds. He dug a grave, put #Anne in it, and covered her with sand.
After that he drove by bicycle towards Huis ter Heide.
Michael P. dumped #Anne's bike into the pond, buried her bag. Two days later he left the helmet and the concrete cutter somewhere on a parking lot. Michael P.seems to be a fan of CSI-like programs.
He spread the stuff over a vast distance. A T-shirt from #Anne was found in the direction of Bilthoven. "I've just cycled around.
As the questions become more detailed, Michael P. becomes more silent. "No idea.... "Could....."
DNA on the jacket of #Anne, which was found during the massive search, led to Michael P. The bicycle was found in the pond on 5 October. There was no longer one DNA on it. The backpack was also found. No traces.
The striped shirt of #Anne was also found. That too had Michael P.'s DNA on it. The shirt was cut open at the back.
============
More to follow
Tweets by reporter Saskia Belleman @SaskiaBelleman
P. is becoming impatient because of the persistent questions. "I don't know, I don't know," he shouts with a raised voice. #Anne wasn't angry, according to him. She was shocked and scared.
His intention was to send #Anne into the woods, says P. "And then I could go to the right, to Altrecht. #Anne
He repeats: "That seemed like a good idea at the time. He told the police that he saw his world collapsing. "My VI, my girlfriend. It was a blow to my face.
VI is conditional release. He was still in that phase of an earlier conviction.
He also told the police that he was outside of himself. "When I am dealing with feelings, I explode. He had that before, he said. P. says he doesn't remember what he did with #Anne's phone. Thrown away.
"I said "walk", on that path. #Anne said, "You're going to rape me, aren't you? He became angry, said P. Something snapped. "When she said that, I thought, What the do you say? He said that he hated himself because of the previous rapes for which he was convicted.
So why did he do exactly what he hated himself for? He was angry, says P. And he also says that he "took it easy." Just taking each other into account. Judge: "That is a remarkable statement.
Did he realize what this meant for #Anne? "In hindsight," he says. But then he was angry and suspicious. He cannot explain why this led to the rape.
He stopped when it started to thunder and struck lightning close by.
He claims that #Anne didn't resist, didn't say anything. He claims that Anne pulled the knife out of his waistband and attacked him. She stuck in his hand. "My claw bleeding like hell."
Michael P. grabbed #Anne's hand with the knife in it, and hit her face with a fist. According to the police, there were more blows.
#Anne turned out to have 46 bruises on her arms and legs. Michael P. cannot explain this. According to the pathologist, the injuries were inflicted alive.
#Anne also had cuts on the wrists. They came into being when he loosened the tiewrapse with which he had tied her up after her death, says P. He talks flat, emotionless.
Judge begins by listing the injury of #Anne. Every single haemorrhage. Did Michael P. also hit her with a hammer or concrete cutter? This is indicated by certain injuries. Michael P. denies.
He tied her wrists with tiewraps, and ordered her to sit on the back of the scooter. He put her his helmet on his head. #Anne
He gave her the helmet because he did not want his vision to be hindered by a fogged flap in front of his eyes. Judge: "Or did you not want her to call for help"?
"I thought, I'll leave her in the forest, and then I'll see," Michael P. said to the police.
He had put the tiewraps he used to tie her up in the buddyseat a few weeks before, says P. He turned the sleeves of #Anne's jacket around her. But despite his "bleeding claw" there was no blood on the jacket.
Judge on the absence of blood traces: "That is remarkable. Michael P.: "I know that.
The trip on the scooter led along the airbase Soesterberg. Further on he lifted #Anne over a high fence. She simply landed on her legs, Michael P. said.
How did he do that? "At the time it worked," says P. Despite the allegedly fiercely bleeding hand. "I lifted her up and put her over it." He thinks his blood may have washed away from her clothes because of the rain.
He claims that he planned to leave her behind somewhere. At one point #Anne began to shout. "Keep your mouth shut, keep your mouth shut", he screamed at her.
Michael P. claims that he saw someone cycling past. He clasped his arm around her neck. Picked up the knife. "And then .....I ....." Silence. Was he afraid of being caught? "I think so.
"I just wanted to deter her with the knife," he said to the police.
[ Reporter Saskia Belleman: ] I will not go into the worst of details. So you know. #Anne
According to the court, #Anne also had injuries that indicate that she was trying to push away Michael P.
Michael P. is no longer very talkative at this stage of the trial. A lot of "could" and a lot of denials. He says he doesn't know where the knife has gone with which he killed #Anne.
Michael P. claims that he ended #Anne's life with "a quick stroke". Her injuries point to a completely different scenario.
Michael P.'s story sounds as if he was only reacting to what #Anne did or said. Every word or action of her, had a consequence that he seems to place outside of himself.
The court asked Michael P. about this. Michael P.: "I have made the mistakes. She has done nothing wrong. I did it wrong. She was always the trigger, and he reacted violently "because I had problems."
Break 15 to 20 minutes.
Case has resumed. Lawyer Sander de Korte rises. And says that the court before the interval still regularly shows an opinion. This isn't happening, is it? An objection?
The lawyer says he agrees very well that the questioning is critical. But.... He finds the objection "not chic", says the lawyer. It is simply a warning.
Expressions such as "hard to imagine", and similar contain a judgement according to the lawyer. The President said that this is a search for answers. "Sometimes certain issues that are difficult to follow are formulated in a certain way. But there must be no crossing of borders."
This ends with a whimper. The court promises to pay attention to their words.
We continue with the facts. After the murder of #Anne Michael P. drove back to Altrecht with his scooter. A slightly different route.
He was already at the barrier of Altrecht, and then decided to go back. He cut the wrists of #Anne loose. Pick up some of her clothes, and put them all in her jacket.
Why did he change his mind? "I don't know." Had there been a panic when you drove away? "Yes". He also says he has no idea why he took off her clothes. "No idea. I just did it that way. Maybe I wanted to get rid of the traces."
He lifted #Anne's body across the buddyseat on the scooter and drove away with her.
The seat of the buddyseat was broken. The court is of the opinion that blood must have flowed into it anyway. "I later sprayed it clean with a high-pressure cleaner."
He hid the body behind a building on the airbase under a lot of leaves. He took her clothes, the knife, and drove back to the place where her bicycle was lying.
He stuffed #Anne's stuff into her backpack. Broke down the lamps that were still burning on her bicycle. And hid the stuff behind the mortuary on the grounds of Altrecht. He later dumped the bicycle.
He threw some of #Anne's stuff that didn't fit in her bag into a container on the Altrecht grounds. He says he has "no idea" why he didn't throw everything into that container.
In the end, he drove #Anne's bike, a shovel, and the young woman's bag back to the air base, to the place where he had left her.
He failed to dig a grave on the spot. "Too many roots and so on. A little further on he succeeds. He dug a grave, put #Anne in it, and covered her with sand.
After that he drove by bicycle towards Huis ter Heide.
Michael P. dumped #Anne's bike into the pond, buried her bag. Two days later he left the helmet and the concrete cutter somewhere on a parking lot. Michael P.seems to be a fan of CSI-like programs.
He spread the stuff over a vast distance. A T-shirt from #Anne was found in the direction of Bilthoven. "I've just cycled around.
As the questions become more detailed, Michael P. becomes more silent. "No idea.... "Could....."
DNA on the jacket of #Anne, which was found during the massive search, led to Michael P. The bicycle was found in the pond on 5 October. There was no longer one DNA on it. The backpack was also found. No traces.
The striped shirt of #Anne was also found. That too had Michael P.'s DNA on it. The shirt was cut open at the back.
============
More to follow
ZaZara
AstraZaZara
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 8,425
- Reaction score
- 18,000
(Continued) Monday, June 11. First day of trial against Michael Panhuys, confessed murderer of Anne Faber.
Tweets by reporter Saskia Belleman @SaskiaBelleman
Michael P. went to his mother the next day, still for her birthday. He went by bike, arrived wet, and took her car for the return journey. #Anne
He figured out that he should bury #Anne somewhere else. "I thought, they're going to find her. In Zeewolde I know the way. He first explored the ground in Zeewolde. "I started digging, it was pretty easy. After that he drove to Den Dolder.
One housemate told the police that Michael P. "had something with death." P. asked him how deep you should bury a body, and whether anyone else would fit in.
Not correct, says Michael P. According to him this witness made a false statement because "the monster" has to be condemned. And that monster is Michael P.
That evening Michael P.'s phone was offline for another few hours. He dug up #Anne, drove to Zeewolde, and buried her in the previously excavated grave.
Before he buried her, he cleaned #Anne's body with bleach. At all places where possible DNA of him could be found. He had seen this at CSI.
Altrecht staff didn't notice anything about him when Michael P. returned. Even though he was wet with rain and according to himself he was covered in mud. "Then they haven't paid attention," says P.
What did all this do to him? "A lot", he says. "Terrible. Judge: "But you managed to do it?" P.: "I did it, yes." The words must be pulled out of him. That is hardly possible.
#Anne was wearing gold earrings and a necklace with a diamond at the time of her disappearance. "I haven't seen it, nor have I taken it off," says P.
The next day he cleaned the interior of his mother's car with all Altrecht all-purpose cloths
The next Monday an ultrasound was made of his pregnant girlfriend. He broke when he saw the echo and realized that he was having a daughter. His reaction: using drugs and visiting prostitutes.
Search terms Michael P. used before the murder on his computer: How do you kill someone, execution in the case of streetyouths, how do I murder my girlfriend, buy pentobarbital, carry out the death penalty?
After the murder he looked for information about how long DNA stays good in the rain, on cooperation Last Will, sex with a corpse, and requirements for passports for other countries.
Not all these search terms he typed in himself, says Michael P. However, he did enter the questions about how long DNA stays good in the rain. And also to the possibilities of committing suicide.
"I've tried, well, to get this far, but I couldn't", he said about the search terms about suicide. Did he want to end his life? " Might be". And now? "The same." He receives medication for his suicidal thoughts.
The accomplices and acquaintances of Michael P. call P. "sick in the head." He once discussed with a man that he wanted to pull a woman into the bushes. That was a joke, P. says.
A fellow detainee says that Michael P. told him, "As soon as I get more privileges, I'll kill one of them." Michael P. denies that.
Michael P. also seemed to invariably start his day with decapitation films. "Tension and sensation", says P. About his ex P. told her that he wanted to hang her behind the car with a chain and drive until you only heard the chain rattle.
Michael P. would also have said that if everything he had done became known, he would get a lifetime sentence
He also told an acquaintance that he should have killed his previous rape victims.
Michael P. spoke a lot about death, and laughed at decapitation films, said one of the housemates: "Gallows humor," according to Michael P.
Michael P. is said to have told a childhood friend that he fantasized "about a female rape." P. vehemently denies it. Suddenly sounds a lot brighter than when he was asked for details
By the way, Michael P. also denies that he once said that "a dream came true" when he raped two girls years ago. And also denies that he ever dreamed about it.
He doesn't know all the witnesses who made statements about him, says Michael P.
A childhood friend told Michael P. when he was 15 or 16, saying, "Shall we grab those girls? Are we going to rape them? Now P. says that at that time he was no longer dealing with this childhood friend.
The childhood friend also said that P. "could react aggressively from nowhere." Sometimes, while playing, he suddenly bites into your ear.
It irritates him, all those testimonies. He does admit, however, that he can quickly become aggressive. "When I am angry."
#Anne's parents and brother are claiming damages. Partly material (funeral and so on), partly immaterial. All three of them saw Anne after she was found. The impact was enormous.
Michael P. himself reported a threat and serious abuse during his arrest on 18 January.
The OM gave permission to the arrest team to tackle Michael P. firmly, to physically control him, but not to threaten him. Nor did he have to be given the so-called cautions: an announcement that he was allowed to remain silent.
Eventually Michael P. was arrested by the observation team, not the arrest team. There was a suspicion that he would flee. P. complained of ill-treatment. He was supposed to have been thrown into the bus in front of him on the ground.
His right arm was also turned around, he was grabbed by his genitals with the message that his balls would be turned off if he didn't say where #Anne was.
He would also have been given several knees, and the police threatened to turn the dog towards him.
It was not until November that his shoulder was checked in a hospital, and it turned out that he had a broken bone. He was given an operation. Recovery can take up to a year. Afterwards he also got a so-called frozen shoulder, which slows down recovery.
When the injury was diagnosed, it was 10 to 21 days old. The Dutch Forensic Institute probably calls it injury by pulling him up on the handcuffs.
Members of the arrest team admit that they threatened him with the dog. They kept the muzzled dog by Michael P.'s face. They also showed photos of Anne and P.'s mother. They didn't pull up the handcuffs, they say.
The Noord-Holland Public Prosecution Service investigated the case and decided to close the case. Despite the threat with the police dog, and despite the fact that "painful stimuli" were given.
In view of the state of emergency, the members of the arrest team did not, however, exceed the limits of the permissible, according to the Public Prosecution Service in the dismissal decision.
===========
More to follow
Tweets by reporter Saskia Belleman @SaskiaBelleman
Michael P. went to his mother the next day, still for her birthday. He went by bike, arrived wet, and took her car for the return journey. #Anne
He figured out that he should bury #Anne somewhere else. "I thought, they're going to find her. In Zeewolde I know the way. He first explored the ground in Zeewolde. "I started digging, it was pretty easy. After that he drove to Den Dolder.
One housemate told the police that Michael P. "had something with death." P. asked him how deep you should bury a body, and whether anyone else would fit in.
Not correct, says Michael P. According to him this witness made a false statement because "the monster" has to be condemned. And that monster is Michael P.
That evening Michael P.'s phone was offline for another few hours. He dug up #Anne, drove to Zeewolde, and buried her in the previously excavated grave.
Before he buried her, he cleaned #Anne's body with bleach. At all places where possible DNA of him could be found. He had seen this at CSI.
Altrecht staff didn't notice anything about him when Michael P. returned. Even though he was wet with rain and according to himself he was covered in mud. "Then they haven't paid attention," says P.
What did all this do to him? "A lot", he says. "Terrible. Judge: "But you managed to do it?" P.: "I did it, yes." The words must be pulled out of him. That is hardly possible.
#Anne was wearing gold earrings and a necklace with a diamond at the time of her disappearance. "I haven't seen it, nor have I taken it off," says P.
The next day he cleaned the interior of his mother's car with all Altrecht all-purpose cloths
The next Monday an ultrasound was made of his pregnant girlfriend. He broke when he saw the echo and realized that he was having a daughter. His reaction: using drugs and visiting prostitutes.
Search terms Michael P. used before the murder on his computer: How do you kill someone, execution in the case of streetyouths, how do I murder my girlfriend, buy pentobarbital, carry out the death penalty?
After the murder he looked for information about how long DNA stays good in the rain, on cooperation Last Will, sex with a corpse, and requirements for passports for other countries.
Not all these search terms he typed in himself, says Michael P. However, he did enter the questions about how long DNA stays good in the rain. And also to the possibilities of committing suicide.
"I've tried, well, to get this far, but I couldn't", he said about the search terms about suicide. Did he want to end his life? " Might be". And now? "The same." He receives medication for his suicidal thoughts.
The accomplices and acquaintances of Michael P. call P. "sick in the head." He once discussed with a man that he wanted to pull a woman into the bushes. That was a joke, P. says.
A fellow detainee says that Michael P. told him, "As soon as I get more privileges, I'll kill one of them." Michael P. denies that.
Michael P. also seemed to invariably start his day with decapitation films. "Tension and sensation", says P. About his ex P. told her that he wanted to hang her behind the car with a chain and drive until you only heard the chain rattle.
Michael P. would also have said that if everything he had done became known, he would get a lifetime sentence
He also told an acquaintance that he should have killed his previous rape victims.
Michael P. spoke a lot about death, and laughed at decapitation films, said one of the housemates: "Gallows humor," according to Michael P.
Michael P. is said to have told a childhood friend that he fantasized "about a female rape." P. vehemently denies it. Suddenly sounds a lot brighter than when he was asked for details
By the way, Michael P. also denies that he once said that "a dream came true" when he raped two girls years ago. And also denies that he ever dreamed about it.
He doesn't know all the witnesses who made statements about him, says Michael P.
A childhood friend told Michael P. when he was 15 or 16, saying, "Shall we grab those girls? Are we going to rape them? Now P. says that at that time he was no longer dealing with this childhood friend.
The childhood friend also said that P. "could react aggressively from nowhere." Sometimes, while playing, he suddenly bites into your ear.
It irritates him, all those testimonies. He does admit, however, that he can quickly become aggressive. "When I am angry."
#Anne's parents and brother are claiming damages. Partly material (funeral and so on), partly immaterial. All three of them saw Anne after she was found. The impact was enormous.
Michael P. himself reported a threat and serious abuse during his arrest on 18 January.
The OM gave permission to the arrest team to tackle Michael P. firmly, to physically control him, but not to threaten him. Nor did he have to be given the so-called cautions: an announcement that he was allowed to remain silent.
Eventually Michael P. was arrested by the observation team, not the arrest team. There was a suspicion that he would flee. P. complained of ill-treatment. He was supposed to have been thrown into the bus in front of him on the ground.
His right arm was also turned around, he was grabbed by his genitals with the message that his balls would be turned off if he didn't say where #Anne was.
He would also have been given several knees, and the police threatened to turn the dog towards him.
It was not until November that his shoulder was checked in a hospital, and it turned out that he had a broken bone. He was given an operation. Recovery can take up to a year. Afterwards he also got a so-called frozen shoulder, which slows down recovery.
When the injury was diagnosed, it was 10 to 21 days old. The Dutch Forensic Institute probably calls it injury by pulling him up on the handcuffs.
Members of the arrest team admit that they threatened him with the dog. They kept the muzzled dog by Michael P.'s face. They also showed photos of Anne and P.'s mother. They didn't pull up the handcuffs, they say.
The Noord-Holland Public Prosecution Service investigated the case and decided to close the case. Despite the threat with the police dog, and despite the fact that "painful stimuli" were given.
In view of the state of emergency, the members of the arrest team did not, however, exceed the limits of the permissible, according to the Public Prosecution Service in the dismissal decision.
===========
More to follow
JanetElaine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,960
- Reaction score
- 4,021
Michael P. krijgt 28 jaar en tbs voor verkrachten en doden Anne Faber
Michael P. sentenced to 28 years and 'TBS' (mandatory psychiatric treatment).
Michael P. sentenced to 28 years and 'TBS' (mandatory psychiatric treatment).
JanetElaine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,960
- Reaction score
- 4,021
ZaZara
AstraZaZara
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 8,425
- Reaction score
- 18,000
The court still believes that Micheal P should have a chance to return to society. What makes them think things will go better next time?
28 years plus TBS means the following: after 18 years, Michael P may start his psychiatric treatment. This will be evaluated every two years. If he manages to mislead his therapists again ~ something he is good at ~ he may be on his way to return into society after 20 years.
A new Anne may be born today.
https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/231...tbs-met-dwangverpleging-voor-doden-anne-faber
According to the court, a life sentence is not appropriate, because in that case there is a chance that P. will ever be able to be released again without having undergone treatment. A TBS measure is not possible in the event of a life sentence.
BBM
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. We are so very civilized for having abolished the death penalty. Innocent women on a bike like Anne pay the price.
JanetElaine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,960
- Reaction score
- 4,021
It's maddening. He's been there, done that, has proven it was useless - should be locked up and the key thrown away.
ZaZara
AstraZaZara
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 8,425
- Reaction score
- 18,000
Janet, we are civilized.
Lawyers decide these matters among themselves. Anyone thinking differently is a populist and should be reprimanded.
Elainera
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2012
- Messages
- 12,276
- Reaction score
- 20,716
Speechless. What is so difficult about locking him up until he dies on his own one day? Why does a life sentence not mean LIFE?
He is in his 20s? If he gets out in 20 years ... Netherlands brace yourself!
Anne's family and friends must be furious.
He is in his 20s? If he gets out in 20 years ... Netherlands brace yourself!
Anne's family and friends must be furious.
kelsie
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2016
- Messages
- 2,966
- Reaction score
- 15,886
@ZaZara thank you for everything you do to keep everyone updated on this case!
And yeah there is no way this insane man should see the light of day EVER again... why are they being so lenient with him? I'm sure the rehabilitation works for some people but rapists and/or murderers should NOT be slapped on the wrist. He seems like a very manipulative, awful man, and he shouldn't even be allowed to live IMO.
And yeah there is no way this insane man should see the light of day EVER again... why are they being so lenient with him? I'm sure the rehabilitation works for some people but rapists and/or murderers should NOT be slapped on the wrist. He seems like a very manipulative, awful man, and he shouldn't even be allowed to live IMO.
kelsie
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2016
- Messages
- 2,966
- Reaction score
- 15,886
BBM. Absolutely terrifying. There is encouraging recovery and rehabilitation, and then there is stupidity.
bevyofbagels
Active Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2017
- Messages
- 119
- Reaction score
- 210
I'm glad we don't have the death penalty here in NL. Believe me, my underbelly wants it too and I wouldn't mourn a monster like this, but it makes for terrible policy. If only we had a machine that we only had to ask: is this person 100% absolutely guilty of this horrible crime that calls for death? But we don't, so we have to go through this process that I'm not sure is worth it.
What I do fault our legal system for is this: why doesn't life actually mean life? Call it something else then. But this man should never be among people again. He should be contained for the rest of his life so he can't hurt or kill anyone ever again. I'd take that, even if he lives.
What I do fault our legal system for is this: why doesn't life actually mean life? Call it something else then. But this man should never be among people again. He should be contained for the rest of his life so he can't hurt or kill anyone ever again. I'd take that, even if he lives.
ZaZara
AstraZaZara
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 8,425
- Reaction score
- 18,000
Michael P. in hoger beroep tegen straf voor doden Anne Faber
Michael P. will appeal the sentence he was given last week for kidnapping, raping and killing 25 year old Anne Faber.
P.'s lawyers had argued during the trial that their client had been unlawfully treated by the police at the time of his arrest.
When P. was arrested, agents used force and threats were made. Faber's body had not yet been found at that time. P. then broke his shoulder in a transport van, among other things.
Last week, the judge acknowledged that his rights had been violated, but the trial had not been harmed and so the fact did not lead to a reduction in the sentence.
Last week P. was sentenced to 28 years and tbs with coercive care. He also had to pay the family, her parents and her brother, compensation totalling almost 140,000 euros: more than 55,000 euros for the father and more than 40,000 euros for both mother and brother.
Immediately after the verdict, P.'s lawyers already indicated that they were considering an appeal. "The defence's arguments were not followed in a number of essential areas", they said. In addition, the penalty would be 'many times higher' than in similar criminal cases.
Faber's family hoped that P. would not appeal against his sentence. Hans Faber, Anne's uncle and spokesman for the family, expressed his regret at P.'s decision. "We wanted to close the book and think it was right that he received a long prison sentence."
BBM
This is the stuff that nightmares are made of. Will history repeat itself?
in 2012. Michael P. was prosecuted for the brutal rape of two underage girls and a number of robberies. The court sentenced him to 16 years. On appeal, the higher court removed 5 years from that sentence. And brought the sentence more in line with convictions for similar crimes. As a consequence, Michael P was free in 2017 and went on to abduct, rape and murder Anne Faber.
Apparently, his lawyers are aiming for the same evil scenario.
Michael P. will appeal the sentence he was given last week for kidnapping, raping and killing 25 year old Anne Faber.
P.'s lawyers had argued during the trial that their client had been unlawfully treated by the police at the time of his arrest.
When P. was arrested, agents used force and threats were made. Faber's body had not yet been found at that time. P. then broke his shoulder in a transport van, among other things.
Last week, the judge acknowledged that his rights had been violated, but the trial had not been harmed and so the fact did not lead to a reduction in the sentence.
Last week P. was sentenced to 28 years and tbs with coercive care. He also had to pay the family, her parents and her brother, compensation totalling almost 140,000 euros: more than 55,000 euros for the father and more than 40,000 euros for both mother and brother.
Immediately after the verdict, P.'s lawyers already indicated that they were considering an appeal. "The defence's arguments were not followed in a number of essential areas", they said. In addition, the penalty would be 'many times higher' than in similar criminal cases.
Faber's family hoped that P. would not appeal against his sentence. Hans Faber, Anne's uncle and spokesman for the family, expressed his regret at P.'s decision. "We wanted to close the book and think it was right that he received a long prison sentence."
BBM
This is the stuff that nightmares are made of. Will history repeat itself?
in 2012. Michael P. was prosecuted for the brutal rape of two underage girls and a number of robberies. The court sentenced him to 16 years. On appeal, the higher court removed 5 years from that sentence. And brought the sentence more in line with convictions for similar crimes. As a consequence, Michael P was free in 2017 and went on to abduct, rape and murder Anne Faber.
Apparently, his lawyers are aiming for the same evil scenario.
