Michael P Senior Profession: Reconstruction of the Anne Faber Case Now

The appeal in the lawsuit against Michael P., accused of raping and killing Anne Faber, 25, begins Thursday with a staging session at the Arnhem court. Reconstruction of the Anne Faber Affair

On June 11, the summer morning was relatively hot. Utrecht begins to form a row of people. These include interested parties, students, journalists and people who have searched for the missing Faber.

In two days, the 28-year-old suspect's case will be processed. Day one: Suspicions against P. are pronounced and experts from the Pieter Baan Center (PBC) analyze the mental state of the man. Second day: the family speaks, the sentence is pronounced and the lawyers hold their plea.

The sessions take place in a rather small room. P. is, as promised in advance during sessions without content, present on Monday and Tuesday. Faber's relatives do not want to sit in the same room and follow the sessions from another room via a live stream. Only his uncle, who had already been brought up as spokesman for the family, is sitting in the room next to the family's lawyer.

It is immediately apparent that P. has a narrow, expressionless face. It will appear later that he has received medication to stay calm.

Michael P. at the Utrecht Court (photo: ANP)

Michael P .: "I have just put on a mask"

The court seized the day of September 29 with Michael P., the the day Faber was raped and murdered. He collided with her with his scooter. This happened during his bike ride in the woods of Den Dolder. At that time, P. was working in a clinic upon his return to society after the rape of two teenage girls in 2010.

The man said that day, in his own words, "steep" Ritalin, a drug that has a stimulating effect. . "I am comfortable in my skin." At a care interview during which the night break was discussed, the psychologist could not see that the man had sniffed Ritalin. "I just put on a mask," according to the suspect during the session.

It was September 29, at around 5.30 pm, when P. was told that he wanted to continue the demolition work in the old kitchen on the clinic grounds where he lives. He had already done it with two other people, but that day, P. wanted to go alone. This earned him about 60 euros.

Around the same time, he also sent a message to his pregnant girlfriend. In this document, P. stated that "his phone is strange and that he is probably inaccessible". The court said during the hearing that he had done so because the man knew what he wanted to do. Michael P. states that he did so because he knew that his girlfriend disapproved of the demolition work in the kitchen and that he wanted to hide it.

The path taken by Michael P. and Anne Faber (photo: NU.nl)

Was it premeditated?

For example, much of the first day of the trial is heard: the court prescribes to P. the suspicions that emerge from the record and the man responds. Sometimes he looks angry and frustrated. Other times, he remains silent but short of dust.

P. states that he feared that Faber would call the police after the collision and that he picks up his phone. He also stated that he did not want to rape her, but that she had made it known that she was afraid of it. He became suspicious because of his previous convictions for rape, and he raped her, he painted in court

When Faber defended himself and wounded him according to his statement, he I took her on a scooter in a remote area. Here, the young woman shouted for help, after which he killed her, according to the suspect's description.

P. Did he throw out his phone so that he could not know where he was exactly that day? No, it was an old device, he says. The construction of the rhythm shows that P. Faber must have been met some time before the alleged collision. Did he wait for the woman after seeing her? "I have not seen anyone," according to the man.

All of this will eventually raise the question of whether it was premeditation. The Criminal Prosecution Service (OM) reports, during the requisition, which takes place Tuesday, that the "planning" can be seen, but that the murder can not be proved. Justice requires 28 years in prison and jail time for rape, deprivation of liberty and qualified homicide, which means that P. killed the young woman to conceal the rape.

Expert judgment on the mental state of P.

From the first day of treatment of the case, Michael P. announces that he is open to the TBS with treatment mandatory. PBC researchers have observed, which has resulted in an addition to the criminal case. P. abused five employees during an admission after an escalation.

The report states that P. tends to look for incentives. In combination with a "revenge trend", this can lead to aggressive behavior. According to the PBC, the man would have trouble controlling his emotions. Research on his psyche also showed that man had psychopathic traits.

The penalty and the reason for the defense appeal

The court heard the investigators and, at the request of the prosecution, explained what sentence should be imposed on P. and why.

Almost a month after the last session of Tuesday, July 17, the Utrecht court rendered its judgment. P. is sentenced to 28 years' imprisonment and to the SCT with compulsory treatment.

Shortly after, Niels Dorrestein, one of P.'s lawyers, announces that he will appeal. The defense believes that the sentence should be reduced because the man was brutally treated during his arrest on October 9, which earned him a shoulder injury. P. does not state either his rights and is threatened by a police dog.

In addition, counsel argue that the court relied too much on planning. The defense will submit research questions to the court on Thursday. The case has not yet been discussed in substance during this staging session.