After animal rights activist Volkert van der Graaf, 34, was arrested for the assassination of Fortuyn in 2002, speculation in the media suggested he may have been involved in the 1996 murder of Chris van de Werken. The Populist List Pim Fortuyn party asked the Justice Minister to reopen the investigation into van de Werken’s death in light of Fortuyn’s murder.

Van der Werken was responsible for farm inspections and had clashed with van der Graaf over the former’s inspections. Moreover, Van der Werken was killed in a similar manner as Fortuyn — shot at short range with a small caliber handgun loaded with silver-tip hollow-point bullets. Van der Graaf was interviewed by police after Van der Werken’s murder, but was never a suspect in the case.

Donner rejected the call to re-open the van der Werken investigation, saying that since the case had never been closed there was no need to reopen. Donner also said that van der Graaf is not considered a suspect in the earlier murder.

Source:

Pim killer ‘innocent’ of second murder. Expatica.Com, August 15, 2003.

Pim Fortuyn Assassin Not Suspected In Earlier Murder is a post from: AnimalRights.Net

No related posts.

For the pre-mediated, cold blood assassination of a major political figure, van der Graaf was sentenced to only 18 years in jail. He and his lawyers believed even that was too long and appealed in an attempt to get it reduced to 12 years. Prosecutors also appealed, arguing that the political nature of the crime demanded life imprisonment.

The appeals court, however, let the 18 year sentence stand. With good behavior, van der Graaf should be out of prison by 2014. That’s just bizarre — imagine if Sirhan Sirhan had been released in 1980! If you’re into political murders, the Netherlands is apparently the place to be.

There were a couple of new revelations at the appeal. The prosecutor argued that van der Graaf’s primary motivation for killing Fortuyn was Fortuyn’s promise to lift the ban on fur farms. When questioned about this, van der Graaf conceded that it was a factor in his decision to kill Fortuyn, but that it was not his primary motivation.

The issue of van der Graaf’s connection with another murder also resurfaced after a Dutch television station broadcast a story on the similarity between the assassination of Fortuyn and the still-unsolved murder of environmental officer Chris van de Werken.

Previous reports said that van der Graaf had been questioned in that murder, but a Dutch television report claimed that, in fact, van der Graaf had never been questioned by police about van de Werken’s murder. The Fortuyn List Party formally asked Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner to re-open the investigation into van de Werken’s death.

Source:

Van der Graaf loses sentence appeal. Expatica.Com, July 18, 2003.

Court rejects appeal by Dutch Fortuyn’s killer. Wendel Broere, Reuters, July 18, 2003.

Dutch court upholds term in assassination of Fortuyn. Associated Press, July 19, 2003.

Dutch Court Hears Assassination Appeal. Associated Press, July 1, 2003.

No change for killer. Radio Netherlands, July 18, 2003.

Animal Rights Activist Loses Murder Appeal is a post from: AnimalRights.Net

No related posts.

Van der Graaf told the court,

I got the impression that he was looking for a scapegoat he could use to increase his popularity. That was a great concern to me.

. . .

I saw him as a highly vindictive man who used feeling in society to boost his personal stature. The ideas he had about refugees, asylum seekers, the environment, animals . . . He was always using or abusing the weak side of society to get ahead.

Van der Graaf told the court that he was not a violent man, which was a bit odd given that police found dozens of condoms filled with explosives and a timer device in the attic of his home. Van der Graaf maintains he was simply fascinated by explosives and never intended to use them. Right, just like he was fascinated with guns but never intended to kill someone who had different political views.

A psychiatrist who examined Van der Graaf testified that he was sane, but had an obsessive compulsive disorder that manifested itself in “perfectionism and a rigid morality.” A rigid morality? From an animal rights activist? You don’t say.

Van der Graaf’s conviction at his trial is a foregone conclusion, with the only remaining issue being the length of his sentence.

Sources:

Pim Fortuyn murder suspect says he made explosives. Abigail Levene, Reuters, March 31, 2003.

Fortuyn suspect had explosives. Associated Press, March 31, 2003.

Fortuyn killer beset by doubt. The BBC, March 31, 2003.

‘Sane’ Volkert faces life for Fortuyn shooting. Expatica News, March 31, 2003.

Fortuyn killer ‘acted for Muslims’. CNN, March 27, 2003.

Volkert van der Graaf In Court is a post from: AnimalRights.Net

No related posts.

Van der Graaf, a vegan involved in animal rights-related causes, apparently told prosecutors that he murdered Fortuyn because he considered him a danger to society (as opposed, apparently, to someone who would commit premeditated assassination).

According to a CNN story on the case,

“(Van der Graaf) has admitted that he purposefully shot dead Fortuyn. He had conceived this plan some time earlier,” the public prosecutor said in a statement obtained by Reuters.

The prosecutor’s statement said Van der Graaf had said “he saw in Fortuyn an increasing danger to, in particular, vulnerable sections of society.”

. . .

Van der Graaf said Fortuyn expressed what were stigmatizing political ideas and he threatened to seize huge political power, according to prosecutors.

“Van der (Graaf) saw no other way he could stop that danger than to kill Fortuyn,” Saturday’s statement said.

Van der Graaf will next undergo psychiatric tests ahead of a trial planned for 2003.

Source:

Fortuyn murder case: ‘Confession’. CNN, November 23, 2002.

Alleged Fortuyn Assassin Reportedly Confesses is a post from: AnimalRights.Net

No related posts.

In a televised hearing, prosecutors offered what seems like overwhelming evidence of van der Graaf’s guilt. Van der Graaf was seen by multiple witnesses fleeing the scene. When he was caught, there were gun powder stains on his coat and on the latex gloves he was wearing. Ballistics tests of the gun found in his position establish that it was likely the murder weapon, which was strengthened by the fact that blood from Fortuyn was also found on the gun.

A search of van der Graaf’s house turned up maps of the area where Fortuyn was killed as well as evidence that van der Graaf had been accumulating information about Fortuyn’s movements for months.

Police also turned up bomb-making material in van der Graaf’s home. Investigators found sulphuric and hydrochcloric acid, condoms filled witih potassium chloride and sugar, and a timer.

Police also announced they are seeking a second possible suspect. Analysis of the gun turned up not only DNA for Fortuyn and van der Graaf, but also a third man who is known to police and has previously committed a crime. The prosecutor did not identify the man in court, but said it was pursuing the lead to avoid conspiracy theories later (the implication being that police believe that van der Graaf purchased his weapon from a known criminal).

Van der Graaf’s trial is expected to start in about three months.

Source:

‘Second figure’ may have been involved in Dutch assassination. Andrew Osborn, The Guardian (London), August 10, 2002.

Accomplice sought in Fortuyn murder. Andrew Osborn, The Guardian (London), August 10, 2002.

Dutch watch case against Fortuyn suspect on live TV. Marie Devine, The Independent (London), August 10, 2002.

Prosecutors Outline Case Against Volkert van der Graaf is a post from: AnimalRights.Net

No related posts.

According to his lawyer, van der Graaf is being held in solitary confinement and monitored via video camera in a cell that is lighted 24 hours a day.

Dutch prison authorities say they have taken such measures because they are afraid van der Graaf will try to commit suicide.

Source:

Fortuyn suspect on hunger strike. Ian Bickerton, July 14, 2002.

Alleged Animal Rights Assassin Goes on Hunger Strike is a post from: AnimalRights.Net

No related posts.

The Sunday Times (London) reports that while in his teens, accused killer Volkert van der Graaf, 32, founded the Zeeland Animal Liberation Front which committed acts of vandalism that primarily targeted restaurants.

Van der Graaf was involved with anti-medical research and environmental groups until 1992 when he founded Environment Offensive which was opposed to all animal agriculture. Van der Graaf and others in Environment Offensive earned the enmity of farmers by relentlessly challenging applications to expand animal farms.

How Environment Offensive was funded is raising a lot of questions. It received 100,000 Pounds from the state lottery, but farmers claim that it also acted as a sort of shakedown scheme whereby farmers willing to pay enough money via a third party broker could buy off the group and avoid the legal hassles.

One such farmer, Pieter Van der Camp, claimed that he paid 20,000 pounds to just such a broker and had no more problems with Environment Offensive. The Sunday Times reported that the environmental group refused to comment on the allegations.

Van der Graaf is now a suspect in an earlier 1996 murder, and there is also evidence linking him to other animal rights-related crimes.

On December 22, 1996, somebody shot environmental officer Chris Van de Werken while he was out for a jog near his home. Van de Werken and van der Graaf had clashed before, with Van der Graaf believing that the environmental officer was far too accommodating to farmers in the area.

Moreover, the killing of Van de Werken closely resembles that of Fortuyn’s. Van de Werken was shot multiple times at very close range. The bullets police recovered from Van de Werken’s body were 9mm silver-tip hollow-point bullets — a type of ammunition that is rare in the Netherlands and just happens to be the same type of ammunition used in the Fortuyn killing.

Van der Graaf was apparently questioned about the murder at the time, but the case was closed as unsolved in 1997. It has now been reopened.

The Sunday Times also reported that documents and computer records seized from van der Graaf’s home also provide a possible link between van der Graaf and a 1999 arson attack on a plant that produced feed for mink and a series of 1995 incidents at a poultry farm.

Source:

Fortuyn killer linked to earlier death. Peter Conradi, Sunday Times (London), May 12, 2002.

More Details Emerge about Animal Rights Activist Who Allegedly Murdered Pim Fortuyn is a post from: AnimalRights.Net

No related posts.

Thank God he’s not a Muslim, said the commentators, but they’re wrong to be relieved. Animal rights activist may not be Al-Qa’eda, but they include terrorists, too. At worst, the fundamentalists have warped the concept of the humane care of animals into a form of human hating. As [alleged assassin Volkert] van der Graaf’s neighbour said: “He didn’t care about humans at all.”

In Britain, after the IRA and its splinter groups, fundamentalist animal rights activists have committed the worst atrocities on the mainland: the letter-bomb that injured a pest controller’s child, firebombs for doctors, hounding staff at Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Carla Lane, the television playwright who founded Protesters’ Animal Information Network, recently wrote to Tony Blair to warn of an increase by extreme animal rights activists because they were becoming disillusion with trying to achieve change democratically.

And yet, as Thomson points out, Blair’s government continues to play a game of cat and mouse with the animal rights movement, alternately saying that it will crack down on the extremism only to then turn around and try to deliver legislation to achieve the movement’s goals. This month, for example, the Labor government floated an absurd Bill of Rights for pets.

Thomson warns that this is a dangerous game to play. “Mr. Blair may think the animal rights groups are cute and containable,” she writes, “but they’ve got savage teeth and shouldn’t be petted.”

Source:

Blair could be bitten by the hands that feed him. Alice Thomson, The Daily Telegraph (London), May 10, 2002.

Don’t Pet the Animal Rights Movement is a post from: AnimalRights.Net

No related posts.

When police searched van der Graaf’s home, they found detailed maps of the complex which van der Graaf allegedly used to plan his crime. He apparently used an unguarded door in the rear of the complex to avoid numerous security checkpoints.

Meanwhile, more information about potential motives and even a possible link to an unsolved 1996 murder emerged in media reports about van der Graaf.

Leading the speculation is the possibility that Fortuyn was murdered over a dispute van der Graaf had with a pig farmer. Van der Graaf had repeatedly squared off in court against pig farmer Wien van den Brink. Van der Graaf accused van den Brink of violating Dutch animal welfare laws. Van den Brink was also happened to be a supporter of Fortuyn.

Dutch police are also investigating van der Graaf’s possible involvement in an unsolved 1996 murder. In that case, an environmental officer who worked closely with farmers was shot multiple times and his body dumped in a nearby ditch.

Farmers who were used to lining up against van der Graaf in court described him as fanatical. Van derBrink was quoted as saying, “I thought he was a real fundamentalist. I actually wanted nothing to do with him. He was as closed as a box and convinced he was right.”

Van der Graaf spent two years fighting Peter Olofson’s application to raise cattle. Olofson described van der Graaf as a fanatic,

It was animals, animals, animals.

…

Most farmers around here know him. His mission was to destroy all our farms.

Even so, Olofson said he was shocked that van der Graaf was the prime suspect in the Fortuyn murder. “I couldn’t believe it,” Olofson told The Times of London. “He was a fanatic, but I can’t believe he murdered a person.”

Sources:

Animal activists ‘meticulously planned killing’. David Graves, The Daily Telegraph, May 9, 2002.

Activist charged with killing Fortuyn. Ian Bickerton, The Financial Times (London), May 9, 2002.

Activist remanded for Fortuyn murder: Mystery surrounds ‘quiet, hardworking’ animal rights campaigner. Ian Black, The Guardian (London), May 9, 2002.

Accused vegan was ‘a fanatic who cared only for animals’. Martin Fletcher, The Times (London), May 9, 2002.

Animal Rights Activist “Meticulously Planned” Fortuyn Assassination is a post from: AnimalRights.Net

No related posts.

Fortyun was known mainly for his opposition to continued immigration, but had also made statements in support of reviving fur farming.

Van der Graaf was a little known animal rights/environmental activist with a group called Environment Offensive. AnimalFreedom.Org had a page carrying what it said was a phone interview with van der Graaf, which reads,

Even in elementary school I was interested in animals, the environment and nature. I was a member of the WWF Rangers, and we did things like picking up garbage in the dunes, etc.

I also used to fish, with my brother who was two years older. I used to get a kick out of catching fish. My brother put the worms on the hook. I did think it was mean on the worms and the fish. It just wasn’t right, but apparently everyone thought it was normal.

During my high school years this feeling that something was not right, increased. People think it normal that you eat animals, and that you let fish suffocate in nets when you catch them. But inside me arose a sense of justice; such things shouldn’t be happening in a civilized country, I thought, but there’s no one to stand up for them.

When I was 15, I worked at a bird shelter in Zeeland. Only 2 percent of the birds that were brought in covered in oil survived. I wanted to prevent suffering, and I didn’t agree with the suffering of the birds that died slowly from the oil in their intestines. At that place it was a taboo to end that life. The others thought you simply had no right to end it. At the same time they put out mousetraps to kill the mice that were stealing the bird food. I left that place, I didn’t want to be inconsistent any longer.

At one point I wanted to stop eating meat, but my parents wouldn’t let me because you had to eat meat. Only after I started studying in Wageningen I gave it up. The questions remained: is leather OK, is milk OK, are eco-eggs OK?

Then I became a vegan. It took some effort, but once you are one, it becomes normal fast, you know where to find things. Sometimes when you have dinner with other people, you encounter incomprehension.
During my studies I involved myself in the use of laboratory animals. I joined a regional group of the NBBV (anti-vivisection federation), did stand work, went to work for Lekker Dier, teach at schools, I’ve been involved in several actions.

As a member of the IUOD (Inter University Consultation on Animal use) we tried to bring back the number of laboratory animals used in education. We fought for the right not to have to use test animals in our studies, we made a survey on laboratory animal use for certain subjects, and we tried to offer support to students who were against this as well and told them how they could lodge their objections. We didn’t want to impose a standard, but present facts. Students could make up their own minds based on the descriptions of animal tests and the procedure that they could follow to be exempted from animal testing. We asked them: do you want to cut into a dead piglet or into sharks that were caught as by-catch during herring fishery?

Now I’m working for Milieu Offensief (Environment Offensive) that is involved in the environment as well as animal welfare. Whatever your motives are for working here, you work together toward the same result: stopping the expansion of factory farming. The result is less pollution of the environment and less animal suffering. Through legal procedures we fight permits for factory farms and fur farms, using the law as our tool.
In the past few years we have been through as much as 2000 legal procedures, we won a lot, but now we are going to apply ourselves more to the heavy offenders of environment and animal suffering.

My actions don’t come so much from love for animals, I just have a basic standard: “what happens to animals in factory farming is not right”. For the rest I just act rationally, I don’t have to be an animal friend to protect animals.

Many animal protectors act from the assumption that “nature is good”, but every dark side of humans can also be found in nature. Protecting animals is civilizing people, as they say.

Apparently, van der Graaf decided to go well beyond legal means to impose his views.

Sources:

“What happens to animals in factory farming is not right”. Volkert van der Graaf, AnimalFreedom.Org, 2002.

Fortuyn suspect is animal rights activist -source. Abigail Levine, Reuters, May 7, 2002.

Suspect in Dutch Political Assassination is Vegan Animal Rights Activist is a post from: AnimalRights.Net

No related posts.