An environmental and animal rights activist,[2][3] Van der Graaf stated at his trial that he killed Fortuyn to stop him from exploiting Muslims as "scapegoats" and targeting "the vulnerable sections of society" in seeking political power.
In court, Van der Graaf testified that he had become alarmed that Fortuyn was using Muslims and immigrants as scapegoats in a campaign to seek political power.
Details of the suspect were always officially reported as "Volkert van der G.", in accordance with unwritten Dutch privacy practice, but his full name was readily available on the internet.
He had planned the attack using information obtained from the Internet; printouts of a map of the scene of the crime and schedules of Fortuyn's appearances were found in his car.
The attack has been described as the work of a single person, an amateur shooter who used a relatively simple plan and did not prepare a good escape route.
Van der Graaf purchased his weapons illegally: a semi-automatic Star Firestar M43 pistol in a café in Ede and 9mm cartridges in The Hague.
After the murder of Fortuyn, the gun was linked to a suspect in the robbery of a jeweller in Emmen through DNA material found on the weapon.
During the trip he stopped several times, among other things to purchase a razor to remove his stubble, which together with the cap and glasses would disguise his appearance, while the gloves would avoid leaving fingerprints.
He had never visited the Mediapark, relying on a map and a couple of photos to find his way into the park on foot and to the building where Fortuyn's interview was held.
They ran from the grounds of the Mediapark onto a public road, where Van der Graaf pointed the pistol at arm's length at Smolders, who had been reporting their position to the police by mobile phone.
De Telegraaf printed extracts of a secret police report on the murder of Van der Werken on its website.
[citation needed] A second search of Van der Graaf's home on 24 June found a chemical mixture, calcium chlorate and sugar, hidden in 35 condoms in his garage.
[13] The first "pro forma" hearing in his trial started on 9 August, which Van der Graaf watched on television from his cell in the Bijlmerbajes prison.
The defence complained that lack of discretion in reporting by the press and statements by public officials would make it difficult to obtain a fair trial.
On the morning of 3 September, Van der Graaf's girlfriend was arrested at her workplace in connection with the chemicals found at their former home.
In a press statement of 23 November, the prosecution (Public Ministry) announced that Van der Graaf had confessed to the murder.
Fortuyn's brother Marten said he was not surprised by the confession but feared that Van der Graaf was setting himself up as "saviour of the fatherland".
[15] On 6 January 2003, Van der Graaf was moved to the Pieter Baan Centrum (PBC) to begin the seven-week behavioural investigation.
The Ministry wanted Van der Graaf under video surveillance 24 hours per day and isolated from other patients for his own safety.
Since the subject of the trial was expected to be not so much the question of the guilt of Van der Graaf, but instead the degree of the punishment, the report of the Pieter Baan Centrum was considered highly significant, in case it found that he was of "diminished responsibilities".
The report also stated that Van der Graaf has a severe personality disorder,[16] which explains his rigid moral judgements.
About 15 supporters of Fortuyn demonstrated outside the building, with banners such as "for less than 20 years we will smash the place up", "better Fortuynist than socialist" and "the leftist church is criminal".
The proceedings were followed by about 80 people, including a woman who disturbed the occasion by screaming at Van der Graaf, accusing him of such things as "destroying the whole of the Netherlands".
He wanted to stop Fortuyn from targeting "the weak parts of society to score points" and exploiting Muslims as "scapegoats" in an attempt to seek political power.
Prior to the appeal, suggestions in the media that Van der Graaf may have had Asperger syndrome were rejected by workers at the PBC.
A psychiatric report read in court said that Van der Graaf had an obsessive compulsive personality but was sane and could be held accountable for his actions.
[24] A public protest against Van der Graaf's release was organised in Rotterdam by former LPF politicians including Hans Smolders and members of Fortuyn's family.
He was partially successful, in that the travel restrictions and the ankle bracelet conditions were removed, but the media ban remained to "prevent unnecessary social unrest".
[29] In 2017, Van der Graaf faced another court case in which the public prosecutor asked that he be returned to prison for a year for failing to sufficiently answer questions at probation meetings.
The court ruled in his favour, and an appeal was withdrawn after a new arrangement was made: that Van der Graaf would report by email once every two months, until April 2020.