A 63-year-old man from Dordrecht thought he had a sex appointment with a 15-year-old Veerle last year in Nijeveen. But he stood face to face with a YouTuber from Meppel and a young woman who had occurred as Veerle. The sixties was kicked in a sex trap.
Thursday the man stood before the judge in Assen. For Grooming (persuading a minor online to a sex appointment), the public prosecutor demanded a 200 -hour community service and a prison sentence of 122 days, of which 120 days conditional.
“I was struck in a role play,” the man said about this. He got to know ‘Veerle’ in a chat room via Chillplanet. The girl wrote that she was unhappy with her body and she was looking for a waste coach. The sixties had successful methodologies for this, he wrote her. It was soon proposed to continue the conversation via Skype.
According to the suspect, it was ‘Veerle’ who proposed this. The judge read in the file that the suspect would be the initiator. The conversations, which were handed over to the judiciary by the YouTuber, show that the suspect knew he had contact with a minor.
Nevertheless, the man sent on a ‘sex appointment’. Because of sex, the girl would lose weight quickly and get better in her skin, he wrote her. He gave her tips to prepare for physical treatment. And he knew what he was doing, he wrote her: “Around twelve girls preceded her.”
The latter was a fantasy, the man told the judge. He said a first appointment with Veerle, because it didn’t feel right. “There was a second appointment. I thought: what for a child this is. So stubborn.” He made the journey of more than two hours to warn her: “This is not okay”.
The public prosecutor openly doubted his story: “This file shows the opposite.” According to the prosecutor, this is a textbook example of ‘grooming’. According to her, the man spoke for a while, in a manipulative way in the girl. “It seems that it was almost in a hands on (physical) sexual offense”.
She finds it criminal that the suspect actually traveled to Drenthe for that. According to her, it does not change that he was dealing with a fictional person. But the latter is, according to the defense, a reason for an acquittal. According to the lawyer, this fact is incorrectly formulated in the indictment.
Judgment in two weeks.