Hala E. was sentenced to 11 years in prison on Wednesday on appeal for killing ex-soldier Marcel Hoogerbrugge (49) from Hoogeveen. The sentence is higher than at the court in Assen.
According to the court, the 51-year-old woman first drugged the victim with a cocktail of medicines in his upstairs apartment in Hoogeveen. She then beat him to death with extreme violence. E. continues to deny that she had anything to do with Hoogerbrugge’s death.
In the court’s opinion, there is sufficient evidence that the woman secretly administered medication, for example, her DNA was on several glasses with medication residue.
No conclusive alibi
The court further notes that E. had no permanent place of residence or residence in the Netherlands and no substantiated and conclusive alibi for a large part of the period from December 16, 2017 to December 20, 2017. On the latter day, Hoogerbrugge was found lifeless. in his home. Telephone records show that she was in or near his home on Industrieweg on the De Wieken industrial estate in Hoogeveen during the period mentioned.
The elderly parents of Hoogerbrugge found their deceased son, who had been seriously injured, on the bed in his bedroom. His father and mother were concerned because they could not contact him for days. “In all likelihood, these gruesome images will always stay with them. It is also difficult for the surviving relatives that to this day the suspect has not provided any insight into why she killed the victim.”
Manslaughter, not murder
The court further concludes that the woman had collected medicines in advance. In the court’s opinion, the investigation did not establish that she secretly gave him alcohol with medication with the intention of subsequently beating him to death. It cannot be ruled out that it happened on a whim. Therefore, manslaughter is considered proven, but murder is not.
The Public Prosecution Service assumes murder and had demanded 17.5 years in prison. The sentence is lower because the court decides on manslaughter. But the court did arrive at a higher sentence than the court, which sentenced E. to 9.5 years in prison. The court therefore adds 1.5 years. Given the seriousness of the offense, the court finds a twelve-year prison sentence appropriate. Due to the time lapse between the crime and the hearing of the appeal, this will be reduced by six months.