In a courtroom in Rotterdam, a 25-year-ancient man apologized to the widow of a man he killed, telling her he understood her pain. Sendric S. Expressed regret, but the path that led him to that courtroom was paved not by rational motive, but by the relentless command of voices inside his head. He told the judge those voices promised him a financial reward for killing, a promise that never materialized.
More than a year after a spree of shootings terrorized the IJsselmonde district, S. Appeared before the court to answer for the deaths of three men. The killings, which occurred over just two weeks during the winter holiday season of 2024-2025, left a community on edge and police advising residents not to walk alone. On Tuesday, the defendant offered a chilling window into the psychosis that drove the violence.
S. Testified that he had heard a male voice since elementary school. Initially, the voice offered benign instructions, telling him to wash his hands. Over time, the commands darkened. The voice instructed him to purchase a weapon and kill people for money. S. Told the court he targeted older men specifically, reasoning that killing a woman would be “unfair.” He described waiting for the right moment, noting that for the first victim, a 63-year-old man, the voice affirmed his choice: “This is a good person.”
The first shooting took place on December 21, 2024, on the Reyerdijk. S. Aimed for the head. the victim died two days later. A week afterward, a 58-year-old man was shot on the Roelantpad. The final victim, an 81-year-old man named Bram, was killed on January 2, 2025. Surveillance footage captured S. Passing the man, turning around, waiting seven seconds, and firing a single shot at close range.
The human cost of the spree was palpable in the courtroom. Bram’s widow, flanked by her two daughters, placed a photograph of her husband on the table. She described him as a proud Rotterdamer, a “rough exterior with a soft core,” who had been her support and mainstay for 65 years. “You snatched my Bram from life in broad daylight without any reason, in a cowardly way,” she told the defendant.
S. Responded simply: “I’m sorry, ma’am, I understand your story.” Since his arrest, he told the court, the voices have stopped. He is currently on medication. The judge noted the cruel deception S. Had been subjected to by his own mind regarding the promised financial reward. “You were cheated,” the judge concluded.
Forensic experts from the Pieter Baan Centrum, the Netherlands’ leading forensic psychiatric center, submitted a hundred-page report. They diagnosed S. With schizophrenia, an intellectual disability, and a cannabis use disorder. Their assessment was clear: S. Is at least severely diminished in responsibility. They have advised the court to impose TBS with compulsory care, prioritizing treatment over traditional incarceration.
The case underscores the complex intersection of public safety and mental health care. While the community seeks closure, the legal process is now weighing how to manage an individual whose actions were violent but whose culpability is medically complicated. Family members of the other two victims are scheduled to exercise their right to speak on Friday.
What is the likely outcome for the defendant?
Based on the expert advice from the Pieter Baan Centrum, the court is likely to impose TBS with compulsory care. This means S. Would be placed in a secure psychiatric clinic rather than a standard prison. The duration is indefinite and depends on his recovery and risk assessment.
Why did the defendant target specific victims?
S. Testified that the voices in his head directed him to kill for a reward. He self-imposed a restriction to only target men, specifically older men, because he felt killing women would be “unfair.” This selection process was driven by his delusions rather than personal grievances against the victims.
How does this affect the victims’ families?
For the families, the trial offers a chance to confront the defendant, but the psychiatric nature of the defense may complicate their sense of justice. While S. Has apologized, the randomness of the violence and the mental health context can leave lingering questions about safety and accountability.
As the court considers its verdict, the question remains: how does a justice system balance the require for public protection with the treatment of a mind that was, by all expert accounts, profoundly broken?
