Tabel met agentnummers en toelichting

1, [2,4], [2,4]

2, [1], [1,4,5]

3, [1,2,4,5,6], [2,4,6]


5.[1,2,3,4,6], [1,2,4,5,6]


  1. Julie Kinderziekenhuis
  2. Lucia de B
  3. Haagse Gerechtshof
  4. Medical experts
  5. Jury
  6. Metta de Noo

In the Lucia de B case, the main reason the case was reopened was because Metta de Noo discovered that the medical research performed was not performed right. This means that the medical experts involved in the case did not perform their job well, which leads to misconduct of the jury and wrong decisions made by the judge. This all could have been resolved if the medical research had been checked first to see if they were performed correctly. Even though the medical research done was believed to be performed right, in this case it turned out it wasn’t. Here is where the problem lies in the science and law conflict. Science leads to believable evidence which can be used in court, but it can also lead to misjudgment if research is not performed well. This is why there should be strict rules when medical evidence is used. There should also be more checks to see if medical evidence is really reliable.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>