Talk:Lucia de Berk case

cleanup

This article could do with quite a lot of cleanup - the second reference, Ben Goldacre's article, is well written and has a number of additional references, it could be a good starting point for sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.169.10.56 (talk • contribs)blp=yes. 10 April, 2007.

Library books

The article stated "De Berk admitted that she had stolen these from the hospital library". But she denied she had stolen them, and the librarian even testified that they had not been stolen. I have corrected the text accordingly. But we must find references for this. The books are not even mentioned in the Dutch wikipedia article on the case. The references given were to two English language newspaper reports. Richard Gill (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for raising that. I've removed it. It is not relevant to the case, and the news reports are primary trial reporting. It isn't mentioned in secondary sources owing to its irrelevance. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I will find the source for her denial of the thefts of the books, and the librarian's confirmation. She did get convicted for stealing the books, as well as for stealing medications from the hospital, and as well as for faking a high school diploma so as to enter nursing training. She was advised to do that by the nursing school.

The news reports are not primary trial reporting - they are English language reports based on copying Dutch news reports. Richard Gill (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, if we have secondary sources discussing that then we can follow those. The Dutch news reports are primary trial reporting. If someone repeats that trial reporting in English language sources, following the Dutch sources without synthesis, then as a matter of historiography, it remains a primary source. That's what these sources look like. Only the Independent is bylined and that is by Stephen Castle, who was the Independent's Dutch correspondent, and later was in Brussels I believe. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I will look up Dutch-language original texts, and consult with Ton Derksen and other experts on the case. Richard Gill (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I found this on an archived copy of www.luciadeb.nl. This was written by Metta de Noo in 2008. English translation: "Lucia had "outdated" books in her house. The expiration date had passed, and therefore, according to the police, it was theft. But according to the librarian, the expiration date was because the library had stopped using ink stamps and had gone digital. He had a falling-out with the police because he didn't want to report the theft. A new director did so later, who hadn't been present but had heard...". Dutch original: "Lucia had ‘overtijdse’ boeken in huis. De datum was verjaard en daarom was het diefstal volgens de politie. Maar volgens de bibliothecaris kwam deze verjaring omdat de bibliotheek in de tussentijd niet meer met inkt afstempelde maar digitaal was gaan werken. Hij kreeg woorden met de politie omdat hij geen aangifte van diefstal wilde doen. Dat is later wel gedaan door een nieuwe directeur…, die er niet bij was geweest, maar gehoord had…". So Lucia never admitted the books were stolen, they only appeared to be stolen because a new library director was told by police to report them as stolen. Lucia did admit to having taken some medications home, and empty syringes which she took for her daughter to use at a "show and tell" session at primary school. She admitted to faking a high school diploma.

OK, now I must find a reliable source for this. Richard Gill (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

The relevance, I suppose, is that it shows how the police were creating a circumstantial case to discredit her. The risk of including it based on trial reporting alone is that we then give credence to the circumstantial case, without the commentary. This type of commentary on the action is due - so yes, if we have a secondary source commenting on the library books issue in this way, it will be due for the article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Here's my source: https://archive.li/MNPtH By the way, at the time I was helping Metta de Noo by acting as webmaster for her site. I'm sure these facts will have been included in the Dutch language books which came out about the case, after the exoneration. I will not make further edits to the article but I hope it is not objectionable that I make suggestions here. I only just saw the warning notice about my specific possible conflict of interest. The BBC article was published mid trial and is rather brief. I think the BBC journalist has simply misunderstood the facts and compressed them to something shorter and snappier. Richard Gill (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)