Accused (2014)

Accused is the English title of a Dutch historical and legal drama (based on a true story) which premiered in 2014.

 

The topic is a case of wrongful conviction: Lucia de Berk, a nurse who works in a hospital, is arrested and accused of killing several patients (children who were sick and old people who were in pain). Lucia denies all charges. She claims she is innocent. But this does not help. She is tried in a court of law where she is found guilty. She is sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole.

 

Here is some basic information about this drama:

 

** Original Dutch title: Lucia de B.

** Director: Paula van der Oest

** Writers: Moniek Kramer and Tijs van Marle

** Available on DVD and via Amazon Prime Video

** Language: Dutch (English subtitles)

** Run time: 92 minutes

 

The cast includes the following:

 

** Ariane Schluter as Lucia de Berk – a nurse – she is 40 in 2001 when the case begins

** Isis Cabolet as Fabienne – Lucia’s daughter – she is a teenager in 2001 when the case begins

** Bas Keijzer as Pete – Lucia’s boyfriend

** Fedja van Huet as Quirijin Herzberg – Lucia’s lawyer

** Barry Atsma as Jaap van Hoensbrock – director of the hospital where Lucia works in 2001 when the case begins

** Lineke Rijxman as Barbara Kobus – a doctor at the hospital where Lucia works in 2001 when the case begins

** Annet Malherbe as Ernestine Johansson – a senior prosecutor

** Sallie Harmsen as Judith Jansen – a junior prosecutor – she is 28 in 2001 when the case begins

** Amanda Ooms as Jenny – Lucia’s cellmate while she is in prison

 

[Most characters are fictional. Perhaps fictional characters are used in order to protect the identity of those responsible for the wrongful conviction. The following three characters are real: Lucia, her daughter Fabienne and her boyfriend Pete.]

 

While this drama is based on a true story, it is not a documentary film. It is a dramatized version of events. Not everything happened exactly as shown here. But the main story is true.

 

Since this drama is based on a true story, the basic facts are part of the public record. They are not a secret. Therefore I feel free to mention some of them in this review.

 

Here is a brief chronology of the case:

 

2001 – Lucia is arrested. She is accused of killing several patients. She denies all charges. She claims she is innocent.

 

2003 – Lucia is tried in a court of law where she is found guilty of four murders and three attempted murders. The sentence is life in prison with no possibility of parole

 

2004 – The case is tried in a court of appeal. The original verdict is upheld and the charge is increased: now she is found guilty of seven murders and three attempted murders. The sentence is also increased: now she must also undergo forced psychiatric treatment.

 

2006 – The Supreme Court of Holland decides that adding forced psychiatric treatment to a life sentence is wrong. It is stopped. But the original sentence (life in prison) still stands.

 

2008 – The case is reopened – Lucia is released from prison while the case is being tried again.

 

2010 – All charges are dropped and Lucia is exonerated – The Dutch government pays Lucia an undisclosed amount of money as compensation for the wrongful conviction.

 

In this drama we follow the case from the beginning in 2001 to the end in 2010. We see how Lucia and the people around her respond. We see how the prosecution conducts the case against her. We also learn about public opinion in Holland and how the case is covered by the Dutch media.

 

At first, the media as well as public opinion are almost completely convinced Lucia is guilty. She is described as “the angel of death.” Not many people believe her when she says she is innocent. Among those who do believe her we find her daughter Fabienne and her boyfriend Pete.

 

In 2003, when the trial begins, her lawyer is sure she will be acquitted, because there is no real evidence against her. The prosecution claims she poisoned her victims with digoxin, but there are no witnesses. Nobody claims to have seen her do this. Nobody can explain how and when she did this. There is no forensic evidence to prove this claim.

 

Unfortunately, Lucia’s lawyer is wrong: she is not acquitted. Ignoring the lack of any real evidence, the prosecution decides to use the following two methods in their attempt to prove that Lucia is guilty:

 

# 1. Statistical probability

They say it was unlikely that so many of her patients should die a natural death. They ignore the fact that Lucia worked in a department where patients were mortally ill. When some of them die, there is no reason to be surprised. There is no reason to regard the death as a murder.

 

# 2. The chain link

They claim to have solid evidence that the first death is a murder. Once the first case is proved, then it is reasonable to assume that all the following cases are murder as well. Even though there is no real evidence for these cases (only suspicion). But if the evidence for the first case is false or does not exist, then the whole chain falls apart!

 

Looking back, we have to ask two questions:

 

(1) How could the prosecution try to build a case when there was no real evidence against Lucia?

 

(2) How could the members of the court believe the prosecution and find Lucia guilty?

 

What do reviewers say about this historical and legal drama? Here are the results of two review aggregators:

 

** 71 per cent = IMDb

** 71 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes (the general audience)

 

As you can see, the ratings are good, but not great. They correspond to somewhere between three and four stars on Amazon. If you ask me, the ratings are too low.

 

Why? I have three reasons:

 

# 1. The script is well-written and the actors play their roles well.

# 2. The story is captivating, dramatic and often highly emotional.

# 3. The drama is based on a true story.

 

The story about Lucia de Berk and the wrongful conviction is important. It deserves to be told. In this drama, the story is told very well. I want to go all the way to the top with this product. I think it deserves a rating of five stars.

 

PS # 1. The following article by Ton Derksen and Monica Meijsing is available online: “The Fabrication of Facts: The Lure of the Incredible Coincidence” (2009).

 

The authors, Ton Derksen and his sister Metta de Noo-Derksen, are sometimes described as whistleblowers, because they showed that the prosecution did not have any real evidence against Lucia (only suspicion and malicious gossip).

 

PS # 2. For information about alleged poisoning of patients, see the following book: The Nurses are Innocent: The Digoxin Poisoning Fallacy by Gavin Hamilton (2011).

 

PS # 3. A somewhat similar case happened in Canada. It involves a nurse Susan Nelles who worked at a hospital in Toronto. Her case took place 1980-1981. Google her name to find the details of the case.

 

PS # 4. A somewhat similar case happened in the UK. It involves a solicitor Sally Clark (1964-2007). In 1999 she was found guilty of murdering her two infant sons. In 2003 the verdict was overturned. She was released, but her life had been destroyed by this experience and she was not able to recover. She died in 2007, only four years after being released from prison. Google her name to find the details of the case.

 

*****