So finally, the legal system has decided that the case against Lucia de Berk, found guilty in 2006 of murdering seven patients, should be reopened.

De Berk was sentenced to life in jail for the murders, making headlines around the world as a heartless killer nurse.
The case was based upon the death of a baby whom De Berk was said to have killed. And that death was used to prove that De Berk was a murderer and so had probably murdered six other people as well.
These were murder charges based on statistics rather than any physical evidence. But it was enough to convince the judges. But the baby, so it transpired later, was probably not murdered – and that undermined the other six charges.
De Berk was released from jail earlier this year as the case against her continued to unravel and calls for a new trial increased. Now there is to be a new trial.
She can only be found not guilty if there is a new trial.
The case of Lucia de Berk is not only a gross miscarriage of justice but it also raises the question of how she came to be convicted in the first.
Were well-educated judges really so blinded by the prosecution’s arguments based on – controversial – statistical probability that they found someone guilty of murder? That is an extremely scary thought.