Expert & witness evidence · On the timeline
17 Feb 2026
Statements filed for the claimants
Watt — reading guide, appeal memo and case presentation
Katherine Watt (expert nominated by the claimants)
Filed for the claimants · every defendant denies the claims; the court has not ruled
In 30 seconds
Three public-education pieces Watt produced before the Amsterdam hearing — a memo for Stassen, a 35-page case reading guide, and a recorded slide presentation. Together they are the most complete English orientation to both cases, written from the claimants' side.
Cheat sheet
- The memo frames the tort claim around a 'preferred reality' the claimants say the defendants imposed through media.
- In a twist, Watt argues US and international law put defendants under no duty to verify or tell the full truth, which may undercut liability.
- She argues defendants treat correlation as causation for infection and vaccine benefit, but not for vaccine injuries.
- The reading guide gives an org chart of the 17 defendants, a document list, biographies, key laws (e.g. group liability, Art. 6:166) and acronyms.
- The presentation summarises the defence — no breach of duty, reliance on official sources, no proof of vaccination, injury or causation.
Key passages · underlined
This memo has not been submitted to the District Court at Leeuwarden or to the Amsterdam Court of Appeals.
Defendants had no legal obligation or duty to validate information provided to them by World Health Organization, US-CDC, US-NIH, US-FDA, Pfizer or any other government agent or contractor.
It is precisely because of the weakness of the evidentiary support for defendants' claims, that substantive evidentiary review should be conducted by the Amsterdam Court of Appeals, by the Leeuwarden District Court, or by both Dutch courts.
All of the defendants, including the media defendants, argued that they were entitled to rely without verification on the presumed validity of information that they received from other entities
Every defendant denies the claims, and the court has not ruled on them. Allegations are the claimants' pleaded positions, quoted as theirs. This is analysis and commentary, not legal advice. Interest of Justice is not a party to the case.