Expert & witness evidence · On the timeline
Statement
19 Sep 2026
19 Sep 2026
Statements filed for the claimants
Watt's September 2026 statement for the October hearing
Katherine Watt (expert nominated by the claimants)
Filed for the claimants · every defendant denies the claims; the court has not ruled
In 30 seconds
A 39-page statement Watt wrote for the 22 October 2026 main-case hearing, answering Stassen's 'questions you might expect from a judge' after the court refused to hear the experts. She sent it to Stassen for possible filing.
Cheat sheet
- Watt says the court refused sworn expert testimony by its 11 March 2026 order and again by letter of about 7 May 2026.
- In July 2026 Stassen sent the experts mock judge's questions; Watt calls this a 'simulation' of real fact-finding.
- She says her findings differ from the claimants' and other experts' on key points, and support only some of the claims.
- Her June 2026 memo sets out two incompatible theories — vaccine contents knowable and known vs. unknowable and unknown.
- She reads US, international and Dutch law as shielding the defendants from civil and criminal liability.
- She now calls for abolishing vaccines and pathogen-detection devices, citing doubts about germ theory and cell biology.
- Watt writes (28 Sept) that the claimants' lawyer chose not to file it, because it conflicted with his case; she calls that a reasonable choice.
Key passages · underlined
This version has been submitted to plaintiffs Attorney Peter Stassen for consideration and possible submission to the court on or before the Sept. 22, 2026 deadline for parties to submit supplementary material for the court's consideration ahead of the Oct. 22, 2026 hearing.
On several crucial matters of fact and law, my findings and conclusions are inconsistent with those expressed by plaintiffs and inconsistent with those expressed by other subject-matter experts nominated by plaintiffs. I believe my findings support some but not all of plaintiffs' claims.
I interpret US, international and Dutch law as shielding defendants from civil and criminal prosecution for the acts and omissions they committed which contributed to the plaintiffs' decisions to accept vaccines
Attorney Stassen, through written and video examination of expert outside the court, is thus engaged in a simulation of an independent Dutch judiciary competently inquiring into the facts and law
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.