(E' stato dato alle stampe recentissimamente, in lingua serbocroata, il libro-inchiesta di Robin De Ruiter "Chi ha ucciso Slobodan Milošević e perché". Sullo stesso argomento si veda anche tutta la documentazione raccolta al nostro sito internet: https://www.cnj.it/MILOS/morte.htm )


Who Killed Slobodan Milošević and Why


1) Who Killed Slobodan Milošević and Why (KO JE UBIO SLOBODANA MILOŠEVIĆA I ZAŠTO?)
A new book by Robin de Ruiter

2) Open Letter to Madame Del Ponte, ICTY prosecutor, and to the Doctors assigned by The Hague Tribunal
By Maître Jacques Vergès and Docteur Patrick Barriot, June 2006

More documents about the assassination of the Yugoslav president in the jail at Den Haag are readable at out website:
https://www.cnj.it/MILOS/morte.htm


=== 1 ===

Robin de Rajter

KO JE UBIO SLOBODANA MILOŠEVIĆA I ZAŠTO?

Metaphysica 2012
ISBN86-7884-000-5

The serbocroatian book's cover: 
http://de-construct.net/e-zine/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/deRuiter.jpg
or https://www.cnj.it/immagini/cover_deruiter2012.jpg
or https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/SchedeLibri/DeRajter2012.pdf

---

http://de-construct.net/?p=10272

Robin de Ruiter: Who Killed Slobodan Milošević and Why


Dec 7th, 2012 | By De-Construct.net

Sudden suspicious death of former Yugoslav and Serbian President Slobodan Milošević in Hague Tribunal’s detention cell continues to raise questions among the researchers and independent media six years later.


Robin de Ruiter, Dutch publicist and historian raised in Spain, wrote a fascinating book (soon to be published in Serbia, but still not available in English), which doesn’t question whether former Serbia’s president was killed in The Hague, but focuses on the parties responsible for commissioning and committing this crime.

Brutal Demonization Ending in Premeditated Murder

De Ruiter uses verifiable facts to dismantle the Western mainstream myth about the “butcher of Balkans”, and examines the reasons behind the brutal propaganda demonization aimed at turning former Serbian president into a monster, along with the entire Serbian nation.

Using a simple method of piecing together the portrait of an actual person and historical facts behind the grotesque caricatures created in the West, the author presents strong evidence for the main reason why NATO and Washington-led Western powers wanted Milošević silenced for good.

Contrary to the common mainstream claims and the basic premises of Hague prosecution’s indictment, “Milošević’s political goal was to preserve Kosovo within Serbia’s borders and to prevent Albanian majority to drive Serbian minority out of Kosovo. There was no incitement of nationalist hatred, nor has the ethnic cleansing been carried out. On the contrary, Milošević and Socialist Party members always stressed the advantages of multiethnicity for Serbia”, Robin de Ruiter writes.

The author, who felt obligated to write this book “for the sake of truth”, cites a number of legal experts, historians and independent investigative reporters who have helped him in a thorough research while piecing together presented material.

An Aspirin a Day Keeps the Doctor Away

On March 11, 2006, at 10 AM, 65-year-old Milošević was found dead in his detention cell located in the Scheveningen section of The Hague, Netherlands, while his trial for the alleged war crimes was in full swing, with Defense presenting evidence. According to the Dutch forensics, the cause of death was cardiac arrest. In addition to the autopsy, a toxicology analysis was requested.

According to the Hague officials, Milošević’s health which started to deteriorate abruptly and progressively when the trial began, was under constant supervision of the “highly qualified medical personnel”. The author points, however, that no one mentioned the fact only a single GP and one nurse were the whole team that comprised Hague detention center’s ‘highly qualified medical personnel’.

De Ruiter also reveals that the entire ‘therapy’ Milošević has been receiving during the first year of detention consisted of a single aspirin a day, despite the fact he was known to suffer from heart problems and high blood pressure.

Milošević’s lawyer Zdenko Tomanović claimed back then his client’s health is being systematically eroded.

When President Milošević died, Russian specialist Dr. Leo Bokeria, of the famous Bakulev Institute revealed to the media:

“During the past three years we have constantly insisted, without success, that Milošević needs to be sent to a hospital to be properly diagnosed. If Milošević was allowed access to any specialist clinic, he would have been given a proper treatment and would have lived many more years.”

Early on, in May 2003, group of thirteen German doctors addressed tribunal in writing, expressing their concern for Milošević’s health and lack of proper treatment. But all suggestions by medical specialists were discarded and the adequate therapy remained unavailable. Moreover, there was no response to this and further written protests by the same group of doctors.

Unknown Medications in Milošević’s Blood

A year after a miraculous aspirin-a-day treatment for a range of cardiovascular ailments, a group of medical doctors hand-picked by the tribunal bureaucrats issued the following diagnosis: secondary damage to various organs and extremely high blood pressure which, under certain conditions, could lead to stroke, coronary or cardiac arrest and premature death.

In contradiction to this finding, Hague Chief Prosecutor Carla del Ponte seemed to have known better and claimed Milošević “feels exceptionally well”.

Medical analysis in 2005 showed the presence of “unknown” chemical substances in Milošević’s bloodstream which are nullifying effects of medications for high blood pressure. Because of this finding, Milošević requested to be treated by the Russian specialists.

Even though the Russian Government on 18 January 2006 offered guarantees Milošević will be placed at tribunal’s disposal after the treatment, Milošević’s request was denied in February. Few weeks after it was already too late – Milošević suffered announced and expected fatal heart attack.

Among others, De Ruiter cites the conclusion of Dutch magazine Targets: “The very fact that judges [Robinson, Kwon and Bonomy] refused to comply with his request for treatment at this instance is sufficient cause to bring charges against the Tribunal for premeditated murder.”

Additional suspicions were raised by the fact that Milošević family’s repeated requests for an independent autopsy outside of Netherlands were denied and ignored.

Robin de Ruiter also cites statement by Hikeline Verine Stewart (sp?) of Amnesty International, who stressed Milošević’s untimely death was a direct consequence of the contraindicated medications found in his blood. “We are certain that is the cause of death. Death by natural causes is absolutely out of the question”, she said.

Potatoes Mashed with Rifampicin


The author examines a number of speculations about the prolonged poisoning of the former president in Scheveningen detention center and concludes they are far from being unfounded.

In 2002 it turned out Milošević was being given wrong medications which were raising his already high blood pressure. De Ruiter cites Dutch newspaper NRC Hadelsblad from 23 November 2002:

“Slobodan Milošević was being given wrong medications in Scheveningen detention, which raised his blood pressure. This was the reason the trial to a former Yugoslav president had to be paused at the start of November. One of Tribunal’s commentators claimed this was not an error. He refused all further comments.”

One piece of evidence showing that Milošević was probably being poisoned during his trial was an incident from the end of August 2004, when Scheveningen staff got very alarmed after discovering another detainee received Milošević’s supper.

In September 2004, during the trial, Milošević mentioned this incident:

“For three years doctors here regard me as healthy and capable of conducting my own defense. And then something really strange took place: all of a sudden some ‘independent’ doctor showed up from Belgium, country where NATO Headquarters is situated, announcing my health isn’t good enough for me to continue my own defense. And all the doctors here are suddenly in unanimous agreement over this [...]

“Feel free to reach your own conclusions, but please keep in mind I’m using medications your doctors have prescribed. I’m not quite sure what is going on here, but I could call on the entire detention staff to testify what took place when I was given a meal prepared for a person on the opposite side of the corridor. There was a major uproar to get me the food which was prepared for me in particular, even though all the meals appear exactly the same. I didn’t make a problem out of this, I had no idea what is happening. But I do have certain hypothesis which may be justified or not, but there is clear evidence...”

At that point, Judge Robinson silenced Milošević by turning his microphone off. This alarming incident was never discussed or investigated.

Meanwhile, Milošević’s health continued to rapidly deteriorate on a daily basis. He reported suffering daily from terrible pressure behind the eyes and in the ears.

Former Canadian Ambassador James Bissett testified after visiting Serbian president in Scheveningen that Milošević suddenly went horribly red in the face and grabbed his head in his hands. Milošević said his head echoed as if he spoke into a metal pan.

In March 2006, Milošević expressed his concerns for the umpteenth time:

“During five years in prison I didn’t take a single antibiotic, I didn’t have any infections except for one flu, and still, medical report from January 12, 2006 [which he received two months later] states there are medications in my blood that are used to treat tuberculosis and leprosy – Rifampicin.”

Commenting on these test results which discovered highly toxic Rifampicin in Milošević’s blood, Verine Stewart said:

- It is an inexplicable mystery why Milošević and his lawyers were given results of his January 12 medical tests the entire two months later, on March 7.

Another question that has also remained unanswered is why was Milošević’s death discovered so late, in this most secure, technologically advanced detention unit with cameras in every cell and round-the-clock half-an-hour checkups.

At the ensuing press conference Carla del Ponte claimed there were no controls every half an hour during the night when Milošević died. Furthermore, for some reason all the video cameras were turned off that night.

When asked why would that be, Del Ponte simply replied she’s “not responsible for things that happen in prison”.

German Ambassador: Milošević’s Indictment Not Worth the Paper it was Written On

In the meantime, according to De Ruiter, a number of official statements by the world-class international law and war crime experts surfaced, stressing that Milošević’s trial, at first advertised as the ‘trial of the century’ has turned into a secret trial.

According to the former German Ambassador Ralph Hartmann, “already in his opening speech, Milošević revealed sensational facts and water-tight evidence of the active role United States, Germany and other NATO countries played in dismemberment and wars in former Yugoslavia. One may ignore the truth, but one cannot defeat it”.

As the trial progressed it became evident the indictment was hardly worth the paper it was written on.

...Better if He Dies in the Docket

Many legal experts worldwide quickly caught on the Hague charade, publicly pointing out Hague’s prosecution clearly has no real evidence against Milošević and that the indictment against him is unceremoniously falling apart.

A number of commentators, some of whom De Ruiter cites, actually stressed the only way The Hague can get out of its predicament is if Milošević dies.

- It would be better if Milošević dies while he is still in the docket, – James Gaw, war crimes expert and Hague tribunal advisor said.

- Because, if the process is carried through to the end, the only thing he can possibly be convicted of is a minor violation of law, – said Gaw.

The author concludes that tribunal can undoubtedly be charged for the manslaughter, and possibly even for the premeditated murder for which, as some media reports claimed, the charges will be brought.

There is no doubt that the Hague Tribunal and Washington bear full responsibility for Milošević’s death, de Ruiter writes.

The Boomerang Effect

On August 25, 2005 Prosecutor Geoffrey Nice announced Milošević is no longer being accused of an attempt to create the mythological ‘Greater Serbia’.

Removal of such a major building block of an indictment against Serbian president has radically shaken the entire construction. Indeed, the whole foundation on which all parts of the indictment against Slobodan Milošević rested and which tied them all together was the premise that everything Milošević allegedly did had a single underlying motive – to create ‘Greater Serbia’.

Painfully, Tribunal realized its chances of reaching a nominally credible conviction were getting progressively slimmer.

Dutch lawyer N.M.P. Steijnen said:

“The chaos was getting more and more obvious. Accusations started to turn against the prosecutors, like a boomerang.

“Tribunal feared Milošević and his witnesses will reveal the role West played in dismemberment of Yugoslavia, how the West was systematically spreading lies about the alleged Serb drive for ‘Greater Serbia’, and the crimes committed by NATO in the war of aggression against Yugoslavia and Serbia – and, thus, that Milošević and his witnesses will conclusively demonstrate who it is that must be brought before the judges.

“Milošević presented over and over again, and with the help of witnesses from the Western countries, powerful evidence that Kosovo was not facing a ‘humanitarian catastrophe’ on the eve of NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia in 1999.

“It was not Milošević who was losing the trial, but the Tribunal.”

In one article Mr. Steijnen wrote:

“During years-long trial, in 466 sessions, prosecutors brought hundreds of witnesses against Milošević, they heaped over five thousand documents on him, and they proved nothing.

“This lack of actual evidence, this friendly haggling of prosecution with suspects who refused to testify against Milošević to get shorter sentences in return, all that was only damaging Tribunal’s case.

“Tribunal Worshipers in the role of reporters were carefully protecting public from knowing that Milošević, with his witnesses, struck fatal blows to the remnants of the indictment.”

Considerable Motives for Coldblooded Murder

De Ruiter notes the Hague was already in serious trouble, but things got much worse when it was finally Milošević’s turn to start his defense.

Witnesses who testified in Milošević’s defense were, without exception, eminent, authoritative and credible, and they were creating major headaches for the Tribunal, especially when one keeps in mind the fact most of the prosecution witness’ testimonies were debunked and exposed as falsehoods, sometimes to the point of becoming ludicrous and idiotic.

Situation became extremely tense when, at the end of February 2006, Milošević announced he will call Wesley Clark and Bill Clinton to the stand. He aimed to prove beyond any doubt that United States led an illegal war against Yugoslavia, and consciously and purposely bombed civilian targets – thus presenting the actual crime against humanity.

According to De Ruiter, Milošević’s intention wasn’t only unacceptable for NATO, but also for the tribunal, which would have been completely destroyed if such evidence was presented.

James Bissett, Canadian Ambassador for former Yugoslavia from 1990-1992, said:

“I have always been skeptical towards Tribunal, because I am convinced it is an instrument used by United States and its allies to mask their own mistakes in the Balkan tragedy. Tribunal serves to present Milošević and Serbian nation as the party responsible for all the ills which befell that unfortunate country.”

Russian General Leonid Ivashov said:

“Slobodan Milošević was the only one who could give crystal clear testimony about the role United States played in the bloody dismemberment of Yugoslavia during the nineties, and who could do so completely and down to tiniest details. That is precisely what he fought for while he was being tried.”

According to General Ivashov, if Milošević was declared innocent, such ruling would have far-reaching consequences both for the Tribunal and NATO. General Ivashov believes that is why Milošević was killed.

- It is a political assassination by a proxy, – Ivashov said.

“Slobodan Milošević died in his detention cell precisely at the time his defense was in full swing. He was worried over his health, but he burned with a desire to expose the truth about what really took place in the Balkans. He had no motive for suicide. On the other hand, Hague Tribunal had an obvious and considerable motive for murder.

“NATO, Tribunal’s initiator and financier, was losing control over Milošević case. Was Milošević silenced before he could exercise his right to speak up?”, Ruiter asks.


=== 2 ===

Excerpt from: http://cirqueminimeparis.blogspot.it/2012/12/solving-milosevic-murder-open-letter-to.html


[ (...) Below is our 2006 translation of an open letter to the then-ICTY prosecutor Carla del Ponte by renowned international Defense lawyer Jacques Vergès and former UN Kosovo peacekeeper Dr. Patrick Barriot, in which it is suggested that President Milosevic was forced to leave our world at the height of his powerful arguments, not just in his own Defense against charges of war crimes and crimes against Humanity, but of his most successful and intricately detailed Defense of the History of his nation, his people and our world.

After the Prosecution had failed to make any of the several cases they had filed and re-filed against President Milosevic, and after 'the accused', as he came to be known in the media, had begun to make an ironclad argument for the righteous resistance of the Yugoslav and Serb people against the Western (US/EU/NATO) aggression intended to dismember and sell-off the home of the Southern Slavs, as well as a definitive exposition of the bad faith, foul intentions, and false history that was being promoted and defended by this legally-baseless, NATO-backed UN ad hoc court, it became glaringly obvious that the Tribunal could not convict him on the evidence, nor could they acquit him without calling their own very existence as a weapon of NATO war into question.  So, the ICTY, NATO and the UN, made the only call available to them:  Milosevic Must Die.

If this re-post from June 2006 doesn't solve the Milosevic mystery for you, doesn’t convince you about who the real murderers were, who the real terrorists are, and why our children continue to be taken; we hope it will, at least, permit you to look beyond the distractive history of personalities, of psycho-biography, and of media melodrama, to see the real forces that are degrading our lives by trivializing our real History.  

In any case, you should never fall for the conjurer's trick and look the wrong way.— Mick Collins ]


Open Letter to Madame Del Ponte, ICTY prosecutor, and to the Doctors assigned by The Hague Tribunal

Maître Jacques Vergès and Docteur Patrick Barriot

Doctors possess the art of treating and relieving the suffering of their patients by the use of medicines, and their effectiveness never stops growing. Unfortunately, this power is sometimes used to silence those prisoners who won’t be broken.

The Case of Prisoner IT.02.54.T

Slobodan Milosevic suffered from severe and unstable high blood pressure (malignant hyper-tension with systolic readings frequently at 220 and 230), aggravated by the conditions of his detention. This high blood pressure had grave repercussions, both with his heart and his brain: left ventricular hypertrophy, troubles with repolarization of the precordial flow evident on EKGs suggest obstruction, arterial sclerosis of vessels in the neck (particularly the right carotid) and of intracranial blood vessels. This malignant hypertension required a heavy treatment consisting of: a beta-blocker (metoprolo: 200 mg), a calcic inhibitor (amlodipine: 20 mg), a conversion enzyme inhibitor (enalapril: 40 mg) and a diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide: 50 mg).

Throughout the last half of 2005 Slobodan Milosevic also experienced symptoms of an inner ear disorder (located in the cochlear vestibule, the membranous labyrinth of the inner ear), specifically an impairment of his hearing that became progressively disabling: a buzzing or ringing in his ears, diminished acuity approaching deafness especially in his right ear, pain in his right ear that was aggravated by having to wear headphones, dizziness. All these signs point to an attack on the inner ear originating from the intracranial blood vessels.


A vascular pathology aggravated by stress

The conditions of Slobodan Milosevic’s imprisonment played an important role in the aggravation of his vascular illness, particularly the stress connected with his isolation from his family. Since his abduction and imprisonment at The Hague nearly five year ago, Slobodan Milosevic was not authorized to receive visits from members of his family. A few months ago, Slobodan Milosevic wrote (in French) to Javier Solana, Secretary General of the Council of the European Union (EU) and High Representative to the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security. He wrote the following:

“Mr. Solana, You know very well that I was the leader of Yugoslavia
and its armed forces at the moment you launched air strikes against
my country, and you also know that at present I find myself in your
prison at Scheveningen. The fundamental difference between myself
and the other detainees around me is not just that I am the only head
of state imprisoned here, but also that I am the sole person here who
is deprived of any possibility of seeing his family. I describe my
situation to you because I am not sure you have been informed of
the conditions of my detention, and I cannot imagine that a respectable
man would be responsible for allowing such villainy. Reprisals against
an enemy’s wife and children are not the gestures of an honorable man.
In light of the high office you held and continue to hold today, I have
no doubt that you will take all necessary measures to enable my family
to travel freely to the Netherlands in order to visit me.
Slobodan Milosevic.”

Obviously, these necessary measures were never taken.

The stress of organizing his defense was another factor deleterious to Slobodan Milosevic’s health in the opinion of the Dutch cardiologist appointed by the ICTY, a doctor who, as we will see, was not susceptible to the slightest compassion for his patient, ‘The Accused’. In a letter dated 23 November 2005, Dr. P. Van Dijkman (staff cardiologist at Bronovo Hospital) wrote to Dr. P. Falke (the doctor at the detention centre):

“In light of his work schedule, it is normal that the patient should
feel fatigued. He takes part in three session per week and spends the
rest of his time in preparation, in interrogating, among others, his
witnesses. That does not leave much time for him to rest. It is most
likely that his blood pressure will continue to elevate in the course
of these stressful court sessions.”(1).


The medical expertise of 4 November 2005

Three independent specialists examined Slobodan Milosevic, on his request, the 4th of November, 2005: Dr. M. Shumilina, angiologist, a specialist in cerebral (venous) circulation at the Institute for cardio-vascular surgery at the Bakulev clinic in Moscow; Professor V. Andric, ear/nose/throat specialist (ENT staff at the VMA hospital in Belgrade); and Professor F. Leclercq, chief of the cardiology staff at the Arnaud de Villeneuve hospital (CHU de Montpellier).

Professor F. Leclercq confirmed suspicious signs on the EKG and prescribed further examinations (coronary CAT scan, myocardial scintigraphy) to better evaluate the coronary circulation (2). Soon after the announcement of the death of Slobodan Milosevic, Professor Leclercq sent us a message specifying:

“I am sad that the examinations we asked for were not done.”

Beyond that, the Professor had insisted on the necessity for an effective period of rest:

“It is inarguable that stress is playing a great part in the
irregularities in blood pressure and that a period of rest must
be ordered.”

Dr. M. Shumilina and Professor V. Andric concurred on the vascular origins of the disabling inner-ear condition (3, 4). In view of the examinations conducted, especially the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Dr. Shumilina submitted as evidence vascular anomalies on several levels: the brachiocephalic trunk (innominate artery), the inside right carotid artery, the right vertebral artery, the coronary arteries. According to Dr. Shumilina, there also existed certain anomalies in the cerebral venous circulation linked to an inadequate treatment of the vascular illness from which Slobodan Milosevic suffered. Dr Shumilina and Professor Andric also prescribed additional examinations (ultra sound imaging of the blood vessels in the neck, cerebral arteriography).

The critical point of this independent expertise is that the three specialists established a connection between the symptoms of the inner-ear disorder (especially the dulled auditory perception) and the extremely high blood pressure. But this connection was vigorously denied by the Dutch doctors assigned by the ICTY, with the singular exception of Dr. J. De Laat (Leiden University Medical Centre) who wrote on 28 November 2005 to Dr. P. Falke:

“It is probable that his cardiovascular condition plays a role in
the patient’s auditory difficulties” (5).

But his opinion was ignored.

The conclusion of the independent doctors’ report was without ambiguity:

“After considering the results of the medical examinations
indicated in the patient’s file and carried out at the time of our
visit on 4 November 2005, we can conclude that the state of the
patient’s health is not stable and that complications are possible.
His condition demands follow-up examinations in order to find the
precise origins of his current problems. It is necessary that the patient
be given a period of rest, that is to say, a cessation of all his physical
activities and all of his intellectual effort for at least 6 weeks.”(6).

The report of the experts group thus brought up certain unresolved problems, at once diagnostic and therapeutic. It also emphasized the gravity and urgency of the situation. The report also cited that the patient should be given a provisional release toward a period of hospitalization at the Bakulev Institute in Moscow, the Russian government having offered all guarantees of security for the return of Slobodan Milosevic to The Hague after treatment had been carried out. The Bakulev Institute has the technical capability to offer both the diagnostics (coronography, cerebral arteriography) and therapeutics (coronary dilation, arterial by-pass) necessary, as well as top specialist under the direction of Professor L. Bockeria. Professor Bockeria determined that Slobodan Milosevic was in ‘critical condition’ and predicted a ‘cardio-vascular catastrophe’. (7).


Disagreement and controversy

The conclusions of the independent experts group were contested by the Dutch doctors assigned by the prison authority and became the object of a double controversy. The first controversy pitted Professor F. Leclercq against Dr. P. Van Dijkman. In a report addressed to Hans Holthuis, registrar of the ICTY, dated 14 November 2005, Dr. P. Falke stated:

“Contrary to the conclusion of the examining doctors (V. Andric,
F. Leclercq and M. Shumilina), the treating physician (P. Van
Dijkman) concluded that there was little probability that the
vascular anomalies had a connection with the symptoms presented.
The treating physician determined that a period of rest would not
have any positive effect on these symptoms.” (8, 9).

This opinion is confirmed a few days later in a letter from Dr. Van Dijkman, dated 18 November 2005 and addressed to Dr. Falke. Here is what Dr. Van Dijkman thought of the prescriptions of Professor Leclercq (additional examinations and rest):

“This last point seems to me a little excessive in view of the
examinations already carried out (. . .). As of now, I don’t
see any argument for changing the procedure and, from my
point of view, there is no justification on a cardiological basis
for changing the way the trial is being conducted.” (10).

This position is reaffirmed several days later in another letter, dated 1 December 2005, and again addressed by Dr. Van Dijkman to Dr. Falke:

“In my letter of 18 November 2005, I indicated that I did not
see any reason to change treatment and, from the point of
view of cardiology, there was also no reason to change the way
the trial was being conducted (. . .). The three foreign doctors
who examined Mr. Milosevic recommend a 6 week period of
rest be granted him immediately. This seems to me to be
a totally arbitrary period of time for which, in my opinion, no
justification has been presented.”(11).

As we can see, Dr. Van Dijkman peremptorily contradicts the opinion of a professor of cardiology. At the same time he contests the prescription of additional examinations for the purpose of a more precise diagnosis and the granting of a period of rest during which to effect therapy. Nonetheless he declares himself incompetent to judge the pathologies of the inner-ear and has nothing to say about Dr. Shumilina’s opinions on the cardio-vascular problems. He would have had to have taken into account the opinions of his colleagues or have asked the opinion of an internist. Too sure of himself, he seems more comfortable with diminishing the convalescence of a sick man than with achieving an accurate diagnosis. It is important to note here that even in the opinion of Professor J.H. Kingma (former Inspector General of the Dutch Ministry of Health), Dr. Van Dijkman would have had to consider the opinion of another specialist:

“Professor Kingma believes that the opinion of an additional
specialist must have been required to advise Dr. Dijkman in the
treatment of The Accused. A specialist in internal medicine
would probably have been good counsel at this stage because
The Accused suffered from arterial hypertension, a condition that
effects all the organs of the body and not just the heart. Professor
Kingma offered to speak to Dr. Van Dijkman about the possibility
of seeking an additional opinion.” (12, 13).

The second controversy set Dr. Shumilina against Dr. N. Aarts (a Dutch neurologist) over the link between the observed symptoms of the inner-ear disorder and the patient’s mis-treated high blood pressure. For Dr. Shumilina and Professor Andric, the vascular origins of the ear problems were beyond any doubt and that con

(Message over 64 KB, truncated)