Last Updated 12/02/2025 published 31/12/2024 by Hans Smedema

Smedema Case: Investigative Pathways

Main text

Beyond the key events previously outlined, several other aspects related to Hans Smedema’s narrative warrant media and journalistic focus to support potential legal action:

1. Johan Smedema’s Alleged Role:

Hans Smedema portrays his brother, Johan, as a central figure in the alleged conspiracy [1]. Journalists should investigate Johan’s alleged actions and motivations by analyzing court documents and legal records related to Hans’s cases, seeking evidence of potential irregularities or undue influence [2]. Gathering testimonies or accounts from other family members could shed light on Johan’s alleged role and family dynamics [2].

2. Specific Individuals and Their Connections:

The sources identify various individuals, including family members, acquaintances, and legal figures, whose roles and contributions to Smedema’s distress merit scrutiny [3]. Examining the relationships and potential connections between these individuals, particularly any links to the Ministry of Justice or other implicated institutions, could reveal the dynamics of the alleged conspiracy [3]. For example, exploring the role of Jaap Duijs and his alleged actions, such as placing a listening device or concealing medical records, could be pursued through potential witnesses like Sophie, given her prior relationship with Duijs [4, 5].

3. Potential Motives of Alleged Perpetrators:

Delving into the potential motivations of individuals allegedly involved in specific incidents could strengthen Smedema’s narrative. In the Catral incident, exploring potential connections between the alleged perpetrators and other figures in Smedema’s story, as well as any communications between them, could reveal the motivations behind the alleged torture [6]. Similarly, investigating why a respected psychologist like Van der Hart would allegedly participate in such acts, including examining potential coercion or personal gain, is crucial [7]. This also applies to the alleged involvement of Dutch and Spanish authorities, seeking evidence beyond Smedema’s claims, and researching any official investigations and their findings [7].

4. Legal and Ethical Obligations of Medical Professionals:

Analyzing the legal and ethical obligations of medical professionals in the Netherlands during the relevant timeframe concerning patient confidentiality and reporting suspected crimes could illuminate the actions of doctors like Dr. Smorenburg [8]. This investigation could involve reviewing medical ethics codes, legal statutes, and expert opinions to assess whether any deviations from standard practice occurred and to provide context for understanding the doctors’ alleged refusal to investigate or report Smedema’s claims [8].

5. The “Cordon Sanitaire” and Its Impact:

Smedema’s claims of a “cordon sanitaire,” designed to isolate and silence him, should be a focus of media investigation [9-12]. Examining the alleged methods employed to enforce this “cordon,” such as monitoring Smedema’s actions, thwarting his access to information, and discrediting him, could demonstrate the alleged conspiracy’s systematic nature [9-12].

6. American Investigations and UNCAT Complaint:

Smedema’s assertion that American authorities found five grounds for asylum and that President Obama filed a UNCAT complaint merits further investigation [13]. While independent verification is crucial, exploring the potential findings of these investigations and the status of the UNCAT complaint could provide significant support for Smedema’s narrative [13]. This line of inquiry should involve researching US asylum procedures, UNCAT mechanisms, and seeking information through official channels, such as FOIA requests [14-16].

7. “Royal Special Decree” Allegation:

Smedema’s claim of a “Royal special decree” issued by Queen Juliana granting immunity to perpetrators and blocking investigations requires careful examination [17]. While likely challenging to verify, investigating the legal plausibility of such a decree and its alleged impact on Smedema’s case could highlight the alleged abuse of power and obstruction of justice [17].

8. Smedema’s Comparison to the Dreyfus Affair:

Smedema draws parallels between his case and the Dreyfus Affair, a historical case of wrongful conviction and antisemitism [17-21]. Examining the similarities and differences between these cases could contextualize Smedema’s narrative and underscore themes of government overreach and the struggle for justice [17-21].

9. The Significance of Smedema’s Persistent Documentation:

Smedema’s extensive documentation across various platforms, including books, blogs, and legal documents, provides a wealth of information for investigative journalists [22, 23]. Analyzing the consistency and evolution of his narrative across these sources, while remaining mindful of potential biases, is essential [22, 23]. Focusing on specific documented instances, such as the alleged incident at the 97th General Army Hospital in Frankfurt [24], and seeking corroborating evidence could strengthen Smedema’s claims.

By thoroughly investigating these additional areas, the media can provide a more comprehensive picture of Smedema’s allegations and potentially uncover crucial evidence to support upcoming legal action. Remember, independent verification remains paramount, and all reporting should maintain journalistic balance, objectivity, and ethical considerations.

Google NotebookLM Insights,

based on the true-crime chronologically in 24 horrifying years ‘legal written statements’ with slowly increasing insights in the complex unbelievable conspiracy on this Blog and eBooks by Victim-Author:

Hans Smedema B. Sc., in forced exile surviving in beautiful El Albir, Costa Blanca, Spain