of questions at the vice-prime minister and minister of Justice, regarding the case Coucke and Goethals. His introduction stated that since 1861 there had been several attempts to officially restore the honour of Coucke and Goethals. In 2000, Johan Vande Lanotte, Siegfried Bracke and Geert Goedertier had still written (in België voor beginners. Wegwijs in het Belgisch labyrint, p. 27, die Keure, Brugge) that Coucke and Goethals were not the murderers of the widow, but were informed on the murder. In 1948, a study by the Flemish journalist Herman Bossier had concluded that there had not been a miscarriage of justice, as according to the journalist, the declaration by Rabet included errors and two other members of the Black Gang, after their trial, had talked about the Flemish as accomplices; the interpreter would not have been a gendarme from Luxembourg, but a sworn translator of Dutch origin (Nederlandse afkomst). On five occasions Goethals would have confessed and as chief railroad worker he had to know the French language, while Coucke sold vegetables to French-speaking customers and, having had money problems before the murder, thereafter had means of which he could not demonstrate the origin. The Member of Parliament then asked whether the dossier of the trial case could be looked into by MPs or by civilians, and whether it corroborated the journalist's statements about Rabet, the interpreter, Goethals' confessions, and Coucke's financial situation. He also wished to know whether the nine death penalties of 17 January 1862 by the same court of which seven had been reduced, were connected to the Black Gang and thus to Boucher, Leclerq, and Rabet. Would the Minister of Justice in this case be willing to ask the advice of the Attorney General at the Appeal Court of Mons, and to ask for the revision of the verdict of 1869, or to provide reasons for not asking the latter. The Minister replied one year later, on 24 July 2006. The confession of guilt by third parties can be considered as a new fact having taken place after the conviction, offering the possibility to review the case. The criticism and advises that several authors may have brought forward, do not form a ground for a revision. According to the Minister, of the mentioned elements, only the statement by Rabet form such a ground in as far it is of a nature that proves the innocence of