On the 12th day of the second Bommeleeër trial, tensions in the courtroom rose sharply. In this fourth week of hearings, the prosecution once again responded to the defence lawyers’ closing arguments.
At the end of her reply, the deputy public prosecutor said the situation was nothing short of a disgrace. The six defendants are accused of giving false statements during the 2013/14 Bommeleeër trial, and the prosecutor argued that the justice system had been deliberately deprived of the truth. Whatever the outcome of the trial, she insisted, every effort must be made to ensure such a situation can never be repeated.
She noted at the start of her intervention that the prosecution had tried to keep the case measured and focused: a response to defence claims that the indictment had lacked precision and restraint. What had happened, she said, was regrettable enough, and the task now was to confront and understand it.
She pointed out that the extensive investigative work that should have been carried out at the time simply hadn’t been. Referring to a remark made by defendant Pierre Reuland in an earlier hearing, she said that the trial had reached exactly the point he once predicted: “You’ll reach a certain point, and then everything will come to a halt.” That, she said, was now the case, as everyone in the courtroom seemed to know more than they were willing to say.
As she reviewed the elements she considers to be false statements, she argued that the justice system had been treated with contempt. In her view, grown men with distinguished careers in the Gendarmerie had behaved like schoolboys.
She again raised the issue of the once-promising lead involving Ben Geiben, which was abruptly abandoned. She stressed that no explanation had ever been given for why that line of inquiry was suddenly dismissed, and said the lack of logic behind the decision remained unresolved.
Suggestions that the investigative work at the time had been sloppy were, she maintained, unfounded. The deputy public prosecutor added that they knew that the investigating judge was in charge, yet not all information had been passed on to him.
After the prosecution’s hour-long reply, the defence lawyers also sought to respond. Lawyer Roland Assa argued that the hearing had focused endlessly on the Bommeleeër attacks themselves, well beyond the actual accusation of giving false statements that this trial is supposed to examine.
Lawyer Georges Pierret added that any harm to public order stemmed from the bombings of the 1980s, not from the actions of the current defendants. He argued that the prosecution needed to specify what, exactly, it believed the defendants knew and had failed to disclose.
Contrary to expectations, the trial did not conclude on Monday. Hearings will continue on Tuesday morning.
