On Friday, Georges Pierret, representing former gendarmerie officer Guy Stebens, and Benoît Entringer, representing former chief investigator Armand Schockweiler, delivered similar arguments. Both maintained that their clients should not face conviction for false testimony, as the statements they made had no bearing on the two defendants at the centre of the main Bommeleeër trial. That high-profile trial was suspended in 2014 due to these allegations.
In the first trial, Guy Stebens was accused of nineteen counts of giving false evidence. On appeal, however, the Office of the Public Prosecutor reduced the charges to just one. Pierret stressed that his client was accused of making a statement in 2005 that he could not recall in 2013. At the time of the original statement, Stebens had been heard as a witness, not under oath, and had said he could no longer remember observing Ben Geiben, then head of the Mobile Brigade, back in 1985. Later, after reviewing documents, Stebens remembered some additional details.
Stebens was questioned nineteen times over a total of 65 hours. His lawyer questioned why so many sessions were spent examining details unrelated to the core of the case, emphasising that the prosecution's assumptions do not amount to evidence of guilt. Summarising after the hearing, Pierret remarked, "We are, essentially, in the wrong film here."
As for Armand Schockweiler, the then-lead investigator, he originally faced twenty-five counts of false testimony relating to the 2013–14 Bommeleeër proceedings. On appeal, the prosecution retained only two of those charges. Entringer argued that the statements in question had no impact on the trial involving the principal accused, Jos Wilmes and Marc Scheer.
One charge concerns whether Schockweiler removed a detonator from the forensic service, and the other relates to his denial of knowledge about Ben Geiben's surveillance in Luxembourg. Entringer insisted that neither matter could constitute false testimony, as neither was relevant to the main trial or its defendants. He added that his client had always told the truth, and even if this were not the case, the alleged offence of false testimony would not apply under the circumstances.
Both defence lawyers called for their clients to be acquitted and for the first-instance judgment to be upheld. They also questioned why the Office of the Public Prosecutor is now seeking a minimum sentence of five years' imprisonment – significantly higher than the initial requests of eighteen months for Stebens and three years for Schockweiler. Both Pierret and Entringer further argued that the proceedings had exceeded a reasonable duration.
The trial is set to continue on Tuesday afternoon with the closing arguments from Aloyse Harpes's lawyer, and is expected to conclude on Thursday afternoon.
