As the fifth and penultimate day of the Bommeleeër II trial unfolded on Tuesday, courtroom arguments revealed two fundamentally opposing narratives about the affair.
With final pleas being made, the day was marked by sharply conflicting accounts, which ranged from the complete denial of any wrongdoing by the defence to the suspicion of a high-level conspiracy voiced by the civil parties' lawyers.
Proceedings began with Maître André Harpes, who spoke for nearly two hours in defence of his client and father, former Gendarmerie Commander Aloyse Harpes.
He argued that there was no basis to accuse Aloyse Harpes of impeding the bomb attack investigation or making false statements in the original trial.
According to André Harpes, his client had actually reinforced the team of investigators and at no point prevented them from cooperating with the investigating judge. He insisted that there was no concrete evidence of "bad faith" on the part of Colonel Harpes.
Furthermore, he described it as entirely normal that Aloyse Harpes would not have known more about the surveillance of Ben Geiben, as his deputy, Charel Bourg, had been in contact with the intelligence service.
The defence also highlighted that, at 98 years of age, Aloyse Harpes is now one of the oldest defendants in Europe, with comparable cases usually involving Nazi-era crimes.
The final hour of the session was dedicated to the lawyers representing the civil parties, Marc Scheer and Jos Wilmes.
Maître Max Lehnen and Maître Thierry Hirsch questioned why the four accused - Aloyse Harpes, Pierre Reuland, Armand Schockweiler, and Guy Stebens - had not shown more anger or frustration during the original trial over the fact that those responsible for the attacks were never identified.
Their arguments focused particularly on Pierre Reuland. They recalled that he had, on several occasions, suggested that there were more interesting cases than the bomb attacks and hinted that the investigation had reached a dead end because powerful individuals high up in the hierarchy were behind the attacks.
Maître Thierry Hirsch even raised the question of whether former Luxembourg Army Commander Armand Bruck might have been implicated by such remarks.
During these statements from the civil parties, observers noted that Pierre Reuland appeared visibly more uneasy than at the beginning of the session, though it remained unclear whether this was a reaction to the lawyers' assertions or simply discomfort with his chair.
The Bommeleeër II is set to conclude on Thursday, with the civil parties' lawyers and the representative of the public prosecutor’s office scheduled to deliver their closing arguments.
