On the ninth day of the “Bommeleeër II” perjury trial, the defence for one of the accused, former Police Secretary General Guy Stebens, sharply criticised the conduct of the original 2013-14 trial.
Defence lawyers Georges Pierret and Anouck Ewerling spent two and a half hours responding to the prosecution’s case. The prosecution has called for an 18-month prison sentence for Stebens, one of six defendants accused of lying under oath in the earlier “Bommeleeër” trial.
The defence’s core argument centered on the role of a witness. Lawyer Georges Pierret stated, “A witness either knows something, or they know nothing”, arguing there is no middle ground. He then criticised the 2013-14 trial’s presiding judge and prosecutor for their questioning methods, claiming, “There was a barrage of questions. One more leading than the next. Mr Stebens was questioned about everything, except for Wilmes/Scheer.” Marc Scheer and Jos Wilmes, defendants in the first trial, are civil parties in the current one.
Lawyer Anouck Ewerling, who re-watched the original trial recordings, supported this characterisation. “The headphones nearly flew off my head”, she said, describing a chaotic scene with shouting and constant interruptions. She further noted that her client was being portrayed as “a liar and a schoolboy.”
Both attorneys argued that Stebens was called to testify specifically about the Wilmes/Scheer case then and now, and that no perjury within that scope has been proven. They asserted the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
Ewerling systematically addressed the 17 specific perjury allegations. “For each alleged instance of perjury, I will ask you: Where is the link to Scheer and Wilmes? Where is the prejudice? Where is Mr Stebens supposed to have knowingly misled the court?” she challenged at the outset of her closing argument.
The defence also addressed a point raised by a police investigator who testified in the trial’s first week. That witness highlighted the absence of a diary belonging to Stebens from 1985 – a year that included the attack on the Palais de Justice and the Geiben surveillance operation – which is either lost or never existed. Ewerling dismissed the relevance of the diary, arguing that Stebens was attending a training course in Germany during the crucial events in question.
Ewerling then turned to the demands of the three civil parties – Marc Scheer, Jos Wilmes, and the state. She contended that her client bore no responsibility for the judiciary’s decision to interrupt the original trial, nor for the 11-year delay that followed. “One could also ask the civil parties Scheer and Wilmes a different question”, she suggested, “If they hadn’t planted bombs back then, we wouldn’t be here.” She clarified, however, that the defence would not pursue that line of argument.
Ewerling acknowledged sharing the civil parties’ “frustration, disappointment, and anger”, emotions she said her client also felt. Nevertheless, she concluded that blame for their ordeal could not be placed on Guy Stebens.
The trial is scheduled to resume on Wednesday afternoon.
11 years on: Lawyers argue the case cannot be separated from main Bommeleeër trial
Bommeleeër trial continues: Third day of trial focuses on alleged false statements
Bommeleeër II trial: Conflicting accounts emerge over abandoned bombing lead
Fifth day of Bommeleeër trial: ‘No deliberate attempt was made to deceive the court’
Day six in court: Defendants in Bommeleeër II trial explain past statements
Bommeleeër false testimony trial continues: Prosecution seeks 19 months to five year sentence
