The session of May 22nd begun by examining the topic of one of the accused’s journey
using the service Blablacar in France. The French driver wrote a letter to the court
saying that she would not come to testify, but that she recognized the
accused when she was shown a picture.
At this point the judge said that the case would rest, thus no more witnesses or evidence would be accepted.
Then the prosecutor’s closing arguments began. It was a very long and vague speech:
The prosecutor introduced the concept “in dubio pro reo” (in case of doubt, the benefit is in favour of the defendant; which was the argument used by the judge in the acquittal of the comrade from Amsterdam) turning it around and stating that in fact there was enough evidence pointing to the accused’s participation in the robbery.
– the DNA samples taken inside the bank (screwdriver) and in a bag found outside the branch (containing clothes, wig and glasses) show that the accused participated in the robbery, since it can also not be demonstrated that they had been in Aachen at any other moment. Another argument (to explain why in such a professional robbery the robbers left
objects behind with DNA samples) is that the defendants would have known that there was no samples of their DNA in any database and could afford to leave these objects behind, to more rapidly get rid of the tools and clothes.
– Their involvement in the far-left or anarchist movements of the accused, the international connections with other movements and the connection with the milieu of the Amsterdam comrade
-The recognition by a witness (a bank employee) to one of the accused through a photo appearing on the local newspaper.
In addition, she particularly insisted on the following aggravating factors: the psychological damage suffered by all the workers of the bank, the fact that the robbers would have known that there were 18 workers inside the bank, the past of one of the accused (an attempted robbery) and case of the alleged woman that witnesses described as a leader.
That is why she asked 9 years for the male comrade and 8 and a half years for the
female comrade.
Then, the two lawyers of the (female) comrade presented their closing arguments:
– the presence of DNA in the bag can be explained in other ways.
In addition the expert indicated that it is not possible to determine how long a sample has been on an object, and it is possible to transfer samples between objects.
– the participation in the anarchist movement does not show that they participated in the alleged act, for example, they [the lawyers, ndt] know many people who sympathize with the act, but have never robbed a bank.
– some witnesses said that they did not see any woman during the robbery and
some indicated that they saw 2 women, so it cannot be demonstrated that the accused was the leader.
– as for the biometric expert, she was not able to identify either of the accused.
That is why he demands immediate freedom for his client.
One of the lawyers of the accused (male) comrade stated in his closing arguments:
– he strongly insisted on the illegal taking of the DNA sample (without authorization from any judge), and that the DNA found on the screwdriver can be explained by many
ways (one of the most movable objects that exist).
– that the prosecution had lied about the political question (above all about the investigation of the Mossos, GAC, the sentence of the action in Pillar, etc.)
– that the accused has a family in France, whom he visits often and which does not prove that he was in Aachen a few days earlier.
He demanded immediate freedom for his client.
The next session will be on May 31, where the second lawyer of the companion will present his final statement.
The sentence will probably be pronounced at the session after that, on June 7.