Facing the court with visible weariness, the defendants in the Bommeleeër II trial defended their integrity on Tuesday, with former officers explaining discrepancies in their testimonies as honest mistakes or products of a different time.
The sixth day of the Bommeleeër II trial proceeded on Tuesday, featuring testimony from the five defendants present. The sixth, 97-year-old Aloyse Harpes, was represented by his lawyer and exempt from personal appearance due to his advanced age.
The defendants, showing visible weariness after years of legal proceedings, responded to the judges’ questions. Some were emotional, with 65-year-old Guy Stebens stating he had already been questioned 19 times for a total of 65 hours. “I can add nothing more to what has not already been said or written”, he told the court. While the others shared his sentiment of having nothing new to add, they nonetheless complied with the judicial inquiry.
The first to testify was former Sûreté officer Guillaume Büchler. He addressed a key discrepancy in his statements, noting that while he claimed in 2003 to have “crossed paths with Ben Geiben by chance in Brussels”, he later concluded this was a mistake. As a possible explanation for the initial error, he cited potential hypoglycemia.
Büchler defended his integrity, stating, “I ask myself what reason I would have had to lie in this case”, and emphasised that as an investigator, he understood the stakes of giving false testimony. He also claimed he lacked specific training for a complex surveillance operation like the one involving Geiben.
Another defendant, Marcel Weydert (68), a former member of the Brigade Mobile, addressed a separate accusation. He was reproached for claiming during the 2013 trial to be visible in a photograph taken after the attacks on the Casemates – a fact later proven false.
On Tuesday, the defendant conceded the error, calling it a “clear misjudgement”. He stated, “I made a fool of myself”, but explained that he had no reason to doubt the identification at the time when asked by Marc Scheer if he was the person in the photo.
Guy Stebens, a former member of the Brigade Mobile, found it difficult to read his statement, beginning by asserting his innocence “in this whole affair”.
The defendant stated he had nothing of a criminal nature to reproach himself for, though he conceded that as a young officer 40 years ago, he “certainly did not do everything correctly”. He firmly assured the court that he had not obstructed or covered up any investigations, emphasising he had neither a motive nor any interest in doing so.
“I heard nothing that would point to the identity of the bomber”, Stebens told the court, insisting that he, too, desired the case to be solved to finally prove his innocence.
Providing context for his role, he explained that when he took over the investigation into the bombings, 15 of the 20 attacks had already occurred. He was 25 years old at the time and acknowledged he lacked the professional experience for such a demanding post.
Regarding specific events, Stebens noted he was not in the country during the surveillance of Ben Geiben in Brussels or during the attack on the Palace. Upon his return, he stated, the matter was not discussed further with him.
Pierre Reuland, the former head of the Brigade Mobile, characterised himself as “a very peculiar witness” during the 2013 trial. He attributed his past statements to two key factors.
The first was the 2007 arrest of his colleagues, Marc Scheer and Jos Wilmes, which he described as “the biggest shock of his life”. Having shared a small office with them and collaborated on daily operations – sometimes even being together on a mission when an attack occurred – Reuland said he found the allegations inconceivable. He explained that, as their administrative head, he subsequently felt a responsibility to stand behind them and stated he remains convinced of their innocence to this day.
The second factor was a 2007 report from the Luxembourg State Intelligence Service (SREL) which stated he had not participated in the surveillance of Ben Geiben. From this, he had concluded he was not present at the event in question. He entered the 2013 trial with these two convictions.
Repeating a sentiment echoed by other defendants, Reuland questioned what motive he would have had to lie. “I am not the bomber, I do not know the bomber and I have nothing to hide”, the 67-year-old stated. In total, he has been questioned 18 times.
When the court asked why the Brigade Mobile did not conduct follow-up inquiries into the Geiben surveillance at the time, Reuland clarified the chain of command: “We were not the investigators. We, the Brigade mobile, assisted them. But the heads of the investigation were not in the Brigade Mobile.”
Armand Schockweiler (70), a former Sûreté officer, opened his testimony by stressing his consistency across 17 interviews, asserting he has “always told the truth” and provided all information available to him at the time.
His defence centered on the different professional standards of the era. He criticised the current proceedings for failing to consider the context of the time, arguing that “things were done then that are no longer done today, and things were not done that are done today”. As a key example, he pointed to prevalent oral communication, noting that many procedures were not formally documented. “That’s how it was back then”, the 70-year-old stated, insisting this was the standard practice for handling major cases.
When pressed by the judge to explain why the investigation into Ben Geiben was abruptly dropped, Schockweiler said he had no specific explanation, merely stating: “At some point, there came a time when no one believed in the Geiben lead anymore.”
He did, however, offer an insight into the failed surveillance operation. Schockweiler claimed that when the four Luxembourgish officers arrived in Brussels in October 1985 to confer with Belgian police, Geiben was already aware he was being watched. According to the defendant, this leak – which he suggested likely came from “a colleague” – is what is commonly meant when people refer to something having “gone wrong in Brussels”.
