After a week’s break, the trial of the November 13 attacks resumed on Monday May 2 before the special assize court in Paris. The court made a surprising step back with the hearings of a sociologist and a journalist specializing in Islamism whose generalities made the defense benches very impatient.
From our special correspondent at the Paris courthouse,
The hearings of sociologist Bernard Rougier and Franco-Algerian journalist Mohamed Sifaoui lasted so long that that of former anti-terrorism judge Marc Trévidic had to be postponed until Tuesday. For nearly 7 hours, the two men heard at the request of certain civil parties gave what sometimes looked like a long conference on jihadism.
Problem, these questions had already been discussed at length several months ago and the general statements forcefully sometimes seemed out of step with the case and the defendants. When a magistrate asks Bernard Rougier if it is possible to be complicit in a terrorist act without adhering to the cause, he replies: ” I don’t know the case, but it seems hard to believe. At best, there is awareness that something important is going on. If someone is planning hideouts, an assassination is in the works. »
► To listen also: Trial of November 13, 2015: has there been real progress?
” Your experience with IS jihadists is nil »
The assertion makes the benches of the defense jump. Me Martin Méchin asks him to repeat. This time, the sociologist is much more nuanced: “ When there are assassinations to prepare, you necessarily need hideouts. Which is not at all the same thing.
The defense is also annoyed by the certainties asserted by the academic on the basis of already old research on jihadist groups in Lebanon. ” How many Islamic State jihadists have you met? “Asks Me Martin Vettes, lawyer for Salah Abdeslam. ” The ideology exists before the organization », Tackles the university. “But did you have direct contact with an ISIS member?” “, insists the lawyer. “ Probably yes, but I didn’t know that… » « Your experience with IS jihadists is nil “slice Me Vettes.
” I’m not here to answer your insults “, is indignant the sociologist for whom” individual morality is difficult to separate from collective morality “. ” We judge individuals, not causes. “, chokes Me Méchin who ends up letting go before sitting down again: “ You don’t understand the French judicial system, it’s pathetic. »
” The intelligent man is he who knows the limits of his own knowledge »
The atmosphere did not really relax with the hearing of Mohamed Sifaoui, whose certainties are just as damaging to the defence: “ All those who are involved in a case of terrorism are involved in concealment. When they ask for forgiveness or start crying, it’s a defense strategy “, he asserts, referring without naming him to Salah Abdeslam.
► To read also: Psychiatrists dissect the double face of Salah Abdeslam
Or : ” It is impossible to see a jihadist network appealing to someone who is not part of the alliance. ” But he too is obliged, faced with the questions of the defense, to strongly qualify his remarks: ” Just because a Salafist buys a Kalashnikov from an arms dealer doesn’t mean he’s necessarily a Salafist “, he ends up admitting.
” We’ve just spent seven months analyzing the smallest phone call, sometimes down to the second, to try to determine intentions and we see you coming in and making generalizations, there are such issues being played out in this courtroom, it’s a bit annoying “, sighs Me Negar Haeri. ” The intelligent man is he who knows the limits of his own knowledge », Launches him Me Ilyacine Maalaoui, another defense lawyer.