Posted on 03/12/2022 8:46:36 PM PST by nickcarraway
Tuesday was an unsatisfactory day at the Special Criminal Court in Paris, where those suspected of involvement in the November 2015 terrorist attacks are being tried. The Belgian police investigation has never identified the source of the weapons used in the killings. It was hoped that Tuesday's three Dutch witnesses might provide some clarity. They did not.
There were technical problems, legal problems, language problems.
Prison 'friction'
First of all, there were two prisoners missing from the ranks of the accused. We've become used to the absence of Osama Krayem, who has been boycotting the trial since November.
On Tuesday, he was joined in the holding cells by Salah Abdeslam, the only survivor of the terrorist squads who came to Paris on 13 November 2015, killing 131 people.
Abdeslam's legal team explained that their client was refusing to appear because of "friction" between himself and the prison escorts. The officers who ensure the transport and presence of the accused change every four weeks, and there had been "a few difficulties with the new escort team, but nothing serious," the lawyer said.
After a formal request from the court, asking the two men to appear, had been refused, the trial continued in their absence. That's the procedure.
Tuesday's evidence, such as it was, was relayed by videolink, in Dutch, from a courtroom in Holland. There were translators at both ends. Confusion too.
The first witness may have been the victim of mistaken identity.
Presented to the court as Richard, he explained that he knew none of the accused. Especially not Ali El Haddad Asufi, despite the insistence by Belgian investigators that the two men had met several times in October 2015.
'An international arms dealer'
Asufi is suspected of having played a key role in obtaining the assault rifles used in the November 2015 attacks. He faces 20 years in prison if found guilty.
"His name was on the summons," the witness explained. "I looked him up on Google. I don't know him."
From the box, Ali El Haddad Asufi agreed. He had never seen the witness before.
At the time of the supposed meeting, Richard thinks he was in Ecuador. His criminal record involves robbery, violence, "a row in a café 30 years ago," but nothing to do with weapons.
The Belgian police had dubbed this man "an international arms dealer".
His interrogation by the Paris court lasted 20 minutes, translation included.
The day's second witness, also Dutch, also identified as Richard, the son of the first, failed to show up. That resulted in a two-hour suspension.
Coded 'Clios'
After which, we heard from a man called Anas, who eventually agreed that he is the first cousin of the accused Ali El Haddad Asufi, having initially claimed that he knew none of those in the box.
That was about as cooperative as Anas, who has his own problems with the Dutch judiciary, was going to get.
Could he help the court with an explanation of the effort to obtain something called "Clios" in coded phone messages shared by members of the attack teams?
He could not, apparently because he has answered these questions a million times already.
Were the Clios prostitutes? wondered court president Jean-Louis Périès, adding that the sum of €2,200 involved struck him as a bit on the steep side.
Were the Clios cannabis? "I have been telling the truth for days, for months, for years. I stand by what I have said. This was a consignment of drugs," said Anas.
"It was certainly not weapons. And it had nothing to do with Mr. Ali."
And then the witness repeatedly invoked what was translated as his "right to silence". Except that what he was really saying, according to the translator in Amsterdam, was his "right to self-protection", a facette of Dutch law under which a witness is not obliged to testify against himself.
"I am very worried," the clearly distressed man told the Paris court. "I don't know where this is leading."
The trial continues.
It’s almost like the prosecutors and the court don’t wanna get to the bottom of this crime. Next time there’s a horrific act like this, someone needs to save us the time and trouble and just shoot these animals.
Weren’t the rifles from Zastava of Serbia? Don’t they keep records of retailers they sell to?
Might want to check in with known illegal arms dealer Eric Holder.
Calling the CIA, time to start spinning...
Zastava made them for the Yugoslavian government, starting in 1970s. You may recall that there was a little disagreement a couple decades back wherein Yugoslavia stopped being a thing and a lot of Yugo government military equipment went missing... Those arms have turned up all over the planet since, and Zastava’s records wouldn’t do any good.
Ironically the French officer that was killed there was Muslim.
Putin of course.
I recall at the time that there was some talk that the serial numbers tracked to semi-auto AKs imported by Century Arms into the USA. Could be the ATF.
I’m sure there are plenty of AKs with duplicated serial numbers all over the world, given all the different manufacturers. Most people aren’t going to look for details like markings from Zastava, Izhevsk, or Chinese factory #19.
FN ran into a similar problem with their FAL rifles, since they produced them for so many countries and the contract runs generally began with serial number 1...they began including a separate number on the rifle receiver that was the total production by FN. This was used to trace the origin of some of the FALs that appeared in the most recent Syrian civil war.
I want to trade two L1A1s for two actual FALs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.