“I found their attitude to be largely a bit childish”, comments Me Jean Reinhart, lawyer for the association 13onze15 Fraternité-Vérité and 114 civil parties. At the trial of the November 13 attacks, the interrogation of Salah Abdeslam caused unprecedented tensions during the hearing and led to a suspension of the proceedings. The defense lawyers then left the courtroom to protest against the court’s refusal to record incidents in the public, which reacted strongly to the provocative responses of the main defendant. Applause and screams notably resounded several times in the public during this electric hearing.
franceinfo: Did you understand the attitude of the defense lawyers?
John Reinhart : No, I found their attitude to be largely a bit childish. I completely understand the annoyance that may be theirs to find that Mr. Abdeslam did not answer the questions in a classic way, as we heard him. And then there is inevitably a little electricity in the air, because there is an obvious tension. I think they overreacted to some extremely rare, extremely short applause that there was in the courtroom. They preferred to use this incident because they understood that the whole defense was weakened by these statements by Salah Abdeslam which were neither the truth nor something concentrated in terms of intelligence. They played empty benches, which I find childish. They didn’t even wait for the president to answer the questions they asked and didn’t have the decency to wait for the civil party lawyers to say a few words of appeasement. So we have the feeling, on the side of the lawyers for the civil parties, that we are faced with a search for an appropriate incident at this time.
Did the remarks made by Salah Abdeslam shock the civil parties?
Objectively yes. There was also a lot of nervousness. The public had returned, the civil parties too, the courtroom was full again, which had not been the case for some time. And the civil parties took very badly the disdain with which Salah Abdeslam answered questions. That is to say, he did not answer questions, or else he answered in an evasive way. We sometimes almost prefer him to be silent, but he answers what he wants to answer, and these are elements that are neither built nor strong as a defense. It is true that Salah Abdeslam generally says that he is very jostled, very tired, very worn out by this situation, we come out with refrains. When he says he’s going to a fireworks store because he wants to shoot fireworks, it’s not serious or consistent, so it creates tension. Second example: he made several round trips to transport the members of the commando of the attacks of 13-November but he only recognizes two round trips, whereas we know that he made all five! They have the impression of having come to testify before the Assize Court with a lot of humanity, a lot of strength, a lot of tears, a lot of sadness, and they find themselves before an accused who does not play the game, who does not does not answer the questions that are expected.
Is it also a provocation when he declares that “we had screwed up his life”?
I think he sometimes has an immature side. I don’t think you have to look for something very thoughtful in all of his lyrics. When he says that we screwed up his life, quite quietly, I think we must retain his immaturity above all else. It’s provocation. We ask the civil parties not to listen to all these things and to take a step back. I would say that the civil parties were very shocked because they are bruised when there is an incident. That the interrogation of Salah Abdeslam ceases at one point and that the defense suddenly leaves the room, that interrupts the flow of questions. This trial has taken enough delay, it would still be smarter if we continued the questions even late at night.