During the proceedings, Fahmy’s lawyer, Khaled Abu Bakr, indicated that the three written statements were identical “to the letter” even though each witness claims to have written their own. When he asked one committee member about whether the footage he had seen could harm state security, the witness replied that it was not their prerogative to say whether they could or could not. In fact, that was exactly why the committee was formed.
“It was all very contradictory,” Fahmy stated afterwards, “It was like they all had amnesia.”
His colleague Mohamed called it a “success.”
“They basically confessed to not having written the statements,” he added.
The two security officers, who were responsible for putting the case together and who failed to turn up last session, were also called to the stand. They too couldn’t remember very much, if anything. When asked what criteria they used to link the defendants to the Muslim Brotherhood, they replied that the information had been provided by a secret source.
“He wasn’t clear why we were even referred to the prosecution,” Fahmy later stated, “It reminds the world that we are being tried in a case for the wrong reasons.”