The lawyer, Sebastian Courtoy, did not respond to the JC’s repeated requests for comment.
With his defence colleagues he argued Nemmouche was manipulated by Iranian or Lebanese intelligence and two of the victims, Emanuel and Miriam Riva, were Mossad operatives. According to their theory, rival intelligence agencies orchestrated the killing and framed Nemmouche.
But the prosecution had 23 elements of proof against the French national. These included Nemmouche’s DNA and fingerprints were found on the weapons, a handgun and a Kalashnikov.
They also presented recordings from his laptop claiming responsibility for the attack, while his co-defendant French national Nacer Bendrer testified that Nemmouche asked him to supply those weapons.
Michele Hirsh, a lawyer representing the CCOJB in the trial, told the JC that one of the key moments in the trial was when two French journalists told the court that Nemmouche was the man who held them hostage in Syria before the museum attack.
“The journalists testified about Nemmouche’s sadistic side, describing how he tortured Syrian hostages all night,” she said. “They said he fantasised about burning a four-year-old Jewish girl.
“That was a turning point in the trial.”
The victims’ lawyers said that while defence lawyers pushed their theories, they tried to show the French jihadist was part of an Islamic State group terror cell.
“There was this false notion that Nemmouche was a lone wolf. But he was not a lone wolf, he is part of a pack of wolves, the pack of wolves of the Islamic State group.
Ms Hirsh continued: “Their first target was Jewish, the Brussels museum. Their second target was Paris in 2015. The third and fourth were the Zaventem Brussels airport and the Brussels metro.
“Mehdi Nemmouche got the order to attack the museum while he was still holding hostages in Syria in January 2014.”
Defence lawyers tried to strike down this theory, sometimes with shocking statements.
Ms Hirsch recalled Mr Courtoy’s closing arguments in which he denied the killings were antisemitic.
“He said it couldn’t be antisemitic because, according to him, there were too few visitors in the museum, and therefore few potential Jewish victims.
“The lawyer said ‘If I wanted to commit an antisemitic attack, I would choose a synagogue not the museum.
She said she responded by asking Mr Courtoy in court: “And why not target a Jewish school?”
Her remark was a reference to the 2012 school shooting in Toulouse in which a teacher and three children were killed. The attack was carried out by French-Algerian Mohammed Merah, who Nemmouche admired.
Although Belgian Jews were shocked by the defence’s statements in this trial, many feel the worst was averted in this trial.
“We believe that Nemmouche’s lawyers had two audiences: the one in court and also the public outside,” Mr Benizri said.
“They failed in both. There had been concern to see their conspiracy theories spread. But I believe they haven’t.”
He said conspiracy theories and antisemitic tropes were finding wider acceptance in parts of Belgium. A carnival float in the northern town of Aalst was criticised earlier this month for depicting two heavily caricatured Strictly Orthodox men surrounded by bags of money.
But Mr Benizri despite this, the Nemmouche trial failed to sustain antisemitic stereotypes.
“The defence’s strategy has failed to spread their theories,” he said. “The trial didn’t worsen the situation.
