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.
