The case file against the three was based on a body of evidence consisting of personal photographs, social media posts, video footage, and photos from the day of the attack, the case file was compiled against the three defendants accused of the 2010 Marfin arson.

Personal belongings—hats, glasses, shoes, and backpacks—played a decisive role in the investigation, as, according to the Hellenic Police, they were found to match those in the possession of the arrested individuals.

However, regarding biometric comparisons, the examination of body type, and other morphological characteristics, there was no complete identification of the suspects with the individuals appearing in the footage from the incidents.

SEE ALSO: Video footage: The shocking moment of the deadly Molotov cocktail attack on Marfin

More specifically, analysts note in the relevant report that the faces “resemble” those of the suspects, without being able to establish a definitive match.

During the investigation, authorities used code names: “Person A,” “Person B,” and “Person C” for the individuals seen in the footage of the attack, and “Person 1,” “Person 2,” and “Person 3” for the reference individuals identified from older footage, identification documents, and photographs.

The essence of the identification was as follows: the authorities examined whether “Person A” in the frames of the attack corresponds to “Person 1,” whether “Person B” corresponds to “Person 2,” and whether “Person C” corresponds to “Person 3.”

For “Person A,” the investigators identified similarities in the visible part of the face, the build, the glasses, and the hat. The face was not fully visible, as the lower part was covered. Thus, the analysis focused on whatever could be compared: the upper part of the face, the build, the body proportions, the position of the glasses, and the hat he was wearing.

However, the element that appears to carry the most weight for “Person A” is the backpack. The backpack visible on his back on the day of the attack was not simply assessed as a backpack of the same color or similar type. According to the report, it matches in general characteristics and exhibits the same specific and acquired characteristics as a backpack that had been documented in earlier photographic material.

For “Person B,” facial comparison was even more difficult, as their features were completely covered by a scarf or mask. This effectively prevented a reliable morphological analysis of the face. However, the report identified similarities in body type and footwear.

Here, too, the key element was the backpack. The backpack carried by “Person B” in the footage of the attack was found, upon laboratory examination, to share the same distinctive characteristics as a backpack that had been documented in earlier footage. Furthermore, the shoes he was wearing on the day of the attack resemble, in several general characteristics, shoes that had been identified in the comparative material.

The most interesting finding concerns the cross-occurrence of backpacks. According to the report, backpacks with distinctive features appear during the 2008–2010 period to have been carried by or found near “Individuals 1” and “2.” On the day of the attack, however, the same backpacks appear with “Individuals A” and “B” in a cross-matching pattern. Simply put, Person B was carrying Person 1’s gray backpack on the day of the tragedy, while Person 1 was carrying Person 2’s blue backpack with the red marking.

As for “Person C”—the woman who appears in the footage, a 46-year-old who was arrested in London—the picture is different.

No corresponding item—such as a backpack, shoes, glasses, or a hat—was identified that could serve as such a strong connecting link. The comparison was limited mainly to body type, the visible part of the face, the forehead, and the hairline and hair color.

The report notes similarities between “Person C” and “Person 3” in terms of body type and the visible parts of the face and hair. The conclusion, however, is more limited than that regarding the two men, precisely because there is no corresponding object to support the comparison in the same way that the backpacks do in the case of “Individuals A” and “B.”

Source: Protothema.gr