At the heart of the voluminous case file surrounding the deadly arson attack on Marfin Bank in 2010 lies not only biometric analysis and artificial intelligence tools, but also a series of witness testimonies that, according to authorities, converge on critical details regarding the attackers’ methods and the individuals involved in the assault.
Marfin: Witness testimonies that strengthened the police investigation
On Tuesday, parapolitika.gr presented a detailed account of the testimonies of numerous witnesses, which undeniably gave the police investigation significant momentum. Although the witnesses gave their statements at different times and were positioned at different points along Stadiou Street, their descriptions share striking similarities. This is precisely the element that investigators from the Greek Police (ELAS) have highlighted, as the varying vantage points collectively provide a 360-degree picture of what unfolded on the dark day of May 5, 2010.
Common descriptions of how the Marfin arsonists carried out the attack
All witnesses describe a group, possibly anarchists, that moved in an organized manner, with a small number of individuals breaking away to carry out the attack on the Marfin branch. Most eyewitnesses agree that one of the perpetrators smashed the bank’s glass facade with a heavy object — most likely a hammer or sledgehammer — creating an opening into the interior. Almost simultaneously, one or two accomplices hurled flammable material or Molotov cocktails, triggering the deadly fire.
Another common thread running through the testimonies is the physical description of the perpetrators. Witnesses consistently describe individuals wearing dark clothing, hats, or scarves to conceal their features. Several witnesses describe one tall, slim perpetrator who broke the glass, and a second, heavier-built individual who participated in throwing the incendiary devices.
The numbered individuals repeatedly identified by witnesses
Investigators attach particular weight to the fact that when witnesses were asked to examine photographic material from the demonstration, they repeatedly and independently identified the same numbered individuals as the key perpetrators of the attack. Persons numbered 7 (believed to be a 46-year-old woman), 8 (believed to be one of the 42-year-old suspects), 9 (believed to be the other 42-year-old suspect), 11, and 12 appear in the majority of testimonies as members of the group that moved toward the bank. In particular, persons numbered 8 and 9 are named by more than one witness as those who smashed the glass facade and participated in throwing the incendiary devices.
Separately, different eyewitnesses describe the perpetrators’ escape in almost identical terms. According to their statements, immediately after the attack the individuals fled toward Syntagma Square, blended back into the crowd of protesters, and disappeared.
In the assessment of the police officers who handled the case, the repeated identification of the same individuals by independent witnesses — combined with the consistent descriptions of their movements, physical builds, and specific roles in the attack — constitutes one of the foundational pillars of the case file compiled in connection with the incident, sixteen years after the Marfin arson attack.
