New details have emerged about the forensic investigation that underpinned the identification of the three suspects in the Marfin bank fire case, with a 117-page technical report outlining the evidence and methodology used by Greek authorities.
The report, prepared by Greece’s Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DEE), explains how investigators combined photographic analysis, biometric comparisons and the examination of distinctive personal items to build their case.
Photographic analysis at the heart of the investigation
According to the report, investigators analyzed three sets of images: photographs taken during the day of the attack, official identification photographs of the suspects and personal holiday photographs dating from 2008 to 2010.
The examination followed the ACE-V methodology (Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation and Verification), a standard forensic approach used to compare visual evidence.
The report notes, however, that biometric facial analysis alone did not produce conclusive identifications. Using a scale ranging from -3 to +3, where +3 represents a definitive match, the results ranged between 0 and +2.
Distinctive backpacks became key evidence
Investigators instead placed particular weight on two distinctive backpacks that appeared both in older personal photographs and in images captured during the Marfin arson attack.
One backpack featured a red emblem identified as the logo of the punk band Dead Kennedys, while another displayed a distinctive orange-worn mark. According to the report, these unique characteristics allowed investigators to associate the items with individuals seen at the scene.
The report describes the shared use of the backpacks as a “strong indication of a non-random association and shared use of objects.”
Based on the analysis, investigators concluded that the light-coloured backpack was carried by the suspect described as “the tall man wearing prescription glasses,” while the darker backpack bearing the red emblem was linked to the individual whose face was covered with a red scarf.
Evidence varied among the suspects
The report indicates that the evidence concerning the female suspect was more limited.
Investigators compared photographs taken on the day of the demonstration with images from social media, concluding that similarities existed in her body build and proportions, while noting there were no significant differences that would exclude a possible link.
At the same time, the report acknowledges the limitations of the investigation. In the case of the suspect whose face was concealed by a red scarf, forensic experts stated that a detailed morphological facial analysis was not possible because facial features were largely hidden.
