At the Athens Court of Appeal, important witnesses were examined face to face after a a request from the lawyers of the victim’s family that the Seat accepted.
Those witnesses who have been testified at previous hearings for the first time on the case, are heard in telephone conversations with the main accused, on dates of particular interest.
One of them did not convince the court and is now accused of perjury and referred to a regular trial.
Face to face
At the opening of the hearing on the morning of Thursday January24 , the civil action demanded that the disputed talks be heard. The martyr accused of pseudo-doctrine has submitted to the court medical certificate from a private hospital for examinations made in 2017, which were proposed therapy for bipolar disorder. The same documents certified a disability of 67% for the same person, for one year.
The Head of the court began the counter-examination of the witnesses with a lot of questions. When they schedule the trip, what specific vehicle they used, which route followed and from where they loaded the coals that were heard they were carrying. Until that time the two witnesses agreed. When she asked them about the fire he was referring to, pointing out that this was important, one responded that he did not remember and the other that he saw a fire left and right of the National Road. After a few seconds of silence, the judge asked the witness accused of perjury, how many times he went to the house of the main accused. He replied once and the judge said they met several times.
Then the witness responded negatively to the question whether he knows if Kammena Vourla who claim they went , there are “kilns” and said that in many parts of his telephone conversation… he was joking. Negatively answered for the same question and the second witness. They both claimed that in this trip did nothing else happened.
This attitude has provoked the Chair’s reaction:
“Listen, if you ever want to tell the truth, it will be too late. The court has repeatedly given you the opportunity to tell the truth!”
In a related question that followed, if they went to Vilia mountain, they answered negatively.
Then the lawyers on the side of civil action took the floor.
One of the two lawyers asked a second time for the witness accused of perjury, how many times he met the main accused. He replied “one or two times”. Then the lawyer began to read controversial passages from their transcribed conversations, in which it was clear that they talked often and met eleven times! The witness was annoyed, said he did not remember and relied on his medical history. All the time, the main accuser watched with great attention.
The lawyer of the victim’s family read a specific passage between the witness and the main accused on the morning of the day of the trip, in which the witness sounded to say he would go to the tax office in Lamia, while shortly before claiming that they would carry coals to taverns in Thebes.
By addressing the other witness, if the principal accused had a reason to get involved with the coals he would have transported, he received a negative answer. This particular witness, for the moment, has had difficulty answering the question of how many times he met the main accused, until he responded “two or three times”.
“So at the time of the trip you did not have reason to inform the main accused, about the coals” the lawyer told him. Then he read a specific passage, in which the former witness who is his cousin told him to the accused that he was “really tired” and can not meet with him. But he asked the main accused to go to meet them, because … his cousin wanted to “have a glass of wine”.
The whole process sparked the intense reaction of the witness in question that began to shout that it had nothing to do with the case without answering the question of civil education.
Then the President spoke, asking him:
“But why you don’ t react for the reason your cousin involved you in this case? Is it because you were arrange your meeting with the accused?”
Witness: “No ” , he shouted.
President: “But your cousin tells you this and you do not ask why?”.
The witness then addressed his cousin and asked why he was saying all this. He replied that he “did not remember”.
The legal representative of the victim’s family then referred to a large number of telephone conversations at the end of September, where they talked about “coals”, to conclude that on a previous voyage a month earlier in August, the word “charcoal” did not appear.
The Prosecutor, referring to another September telephone conversation, said that the witness accused of pseudo-perceptions is saying to the main accused that “he would not get involve with coals.”
The Seat insisted on the meetings of the particular witness with the main accused, but he refused he met him before the disputed trip.
The civil action asked the conversatons to be heard in the audience, a request that was accepted by the court.
From the passages it appeared that one day before the trip, the two witnesses arranged to meet with the main accused!
The mastermind claimed that with the witness accused of perjury, they met only two times and none with the other witness.
Once again the son of the main accused did not appear at the court
At the Court of Appeals did not appear once again, one of the two sons of the main accused for whom an order for his violent surrender was in force from 24 November 2018!
The same day another witness, a girlfriend of Marios, was to be examined at the request of the defense side. According to the lawyer of the main accused, her testimony can contribute to the case and clarify the reason why Marios returned to Athens the fateful night. She was brought to court, but when she was asked to testify, she had left. Her violent admission was ordered for her for the next meeting on Friday February 8.
At one of the next hearings,will testify the geneticist and forensic expert Dr. Giorgos Fitsialos and Angeliki Nikolouli. The journalist’s investigation helped to change the indictment for the main accused and sentenced to life imprisonment for the manslaughter of the unfortunate young man.
See frame-by-frame all the developments and the deep research of the show around the case here.