ATHENS-REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE CASE UPDATES,9TH SESSION,19/12/2011,Session 11, Wednesday 25/1/12

| 0 comments

9TH SESSION, 19/12/2011,

At the beginning of the session there were comments on the two-day
testimony of Papathanasakis from K.Katsenos defence. P.roumeliotis
referred in detail to all the incidents testified by Papathanasakis, from
which not even indications of K.Katsenos result. And how did
Papathanasakis try to cover the absence of the slightest indication? By
lying, that Katsenos denied to give fingerprints. When, however, the
questions followed, he was made to admit that Katsenos did give
fingerprints, but there was a problem with two of his fingers, for which
he was not responsible. The advocate revealed that the problem was a type
of dermatitis that Katsenos suffers from, for which his mother brought the
relative doctors document. Papathanasakis, noted the advocate, made a
stale claim to justify the attribution of charges to Katsenos. In some
regimes, continued P.Roumeliotis, an identity was enough to render you
guilty. In Nazi Germany, if you were Jewish. In racist South Africa, if
you were black. In McCarthy’s America, but also in post war Greece, if you
were a communist. Let’s not reach the equation of the identity of an
anti-authoritarian with indications of participation in organizations such
as Revolutionary Struggle. He ended his comments by reading excerpts from
an article from ‘Kathimerini’ newspaper titled “Overturn in the R.S.
trial” and an article of ‘Eleutherotypia’ newspaper, which also made the
approach to the testimony of Papathanasakis.

Ch.Ladis continued from where his colleague stopped, commenting on the
testimony of Papathanasakis from another point of view. After this
testimony, he said, I was afraid that Katsenos might tell us to withdraw
the objection of excluding Papathanasakis, with which we defended the
prestige of Justice and not the special interest of our client, for whom
Papathanasakis was exonerative. He characterized Papathanasakis as a legal
time bomb, which blew up in the court and the shards wounded much and
many.
He directly admitted that he was an interrogating employee and this
wounded the prestige of the court. For two days he constantly committed
the offence of perjury exposing thus the court which tolerated him. He
also exposed his service by saying that he never received any documents
from his predecessors for RS. The testimony of Papathanasakis should be
thrown in the bin or he should be persecuted for perjury, as is specified
for anyone who obviously denies testifying about their informers. Never,
however, was Papathanasakis pressured to mention the obvious. We as the
defence of Katsenos, ended Ch.Ladis, are helped by Papathanasakis, because
it acquitted our client, but for reasons of procedural correctness there
should be no mention to the name Papathanasakis. Let him be considered a
stain on the whole procedure.
F.Vergados commented that Papathanasakis testimony should not be taken
into consideration, because he claimed information without revealing the
sources, while on the other hand we heard amazing things as his personal
estimations. For example that the accused observed conspiratorial rules.
And what were they? That they acted naturally!!

Vaggelis Stathopoulos read his own written evaluation, in the form of a
statement. It is not the first time that fighters are dragged to court. He
said. Authority always sought the extermination of its political enemies.
During the junta, a lie from a cop was enough to get you exiled. In
democracy one or more ‘I don’t remember’ are enough to send you to jail.
Papathanasakis, knew me well from the time he was head of Nikea police
station, just as he knew my whole family. After the death of a Pakistani
immigrant, I and a friend were threatened to stop mobilizing for the case,
because he would ‘wrap us in a piece of paper’. Intentionally he tried to
present my house as a weird house, while it was open to a lot of people.
In the same way my address book transformed into a note well hidden and my
car goes to the mountain, while I am detained. My persecution is strictly
political, because of my participation in the anarchist movement and the
social struggles. Because I deny to condemn any form of struggle and
because
I have friendships which I won’t denounce.

Pola Roupa also made a comment, simultaneously opening another major
matter. I did not expect anything different from Papathanasakis testimony,
she said. I did not expect him to say anything serious, but it was proven
that the problem is much deeper. While he consciously lied big, nothing
happened from the judges. He said, that allegedly his service does not
follow anarchists, while there is officially a special department just for
that job. When people know that they are being followed, it makes sense
that they will take some protection measures, and this is suspicious to
Papathansakis. Everyone in the anarchist-anti authoritarian movement is a
suspect to him. From the fingerprints found in the house of our comrades
Lambros Foundas began an industry of investigations, interrogations,
calls. Because they had nothing on the organization, (if we hadn’t taken
the political responsibility there would have been absolutely nothing),
they opened a circle of investigation, calling for interrogation about 50
comrades from the anarchist- anti authoritarian movement, but again found
nothing. They attempted the political isolation of us three, they
attempted to bend the will for solidarity.

We are talking about a case which is up in the air. All they did was try
to hurt the anarchist movement. They ended up for reasons of revenge to
bring as an accused also Mari Beraha, to hurt Kostas Gournas.

You do not know and you will never know if in RS there were 10, 20, 50,
how many people were. You do not know and you will never know anything
about the actions of the organization. You will only guess and estimate
how many participated in some actions, without knowing who. For RS you are
at zero. What did Papathanasakis say about me? If I hadn’t taken the
political responsibility, what would he say about me? I chose for
political reasons to take the political responsibility, because I
considered this my debt towards the organization and to our dead comrade.

In addition, was proven the absolute cooperation of police and juridical
authorities. To Papathanasakis biggest lies and his continuous “I don’t
remember” you said nothing. But he, who allegedly couldn’t remember the
name of any of his inferiors’ names, remembered to say, when asked about
Dervenion street, that a comrade called Aggelatakis lives there, who has
nothing to do with the case. Why does he remember that? Because they are
following him. It makes sense that Papathanasakis would lie, but it does
not make sense that you cover him like this. This proves that you function
with a political order and there is possibility that people are convicted
whom have nothing to do with this and we will find ourselves with hundreds
of years of prison on our backs.

Papathanasakis also said that we were not followed. Not only were we
followed constantly, but they almost killed us. P.Roupa read out
statements of N.Maziotis, which had been published years ago in the press,
like when they knocked him off his motorbike. I tell you again, she
continued, this was our life from since 2001 when comrade Maziotis was
released. To prove, however, the charge of leadership, they have to admit
that they were talking crap about the surveillance. There is an interview
of Markogiannakis on Real FM where he says that Maziotis never ceased to
be followed, that there is a massive file with thousands of pages and if
the case goes to the appeals interrogator, he will tell him. “Did he go to
the interrogator mrs Roupa?”, intervened the prosecutor, without wondering
why the interrogator did not call him, since Markogiannakis constantly
said these things back then. “We call him here, to come to the court”,
answered immediately P.Roupa, putting in the demand to play the
Markogiannakis radio interview in the court as well as TV interview on
‘Skai’ channel, so no one can dispute this fact. “No one disputes it”,
commented the judge, in an attempt to avoid the demand.
The video should be shown, insisted Roupa, to clarify here that either for
eight years they did nothing or we tore apart their surveillance measures.
During the ruling of PASOK and ND they followed us constantly. We took the
political responsibility and again they have nothing, they don’t even know
how many were in the organization.

An extensive dialogue began between P.Roupa and the advocates D.Vagianou
and S.Fitrakis on one side, and the judge and public prosecutor on the
other.

The arguments of Roupa-Vagianou-Fitrakis were clear and specific.
Markogiannakis should be examined at this point of the procedure and
later, when all irrelevant witnesses who have nothing to say will have
passed. Papathanasakis, knowing that anarchists do not apply a
hierarchical model but horizontal procedures, spoke of a “central role”.
To investigate, therefore, this “central role”, we must look at the past.
We must look at this massive file. Markogiannakis says that he does not
think that Maziotis has a central role. And not try to attribute the
leadership to us and from there on the ethical perpetration for all
actions, stressed P.Roupa.
The judge firstly was a bit uncomfortable, without being able to find a
counter-argument. He got the point to say, that he himself does not
dispute what is said by Markogiannakis, because he has heard him say these
things in private. He proposed therefore that they are taken for granted,
but to not play his interviews! The prosecutor proposed a solution:
tape-record Markogiannakis interviews, but do not project the videos, to
not turn the court room into a theatre. P.Roupa quickly replied, that
during the trial of the Conspiracy Cells of Fire, despite the opposition
of the advocates, they played videos and showed photos of the personal
moments of the accused, who had nothing to do with the case.

The only reason to deny the demand, noted N.Maziotis, is so that the
seediness of the state mechanism is not revealed. The DAEEB oppressed and
the through snitching journalists who wrote different things and mentioned
also my name. I, during Voulgarakis-Markogiannakis was pointed at as a
member of R.S. We are honoured and proud of the 16 actions of the
organization, but you must prove if we were at them. Practically, if we
accept what Markogiannakis says, ended P.Roupa, the charge will be only
participation. They searched, searched, that’s why the 18 month period
expired, but found nothing.

After the decision about Markogiannakis, the defence of Katsenos deposited
an important demand. They asked that the court decides the lifting of the
detainment of Katsenos and replace it with restricting terms.  The demand
has two sides. A formal side, which concerns the line of the law, and a
substantial side, which concerns the ratio of the law. The ratio of the
law says that the specific synthesis can better than anyone else to judge
the demand for the lifting of the detainment of Katsenos, because they
know the trial brief, has seen Katsenos for two and a half months now and
therefore know him personally, while now they also have the testimony of
Papathanasakis which has wiped out every idea of indication at the expense
of Katsenos. An Appeals judge council is an equal body, which however does
not have the above advantages. Besides this, the economy of the trial is
made easier, because the massive trial brief will not have to leave to go
to the council and the trial will not have to be interrupted until the
brief comes back. Because –as noted by P.Roumeliotis and Ch.Ladis- they
cannot even imagine that the whole brief will not go to the council, but
only the order and the police files.

The prosecutor, flipping through the Penal Code, while the advocates
presented their arguments, immediately proposed the demand is rejected,
claiming the line of the law. The Code, he said, does not speak of cases
of interrupting the trial. For these cases the council is always in
charge, this is why the court must claim it has no jurisdiction and should
get into the heart of substance of the demand.
Secondly the advocates asked of the court to see the ratio, the justifying
base of the law. The prosecutor presented a simple repeat of the
procedural regulation, ignoring the justifying base. And finally, the
court must have the courage to admit and not say: “let this glass pass
from me”.(biblical term)

This specific court, however, afraid of responsibility,
super-conservative, knowing that it gives exams to the powerful ones,
acted accordingly to the… evangelical quote. It threw the ball to the
council, declaring itself unqualified. The judge wished good luck to the
council, admitting thus indirectly, that there is absolutely nothing to
justify the imprisonment of K.Katsenos. Practically, however, he will
remain in prison for an unknown time still, while the “intentions” of the
council are uncertain.
After that we enjoyed the…. surveyor of the anti-terrorist, a.k.a.
sergeant Kostandinos Geldis. He says, he took a handwritten diagram found
at the house of Maziotis-Roupa in Kalivia with the order to find what
exactly it shows. So, the genius found that it shows a square block behind
the building of GADA (central Athens police headquarters), facing Panormou
street, and even has some marks on it which shows there was a plan to
carry out an action against pedestrians and various cops which park at a
spot and carry out searches. And how did this genius cop find this out?
Because he happens to pass by there every day and he knows the spot. After
spotting it, he took his measuring tape, measured and realized an action
was being prepared, based on two homocentric circles and a rectangle
triangle which was in the diagram! He is good in math, but doesn’t know
that a rectangle triangle does not have a… diagonal, but a hypotenuse!

Of course, he did all this on his own and then went and gave a testimony
to his colleagues. He did not put together a report neither did he take
another colleague with him, just to make this a bit formal.
And why through many books, with hundreds of notes, found in the house of
Maziotis-Roupa (S.Fitrakis read out many titles of the confiscated books),
only this note was chosen, while the rest weren’t even searched? The cop
froze. And since on the same note there was a second drawing with streets
in Plaka area and many spots noted on them, why was nothing found in Plaka
that gives a suspicion of the planning off an action of the R.S.? The cop
again froze.

The procedure closed with ‘Papathanasakis no2’ or the ‘Papathanasakis’ of
Chemistry, Dimitris Katharios. He is in charge of the DNA checks and he
would accept objections to what he said. Someone with a degree in
chemistry and a MBA in food biology, with minimum to none experience, was
hired as a civilian employee of the police and acts worse than a cop.
These are some parts from his testimony which will continue in the next
session.

-While there is an international scientific dispute of the DNA
methodology, even by police reports, Katharios didn’t say a word about
this, but presented the method as undisputed, as the absolute method of
identification.

-The police laboratory has not been certified by the completely
disgraceful ESYD (National Accreditation System), which openly shares out
certifications even to private labs. Its little shop, with which the
police does its job, without referring the lab of the Forensic Service
neither the university labs. Why is a lab which has been in a “procedure
of certification”, monopolizes all the criminal investigations, and no
other state and university labs.

-Although the guy is just a simple employee (chemist) he appeared to
testify as if he was the head of the department. He ensured that the whole
procedure, from the collection of the samples up to the research, is
performed in the proper way and there is no way they can make a mistake!
But, how does he know this? When a sample is collected, he is not there.
He should have said that he is responsible for the laboratory research.
They bring him something and he examines it.

-It is characteristic how he froze when, while talking all this crap about
the professionalism with which they collect all the samples from the
evidence, D.Vagianou showed him photos, in which you could see a rocket
thrown on a mattress and a series of guns thrown onto some cardboard.
“These are photographs from the newspapers”, he mumbled. These, however,
are photos which the anti-terrorist force gave to the newspapers and
depict clearly that no care is taken in order to protect the evidence. For
example if the mattress was an old mattress from the Gournas family, why
shouldn’t there be i.e. dandruff from the hair of his wife? D.Vagianou
stated, and the chemist-cop swallowed his tongue.

This whole story with the DNA is because of Mari Beraha (for none of the
other accused). They allegedly found genetic material on the trigger of a
Zastava pistol, which was identified with genetic material found in the
house of Maries father, Manolis Berahas, and when compared with other
genetic material found in the same house they realised there was
hereditary compatibility. They didn’t say Mari Beraha but they… figured
it’s obvious…

The trial was scheduled to continue on 13/1/12 but was postponed till
25/1/12 because of a three day strike by the Athens Lawyers Assosiation.

REVOLUTIONARY TRIAL CASE UPDATE
Session 11, Wednesday 25/1/12
The session began with the completion of the examination of the police
“chemist” D.Katharios, from Ch.Kortesis advocate P.Gianakopoulou.
Afterwards, there were comments on Katharios marathon testimony.
N.Maziotis said that the list of witnesses was not formed accidentally. He
brought as an example the “surveyor” of the anti-terrorist force Geldis,
who fixed a story with a hunch, to justify the arrests, in the name of an
upcoming attack on the spot which Geldis “discovered”. There were many
hunches, but EL.AS (greek police) could not make solid assumptions,
because only the organization knew what actions it will carry out. There
were for example names of politicians. Why didn’t they assume that the
organization would attack them? N.Maziotis referred to how Papathanasakis
planned out the testimonies first, then passed them on to Geldis and
Katharios. The diagram of Panormou street, he pointed out, proves
absolutely nothing, unless we take Papathanasakis assumptions as the
truth.
Going onto Katharios and his testimony, he said that the court will
consider the fact that no one gave DNA as proof of guilt, this is why
there is no measure for comparison, neither has there been a result
concerning the participation of who in which action of the organization.
Why we didn’t give DNA? Continued N.Maziotis. Because we are political
opponents and we never give anything to the enemy with our own consent.
The matter is political. I personally have never given anything,
fingerprints or photographs. Whatever they have, they have taken it
violently. Despite all this, while Katharios speaks of X unknown
individuals, you will identify the DNA, because this is the political
decision.
Afterwards, he went on to Katharios lies. From his testimony, he said, it
was proven that the procedure of collecting DNA is completely
untrustworthy. He referred to the guns which were openly lying around on
the floor or the mattress. Katharios said that the first people who go in
are trained to take precautions. And it was proven that in the house on
Eginis street, they found only 12 DNA samples and 7 of them were of their
own people, cops. They were infected either during the collection or
during transportation. A percentage of 70% was infected and Katharios
lied at first, that there is no possibility of infection. Maziotis also
reminded some of the amazing contradictions Katharios fell upon, saying
one thing in one session and another thing in the other. In our case, he
concluded, this untrustworthy procedure cannot be applied, because we
have not given DNA. But you will use it. Your decision will be clearly
political.
Katharios got to the point of perjury, commented D.Vagianou, trying to
hide facts or present false facts as true. She referred analytically to
his evasions, refusals, and contradictions. The DNA method, she stressed,
carries great dangers and can set up nightmarish traps. She referred to
the possibility of transporting DNA, but also of producing DNA, the
dangers of infection, the possibility of secondary transportation, the
mixes, to conclude that for these dangers alone, DNA should be abandoned
as a means of proof. M.Beraha, concluded the advocate, was found accused
only with the DNA and was proven that she is accused without there even
being a comparison with a reference sample. She is accused, therefore,
with assumptions and scenarios. K.Gournas was arrested and tortured.
Afterwards, was approached with the intention to cooperate and give
evidence. All this he has stated in a publication in the press titled:
“This is how I was interrogated”.
What did Katharios tell us, commented M.Daliani: “I everything was done
correctly, then the DNA examination is trustworthy”. But, through his
testimony it was proven that nothing was done correctly, but on the
contrary there were infections, doubtful transportation conditions,
examination and storage etc. Such examinations should not be carried out
in the police laboratory, commented A.Paparousou, because this lab
supports the charge. It does not consist of independent scientists, but of
recruited technicians. In order to “document” all that she said, the
advocate presented a recording, of the ones which Katharios and the other
cops do not present to the court. It is one of those recordings where
subjectivism pervades. They only bring their own conclusions and not the
recordings, because that’s where subjectivism shows. These recruited
technicians only manage a couple of pieces of information and are ordered
to do this. Instead of throwing light onto reality, they put deeper in the
dark. They won’t even give you the facts of this method which they are
trying to to present to you as trustworthy.
We have drained the DNA matter, commented P.Roupa. What impressed me is
that Papathanasakis and Geldis and Katharios did not have the fundamental
ability to lift the weight they had taken on. She referred to the graphic
testimony of Geldis, and then got the alleged scientist Katharios, who
messed up. What they propagate as a super-weapon, DNA, is completely
flawed and is based on a science which is up in the air. A circle of
testimonies of police witnesses has closed, concluded P.Roupa, and now
begins the main trial which concerns the actions of the organization, to
which we will give special weight, revealing their political character.
The witnesses have been chosen in order to give substance to matters and
actions, which according to our persecutors feed the perception that it is
about a criminal organization. From now on we will position ourselves on
the political choices of struggle we will try to reveal the political
motives and the political objectives the organization had. The next
witnesses concern the attack on the ministry of Culture, which took place
after the murder of Grigoropoulos and the social explosion that followed.
The murder was the reason; the cause was the decadent life that a lot of
people lived. The judge tried to stop P.Roupa from referring to the
historical frame in which the specific incident took place, but she
resisted intensely and made the judge back down and let her complete what
she was saying which concerned the historical frame in which this action
of the R.S. took place, the criminal role of the police, the murders of
citizens, the role of the criminal mechanism of the MAT (greek riot cop
unit) etc.
Ch.Kortesis stated that his refusal to give DNA derives from his political
identity as an anarchist and his political values which come to a complete
opposition with any cooperation with the persecuting mechanisms. I will
not legalize or condone any attempt of creating a bank of biological data,
i.e. biological filing. Whatever penal cost my choice has, I would rather
preserve my political and personal dignity.
S.Nikitopoulos stated that in his case the refusal to give DNA is a
clearly political act and should not be considered proof of guilt. This
political act, in hostage conditions, acquires a character of an act of
resistance. It derives from our political opposition to authority and
state oppression, the controlling of our lives and any kind of filing. It
is a common secret that the Police since 1996 started collecting DNA
samples from opponents of authority. There are named statements of people
stating that cops watch their houses and go through the garbage. I will
not allow this absurdity they want to impose on our lives. He spoke of
shops from which the police goes by and collects glasses, a fact confirmed
by Ch.Kortesis, referring to such an incident that happened to him.
The discussion was closed by N.Maziotis, reminding what Papathanasakis
said for Katsenos: If he is innocent, why didn’t he give DNA?this is not
just the perception of the police, it is also your perception, he
commented. Remember when the prosecutor asked the advocate of Katsenos, if
he can give DNA now? This shows that you have turned our refusal to give
DNA into proof of guilt.
Then it was the turn of the two riot cops, who were shot at outside the
ministry of culture, Ad.Matzounis and A.Margelos (the first one got two
bullets and was injured, now is ok, but has retired). They saw nothing,
except for two people, without being able to recognize anyone. They
couldn’t even give a general description. The judge and public prosecutor
made a few formal questions, without trying to “colorize” anything.
The attack on the ministry of culture, just as the previous one in Goudi,
stated N.Maziotis, was a legitimate political answer to the murder of
Grigoropoulos from the police murderers Korkoneas and Saraliotis. He spoke
analytically about the role of the police, reminding Polydoras phrase
“praetors”. The police forces are servants of the rich, servants of the
state and capital. They are servants and bodyguards of the capitalists,
lackeys of authority, and dogs of authority. R.S. had warned a year and a
half earlier, when they sprayed Nea Ionias police station with bullets,
answering the phrase of Polydoras, that cops who are attacked have a
sensitive nervous system. R.S. warned that they will reply if there are
dead people. The Grigoropoulos murder confirmed this warning and the
answer was compulsory. Violence to the violence.
 N.Maziotis also referred to the barbaric economic and social policy, with
the neo-liberal measures against the workers, which needs the state
oppression. In social war, he said, there will be deaths and injuries and
prisoners. Matzounis paid the price of his choice to become a cop, just
as we, when you convict us, will pay the price to be members of an armed
revolutionary organization. And Lambros Foundas paid for the same price
with his life. Everyone pays the price of the field they have chosen. Our
difference is that we are volunteers in the struggle for freedom, while
you are mercenaries of the capitalist system. He read also an excerpt
from the communique with which R.S. took the responsibility for the
attack against the riot cops (he developed the estimations of the
organization concerning the character of the time and the revolutionary
possibilities, analysing the tactics of the R.S., as its described in its
communiques), he spoke about the armed propaganda and the deposit which,
in his opinion, this action left. That is that decisive revolutionaries
can clash with the armed mechanisms of the state in a direct conflict and
demean them operationally, a fact he characterized important for the
expectant popular revolt.
He referred, finally, to the murdering orgy of the police, for which no
one is persecuted. Who are you, who will speak to us about human life? You
are hypocrites. You have two measures and two levels. You only care of
those similar to you, everyone else is category b or c. Even the cops,
your servants, you have them as disposable. When the police kills, there
is no matter, these executions are fair. When R.S. shoots Matzounis it is
illegal.
Maziotis intervention annoyed the prosecutor, who interrupted him to say
that Matzounis is a kid and he is not the system and Maziotis should be
ashamed of what he is saying. This is not manly, he said angrily, causing
the raging reaction of Maziotis and Roupa, who spoke again about the
crimes of the police and the covering which the juridical authority
diachronically offers to these crimes. Maziotis listed a whole catalogue
of crimes. P.Roupa also answered to the prosecutor, about manhood, and
spoke of the barbarity of the system today, which leads to destructions
and suicides. If the banks put the noose around peoples necks, the judges
are those who kick the stool, she said. Is this manly? She then referred
to the meaning of crime, speaking of the massive criminality of
capitalism, as it develops around the world.
The trial will continue on Monday, January 30, at 9am.

translate by Actforfreedomnow/boubourAs


			

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.