Athens – REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE TRIAL SESSION 13, MONDAY 6/2/12

| 0 comments

The witness Mattheou, resident of Dafni, was the owner of the car in which
Lambros Foundas, the day the cops executed him. The woman, of course,
could not testify anything. She was informed of the incident by the
television. She didn’t hear gunshots either. She couldn’t even remember if
her car, which she saw after a year and a half, had marks from two or
three bullets.
From the scene in Dafni, commented N.Maziotis, the prosecutor called only
the specific witness and not the two cops who are involved with the murder
of Lambros Foundas.. He didn’t call the murderers, obviously for
protection reasons. This attitude does not surprise us, he continued. The
role of the courts is to protect the lackeys of the system. The value of
life and justice is counted with the class position. You only protect
those like you. Lambros Foundas will remain in history as a fighter. He
lost his life fighting for the change of society, so the crisis becomes
the cause for the social revolution. It is our debt to defend Lambros
Foundas. He is not dead.
He is present and immortal.

This day is especially important to us as well the organization, continued
P.Roupa. We will speak about our comrade, because for us he is still
alive. Lambros Foundas “fell” during a specific choice of the
organization. He is a symbol of resistance and the upcoming social
revolution.

The witness Vagou, owner of an apartment in Ano Patissia, mentioned
someone called Mantalozis who rented the apartment, with his id card. When
at some point some council tax bills were unpaid, she looked in the
phonebook, found a Mandalozis, he told her he is not related, she realized
something is wrong, until he told her he went to the police. She was only
able to enter the apartment 6 months after the police raiding and found it
all blackened from the attempt to find fingerprints. They told her they
found nothing. The witness insisted that she does not recognize any of the
accused.

The witness Fili rented out a one bedroom flat in Kipseli to a gentleman,
a very polite guy. When she managed to re-enter her house she found it in
a mess from the police operation. “You’re lucky we didn’t manage to take
the walls too…”, she was told by the cops.

Witness Stamos served in the riot unit at the ministry of Culture, which
was shot at by the R.S. the only thing he remembers is that it was two
people wearing helmets or hoods. He couldn’t give any specific
characteristics.
Concerning the attack on the ministry of Culture we must say a few things,
stated P.Roupa. This choice was very specific. The ‘khakis’ had to be hit.

They are the most violent of the security forces and are responsible for
the vicious beatings of many people. These forces train militantly, she
said, adding that she as well has suffered the violence. And of course,
their political superiors knew this. She mentioned cases of torturing,
beatings of prisoners, even underage; to conclude that this is a socially
degraded force that guards a rotten social system. And this force is hated
by many. The revolution which will take place will go over them and will
have them against it. We had said as R.S., continued P.Roupa, that the
revolt (December 2008) is not enough. The ministry of Culture was a moment
from the future. It brought what was going to happen. Through the murder
of Grigoropoulos memories of 1944 came to mind, when the urban guerrillas
then fought in the same alleys. Then there was an attempt to take over the
authority. This gap of authority must be taken over by the people. For
social equality and freedom.

Witness Paraskevopoulou testified that she was called to testify because
her i.d. card information was used to rent a “safe-house”, when she has
never lost an i.d. card. She has no relation with the accused and knows
nothing else. Same story with witness Grivokostopoulos. He had lost his
i.d. and had declared it. We note that the judge was very carefull,
correcting both witnesses when they used the term “safe-house”, telling
them: “You mean a house, it has not been proven it’s a safe-house”.

Voulgarakis did appear, in the end, to testify. He testified that the
specific day, owing to his good luck, forgot his briefcase and went back
to get it. He heard a loud and unusual sound and his bodyguards put him
back into his house. if he had not forgotten the briefcase, he said, he
would have been hit, because he was the target. He read the organizations
communique in the press. As minister of Public Order he did not interfere
in strictly service matters. According to his opinion, what is sure is
that until then R.S. wanted to publicize its opinions, while after the
attempt against him the ministry realized that they wanted blood also.
But, operationally he is in no position to know more details, because he
was minister of Culture. He asked for a briefing, which he never got from
the ministry, but got it from the communique!

To the question of S.Fitrakis what it means for him the claim of political
responsibility, Voulgarakis answered that claim of political
responsibility means claiming political responsibilities which if
identified with criminal acts should be characterized penal
responsibility. And does the same apply to the Prime-Minister of the
state? Insisted the advocate, and received a delirious answer. In the
penal justice according to your opinion is enough for you the political
responsibility for the penal conviction of a person? Shouldn’t we prove
the participation of this person in specific actions before we give him
five or six time’s life? Asked S.Fitrakis. Maybe, he continued, when it’s
about revolted citizens things are different? So, Voulgarakis “piped
down”: I came here to describe the incidents as I experienced them.
Obviously, if you ask for my opinion, I disagree with their point of view.

To the questions of why he was chosen as a target, Voulgarakis answered
with political generalizations. When cornered, he found refuge in the
nonsense: “Look, these trials are clearly penal. Not political”! when
D.Vagianou referred to the scandals in which Voulgarakis himself in
implicated, the judge tried to protect him, asking: You, mrs Vagianou,
what exact claim are you trying to promote? The advocate didn’t cave. I
have every right, she said, to feel horror about the scandals and bribing,
the phone tapings and the torturing on immigrants, in which the name of
Voulgarakis has been implicated. His attitude provokes me. I do not serve
any claim. I simply ask wand expect an answer from the witness. And she
got a nonsense-answer, like the ones Voulgarakis always said, when he was
a political tv-star: “Listen. Once two friends were walking on one side of
the road, and two others on the other side. At some point one friend said
to another: ‘Him there, he is a fascist’. And he killed him. So is the
fascist in the end? The one who got killed or the one who killed?”. The
serious answer of Voulgarakis was an anecdote commented the advocate and
continued: Do you think you do not symbolize authority? Voulgarakis didn’t
say a word.
From the next questions of the judge it was revealed that Voulgarakis also
lied about the real incidents. Because his bodyguards said that there was
no in and out, but they waited for him to come out of his house. “Their
testimony was not accurate”, he commented. And to avoid the touch spot, he
stated that he was not informed that the explosion was cancelled by the
organization to not injure anyone. Afterwards, answering questions by
M.Daliani, he had to swallow his tongue again. Where do attribute the
reasons for the attack? This is mentioned in the communique, answered
Voulgarakis. At this point the communique was true? While concerning the
cancellation of the attack not? Continued the advocate. Voulgarakis again
swallowed his tongue.
Like this, with his old known machoness wrinkled, Voulgarakis left, so the
political comments can follow.

P.Roupa: This specific politician is a criminal and a crook. A repulsive
face of authority. He walks around in disguise. Cops protect and guard
such people. He participated in scandals which were the reason for the
attack. He seized the wealth of the people. He was involved with his wife
in the scandal of Vatopedi. He has a mythical and stolen fortune. If there
was a popular court today, they would cut him to pieces. If this person
appeared in front of the greek people without police presence, they would
crush him. The greek people hate him. Him and all those like him.

The attack against him took place because of two scandals: the phone
tapings (which was a mass surveillance of the greek citizens) and the
kidnapping of the Pakistanis. The choice of Voulgarakis was taken by the
R.S. first of all because he is a criminal and secondly because he
organized the kidnapping of the Pakistanis and participated in the
scandals mentioned. With the use of the chrysobulls he and his wife sold
out public property. Property of the people. They made off shore
companies. They created a whole network. They made loads of money and
acquired numerous houses. No one asks where all these fortunes came from.
He became filthy rich on the backs of the greek people. About the specific
attack he is lying. It started as such but it was cancelled. There was
another attempt before this one which also wasn’t carried out because of a
passing motorbike. The next time which we are talking about, the cop who
checked the area came, something unusual. The attack was cancelled. The
specific person, however, will not get away, not from the “terrorist”
organizations but from the people themselves.

N.Maziotis: With this attack real justice was served. Voulgarakis is a
criminal. On 24/10, I had said that others should be in the place of the
accused. Members of the two last governments, PASOK and N.D. Voulgarakis,
if tried by the people –because your court is not popular, you suck up to
him- would be severely punished. What the people feel about this person
has been realized. The attacks on him are uncountable. On the contrary, if
we want to make the comparison, we do not hide, we are openly, clearly
stating what we are. The people spit on him and not us. We have the
popular acceptance. The motives of the actions of the professional
politicians are vile and selfish. They became politicians in order to get
rich. We serve the interest of the people. If politics is a service in the
interest of the people, we do it and not Voulgarakis and the rest of the
professional polticians. They are crooks and speculators. They exploit the
needs of the people. They hunt votes. Representative democracy is a rotten
system. It suffers a cession of popular rights and not the exercise of
policies in favour of the people. Voulgarakis is corrupted. He has
confessed the relations of politicians with the economic elite, the
relations of intertwining with businessmen and companies, with fat bribes
and money. This phenomenon is not an abnormality in democracy as they tell
us. It is the rule. Let’s look at the asset sources of Voulgarakis. These
kids are very poor! (he read the asset source declaration from KATHIMERINI
newspaper).

Who is then the real criminal?

During the 5 year service of the minister in question (2004-2009), 50
scandals were recorded. It is not an abnormality. It is the rule of
operation of capitalism and the system. He got involved in dirty
businesses. He is the ethical and political man? This is audacious. We
defend the actions of R.S. politically. Voulgarakis is political crook (he
read the whole list of scandals he was involved in, analysing each one).

Voulgarakis lied also about the case we examine now. He is professional
liar and thief. What were the main crimes of Voulgarakis for which we
consider him guilty and for which the attack took place against him: 1.
Crimes against the freedoms of the people. 2. Kidnappings and torturing of
Pakistanis. 3. The murder of Tsalikidis. 4. Robbery at the expense of the
people. If the attack were successful, real justice would have been
served.

Witness Pehlivanis, a cop, was on the guard of Voulgarakis. He testified
that he saw a woman on a bike and two men, which he considered suspicious
and mentioned it, but was not in front of the incident. He did not
recognize anyone of the accused. Trained by Vougarakis, he said that he
came out and came back. When it was pointed out to him that his colleagues
testify otherwise, he answered he does not know their testimonies! To the
question if the retreat of the members of the R.S. was coincidental or
conscious, he replied that he cannot answered.

The other four witnesses (an unemployed, a hotel employee of Saint George,
a retired officer and his wife, who had made various descriptions of
people, were in no position to testify anything substancial and,
naturally, they did not recognize anyone).

Witness Polidoratos, a cop from the Immigration Authorities testified
about the incident at EUROBANK in Argiroupoli. He was on patrol, and saw
two motorbikes parking outside the bank, they went close, the lookout
called the other three and got on the motorbikes, the cops came closer,
the last one the second motorbike made a move and pulled out a gun and
they took off. He does not recognize anyone, because they were wearing
helmets.

The trial will continue on Friday the 10th of February at 9am.

translate by boubourAs

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.