The chairman opened the procedure by reading the list of witnesses called
since the previous session. A list which is part of the list of the
official charges, contains the names all mixed up, a fact that hides
intentions, in order for them to convict according to the charges brief,
especially N.Maziotis, P.Roupa and K.Gournas. It is important to mention
that, although N.Maziotis and P.Roupa had made a demand to call the
witnesses A.Kannelopoulou and P.Polihronou to testify (Voulgarakis case),
they were not called by the court, even though they had testified to the
interrogator. And this was on purpose, because these two cop witnesses
made an autopsy of the space where the attempt took place and had found
the remote-control mechanism. Thus, would collapse the myth of the
antiterrorist force and the decision it was a blind attack.

As soon as the chairman finished the reading of the witness list, advocate
D.Vagianou spoke, and said that ‘there is an alleged investigation…’.
Before she finished her sentence, the chairman interrupted her by saying
‘not allegedly, there is an investigation’! ‘Yes, as much as you can
investigate some matters which are self-determining’, continued the
advocate, mentioning that that witness L.Alexopoulos (had already been
called to testify, by the chairman), is from the case of the Nea Ionias
police station attack. ‘If this way, pointed out D.Vagianou, completely
coincidently and to facilitate the speed of the trial, we grab one witness
here, one witness there’, for the judge to interrupt her again, asking her
who does this, when it was obvious that she was talking about him. While
the advocate stresses that the witnesses-police technicians of the
Voulgarakis case should be called, the chairman pretends he doesn’t
understand and said they had pre-announced the witnesses. D.Vagianou
reminds him that the list of the witness had no order, which means they
didn’t call the witnesses in an order so that the cases could be solved
one by one, while prosecutor Markopoulos didn’t call all the witnesses who
testified to the interrogator.

The chairman continued interrupting the advocate, while she demanded to
interrupt the procedure aiming at the satisfying of the demand of
N.Maziotis and P.Roupa to put the witnesses in an order so one case can be
solved at a time, he replied that the court will examine the present
witnesses and for the absent ones it will apply the Code of Penal
Procedure, which means it will order their mandatory transfer to the
court. He did not say a word, however, about the demand of N.Maziotis and
P.Roupa to call the cop witnesses who were in the Voulgarakis case.

Then P.Roupa asked to speak. In the previous session there were matters
which have not been investigated in the Voulgarakis case, she said. How
this action was carried out. She continued saying that Voulgarakis said
various lies, that he allegedly knew how this action took place and he
barely made it. We said various things, but the way this action was
carried out has not been investigated. This action was carried out with a
remote control, a fact which would be proven if the cops who collected it
and testified it in their original testimonies, would come here. We have
made the demand to call these witnesses, she reminded. From our side,
stressed P.Roupa, we have to say that this action was carried out in such
a way, in order to secure that no one random will get hurt except for him

From there on, to me, all other things should be investigated, continued
P.Roupa, who characterized as provocative the attitude of the chairman to
make a conclusion from one and only witness testimony which leaves
implications that there was a danger for people passing by (a conclusion
which he won’t publicize for obvious reasons at this point of time) and
not accepting to examine the witnesses-bomb technicians of the special
violent crimes squad (DAEEB)

The chairman, obviously annoyed, interrupted her many times, asking
occasionally how she knows he made a conclusion and occasionally ‘why
would I not read it? (the witness testimony). He was balancing between two
positions. After many interruptions, the chairman, answering to the demand
of P.Roupa, provocatively stated, that first the prosecution witnesses
will be examined and then the other witnesses will be called. It became
obvious, thus, that in the intentions of the chairman was to not call the
witnesses who belong to the DAEEB, obviously so the court can make a
decision according to the official charges. (and not only for the
Voulgarakis case).

Equally provocative the prosecutor A.Liogas asked P.Roupa if she claims
that the action was carried out with a remote control. This question
obviously provoked P.Roupa, who spoke to remind him, that she is not
claiming, but this is how this action took place. While the prosecutor
knows that with the existing evidence of the trial brief (as it was
structured by prosecutor Markopoulos) there can for sure be a conviction
for attempted homicide, they denied until that moment to call the
witnesses of the DAEEB, projecting different incoherent arguments. His
non-confessed target is to propose the conviction of Maziotis, Roupa and
Gournas according to the official charges.

What was said up to now is expectable for me and it confirms that you are
prejudice, said N.Maziotis. they have given you the order to finish up
because you have other things to do! He concluded that the organization
did not carry out this action to hurt a random cop, but a scumbag like

P.Roupa spoke again, because to their insisting for the court to call the
witnesses she received the refusal of the chairman, who additionally told
her that in her testimony she will clarify the way in which the action
took place in the Voulgarakis case. This answer of the chairman was so
provocative it could not remain unanswered. You want to present us as a
criminal organization which carries out blind attacks, stated P.Roupa.
Cornered by the continuous firing of advocate D.Vagianou, N.Maziotis and
P.Roupa, the prosecutor made the first retreat, saying that it would be
nonsense to put a clock work mechanism and that he will never say that
Roupa is lying unless it comes out of the trial brief. You said it was
nonsense, but the chairman said it will be proven in my testimony,
commented P.Roupa, which enraged the chairman, who provocatively stated:
‘Sort it out with your lawyers and I repeat one more time you should have
more trust in your lawyers. I mean what I say‘. Answering to P.Roupa, who
insisted on the call of the witnesses of the DAEEB in order to investigate
how the attack was carried out against Voulgarakis, the chairman stated
that he has investigated the case. Until that moment the chairman did not
want to call the witnesses N.Maziotis and P.Roupa asked for. He had to
call them though, for the 24th of February, but we do not know if he will
do everything to bring them and if the DAEEB will allow them to appear.

To the statement of the chairman, who tried to create an environment of
division between the accused and the defence advocates and alleged dispute
of the latter with the former, answered S.Fitrakis and with his statement
gave the ‘final hit’ to the chairman and the prosecutor, forcing them to
back down and accept the demand of N.Maziotis and P.Roupa.

This is a part of his statement: “With Maziotis and Roupa, I know
something. And from the trials I have done with them, I know something as
well. What are they asking for? For you to bring the witnesses-police
technicians and examine them. When must this happen? Never? It’s not
necessary? Is it necessary? It is.
Because how will you allocate these incidents to the charge they belong
to? You will either say article 187A, last paragraph, nonetheless they
wanted to kill and disrupt the international relations, or you will say
there was a retreat or there is no attempt or it’s not identified. When
will these things happen? From now until the end, but group by group of
incidents, which have a significance, to judge them in their own time.
After examining Voulgarakis, we examined the other police officer, who was
there, and we are not going to examine the technicians, who give specific
explanations about what kind of mechanism it was, which is important to
identify the crime?”.

He concluded by saying that the accused know what they are talking about
and there is no problem in their cooperation.
After S.Fitrakis intervention the chairman asked the prosecutor a proposal
on the specific demand. The prosecutor, in order not to show that he has
been defeated, stated: These two police officers shall be called, but most
likely, they will called for no reason, without being necessary. And also
call Ananias who appears to be a victim. The trial interrupted and when it
resumed the chairman announced that the demand to call the other witnesses
to the next session was accepted.

After that, three witnesses were examined, ex-cops and now retired, about
the case of the Nea Ionia police station. One was the ex-chief, who was
not an eye witness, and the other two were the guard and the duty officer.
The chairman unsuccessfully tried to extract from the three witnesses a
judgement that from this attack of the Revolutionary Struggle there was
danger against the duty officer and guard. But, the guard of the station
was categorical: “If they wanted to they could have hit me, because most
of the time I was moving outside the guard box”. He also clarified that
the grenade fell in a park about 30 metres away from the police station.

The trial is adjourned till Friday 24th of February, at 9 am.


Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.