94th Hearing, Court of Appeals, October 18th, 2016

I. Access to the Court

The courtroom remains open to the public upon presentation of a state ID card, which is retained by court authorities for the duration of the session. There were journalists and a number of spectators present.

II. Presence and representation of the defendants

Present at the hearing were five (5) defendants: D. Agriogiannis, M. Evgenikos, Th. Marias, A. Pantazis, and K. Papadopoulos.

III. Proceedings (cross-examination of witness Ahmed Abou Hamed)

A. Defendant identification by witness Ahmed Abou Hamed

The witness identified with full certainty (100%) defendants Agriogiannis and Pantazis, and with 80% certainty defendants Evgenikos, Marias, and Papadopoulos. Responding to a question by the presiding judge, the witness reported the place where he saw the first two defendants and what they were doing at the time. He stressed once more that Pantazis appeared to be their leader. The witness testified that he saw the other three defendants when they descended the staircase in his house to head outside and smash the vehicles. The witness was then asked by the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney to clarify certain details.

B. Conclusion of cross-examination of witness Ahmed Abou Hamed by the civil action counsels.

In response to a question by Zotos about whether he knows the other three defendants, the witness answered in the affirmative. In response to a question by Tzellis whether he knows who murdered P. Fyssas, he answered that the crime was committed by a member of Golden Dawn, but that he doesn’t know who exactly.

C. Cross-examination of witness Ahmed Abou Hamed by the defense counsels.

First to examine the witness was defense counsel Poulia. The witness stated that the attack lasted for about 15’ and that he called the police at around 03:30. The visibility outside the house was adequate, since there was enough lighting to see clearly: The witness explained that there’s a lightbulb directly over the door of the house, as well as a streetlamp across the street. The witness took a good look at the attackers when he went to the window to close it. He described various details. The defense counsel focused on the distance between the end of the window and the end of the threshold. The last action taken by the attackers, as far as the witness can recall, is the throwing of the fire extinguisher into the house. He could see fine despite the dust. His brother, Mohammed, threw a blanket outside the window to defend himself. Responding to a question by the defense counsel, whether it would be easier for someone to get in the house from the back, where there’s a window, and not from the front, which gives out on the street, the witness answered in the negative, saying the rear window was locked. He stated that the attackers went up from the street to the roof of the house, which was the logical course of action. When the attack ended, the witness ran to the corner of the street and saw the motorbikes leaving the scene, and then went to the roof, where Abouzide lay wounded. During the attack, no one had to cover the lower window -which was easier to access- because the attackers didn’t move towards it. The witness was with his brother Mohamed in the Keratsini Police Station when they identified the defendants, first his brother and then himself.

Defense counsel Kontovazenitis proceeded to examine the witness. When the defense counsel was informed that the witness has not attended school, he asked him whether he knows how to calculate probability (because he had reported a 70-100% certainty concerning the identification of the defendants). The witness answered in the affirmative, citing his work experience. As he said, on the first day he went to GADA [:the Attica General Police Directorate] he was read the testimony in Greek, which he signed. The witness stated that it was Greeks that informed him that Golden Dawn was responsible for the murder of P. Fyssas.

Defense counsel Tsagas proceeded to examine the witness. The examination showed that before he started his business in Perama he was selling fish on the street, possessing a relevant permit. The witness stated that he knows how to read Greek. He was the one that called the police to report the attack. The incident involving the voice of one of the persons arrested -the defendant Pantazis- that he recounted during the previous hearing, about the handcuffs, happened after the identification. The witness stressed that he gave a detailed description right from the first testimony he made in GADA, irrespective of whether it was included in the statement he signed at the end.

Responding to questions by defense counsel Zografos, the witness said he did not associate with members of Golden Dawn, but when they greeted him he returned the greeting. When asked what is his opinion of Golden Dawn, he replied “murderers”. Furthermore, he stated that on the day of the attack the perpetrators wanted to murder them, not just scare them. Because of this, they were forced to move house, and they had the support of the neighborhood.
Responding to questions from defense counsel Velentza, the witness said that the front door had both a lock and a latch. That uniformed police (and not plainclothes police) was the first on the scene. He first testified in GADA that Golden Dawn had threatened him (“you’ll see what will happen to you”), but he didn’t remember whether the incident was included in his testimony. On the day of the attack many people had come by his shop – among them the mayor himself. He wasn’t investigated by the Municipal police or the public health services. The mayor had said on TV that “we don’t murder foreigners, Greeks are living all over the world, in every country.”

Responding to questions by defense counsel Oplantzakis, the witness clarified that as regards the insults he heard, he reported them to the policemen present at the scene, irrespective of whether they included them in his testimony. He explained that his Greek is not that good and cleared up a few points in his testimonies, which the defense counsel found contradictory [: preliminary, investigation, and hearing testimonies]. Only Egyptian men were living in the house, something that according to the witness was known to the attackers, who came under cover of night to conceal their identity.
The questions by defense counsel Papadellis focused on the witness’s investigation testimonies, and to his application for civil action within criminal proceedings. In a deposition he made in Piraeus, the witness, though a plaintiff, testified under oath. The witness appointed a lawyer a week after the incident. The witness took a good look at the attackers by turning on one of the interior lights, and thanks to the light coming from the streetlamps outside his house. He identified five men and a woman, without a prior description given by a policeman. The witness stated that he had no differences with anyone. Now, as he said, “for the past 2-3 years we have lived in fear”. Golden Dawn has made threatening phone calls to him.
Responding to a question by Tsebetzis, whether the would-be murderers were scared away by the can of food the victims threw at them and left the deed undone, the witness stated “they said that since we killed one of them, we don’t need to kill more, we can go. And the neighbors have gotten wind of us.”

The next defense counsel to examine the witness was G. Michalolias. According to the witness, when he was testifying, the interpreter did not just translate but helped him understand what was being said to him. The defense counsel focused on whether the witness knows the meaning of certain words that are mentioned in his testimonies [: “without a doubt”, “encourage”, “leader”, “full certainty”]. The witness knew some of the words, but not others. The witness did not recall if he had given an interview in the TV show “Zougla”. He was shown some photographs of said interview, in which he recognized in the background the house opposite his own.

Responding to a question by defense counsel Roussopoulos, whether he knows the word “unconditionally”, the witness stated that he didn’t know its meaning either in Greek or in Arabic. Concerning the video of MP Lagos, he has watched the segment relevant to the Egyptian fishermen.
Responding to questions by defense counsel Alexiadis the witness said that he is the only one of the Egyptian fishermen to operate a fishmonger’s in Perama. He has a competitor with whom he is on good terms. As for the aforementioned statement by Lagos, he said that “when they came for them, and after everything that happened, he understood that he was talking about them”.

The witness concluded his testimony by saying the following: “I want to say that I fear for my children and brothers, if something happens to me, these here…”

D. Comments by the defense and civil action counsels regarding the case of the attack on the Egyptian fishermen.

First to comment from the civil action counsels was Kabagiannis. As he said, “years back they used to say that when someone knocks on your door at 05:00 it’s the milkman. In 2012 it’s Golden Dawn.” Due to time constraints, the aforementioned counsel requested to complete his commentary on the next hearing.

The District Attorney asked of defense counsel Poulia why she insists on the showing of the testifying witness’s passport. The counsel questioned its authenticity. The DA motioned to reject the request as irrelevant to the procedure. The civil action counsel motioned to reject the request as demeaning to the witness. The Court finally rejected the request.
The Court, given that there would be no witness examinations on the next hearing, gave the five defendants the option of not presenting themselves in Court at the next hearing.

At this point the hearing was adjourned until Wednesday, October 20th, 2016, when the comments by defense and civil action counsels will continue (under article 358, CCP) regarding the witness testimonies in the case of the attack on the Egyptian fishermen.