BLOG_ALL UPDATES

DAY 123: “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH”

123rd Hearing, Court of Appeals, February 2nd, 2017

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 was reduced public attendance, and there were members of the press present at the hearing. 

II. Presence and representation of the defendants

Present at the hearing was defendant I. Kastrinos.

ΙΙΙ. Proceedings – Examination of requests

The proceedings dealt exclusively with the defense counsels’ comments concerning the witness testimonies about the case of the assault against the PAME members, under article 358 CCP.

a. Comments on the witness testimonies by the defense counsels

Defense counsel Anastasopoulou (for Kastrinos) stated that given that the place, the time, and the mode of putting up posters was not known in advance to the witnesses themselves, it could not have been known to anyone else so that they could plan the attack in advance. A pattern is evident in the witness testimonies, since the witnesses didn’t mention assault squads, S/Y bosses, or money in the preliminary testimonies, with the exception of Pountidis, who mentioned a strike team, money, and S/Y bosses, but all in a very vague manner. Also, not one of the witnesses identified Kastrinos, and his name wasn’t mentioned in the union’s announcements. Kastrinos has said that he passed by the scene of the attack after it had ended, and that’s why the witnesses said they saw him somewhere in the background. Witness Pountidis said that on the night in question he saw Kastrinos in the crowd that attacked him, but then went on to say that when he was shown a photo of the defendant he couldn’t identify him, claiming that the reason for that was that the photo was an old one, was blackened, and that’s why he made a tentative identification. However, the photograph that was shown to him was in good condition, and Pountidis lied, when he knew full well that this lie could lead to the conviction of a man. Zymaris stated that he didn’t see him hitting someone, but he could have been hitting, that he didn’t hear him swear, but he could have been swearing. Kastrinos is a resident of Perama, there’s no chance that he would have gone to commit murder with his face uncovered. Kastrinos’ cellphone contains no text messages, and he has not appeared in any other incidents. In addition, the witnesses made differing claims about their wounds from what is contained in the medical certificates. 

Defense counsel Kontovazenitis (for Anadiotis) stated that the incident in question was a fight, maybe even an attack, which involved 100 people, who could have committed murder, but the persons that were wounded all sustained nothing but minor injuries. 

Defense counsel Kassis (for Panagiotaros) stated that the only things that were heard in court were political statements from the basements beneath Perissos [:the KKE headquarters], not actual testimonies, and no evidence that Panagiotaros had even the slightest knowledge about the incident. The appearance of Panagiotaros in an event featuring a political speech cannot by any political or legal machination be turned into an accusation of administering a criminal organization, as the civil action maintains. 

Defense counsel Dimitrakopoulos (for Dimitrakopoulos and Arvanitis) stated that nowhere was it shown that the assailants had deadly intent, since the victims had not been threatened in advance, neither any other incident that would point to such an intent. Responding to questions by the State Prosecutor about why the assailants did not succeed in their objective, the witnesses had nothing to say. Moreover, the witnesses did not dwell on the forensic reports. Also, the claim that they wanted to stamp out the witnesses from the S/Y has not been proven, because if that was the assailants’ goal they would have attempted something during the night, in the S/Y. The transaction with the S/Y bosses was likewise not proven. Moreover, that the Golden Dawn MP’s’ statements should not be criminalized. The witnesses had much to say about Golden Dawn, etc., however their knowledge came from TV shows, newspapers etc. The investigation in the offices of the local chapter of Golden Dawn was against the law. Lyrintzis is the only objective witness, and he stated that there was no deadly intent, no premeditation, and he also said that what he saw was a mob. 

Defense counsel Tsagas stated that the cornerstone of the witnesses’ claims was the deal made between the S/Y bosses and Golden Dawn, which aimed to neutralize the Metalworkers’ Union and assume total control of the S/Y. This was not shown by the witness testimonies, quite the contrary, the evidence clearly showed that nothing of the sort took place. In addition, the parliamentary work of Golden Dawn, which is indicated by talks, speeches, and votes, shows that the Golden Dawn MPs support workers’ rights, that they have agreed to keep the wages at the current level, and to observe sanitary and security regulations. Moreover, that the testimonies which claim that the witnesses thought Poulikogiannis to be dead are lying, since Poulikogiannis himself said that he stood up, that he saw them hitting the cars, that he saw the arrival of the police, and heard the signal to end the assault. Poulikogiannis saw all of the above at the time that the rest of the witnesses claimed he was lying on the ground looking like he was dead. The defense counsel went on to say that only those that are politically active know what are the so-called assault squads, if another witness is called to the stand, a policeman or anyone else, he wouldn’t know what we’d be telling him, since the term “assault squads” is a journalistic term. He also mentioned that the incident lasted for more than 20 minutes, and that such a duration in no way agrees with the supposed sudden and premeditated incident that is included in the indictment. There’s no unified activity, no unified group, and no signal to depart. Concerning the claim that an employer hired the entire local chapter of Golden Dawn, such an action is not connected with Golden Dawn’s criminal activity, but with the arrival of a ship, and the normal function of the S/Y. Concerning Michalaros specifically, who is represented by the counsel, the latter mentioned that his hiring was in no way different to his other hirings. Tsagas concluded his statements by saying that he considers the claims for deadly intent and the forming of a criminal organization as unsubstantiated. 

Defense counsel Zografos (for Gregos and Michos) mentioned that the testimonies revolved around the Führer Principle and national-socialist theories of the ‘30s, and at the same they could not explain how a man near death managed to pose like an actor. The answers of almost every witness were identical, but they slipped and said some things, such as that they talked before the fight started. Concerning the claim that the police assists Golden Dawn, no one was able to explain the intrusion of riot police units, etc. in the Golden Dawn offices, where they found nothing. Concerning witness Lyrintzis the defense counsel said that it was proven that the assault did not last 2-3 minutes, but 20, that there were some simple wooden poles, but no more than five of them.

Defense counsel Aggeletos (for Zaroulia) stated that the witness testimonies about the PAME case politicized everything. They started with a protest march the first day and continued with the assertion of Poulikogiannis that the leadership of Golden Dawn was involved in an attempt at bribery. The counsel then wondered what is the moral character of a person who accuses another without naming his sources, supposedly to protect his or her safety. 

 Defense counsel Velentza (for Kazantzoglou, Kalaritis, Kouzilos, Barekas, Stefas, and Chrysafitis) stated that the larger streets and avenues which could have been marked for a KKE poster action had already been used in this way. She also mentioned that all the witnesses said they had glue, brushes 20 cm long, staplers, sheets of cardboard, but they didn’t say what they did with them afterwards. She said the incident was a fight and claimed that this was proven by the exchange that the witnesses had with the assailants, as well as by the fact that none of the witnesses was immobilized. The claims that they were surrounded and trapped have been invalidated. He went on to say that it’s simply not possible that the witnesses have never before seen something similar, neither did they have anything to say about the election percentages of their union, nor could they prove their claims about assault squads, and they had only superficial wounds which did not disrupt their daily routines after the incident. The tip that lead to a night investigation in the party’s offices came from an anonymous phone call, which is the object of an investigation by the State Prosecutor’s office. Lyrintzis kept referring to a fight, and the witnesses themselves said about the pole that was found behind the air-conditioning unit that anyone could have put it there. 

Defense counsel G. Michalolias (for Michos, Koukoutsis etc.) started by saying that Poulikogiannis referred to a meeting held between Golden Dawn MPs and some of the S/Y bosses and that he relayed it to Poimenidis, the State Prosecutor for the district of Piraeus, who told him that he couldn’t do anything about it, and then the same prosecutor modified the indictment with more serious accusations. According to the counsel the case has been fertilized by the findings contained in a 7-page document, coupled with a testimony by Poulikogiannis, in which he mentions that people could have been killed had they sustained the same wounds they did, and people are being tried for attempted murder without any forensic reports being submitted. He also mentioned that the court is trying in vain to prove the participation of MPs in these actions. All the witnesses said that the assailants left of their own free will. Nothing was shown about the leaders of Golden Dawn, except that the source of the information was the newspaper Efimerida ton Syntakton. Concerning the testimony of Poulikogiannis the defense counsel invoked article 224 of the CCP according to which a witness must not hide his sources. He went on to say that Poulikogiannis did not answer because from 2012, when the meeting took place, and up to 2013, Golden Dawn did nothing. Concerning the object that was found outside the Golden Dawn offices the counsel stated that it had been planted. He went on to say that the indictment was based on the aforementioned object and the anonymous phone call fielded by Paraschos, and a search was conducted without any respect to the Constitution and the letter of law. 

 Defense counsel Alygizakis (for Chatzidakis and Antonakopoulos) commented that nowhere was it shown that his principals have participated in any other incident and that their faces were uncovered. Considering the facts, he wondered whether it was possible that they went with the intent to commit murder. Everyone said that Chatzidakis was holding nothing. Some of the witnesses said that Antonakopoulos may have been holding a club, a stick etc., but this is not enough grounds to change the indictment. Chatzidakis was the head of Golden Dawn in Perama and it’s not possible that on one day he was going to fight for workers’ rights and on the next he was going to look for Poulikogiannis, with whom they had common union goals. 

Defense counsel Iriotis (for Kasidiaris) started by saying that Poulikogiannis did not name the source of his information about the meeting with certain S/Y bosses, in a public space, where they discussed about how to neutralize the Metalworkers’ Union with unlawful means, and paid 300,000 euros. The defense counsel noted that these acts were not within the MPs’ prerogative, and so there was no legal obstacle in starting the preliminary investigation, and the 300,000 euros should be checked, if they constitute a laundering of illegal proceeds. According to the counsel the secretary and the MP’s formed no criminal organization to neutralize the Metalworkers’ Union. This part of the testimony was false and invalidates the rest of the testimony, rendering it unreliable. Poulikogiannis was not gravely wounded. 

Defense counsel N. Michalolias (for Kasidiaris) started by saying that the witnesses complemented what they knew with information they gleaned from the media, which they then brought before the court, so whatever they said here could be totally unreliable. The witnesses weren’t objective due to their ideology and their role. He stated that there is no monopoly in fighting for workers’ rights. The only piece of evidence for the MPs’ involvement that the witnesses presented in court was their political opposition to the unionists.

Defense counsel Gavelas (for Pantazis) stated that the indictment is exaggerated. The witnesses stated for the first time that the assailants aimed for the head, stated for the first time that they were surrounded, identified Pantazis for the first time. In this case of attempted murder the findings are the superficial wounds, that nothing was found in the offices of Golden Dawn, and that no one saw Pantazis do anything. 

Defense counsel Stavrianakis limited his comments to say that the only people that know what happened on the night in question are the people that were present, God, and the surrounding residents, who in the next elections rewarded Golden Dawn with more votes than those given to KKE.

After a short recess defense counsel Oplantzakis stated that none of the witnesses offered anything of value and that the supposed perpetrators were more numerous, were armed, had the benefit of an ambush, a fight broke out, the phrase about the soccer match was heard, blows were exchanged, there are no forensic reports, there’s the head wound of a person who was taking pictures in the ambulance, a few scratches, a few blows on someone’s back etc. According to Oplantzakis it wasn’t chance that saved the victims from death, but the absence of deadly intent on the part of the assailants. He finished his comments by saying that everyone said that Fyssas was an antifascist, but they didn’t say how this came to be known. 

Defense counsel Tsebetzis (for Korkovilis) stated that the witnesses didn’t prove that the incident took place with the full knowledge of the leading echelons of the party, but the witnesses’ information gleaned from the media and the internet is completely unreliable. 

Defense counsel Alexiadis (for Lagos) said that each witness added something new, one of them had seen more weapons, another saw weapons and stones, a third one said that they couldn’t leave. The witnesses’ inability to explain why the assailants did not succeed in their objective is proof of the fact that the accusations have been fabricated. The defense counsel said that Poulikogiannis is a man that revels in violence, and who would not back down in a fight with Golden Dawn, because that’s what it was, a fight. He commented that the assault squads were mentioned here for the first time and that there was no attempt at murder, and that the plaintiffs came here with boxers’ bruises. Nowhere was it shown that his principal knew of and coordinated such an assault, but he did know that 25 people had gone out to paint over Golden Dawn slogans, and that these 25 attacked the 45 Golden Dawners and that the Golden Dawners were afraid to put up posters in the S/Y. Concerning the investigation in the Golden Dawn offices he said that Lagos knew that the search was not carried out according to the letter of law. The defense counsel also said that it was a fight and because some people were beaten up they used their parliamentary and general communist credentials to fabricate an accusation about attempted murder.    

Defense counsel P. Michalolias (for Michaloliakos) said that the witnesses gave identical answers about Michaloliakos and referred to a supposed order that he gave, without presenting any evidence to support their claim. The only things they said about Michaloliakos was that he is the leader of a party along with whatever they had heard in the media. He stated that this is a trial where one of the witnesses to come, namely Psarras, was organizing events that featured information contained in the case file, and that the start of this prosecution is based only in the Führer Principle. When Poulikogiannis went to the State Prosecutor to inform her of the meeting between the S/Y bosses and Golden Dawn, the Prosecutor even examined Pakistani passers-by, but not the businessmen that allegedly participated in the meeting. He went on to state that the defense will illuminate fully Nikolaos Michaloliakos’ activism, that includes blood donation and food handouts, as well as his poetry collections and books. In conclusion the defense counsel said that the indictment was written with journalists’ pens that have been dipped in blood, because two kids have been killed, two Golden Dawn kids, and they talk about wounded Pakistanis, but about those two kids no one says a word. 

Defense counsel Pagoropoulos (for the same defendant) mentioned that only three of the witnesses mentioned Michaloliakos by name while the other three didn’t dare to name a man for whom there’s no proof that there’s a structure that connects the leadership with the perpetrators. 

Defense counsel Papai (for Michos) stated that the witnesses were interested merely in giving political speeches, and that these testimonies have no connection with what really happened, since the witnesses spoke about agreements that were signed in breach of their labor and constitutional rights, without presenting any proof. According to the counsel, the witnesses couldn’t mention one question that has been submitted in parliament by Golden Dawn, or an amendment submitted by Golden Dawn, and this fact alone shows the witnesses’ extreme subjectivity and their extreme obsession.

Defense counsel Papadelis (for Kasidiaris) said that the witnesses are trying to create an impression about a situation that they can’t even describe. He noted that the witnesses came and said the same things, something which is unacceptable in a trial such as this one, according to him they are trying to change the status of a simple fight between people, and the worst is that this is abetted by other institutions. We can’t have a witness come here and accuse members of parliament, who have been honored by the people of Greece, that they were bribed. He went on to say that the witnesses said that they are familiar with the organization’s structure, but everything they know they have learned from the newspaper Efimerida ton Syntakton. The witnesses could only offer mere conjecture about the pole, a witness came and said he found it behind the A/C unit, but only a madman would have put it there, unless he wanted to achieve something. Concerning the investigation that was conducted in the offices the defense counsel mentioned that the state security officers gave weight to the anonymous phone call and no one thought why a MP behaved as Lagos did. 

Defense counsel Pantazi (for Alexopoulos and Boukouras) stated that it was attempted to show that Golden Dawn has no political identity but that it is merely and in whole a criminal organization. The witnesses wanted to neutralize Golden Dawn, because the latter draws its votes from the same neighborhoods that KKE does. Concerning her principals she said that in 2012 they didn’t become members of a Nazi party, but of a lawful political party. According to the defense counsel the political beliefs of the Golden Dawn nationalists or what they wear should be irrelevant to this criminal court and the phrase of her principal concerning the kids with the black shirts is merely an attempt of the civil action to demonize these kids and the MPs.

Defense counsel Karydomatis (for Pantazis) commented that the attack wasn’t attempted murder, just a few superficial wounds that were treated in a pharmacy, and that it was attempted to ascribe deadly intent to a fight that’s just one of many that happen during the putting up of political posters.

The state prosecutor stated at the end of the hearing that the forensic reports might claim that some of the wounds were just simple injuries, but the court will judge using its independent judgment as well as other evidence what is the legal status of said wounds.

The presiding judge adjourned for Tuesday, February 7th, 2017, at 09:00, in the Court of Appeals. 

RECENT UPDATES

ARCHIVE