75th Hearing, Court of Appeals, July 15th, 2016
1. 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 significant attendance by the public as well as members of the press.
2. Presence and representation of the defendants
Present at the start of the hearing were 14 defendants, out of a total of 18 who have been ordered to personally appear in court. Twenty-seven (27) defendants were recorded as absent, and the rest were represented by their counsels.
3. Proceedings – Continuation of witness testimony of Kontonikolas
Responding to questions by the defense counsel for Pantazis the witness testified that the Golden Dawn party has a Nazi ideology, that they want a pure race without immigrants. He stated that he doesn’t know anyone who voted for Golden Dawn in the 2012 elections, neither anyone who ran for office with the party, nor the parliamentary activity of any of its MPs. He stated that he knows where the Golden Dawn offices are located in Nikaia, but he’s never seen anyone go in there, because he’s not interested, and he doesn’t recall any Golden Dawn actions before the murder.
Responding to questions by defense counsel Zografos the witness stated that a fascist is someone who wants to impose his own views through violent means, and that’s a quality that’s found in one political party, the nazi party, Golden Dawn. He heard the term assault squad for the first time on the internet, he doesn’t know if other political parties have strike teams, but he could tell who were Golden Dawners even before the murder, because he witnessed the incident at the street market where they beat up immigrants.
He repeated that he knows that the Fyssas song titled “FUCK THEM” is antifascist, but he can’t remember the lyrics and when asked by the defense counsel how does he judge the lyrics “I have the barrel pointed at your head”, he answered that they are allegorical and that it doesn’t mean that he has really gotten a gun.
Responding to questions by defense counsel Papadellis he answered that he can tell if someone is a nazi or a democrat, when he sees a group giving the nazi salute, waving swastika flags, such as the photos that have been taken in the house of MP Pappas, that there’s a difference between Golden Dawn and other parties handing out pamphlets, because Golden Dawners head out in groups, they have motorbikes and they create a climate of fear, like what they did with him. He doesn’t follow the parliamentary work, but he has heard of Golden Dawn views that include incitements to violence and the breakdown of the democratic system.
Responding to questions by defense counsel Georgios Michalolias he stated that he believes he was attacked because of his characteristics, for example his beard and long hair, because he has been stared at threateningly by Golden Dawners in the past. They left Koralli with Doulvaris, an observer would have known they were friends, but no one bothered them at that point. The three persons in Koralli were clearly members of Golden Dawn, the policemen during his first testimony went back and corrected various things, and generally he’s not afraid of people riding on motorbikes wearing helmets, but he does if they come as a group and they dress uniformly. He went on to say that three of them beat him up and four of them fell on Pavlos, and the three that had beat him up afterwards acted as if they were keeping an eye on them.
Responding to questions by defense counsel Alexiadis he stated that he heard of the Lagos text message on the internet, from two or three sites, but he can’t remember which ones exactly. He stated that he doesn’t know if a few days back there was tension in the Golden Dawn offices in Marousi and whether the son of a minister was arrested. He testified that he has never been attacked in the past and it is one of the worst things that has happened to him and the behavior of the people that attacked them was brutal. The witness believes that they had gathered with murder in mind, which is what happened, there could have been another murder on that night, since they could have caused serious damage. He also stated that he doesn’t know the parliamentary questions posed by Lagos neither his political work or his views on the immigrant issue.
Responding to questions by defense counsel Michalolias he said that he hasn’t read the Golden Dawn’s statute or organization chart, neither does he know whether parties have a hierarchical organization or if Golden Dawn has organized a conference. He has seen incidents in the past, but this was no simple incident.
Responding to questions by defense counsel Stavrianakis he stated that he doesn’t know if in the house of MP Pappas was found a flag of the Red Army, but that Pappas in the photograph with the Hitler memorabilia collection was over 28 years old. The witness said that personally he wasn’t interested in the football match but had gone to have a beer, and he doesn’t know whether Pavlos or the Golden Dawners were there first. He repeated that Pavlos and Roupakias didn’t have a fight and when he was told by the defense counsel that the DIAS policemen say that he did, he said that he has said what he has seen. He testified that he doesn’t know who called the police, but that the three that were in the café had no reason to call the police. He also mentioned that his group did not go there to support Fyssas, but to have a beer.
Responding to questions by defense counsel Bonis he said that he doesn’t know why they didn’t talk about the intrusive glances during half-time. He also stated that they took the car to Koralli by chance and that what gave him pause regarding the three Golden Dawners was the army boots they wore over the pants.
4. Proceedings – Examination of witness Chrysoula Roupakia
Responding to questions by the presiding judge, the witness Chrysoula Roupakia stated that she is the sister of defendant Roupakias, that she is a businesswoman and owns a fishmonger’s since 1994, and that she is a resident of Koropi. She is on good terms with her brother, even though they met more frequently before the incident. She testified that concerning her brother’s connection to Golden Dawn, she knew he was frequenting the offices, that he participated in handouts, and that he was moved by Golden Dawn’s care for Greeks. He wasn’t a member, just a voter, in order to be a member you have to pay and get a special card. She herself is not a member, she just voted for them in the repeat elections of 2012. As for Roupakias she knows that he participated in food handouts organized by the Nikaia local chapter, he went to MP speeches, to history lessons, but she doesn’t know how frequently he went to the Nikaia chapter, she herself had only gone by once to see him and she doesn’t know what the opening hours are. She also testified that she has attended the events in Meligalas, Thermopylae, and Perivolaki in Nikaia. She heard about the events from her brother. Concerning the transfer to the event sites she stated that buses had been arranged and that she thinks that Roupakias was going by bus, since his car had broken down, and since 2013 he was using one of her vehicles.
The witness stated that she would describe her brother as calm, open to discussion, not given to tension, and a family man. During the winter months he worked as a driver in a petrol company, and in the summer he helped her at the fishmonger’s. His wife never worked, she raised the kids.
She testified that she knows three people from Golden Dawn: Thanasis Tsorvas, Kazantzoglou, and Patelis. She stated that she did not remember what had happened in any of the events, they were major events, with ample participation. Voters and MPs were in attendance. She stated that she doesn’t understand the term “fans”.
Concerning the night in question she stated that her brother called her at about one o’clock at night and told her he had gotten in a fight and that he was held in the police station and if she could bring him cigarettes and a bottle of water. When she got to the police station she saw many people shouting, they were youngsters and she got afraid and left. Responding to a question by the presiding judge she said that she didn’t ask him what had happened because she was afraid and she went shopping. At around 4 in the morning she went back to the station and saw his brother enter a patrol car and at the back a crowd was screaming “you fucking nazi we’ll kill you”. Then she said that she called Roupakias’ wife and she didn’t know what had happened either. The witness said that she did a search on the internet typing “attack Amfiali 17 September”, something that just popped into her head to write. She heard nothing else until 6 in the morning, when she saw that the kid had died and that her brother had confessed to the murder. Then she stated that she called her sister-in-law who told her that Dimou called Roupakias around 11-11:30 and told him that something had happened in the local chapter and if Roupakias knew anything about it. Roupakias told him that he didn’t and left for the chapter. The witness stated that she didn’t know at what time her brother left or if he made any preparations before leaving. She went on to say that at around 8:30 in the morning Roupakias called her from GADA and she told him that she would send a lawyer that had been recommended to her in the market. But that lawyer refused to take the case, because the Piraeus Bar Association forbade its members to take up Roupakias’ defense. The witness stated that she sent a lawyer she was acquainted with, who told her that her brother told him that he had a fight with the deceased, that when he got there in the car, 4-5 people took him out of the car and that Roupakias got his little knife and without looking scratched the kid a couple of times and he died. She went on to say that she didn’t visit her brother, they just talked on the phone, because she didn’t want to make a target of herself, nor did she want to leave the shop unattended. She testified that each time they talked, he told her the same things and she believed what he told her. She said that Roupakias has told her that when he arrived at the local chapter, he met some people there, he never said who, and someone, she doesn’t know who, told him to “follow”. The witness said that she still doesn’t believe deep down that her brother did it. Responding to questions by the presiding judge she said that outside the local chapter there were some motorbikes gathered and they told him let’s go, but she didn’t know who they were, and Roupakias himself didn’t know what he was going to do. Roupakias wasn’t acquainted with Fyssas, the witness stated that he went to him because he was the first one he saw, she doesn’t know where they were headed nor whether the men from the local chapter were near him when the youngsters pulled him out of the car, as he claims. The witness stated that she didn’t contact the people she knew from the chapter from the various events she has attended, in order to ask them what had happened. She stated that Roupakias told her that they left the chapter as a group, on motorbikes and cars, that he didn’t leave on his own. At this point the witness testified that she had talked on Facebook with someone whose account was under a nickname, who told her that Roupakias left the local chapter with Thanasis Tsorvas and one other person. She gave this person her phone number so that they could arrange a meeting so she could learn more, something that never came to pass.
Concerning the knife she stated that there are knives in both cars, because the fish is packaged in styrofoam and nylon, and they use the knives to inspect the merchandise. Roupakias knew there was a knife in both cars. Roupakias had camo pants and a shirt emblazoned with the logo of the local chapter, something they don’t give to simple voters. He never had anything to do with knives, he cut his bread and meat with his hand, and the witness could not imagine how he could have made the stabbing. She identified Thanasis Tsorvas, Patelis, and Kazantzoglou.
Concerning Styliani Masouropoulou she stated that she knows that she has attributed responsibility to some people about the incident on trial. She testified that Masouropoulou was opposed to what she was seeing on TV, that she had mentioned that Kasidiaris had said that he doesn’t know her brother or that someone else had said that he’s crazy. According to Masouropoulou it was those people mentioned in the discussions, because it was they who sent him. She testified that she doesn’t know why her brother said that those four dragged him out of the car, nor why he chose to stop there or the reasons why he didn’t leave, since as he said he was feeling threatened. She also said that on Facebook they told her that her brother is covering Patelis. Concerning the Meligalas gathering she stated that she remembers some of the attendants were in formation and others were not, and as for Kazantzoglou’s things that were found in her car she stated that Kazantzoglou gave them to Roupakias, so that they wouldn’t fall off the bike.
After a short recess civil action counsel Tzelis asked of the presiding judge about some rumors that were heard during recess, that a person was arrested trying to get into the courtroom carrying a 5 cm knife. The presiding judge answered that whatever happened was put to a stop outside the courtroom and proceeded to the witness’s examination with questions by the state prosecutor.
The witness testified that she used to be on better terms with her brother, but not anymore, that the knife was hers and that’s what she meant in her first testimony, that she didn’t know if the phonecall he received from Dimou was urgent or not, nor if he was ordered, and she doesn’t believe that he should have obeyed and gone there, it’s inexcusable. She repeated that her brother has told her that he wasn’t acquainted with Fyssas, and she is not acquainted with Kazantzoglou or if he was a participant in anything on the night in question. She also referred to the existence of a man sitting next to Roupakias in the car, and asked her sister-in-law whether she could think of someone and she said no. She doesn’t know Theofanis Sviggos nor did she know whether Patelis had anything to do with the incident on the night in question, except for that first rumor that since it was never confirmed, she thinks it is of no importance.
Responding to questions by the members of the Court she said that she didn’t know if there was a text message and what it said, that she keeps referring to a little knife, but her brother was the one who talked about scratches. She doesn’t know whether other political parties call simple voters this late at night and she can’t judge about whether it is normal or not, but stated that she wouldn’t have done the same, that is, to receive a text message and leave the house at 11:30 at night. She then repeated that neither she nor the family of her brother went to the local chapter to learn what happened, she mentioned that her brother never told her if he had a more important role in the Nikaia chapter, neither did she see Kasidiaris in Meligalas. She stated that she believes that Roupakias is merely a voter of Golden Dawn and that he would have told her the truth, but she doesn’t know why the leader of Golden Dawn assumed political responsibility for the murder. The final question by the court was whether it seems logical to her that a simple voter of a political party commits a murder and the leader of the party assumes political responsibility for the murder. The witness said that she didn’t know.
The presiding judge adjourned for Monday, July 18th, at the Court of Appeals.
