Great tension between his defense Petrou Filippidis and the president of the Mixed Jury Court in the trial of the prominent actor for three cases of sexual violence against his colleagues, sparked a purely procedural issue.
The issue concerned the objection of the Defense of the accused which asked, during the previous trial, to expel from her position in the Civil Action the third actress who accuses Filippidis of rape. The Filippidis side justified its request for the expulsion of the said show, citing non-payment of a fee, which, as they stated, is not included in the case file.
The court, with a similar prosecutor’s proposal, rejected the objection, however the discussion of the position of the actor’s lawyers was characterized by escalating tension which culminated in the intense confrontation of Filippidis’s lawyers with the president.
The tones went up and with the attitudes of advocates of the Civil Education who spoke of “unethical legal behavior”, even expressing concern about the reason why the defense “chooses a tertiary issue to delay the process.”
The lawyers of Petros Filippidis, Michalis Dimitrakopoulos and Kiki Pakirtzidou, stressed, referring to the case law of the Supreme Court, that since the fee is absent from the case file, the court can not legalize the representation of Civil Action. The tension escalated when the president tried to calm the spirits, a move that caused additional irritation on the part of the accused, which turned its fire on the Chair.
Michalis Dimitrakopoulos: I will ask an inspector to come and watch the trial as you coordinate!
Chairman: Ask for what you want!
With the decision to reject the issue raised by the actor’s lawyers, the defense insisted on her request, with the president telling the two’s lawyers that if they disagree they could appeal and appeal the interim decision.
Her phrase sparked an outburst of defense. “With what you are saying, the impression is created that the trial for the show can take place” stressed Mr. Dimitrakopoulos, while Ms. Pakirtzidou added: “You just said to Mr. Filippidis” for us you are guilty “. This is bias against the accused. I want to stop communicating with my client “.
But the president, after that, showing her irritation, said:
Chairman: Do you want me to leave and come here? We are a court of first instance. Mr. Defendant, if you have any complaints, tell me! Probably because we are inexperienced, as your lawyer says, to make a mistake. You have the right to exercise your rights if you feel that we are being discriminated against. We are still very early, the court has not come to any decision.
K. Pakirtzidou: If you were Filippidis and you were in Korydallos, you would not say so easily, I meant something else; probably the theater has been moved here, I want to communicate with Mr. Filippidis.
The process was interrupted and with the return of the Headquarters, one of the defendant’s lawyers stated in court that “the defense remains in the position it has expressed to you. We feel that you have formed an opinion about the present defendant. Mr. Filippidis returns to Korydallos every afternoon while he has declared that he is innocent. You never told the accused what problems he has, if he wants water. At the previous meeting, you also diagnosed the witness, saying “have you lost your blood pressure?”. You know what my client told me: “someone has asked me from the headquarters where I return and where I go, I declare my innocence and I return to Korydallos”. “Your statement today brings great embarrassment and concern to the defense.”
Chairman: Mr Defendant, my treatment of the witness was humane. I try with humanity and empathy to put myself in everyone’s shoes. I want the time to come to listen to you and if you are not well, I will do the same. I know very well what a day in prison means, how difficult it is for anyone.
The remainder of the proceedings, as the matter of the objection occupied the court for hours, continued with the examination of the second complainant by the defense. The defendant’s side disputes what the witness claims about her attempted rape by Filippidis, in 2010 in the dressing room of the “Mousouri” theater.
The questions of the defendant’s lawyers focused largely on the time the actress chose to denounce her colleague, with the witness answering that she decided to speak formally, after the allegations of Sofia Bekatorou that mobilized her colleagues to speak ill of him. .
Chairman: That is, in 2013, when you spoke to some people, did you say a name or just the incident?
Witness: To my husband by name, to friends, to some I had said name and to others only the incident. To some of those I mentioned by name they did not fall from the clouds. They added other incidents to me.
M. Dimitrakopoulos: How come no one said it anywhere?
Witness: These people have never done that.
The trial continues on Friday, May 27.
Follow Skai.gr on Google News
and be the first to know all the news
I have worked in the news industry for over 10 years. I have a vast amount of experience in covering health news. I am also an author at News Bulletin 247. I am highly experienced and knowledgeable in this field. I am a hard worker and always deliver quality work. I am a reliable source of information and always provide accurate information.
