Prosecutor’s proposal for Filippidis: Not guilty by reason of doubt for the rape of the first complainant – Guilty for the attempted rape of the other two

Makis Synodinos

The acquittal of Petros Filippidis due to doubts about the accusations concerning the first complainant for rape, but his guilt on the charges relating to the second but also the third complainant was proposed by the prosecutor.

With reference to the first case, for which she proposed an acquittal, the prosecutor Stella Stoya said that she cannot come to an exact conclusion as to what happened with the subsequent rape of the first complainant, “she has doubts” and that is why she proposes his acquittal. In particular, he said:

“I have doubts. The events may have happened as the complainant tells the court, but the court cannot convict beyond doubt. The differences in the testimony of the first complainant are not details. There are doubts about what exactly happened. For the continued rape, I will propose that he be declared innocent,” said Ms. Stoya.

The prosecutor’s office referred to “patronized answers” given by AM, quoting what the woman herself testified. He also noted that there are differences in the descriptions he has given to the authorities. In fact, he said that these differences have different criminal characteristics. According to the prosecutor, the first woman who accused the defendant, “initially reported a misdemeanor act, that is, an insult to sexual dignity and during the interrogation a rape.

“The complainant presented a different description of the events in three different bodies. Some to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, some to the prosecutor, some to the interrogation. Why didn’t he tell the prosecutor what he told the investigator. The complainant came to the public prosecutor to report what she suffered, not to characterize it legally. He reports such a serious event to the investigator for the first time. If he had filed it with the public prosecutor I would have taken a different position, accepting that he wanted to file a complaint with the SEH. However, she discovered something new at each subsequent stage,” emphasized Ms. Stoya and added: “If AM had said from the beginning what she said later, I would have accepted it.”

Referring to a statement by the alleged victim that after one of the two incidents of sexual violence she had experienced from the accused she accepted a job from Petros Filippidis in the theater, and “she was excited”, the prosecutor pointed out that “no woman gets excited because he calls her her rapist for work. She told us that in their space “they bleed. This is how they are nurtured”.

According to the speaker, however, “in no professional field do teachers teach young artists to tolerate crimes. Behaviors yes, pressure yes, but no felonies or abusive behaviors. There is a red line in everything. In any professional area, certain behaviors are tolerated, but abusive behaviors are not tolerated, let alone rape.”

For the second complainant, the prosecutor, proposing the guilt of Filippidis for the crime of attempted rape, said among other things: “the defendant led her to an empty theater and then attempted to rape her. She tried to avoid him.
His act was not completed, not because his will was stopped at trial, but because, as the complainant testified, he “became alienated”. The prosecutor also wondered about the second complainant: “If what happened was consensual why didn’t he get the role? why didn’t he play in the two mega series? Why didn’t they ever work together?’

Regarding the third complainant (rape attempt), the prosecutor said: “The complainant, according to her testimony, had a seizure. He was acting wild, trying to dissuade the accused from his criminal plan to kill him. In her panic she had the impression that the door was locked. “It’s that moment when you say, I didn’t do it! Why didn’t I try to open? And you mess with yourself” he had testified in court.

She wondered in closing her rant why the complainant did not seek him out or seek to meet him again. Regarding the diary that was mentioned in the trial by the advocates Filippidi, the prosecutor said characteristically “How is it possible that she did not write something about what happened to her? And why write? Why would she record something horrible that happened to her. The pages on those days are blank. This is also indicative.”

The court adjourned to decide what will be the next hearing with the purchases of the advocates.

Read the News today and get the latest news.
Follow Skai.gr on Google News and be the first to know all the news.