The life sentence and the additional sentence of eleven and a half years, as in the first instance, is the punishment that the Mixed Jury Court of Appeal decided to impose on Babis Anagnostopoulos for the murder of his wife, Caroline Crouchs, in May 2021, at their home in Glyka Nera.

In front of an empty bench, as the defendant waived his appeal during the appeal proceedings and said he did not wish to be brought to trial, prosecutors announced that they had unanimously found the 35-year-old pilot guilty and sentenced him to the same sentence as he had been given for the “Freshwater crime”, which they judged to have been carried out with composure and planning.

The court, denying his waiver of appealtried Anagnostopoulos and with his final judgment rejected all the allegations put forward by the defendant for what happened in the early hours of May 11, 2021 in the maisonette where he lived with 20-year-old Caroline and their newborn daughter.

The 35-year-old himself, who in the first trial gave a ten-hour testimonydid not want to stand before the judges again and apologize for the torturous, suffocating death of Caroline and the killing of their dog who was found hanging.

“I do not accept the advocates appointed in my absence. I waive the right of appeal and do not wish to be transferred to court”he stated yesterday, with his document, in court.

The appellants accepted the proposal of the prosecutor of the headquarters of the MoE, who yesterday asked to consider the heinous crime as the “punishment” that the defendant consciously imposed on the 20-year-old because she “went against him”.

The defense of the accused (who has been appointed by the court), after the MOE’s decision on guilt, requested to recognize Anagnostopoulos tthe extenuating circumstances of his previous conjugal life, saying that he was “an animal lover, an excellent student and a good boy”.

The district attorney requested the rejection of the request for relief, detailing all the elements of the “heinous crime” and the preparatory actions of the accused: “He acted in a manner unprecedented. It is one of the most heinous crimes ever committed in the world. He asked to have sessions with the psychologist after he had committed the crime. He didn’t shed a single tear.”

The prosecutor emphasized, among other things, that the defendant, according to the first-instance decision, put in his name, under his own ownership, the plot of land that had been bought with money mainly from the victim’s family. “Also, a contract of employment had been made and both spouses were appointed as employers, while it was owned by the accused. In other words, he made her subject to obligations without having ownership of the plot. There is no scope for recognition of the mitigating factor of the defendant’s legal life,” he noted.

The court adopted the prosecutor’s point of view and did not recognize any mitigating circumstances for the accused, which brought him to face exactly the same sentence that was imposed on him in the first instance. The judges imposed an additional fine of 21,000 euros.