As “the most tragic day of his life” described on July 23, 2018 the then deputy fire chief, Vasilis Matthaiopoulos, apologizing at trial for tragedy in Mati. The accused expressed his grief to “those affected”, avoiding, at the commencement of his deposition against the charge relating to manslaughter and negligent bodily harmto use the word “dead”.

The retired Fire Department officer began his apology before the Three-member Misdemeanor Court saying: “I want to express my sorrow and pain as a human being for the wounded, the affected and in general for the sufferers of that day. I don’t want to say anything else because this day is the most tragic of my life.”

The then deputy chief of the Fire Departmentdisclaiming all responsibility for what was done or not done by his service to the Eye, “showed” responsibilities of his co-accusedthen leader Sotiris Terzoudis, but also other staff members.

Perhaps the most indicative of his positions on “them’s fault”. head of ESKE) who told the truth, i.e. that he received a phone call from company executives”. Shortly after, Mr. Matthaiopoulos wanted to soften his claim saying that “maybe the leader did it for good”.

Unlike his former superior, Sotiris Terzoudis, who said yesterday that they knew about dead people before the interviewin the presence of the then Prime Minister at ESKE, when Mr. Matthaiopoulos was asked by the prosecutor about the time they found out that there were dead people, he replied that he found out after the end of the interview.

Prosecutor: When did you become aware of the dead?
Accused: It was said by EKAV about injured and maybe two dead. It was not crossed. At 23:00 (interview) I did not know specifically and crosswise about the existence of dead people. Closing the interview, after 12 and 15 I heard, not from the Fire Department, but from police officers that there were burnt ones.

Carrying a file of documents and a large notebook with notes, Mr. Matthaiopoulos at the beginning of the apology referred to his biography, on “33 years of combat service”. Then he began the narration from the beginning of the fire season of 2018 and the operation of the House, reaching the critical day when the big fire in Kineta preceded. As he said, since the previous day he was in the Coordinating Office (ESKE) as “we had ongoing incidents with a major one in Skopelos” and while a forecast map had been issued that had Attica and other areas with a risk index of 4.

In each part of the category, which concerns the entire management of the Fire Department and the use or not of its means, but also the issue of the removal of residents, the retiree, citing the legal status governing the House, gave the court his own answers stating who is responsible.

Thus, in the charge of the indictment regarding the lack, on the day in question, of aerial surveillance, the defendant noted that “I received an assurance that there will be aerial surveillancebut as it did not belong to my competence, I did not deal with it at all”.

Regarding the management of air assets, Mr. Matthaiopoulos was clear: “The management of the Coordinating Forest Firefighting Unit is the management of ESKE and is carried out with the approval of the chief”.

He gave the same answer to the act concerning the non-disposal of the Fire Brigade’s floats for the Eye: “It is the responsibility of the chief”. He also said that “I didn’t even know if they were manned”.

According to the category, another crucial issue for the tragic outcome of the fire in Mati was the removal of vehicles from the area of ​​Penteli in order to go to Kineta. According to the defendant, the removal was done properly. “However, the competent commander must immediately replace them. I don’t know if there was a replacement in real time”, he noted, referring not to his co-accused but to the witness of the case, then the commander of the 12th PS of Athens.

Regarding the alleged lack of notification of the competent services, the accused said that it was done through Civil Protection and added that “everyone knew about the fire”.

A large part of Mr. Matthaiopoulos’s apology was his answer regarding the non-mobilization to remove citizens from Mati. The defendant explained that the evacuation that took place earlier that day in Kineta was possible due to the smaller population, as it was a Monday and not a weekend, the advantage provided by the “safe zone of the old and new National Road” but also the nature of the fire that it didn’t have many fronts, burned dense vegetation, and was slower moving. “People could move faster and easier,” he said. Instead, the fire that started from Daou Pentelis was extremely difficult as, as Mr. Matthaiopoulos said, it split almost immediately on several fronts “if not from the first seconds, from the first minutes. Thousands of burns started new fires, which the forces could not contain. Marathon Avenue was 20 meters.” “After 5:30 p.m., I don’t know how this time came about that evacuation should be given (it is stated in the position of the judicial expert that at this time evacuation was possible), when the fire started at 4:40 p.m. where will this world; Was there a plan? I take the world and take it where? In a square? In a church? We are talking about a fire with 20 meter flames and thick smoke. Would we have more dead? We don’t always have fire under our control, if only we could. The PS since 1933 has made many departures. But none on such a scale as the Eye,” he added.

In any case, the defendant emphasized that he himself had no authority to recommend something like this and that the person in charge of organized removal is the respective head of the fire either through a municipality or region or in consultation with the police.

When asked by the prosecutor about the image of the fire in Sousaki, Corinth, near the refineries, the defendant replied that he had passed the fence and that a truck had burned earlier. When the prosecutor asked if it is customary for carriers or others to request aerial means, Mr. Matthaiopoulos said that very often mayors and others request aerial means.

Prosecutor: Is it common? If no means are available and must be removed from another fire is this done? Should the helicopter have been diverted?
Accused: No, I shouldn’t have.