In an explosive climate with intense dialogues and voices of the prosecutor, the trial of Petros Filippides continued for two attempts at rape of his colleagues.

There was a great deal of tension in the room with highly charged counterparts between the prosecutor and the lawyer’s support lawyers, with the prosecutor outrageing shouting that he was not afraid of “neither the president of the Supreme Court, nor the journalists, nor anyone”.

In a particularly intense tone, the prosecutor referred to a “attack” he received, with the president trying to bring the order back to court.

The escalation of the tension came during the examination of a psychologist, a witness to the first of the two complainants, from the defense. A prosecutor’s commentary on messages allegedly sent by the defendant after the complainant incident has triggered a response to the support of the category.

Prosecutor: The Supreme Court will definitely judge this trial. From all sides …

Class Support: Okay, Mr Prosecutor, we understood it, you will undo it.

Prosecutor: Well well! Leave now …. I didn’t say so …

Category Support: “Leave Now” and “Come From Here” not to me!

Prosecutor: I ask for respect and temper. I said about the undo in general, not that I will make up

Class Support: “Come Now” not to me!

Public Prosecutor: These lawyers’ attacks should stop, because something else must be done. If you continue we will have other issues. (Shouting) Do you want to continue like that? I do not accept such attacks by anyone! I’m not afraid of anyone!

Defense: Man is right …

President: Mr. Prosecutor, please calm down! What is this style?

Prosecutor: Will he tell me? To me the president of the Supreme Court? I’m not afraid! I’m not afraid of anyone! And the channels and the journalist! None!

Defend: When the President (of the Court) does not protect you, what do you expect, Mr. Prosecutor?

Prosecutor: They come and bullying me! It’s a shame!

Course: The President runs the process …

President: Calm! Calm!

The explosion of the prosecutor had preceded another alienation with the support of the category.

The prosecutor insisted that the psychologist would answer if the fact that the accused let the complainant leave when she escaped shouting, making him a “rapist or dude?”

The psychologist stressed that “when there is no consensus we are talking about rape or attempt.”

Prosecutor: If anyone attempts to rape what mental characteristics has it?

Witness: Sexual act is not the issue, the issue is the imposition of power, this is the motivation and not the sexual intercourse. That is imposed on another person. Power and as a position: I impose my will on another person.

Prosecutor: What was the motivation here?

Witness: I can’t answer ..

Prosecutor: Isn’t the motives erotic?

Witness: Sexual assembly is not missing the perpetrators. ,.

Prosecutor: What is the motive in general?

Witness: The imposition of will on another person or imposition of power in the workplace or to accept the woman …

Prosecutor: Isn’t the motivation momentum? She sees a nice woman and…

Witness: No. Because every man does not rush a woman who considers nice.

Prosecutor: Why does the accused continues with messages?

Witness: So ask the accused … He may want to continue to impose his will …

Prosecutor: Without taking a position, I understood a defendant who wants sex. He’s gone crazy … He has impulses, biological things, and he has his way. He takes advantage of his power…

Witness: You find the biological with the consensus.

Public Prosecutor: When calling for telephone sex, he wants sex biologically …

Witness: I’m not talking about Philippides. In general, an perpetrator will harass women in various ways, with sex, threats, with abusive…

Prosecutor: Here he tried to rape her and did not fulfill his purpose. How do you judge it that stops, deprived and opens the door to leave? Is he now rapist or something else? The rapist puts her down and … how do you see it? The other regretted and stopped. Is he rapist or is a man of a man?

Witness: It is understood to be an attempt. It doesn’t matter that it goes back. There is no consensus …

Class Support: Are these questions as they are?

President: I can’t tell everyone how ..

Prosecutor: I’m not everyone. I am the prosecutor. The prosecutor is interrogating and you hear. And the lawyers cannot prohibit the questions. You think that a person who starts but stops because he is out and tells her to leave …

Class Support: It didn’t happen! She threatened her! Why don’t you say that she threatened her?

Prosecutor: Is he rapist?

Witness: When there is no consensus …

Prosecutor: Not before. Then we say. How do you say this man?

Witness: He has attempted to rape.

Prosecutor: You don’t understand….

President (in witness): Can you understand if the truth or lies is telling you? Beyond your perception if there are some kind of tests to perceive?

Witness: A woman (victim of sexual violence) does not come a couple of times. It has a consequence in the session. If he says the fact the same way each time…. Rarely some will lie …

President: If he is a famous person? There could be such a case …

Witness: Women in the sessions collapse, speak. These things you can’t “play”. Are very true reactions.

Deputy President: In the event of an attempt to rape what psychological residues are in the victim?

Witness: It can affect relationships because trust is abolished. They may not be happy, everything is flat. To pretend to be happy. Panic attacks occur, especially if the incident is revoked for any reason: a picture, a smell reminiscent of the incident. Reinforce the danger and threat.