Defence counsel for Marfin accused claim Criminal Investigation Department does not identify them
The lawyers of persons prosecuted for the arson attack on Marfin bank argued that the report of the Criminal Investigation Department does not link their clients with the individuals appearing in the photographic material of the case.
Defence counsel for Marfin accused claim Criminal Investigation Department does not identify them
The legal representatives of individuals facing charges in connection with the fire at Marfin bank held a public briefing for journalists today. Their aim was to counter claims that have come to light in recent times. Lawyer Anny Paparrousou and her colleague Thanasis Kampagiannis expressed the view that the evidence at their disposal does not confirm that their clients are identified with those depicted in photographs from the scene of the attack.
According to Ms Paparrousou, the case file is based on an anonymous email message that cannot be verified. As she explained, the Criminal Investigation Department proceeded to analyse the visual material and concluded that no connection emerges between the prosecuted individuals on the basis of image comparison. She added that the report in question classifies the similarity as ranging from "limited" to "moderate", whilst certainty would require at least "strong similarity".
For his part, Mr Kampagiannis stated that the Criminal Investigation Department applied an American assessment protocol, under which identification is placed at the top of a hierarchical scale. His clients, he said, are located in the middle of this scale, in the category "inconclusive evidence". He stressed that no connection emerges between the prosecuted individuals and those appearing in the photographs who have already been identified as targets in previous judicial proceedings.
The briefing was also attended by Dimitris Katsaris, who had previously undertaken the defence of another individual who had been charged in connection with the same arson attack and was unanimously acquitted in 2016. Mr Katsaris identified similarities in the manner of handling the previous case and the current one, noting that on that occasion too the police had acted on the basis of an anonymous note, without having conducted any check on the credibility of the source.
The legal representatives acknowledged that it is not common to provide a public briefing before making a statement before the investigating magistrate, yet they stressed that they felt compelled to do so because of the intensity that the public discussion has taken on. Ms Paparrousou stated that they expect the sender of the email message to be called as a witness so that it can be clarified how he or she obtained the information that was submitted.
Source: In.gr