Tension and serious reactions were sparked by the trial regarding the murder of police officer GGeorge Lyggeridis the testimony of a witness—a soccer fan—who, during the preliminary investigation proceedings, had identified in detail 13 of the defendants, today, before the court , completely recanted his previous testimony.

The witness claimed that what he had told the Security Police did not correspond to reality, specifically stating that he had told lies at the time, whereas today he is telling the truth. His change of heart provoked a strong reaction from the prosecutor of the court, who spoke of mocking the justice system and requested that the witness be detained after the conclusion of his testimony, in order to examine the possibility of filing charges against him for perjury.

“Today, you are telling lies here, and I will stop here, Mr. Chairman, the questioning and request that the witness be detained after the conclusion of his testimony,” stated the prosecutor.

One of the judges on the panel took a similar stance. When the witness attempted to justify his change of stance by saying that “today, here, I am telling the truth because I have taken an oath on the Gospel, whereas at the Security Police I did not take an oath,” the judge remarked pointedly:

“Yes, yes, you have taken an oath, and from the pressure you’re applying with your hands, you’re about to break the podium, and you’ve turned pale.”

The presiding judge also directly challenged the witness’s claim that the details of his initial testimony were essentially dictated by the police officers.

“Sir, look. If someone wasn’t there and didn’t know as many details as you testified to, the police couldn’t have known them either. It’s impossible for the police to have known exactly what each defendant was doing inside and outside the stadium,” he said.

The witness replied, “they asked me questions and I answered them”, however, the presiding judge continued by reading excerpts from his preliminary investigation testimony, according to which he described in detail the movements of specific individuals.

“Here you say that X. went outside before the incidents and supplied the fans with firecrackers that he had in a black bag, while P.K. was breaking rocks and handing them out. You said all this,” he pointed out.

The witness replied that he was under pressure and afraid when he gave that testimony. “I was afraid, I was anxious, and I said those things,” he stated.

The presiding judge, visibly concerned by the complete retraction of the initial allegations, emphasized the significance of what had been stated during the preliminary investigation.

“If you had simply answered the police officers’ questions, your testimony would have been completed in an hour. It appears here that it lasted about four hours. Do you understand the seriousness of what you said? Based on what you testified, 13 people could have been sent to prison, while some of them were remanded in custody precisely because of your own allegations,” he pointed out to him.

The hearing continues in a particularly tense atmosphere, with the court now called upon to assess both the credibility of the witness and the serious contradictions between the two versions he has given of the events.