First indictment for perjury in the trial of the criminal organization accused of the murder of police officer Giorgos Lyggeridis.

The patience of the presiding judge and the prosecutor was exhausted yesterday during the trial of the criminal organization accused of the murder of Giorgos Lyggereridis, a witness who completely retracted his preliminary testimony, resulting in the first charge of perjury being “activated” upon the conclusion of the trial.
In his statement to the Security Police, the witness had identified 13 of the main defendants in detail, but yesterday he could not remember any of it and claimed that he had lied to the Security Police because he was young and felt anxious and afraid, and had made up stories about the individuals.

Presiding Judge: Sir, look, if someone wasn’t there and doesn’t know all the details you’re providing, the police couldn’t have known them either; the police officers couldn’t have known exactly what each defendant was doing inside and outside the stadium.
Witness: They asked me questions, and I answered them.

Presiding Judge: Here, sir, you’re saying that H. went outside before the riots and gave firecrackers—which he had in a black bag—to every fan leaving the stands, while P.K. was breaking rocks and handing them out.
Witness: I was afraid, I was anxious, and that’s why I said those things.

Presiding Judge: Sir, if the police had asked you questions and you had simply answered, you would have finished your testimony in half an hour to an hour; here, it appears that your testimony lasted four hours. Do you understand the gravity of your testimony? What you said could send 13 people to prison.
Witness: Nothing I testified to is true; I didn’t think about what I was doing at the time, but now that I’ve thought about it, that’s why I came here to tell the truth.

Presiding Judge: I insist, sir, if the police wanted to incriminate the defendants, why did they name 13 and not others unless you had told them to?
Witness: I don’t know.

The presiding prosecutor, extremely irritated, could not take it anymore and requested that the witness be detained.
Prosecutor: Did any police officer ask you specifically about a certain G.?
Witness: About many specific individuals.
Prosecutor: Answer whatever I ask you—how did you know G.?
Witness: I don’t know.

Prosecutor: And how did you answer in detail? How many people named G. were there that night at the stadium—just one? How can you speak if you don’t know? What do you know about G.? I’m asking you again: how did you immediately answer in detail about G.?
Witness: I don’t know.

Prosecutor: Did the police officer ask you about others as well? No one asked you for specific names. First of all, sir, you were the one who started talking about specific individuals by name in detail, and only at the end were you shown photographs. What are you telling us here—that you were nervous and made up stories about 13 people, but didn’t say that others were involved because they actually weren’t? You are lying here today, and I will stop here, Mr. Chairman, to the questions and request that the witness be detained after the conclusion of his testimony.

In response to a judge’s question regarding his initial testimony and today’s testimony, the witness said: “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.”
And the judge commented: “Yes, you have taken an oath, and from the pressure you’re applying with your hands, you’re about to break the witness stand, and you’ve turned pale.”