Guilty or not, the trial of the fire in the attic continues in Athens' three-judge criminal court, with a motion by the seat's attorney, Panagiotis Maniatis.
At the start of the investigation into the Mati fire, the public prosecutor made a general statement about the case, stressing that we are coming to the end of a marathon process on a major event that defines the history of our country.
The Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the period before and after 23.7.2018 has to be discussed in several fire safety matters. “This is the second biggest tragedy in terms of the number of victims in the world, dozens died, injured and burned in just 2.5 hours. On July 23, 2018, in a very short period of time, we lost more than 100 people,” emphasized the public prosecutor.
He began to examine the strands of the accusations, beginning with the accusations of Tersoudis, Mataipoulos, and Fosteris. Aerial surveillance. “Aerial surveillance was done as demonstrated by the process. I consider it a result as a result Performed and closedOn this part of the indictment, the prosecutor said the charge should be dismissed.
The lawyer insisted on the same Non-displacement of aircraftRegarding Matthaiopoulos, Fostieris and Terzoudis, the defendants pointed out no wrongdoing in this regard.
Also, the prosecutor then mentioned all the moves to use aerial routes about Derzoudis, Matthiopoulos and Fosteris.
The prosecuting officer mentioned the order to switch the helicopter to motor oil. “Surveillance instructions spoke of a creeping and controlled fire near the motor oil facilities. At the same time it was revealed that the tow had tension, speed and danger. He would threaten people and property, this information reached ESKE. As for aerial means, the most suitable choice was helicopters. There was only one aircraft in the tow was the only aircraft operating, ESCE knew. Being the only aircraft on tow, ESCE knew it had to pull out to resupply. Over the past hour, the fire began to move more menacingly toward the courthouse. But was additional reinforcement needed? Conflicting versions were brought to trial, ” said the lawyer.
More importantly, however, the prosecuting officer pointed out, the ground commander did not see and did not determine that the fire had entered. RefineryHe did not seek the help of a medium.
“I prefer the version given by the person most responsible. Two calls came from Fosteris The owner of the refinery, the prominent businessman asks him for an urgent air route. But the businessman was not there, he changed the picture from his employees. However, he reportedly told him that the fire had entered the premises. But what should his correct reaction be? He must confirm the information he has received.
Those who are not official agents often request air routes, Mr. Maniadis noted.
“Unfortunately, it often happens that various prominent and well-known actors return to ESKE to put out fires in their areas of interest. A big businessman should not hear it and not confirm it. It is an irregular and functionally wrong decision. Who is responsible for this decision? Ioannis Fostieris, then commander of ESKE, but PS Sotiris Terzoudis, the then president of the Prosecutor's Office, said the act was proven only against Fostieris and Terzoudis.
Additionally, referring to the chinooks, the attorney said, “Only 2 were found at McCarron Airport, but there was an error and an oversight in that one request was delayed and the other was not made. The responsibility rests with the commander of ESKE.”
. “Professional creator. Subtly charming web advocate. Unapologetic problem solver. Devoted student.”