Answers to what emerges in the case of a 19-year-old British woman found guilty of falsely accused of gang rape by Israelis in Ayia Napa last July are based on last week's Famagusta District Court ruling.
"F" secured the entire decision of the court, in which the testimonies are analyzed one by one, as well as the testimony given by the 19-year-old under oath. The court responded to all the allegations of the defense about an unfair trial, for violation of its rights, for not providing an interpreter or a psychologist, etc. and considered as unreliable the testimony of its expert, Marios Matsakis. The 70-page decision shows that everything that has been broadcast by the British media in recent days is essentially refuted, after they have been answered in detail through testimonies, while it is stated that everything was done in the presence of representatives of the British High Commission without any reaction. The matter is expected after the imposition of a sentence next Tuesday that it will now reach the Court of Appeals, where it will be finally clarified.
The district judge M. Papathanassiou, after analyzing all the testimonies that were expressed before him and after hearing the 19-year-old testify under oath, came to the conclusion: "Having watched the accused very carefully while giving her answers, the impression I got is not good. I have no doubt that the accused did not tell the truth and tried to mislead the court. In any case, the substantial contradictions in relation to the statements he made, the lack of logic, the convenient answers and the evasions were - I consider - characteristic elements that confirm the truth of the statement. I will also note here that part of her testimony could not be accepted anyway due to her non-submission to the prosecution for comment, which of course implies unreliability of the defense by not presenting clear positions from the beginning before the court ".
It is a finding of the court that from the description of the facts in her testimony but also in relation to her testimony, in relation to the factual testimony, substantial contradictions arise that show that the accused was not telling the truth. In her first complaint with the item. 6 describes a violent Sam (Israeli friend) from the beginning, who raped her and while she was crying and shouting, he ignored her. Ten days later, in the item. 2 (testimony dated 27/7), states that they went to the room, pushed her on the bed and Sam… gives a different description. In her testimony, of course, according to the court, she came up with a 3rd version, that is, that they started kissing and having consensual sex, but at the same time, in order not to appear to be lying since her previous reports were recorded, she also promoted the position. that Sam was violent from the beginning but could not describe it. Another admittedly very convenient answer, which in any case is refuted - I think - by the real testimony and the fact that the accused at 2:56:36 appears in a video having consensual sex with Sam without showing that she is bothered or that what is done is not against her will. She certainly has not escaped that at another point in her testimony during the interrogation she said, in contradiction - I think - with what she said in her testimony above, that the violence started when Sam told his friends to go out, something that -as noted- then tried unsuccessfully, as he did not persuade, to correct.
Elsewhere, the court in its decision deals with the 19-year-old's complaint that there was no interpreter when she testified and the Police found it difficult to understand her and found it difficult to understand them and that she was often asked to say something in different words. Although the latter is not objectionable, I note, however, that none of MK.1, 2 and 4 (police investigators) had been submitted and can not be accepted anyway. But the essence here, I believe, is, given that there was no interpreter, that the accused has given the Police 3 statements (documents 2, 6 and 8) that occupy a total of 8 typed pages and before the court has adopted the content of these deposits saying they are the truth. She did not complain to any of them about the translation and the fact that she came afterwards to point out the absence of an interpreter, without even explaining how this affected her or how she affected her defense, simply because it was convenient at a given time, only shows the unreliability of the accused and the defense in general.
As for the subject of her videotaping, the court notes that the fact that in any case she lied when at some point she stated that she finally realized that she was actually videotaped 2 days after she was arrested is refuted by her reference to the deposition of evidence. 6, that she remembers 2 people being videotaped, something that I parenthetically mention that is in line with the excuse she gave in the filing of the item. 13 because he made a false statement. It has not escaped, of course, that her reference to the submission of items is completely contradictory. 2 that the last time he was raped he does not know if anyone was videotaping. In conclusion, I reject the version presented in court by the accused as completely unreliable.
The court in another part of its decision stated that it accepts the content of the report of the State Chemist from urine and blood tests of the British woman. Despite the reservation during her testimony, the defense in the hearing process did not dispute the result, nor did the defendant deny that she used cocaine and in any case no one mentioned anything to overturn or question the result of the Chemistry.
THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT
The court accepted the forensic examination that took place on 17/07/19 by MK5, a medical examiner, in the presence of a gynecologist, where it was established based on the history and the findings that there was no rape or violence. However, based on her complaint and the testimonies she gave, the case was thoroughly investigated by the Police, a voluminous file was formed and arrest warrants were obtained for the persons accused by the accused of raping her. On 27/07/19, between the hours of 19: 15-23: 00, after being asked by the Police and before the Police proceeded with the registration of a case against the 7 persons who were in detention at the time, she gave an additional statement in order to clarify some issues that arose as a result of the investigation of the case and related to its alleged rape. In this testimony, too, the accused described her rape. When he gave this last testimony and after the chief investigator (MK4) evaluated it in relation to the study of the other testimony, suspicions arose in the latter that the accused was lying and decided to interrogate her. The defendant then admitted that she had lied and gave the evidence. 13 days 28/07/19, between the hours 01: 15-01: 29. More specifically, she states that she lied that she was raped on 17/07/19 and that the truth is that she was not raped and everything that happened in that apartment was with her consent. She also states that the reason she made the false testimony was because she realized that she was being videotaped having sex and she was embarrassed / ashamed. That is why he apologizes and says that he made a mistake. This is, in my view, the only case in which the accused has told the truth.
Findings for the four positions of the defense
With regard to the defense positions that are also affected by the British media, the court finds:
Police omissions and incorrect guidance regarding the real facts of the accused's complaint.
The investigator of the case adequately explained the circumstances under which the decision to interrogate the accused was made. His testimony has been evaluated by the Court and accepted, as the testimony of the accusing Authority was generally accepted. Based on these and having studied very carefully what the lawyers say in order to support their proposal, I respectfully state that their suggestion that the investigation of the complaint was led in the wrong direction and what they report in general do not find me in agreement. The relevant proposal is therefore rejected.
Exercising the right of the accused to a fair trial.
I consider that the suggestion is general and vague and the non-delivery of evidence has not been demonstrated to have adversely affected the defense in any way. In each case, however, the following is stated:
(a) The final report of the Judicial Laboratory, item 10, was actually given during the trial. But neither did the prosecuting authority possess it. In any case, the defense was given about two weeks, at her request, to study it.
(b) The report of the Institute of Neurology and Genetics item 18 was requested by MK4 and presented. The defense had it in its possession, studied it and its expert made references to it.
(c) The list of items in the rape case, items. 22, was requested by the defense and surrendered. If there was any evidence that was included in the list and would help to present the defense in this context, why was it not requested? Perhaps more, but I feel the need to say here that the Court did not have the rape case before it. Because many times there has been confusion in the present. "In short, no influence on the rights of the accused has been demonstrated on the basis of the above. And how was the defense based on the above surprising? And what else was not given to her to be affected? " the court wonders.
Violations of the rights of the accused as a victim of crime and rape.
As for the subject of the interpreter, it is clear through the evaluation of the testimony above that the accused had no problem with the translation. In any case, however, she was informed of all her rights (see the testimony of MK4). If they were not fully understood and understood, I repeat here that it is questionable how he made 3 statements, with the content of which he agrees. I also repeat what was said on the subject of translation with the psychologist.
Finally, regarding the fact that the investigating Authorities had an obligation under article 18 (4) of Law 14 (III) / 17 to continue the investigation of the complaint of the accused even if he made a confession based on item 13, I mention in principle that this article does not seem to support the suggestion. Beyond that, I mention in any case that the investigation of the case of the alleged rape based on the investigator has been completed and the most voluminous file is in the Attorney General. The investigator never mentioned that the investigation was stopped, while I refer to a relevant reference to the findings of the Court. In any case, based on item 13, the crime of the present resulted for the Police and the case was forwarded to the Court. Nor does this proposal have any basis and is also rejected.
Finally, it is noted that the investigator of the case, Marios Christou, had testified that the Welfare Office had been informed about the case and two officials came in who talked to her almost daily, a psychologist from the Republic was given to her for psychological support, and that the accused did not go. in the second session with the psychologist. When attempts were made to transfer her from the hotel where the incident took place to another location on 17/07, they found that she, through her insurance company, had arranged her transfer to another hotel and had been transferred, and they considered that the matter was closed.
The British woman's house with presidential grace
The 19-year-old British woman, who was found guilty of public harm that resulted, according to the Court, due to a false report of rape by twelve Israelis, will soon be at home with a presidential pardon.
According to information from "F", the President of the Republic has already decided that he will grant a pardon which will be announced after the decision of the Court if the decision provides for a prison sentence. The government claims that the pardon decision is not related to any pressure, although it took into account the young age, her personal circumstances and the sensitivity that was shown mainly inside Cyprus, in the first stage, but also outside Cyprus afterwards. It is also indicated that the government did not want to intervene in Justice, not even to the Attorney General, who explained the reasons why he did not exercise his right to suspend the criminal prosecution of the 19-year-old.
It is noted that although the facts and circumstances were completely different, a similar attitude was observed in 1999 when Israelis were arrested for espionage. At that time, the charges were different, but despite the pressure, the arrested were brought before a court and sentenced, to be released later with a pardon granted to them by the President of the Republic, Glafkos Clerides.
It is recalled that in the case of Britannida the judge noted that he did not get a good impression from the accused, who, according to the decision, did not tell the truth and tried to mislead the court. Besides, according to the Court, the 19-year-old fell into contradictions, while her testimony is characterized by a lack of logic.
However, both in Cyprus and in Britain, the position is expressed that the reversal of her initial complaint of rape was a product of pressure exerted in various ways.
One of the lawyers of 19-year-old Mrs. Nikoleta Charalambidou had stated that her client has expressed the desire to appeal to the Supreme Court or to the ECtHR against the decision of the District Court of Famagusta.
The sentence by the District Court of Famagusta will be announced next Tuesday, January 7 at 9:00 am and is expected with considerable interest, due to the dimensions of the case inside and outside Cyprus.
19-year-old appeals to the Prime Minister
The 19-year-old British woman, who is awaiting sentencing in Cyprus, has been appealed to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson "to bring her home", having been found guilty of public harm, due to a false report of rape.
"Every second of this martyrdom is a living nightmare. I'm 19 and all I want is to clear my name and come home to my family. I would say to the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister, who are both fathers, please support me, with your actions, not just with your words. Time is running out for me. "Please, please help", are the words of the 19-year-old as conveyed by the front page article of the British newspaper.
The mother of the convict has also made a statement in the newspaper, asking for the same active involvement of the British government with the mobilization for the extradition to Britain of the wife of the American diplomat who killed the young British Harry Dan in a car accident and then fled to the USA.
The mother of the young Brit also refers to the letter of two former Attorney Generals of Cyprus to the current Attorney General for the suspension of the criminal prosecution, saying that this move "says it all". She added that her daughter "was transformed from a victim into an accused, was chased by a system that seems desperate not to accept responsibility", describes the court as a "parody" and states that she has only a few expectations regarding the sentence that will be imposed by the judge.
Source: philenews