The trial of Petros Filippidis for attempted rape charges continues, with the actor absent from the prosecution’s closing arguments proceedings.
As stated upon arriving at the Athens Court of Appeals, his lawyer Michalis Dimitrakopoulos: “There is no health issue with Mr. Filippidis. He respects the institutional role of the lawyers supporting the prosecution, but for him it is tremendous torture to hear all these lies against him. This is the reason he is not present. No other reason. His health is perfectly fine”.
Filippidis absent from prosecution closing arguments – the reason why
Subsequently, when asked about the prosecutor’s two acquittal recommendations, Mr. Dimitrakopoulos noted that “it is very positive, because this particular prosecutor has over 25 years of experience in criminal courts, much greater experience than regular judges, who also deal with other branches of law, such as property law, inheritance law and other branches. With his experience, he maintained strong doubts that Petros Filippidis committed these two attempted rapes. And everyone should know that if even the slightest doubt exists according to the law, the defendant should be acquitted. Because, I repeat, it is a principle and value of criminal law that it is preferable to let ten guilty people go free rather than convict one innocent person. This is what legal civilization means”.
Concluding, Petros Filippidis’ lawyer said: “The evidence in the case file was analyzed very well by the prosecutor in both cases. There are no objective findings that substantiate the charges against Mr. Filippidis. I say it again. These are two narratives, two testimonies from the women who are making accusations, and these testimonies are repeated with many contradictions by friends and relatives. There is no objective evidence. One colleague said yesterday during arguments that the entire Greek society is waiting for the vindication of the #MeToo movement and that vindication will be the conviction of Mr. Filippidis. Such dilemmas are unacceptable. Such dilemmas don’t even happen in coffee shops. There are rules, there are rules in a trial. If these rules and evidence and the legal procedure that must be followed even in the specific and detailed reasoning, whether it is acquittal or conviction, if all this is destroyed in the name of a movement that wants people to be convicted only on accusation without criminal proceedings, if this happens, the rule of law collapses in our country, which does not decide emotionally, but based on evidence. My love to Andreas Mikroutsikos”.
