Investigators are focusing on the critical minutes between the moment the 4-year-old boy wandered away from his family and the moment he was found unresponsive in the swimming pool at a beach bar in Pounta, Paros. Authorities are working to reconstruct a minute-by-minute timeline of what happened shortly after 3:00 p.m. on Saturday. Under scrutiny are the security camera footage, lifeguard coverage, the whereabouts and movements of staff at the time of the incident, as well as the pool’s operating licenses and safety specifications.
The central question of the investigation is who was responsible for supervising the pool at that moment, and above all, why the child was not noticed sooner. Particularly significant is the fact that the person who ultimately dove into the pool and pulled the boy out was the establishment’s bartender — not an employee performing dedicated lifeguard duties.
At the same time, the family and the business owner are offering conflicting accounts of the pool’s operating conditions and supervision arrangements. Authorities are continuing their on-site inspections and checks to determine whether the required licenses, operating rules, and safety standards were being observed.
Paros: What happened before the child was found in the pool — where the investigation is focused
According to information gathered so far, the family had been in the establishment’s dining area, near the pool. A staff member who spoke to STAR television said the parents had been eating at the lower-level restaurant, and suggested the child wandered off without anyone noticing. “The family were eating at the lower restaurant, and it’s believed the little boy slipped away behind their backs without them realizing — in those few minutes, five or ten minutes that went by, because they had ordered food and the plates were still half full. They didn’t even have time to finish their meal,” the employee said.
The father, for his part, maintains that the child was only out of his sight for a split second. “The little one went to the pool because it was right there. I was talking, he slipped out of my sight for a second and fell in. The bartender was the first one there, and we all ran over,” he said.
The security camera footage from the business is expected to play a decisive role in the investigation. The father maintains that the footage will prove the family was not at the beach, as had initially been reported, but approximately ten meters from the pool. “There are cameras at the spot that show we weren’t at the sea — the child was at the pool. We were about ten meters away, it was also a dining area,” he stated.
Authorities are expected to examine the footage not only to trace the child’s path to the pool, but also to determine how long he remained in the water, where staff and the business owner were at the time, who had a visual line of sight to the pool, and when it became apparent that something had gone wrong.
The bartender dove in and pulled the 4-year-old from the pool
According to information about the circumstances of the accident, two women who were on the premises are believed to have been the first to spot the child in the water. The beach bar’s bartender immediately sprang into action, diving into the pool and pulling the boy out.
The father described the harrowing moments that followed: “He jumps in, gets my baby out, my daughter is screaming ‘Dad, Dad, the little one’s in the pool.’ I ran over as fast as I could and performed CPR, I gave him the kiss of life. We were screaming, crying, wailing.”
According to the father, the bartender told him: “Mate, I couldn’t do anything — I saw him at the last second.” This statement is yet another detail that makes establishing the precise length of time the child was in the water before being spotted critically important.
Resuscitation efforts began immediately after the boy was pulled from the pool. According to the latest information, a doctor happened to be on the premises and assisted until emergency services arrived.
The father described how efforts continued during the transfer to the local health center. “We were rushing inside the ambulance, and by the time we reached the health center — within about 40 minutes — there was a female doctor and a man who kept doing compressions and giving him oxygen,” he said. Despite the efforts made both during the transfer and at the health center, the child did not recover and was pronounced dead.
The father’s accusations over lifeguard supervision
One of the most critical aspects of the investigation concerns lifeguard coverage of the pool and the official capacity of the person designated to supervise it. The owner’s side, through his lawyer Haris Ambrazis, maintains that the business owner himself was performing lifeguard duties and was overseeing both the pool and the surrounding area.
The child’s father, however, disputes that any meaningful, continuous supervision was in place. Describing the owner, he said: “The man who claims he’s the owner and says he’s also a lifeguard is a 68-year-old man. He was wearing a little cap and a shirt. He had an earpiece so he could say ‘guys, the person coming in — put them at that table over there.'”
According to the father, the owner “wasn’t doing his job,” and he argues that if someone had been continuously monitoring the pool, the tragedy could have been prevented. “If someone had been watching the pool, I wouldn’t be mourning my child…” he said.
An employee of the business did note, however, that the owner was in the pool’s pump room at the time of the incident — a detail that investigators are also expected to examine as part of their inquiry.
What the owner’s side is saying
The owner has expressed, through his legal defense, that he is devastated by the child’s death. His side points out that he has been running the business for 27 years without any similar incident ever occurring.
According to his lawyer, the owner placed particular importance on pool safety and had even prohibited diving. “He is always at his business — always. He makes every effort, he supervises, he is always on high alert,” said Mr. Ambrazis.
The defense also cited two signs in the pool area stating that children under 13 are not permitted to use the pool without an accompanying adult. The owner’s side has also noted that the accident occurred during an exceptionally busy period, when the establishment was receiving a very large number of customers.
Accusations over safety equipment
The father has further alleged that the beach bar lacked the necessary equipment to respond to an emergency. He claims the premises had “no defibrillator, no first aid kit, no safety measures,” and has stated his intention to pursue legal action.
The boy’s grandfather also made a scathing statement, attributing the tragedy directly to the absence of a lifeguard. “My grandson is gone because there was no lifeguard. With all the millions they turn over in the summer, with all those people around and all those staff working there, and no lifeguard — they deserve to be strung up in Syntagma Square,” he said.
The investigation is now focused on the pool’s operating licenses, required safety measures, lifeguard coverage, and the official credentials of the person designated as lifeguard. Inspections and checks are expected to be carried out to determine whether the pool was operating in full compliance with all required specifications and whether the necessary safety equipment was in place.
Significant answers are also expected from the forensic examination. Its findings will be assessed alongside witness testimonies and camera footage. Among other things, investigators will examine whether the child had eaten before the incident — a detail that will be evaluated by the relevant experts together with the full body of evidence.
Owner and parents released
The beach bar owner was taken before a prosecutor and subsequently released, as were the boy’s parents, after the required procedures were completed.
According to information available so far, the owner and the parents are facing charges of negligent homicide.
The preliminary investigation is ongoing, with the justice system called upon to clarify who bore responsibility for supervising the pool, whether the required lifeguard coverage was in place, and whether all prescribed safety measures had been taken that could have prevented the tragedy.
