The two doctors charged in connection with the death of Giorgos Mazonakis have been remanded in pre-trial custody following the conclusion of their testimonies before the 32nd examining magistrate, with the consent of the supervising prosecutor. The proceedings were lengthy and exhausting, lasting over 17 hours and concluding at 6:30 a.m. on Wednesday. The accused are being held in custody on charges of felony homicide with possible intent, by omission and in co-perpetration, following an upgraded indictment. This is an extremely serious criminal offense that carries a penalty of up to life imprisonment. According to reports, the indictment drawn up by the examining magistrate against them alleges that for 60 minutes they left the beloved singer without assistance, failing to provide the care they were obligated to give and taking none of the necessary steps to save his life.
Death of Giorgos Mazonakis: What the two defendants claimed
According to the same sources, during their testimonies the defendants argued that the call to EKAB was placed at 4:21 p.m. and that the ambulance arrived at 4:26 p.m. — one which, they claim, was not fully equipped, necessitating that the singer be transported on a stretcher while CPR was suspended, even though he had not yet been declared brain dead.
Sources indicate that the defendants claim Giorgos Mazonakis suffered the cardiac arrest at 4:15 p.m. and that they responded immediately. In support of their claim, they cite the testimonies of the patient and the receptionist, noting that the doctor’s last prescription on record was issued at 4:06 p.m. Regarding the alarms recorded by the plasmapheresis machine’s logging system, the 55-year-old defendant argues that they were triggered because the vein “was collapsing.”
When did the cardiac arrest occur?
Concerning the photographs and video of the well-known singer taken by the 55-year-old defendant, sources indicate she claims this was standard practice she applied to all of her patients. The photograph was sent to a third party whose identity, according to reports, has been disclosed to the investigating authorities. Sources also note that both defendants insist the medical equipment at the clinic was properly registered and documented — both in 2025 and 2026 — with photographs and invoices to support their claim.
