In the chapter on personal responsibility for the tragedy in St. Eye continued today, Thursday, on the second day of his testimony in court in the case, prosecutor Dimitris Liotsos, an expert witness of the prosecutor’s office on the reasons for the hundreds of graves left after the fire in East Attica in the second half of July 23, 2018.

The expert, answering the questions of the chairman, gave evidence about the persons who were supposed to mobilize the fire department on the day in question, as well as the day before, as well as about timely coordination with the Air Force and the Coast. Guardian to watch over Attica.

As Mr. Liotsos said that day and after the fire at Kineta, the fire department should have been put on alert and the general alert order should have been issued to all forces in Attica from noon, not after the fire had surrounded Mati. The witness reiterated that, given the forecast for fire number four on the danger scale, aerial surveillance should have been ordered from the previous day.

For this serious oversight, the witness answered the president’s question that the then commander of the Unified Operational Coordination Center (ESKE) was responsible for aerial reconnaissance. He also explained the whole procedure applied in such cases, saying that the request for aerial surveillance is sent by ESKE to the General Aviation Headquarters either the day before for the next day or before 8 am of the same day. The witness clarified from a previous meeting when his testimony began that the request, critical to the development of events, was not sent in time and that it was finally sent at 9:59 am on July 23, 2018. According to him, the request was also sent to the Coast Guard, but the Cessna-type aircraft he had could not fly due to weather conditions. Mr. Liotsos reiterated that prior to this situation, GEA contacted a private flying club that “picked up” the plane after 2pm.

The President: With regard to the aerial surveillance, which you say did not take place, which of the defendants should have given the order?

D. Liotsios: Since the danger level is 4, the order should have been given to ESKE in the Air Force either the day before or the day after tomorrow by 8 am.

Chairman: Which of the defendants is responsible?

D. Liotsios: ESKE commander.

The witness indicated that “the ESCO commander has a general order, but he does not act of his own free will. He must obtain permission from the natural guide. He must have told her.”

The witness stressed, giving yet another reference to the omissions, that “since the forecast was for temperatures above 38 degrees and winds of 6 Beaufort, care should be taken to relocate the aircraft.” He also cited forces that were available that day, stating that 56 Air Force aircraft were available throughout the country and that 15 were available for Attica, of which 5 were seaplanes. He also added that “exclusively for use in the air was Pezetel with a capacity of one ton of water. To use them, there must be a request from ESKE to GEA.”

The Expert received a number of questions from the President, who asked for clarification on the procedure, as well as the hierarchy followed in making important decisions.

President: Whom (ESKE) did you have to consult about the reconnaissance aircraft?

D. Liotsios: Responsibility for the request is under the control of the Deputy Chief of Operations.

Chairman: The deputy commander was supposed to give the order?

D. Liotsios: He could have done it himself. The deputy leader can talk to ESKE and say “it happened”.

President: Chief?

D. Liotsios: The chief must be aware that all planned actions have been taken.

President: Does the leader have independent obligations?

D. Liotsios: He has all the responsibility for the fire department. Everyone should tell him.

President: On 07/23/18, was aerial surveillance carried out in Attica?

D. Liotsios: So it was, but by planes of a private flying club. Because it was too late to send the ESKE request. Instead of 8.00 the newspaper arrived at 9.59. I don’t know why there was this delay.

President: Can Pezetel put out the fire in Gerania?

D. Liotsios: He could calm her down. Fires are extinguished by ground means. There were chances that he would be suppressed. Thus, we will win the first twenty minutes, which are decisive. The first shot could buy time. Before launching Kineta, he may have run Pezetel. The rest could also be used, but for reasons of economy of effort, they are not used, because. they can be used to extinguish forest fires.

President: From the Coast Guard, was there an opportunity by air?

D. Liotsios: There is a Cessna, just for observation. If requested, it could be used. ESKE made an application in the morning, but it did not take off due to weather conditions. When the request was received at 0959 hours, the Air Force was unable to respond and therefore contacted the private flying club, which accepted the request. At 14.04 a light aircraft took off. His second flight at 16.16 is not specified. The second flight is not listed in the handwritten flight log, only in the aviation document.

President: Private flying club, under whose authority shall we meet?

D. Liotsios: At ESKE.

The expert explained that during the second flight of the flying club aircraft at 16:16 there was no fire at the Dau Pentelis site yet. The fire chief determined the start of the fire to be around 4:30 p.m., and the first report to the fire brigade was made at 4:41 p.m.

According to a fire officer who reviewed all the data recorded on the fatal fire, a general alarm order was given to the fire brigade on the afternoon of July 23 and after the fire from Dau Pentelis now descended on Mati and Neos. Wooja. As Mr. Liotsos said, “it was an ineffective general alert”, and he explained that “at 13:30 a general alarm order should have been issued, since the evacuation of citizens in Kinete began … At 17:30 in the afternoon there was an order was given for general alarm … In less than an hour no one will have time to be at his service. At 7 o’clock the fire had already reached the sea. The services of Attica were to be on alert and all vehicles were to be guarded.”

Before the second part of the expert testimony began in the morning, the defense filed an objection to the capacity in which Mr. Liotsos testifies, demanding that he not develop his thoughts and judgments in court, but only answer questions. At the same time, they asked not to accept his testimony until that moment and to make a court order to exclude them from the protocols. At the heart of the issue raised by the defendants at the previous hearing is that the prosecutor “took the oath of an expert, not a witness,” according to one of the lawyers. The lawyers stated that Mr. Liotsos could not read his notes, which were not in the case file, but only consulted them.

The position of lawyers representing 21 defendants provoked a strong reaction from lawyers for the victims, who asked that the defense motion be dismissed, emphasizing that the defendant is “the most important witness in the trial.” They also indicated that Mr. Liotsos had shown to the investigator that he had received threats, but also that his car had been sabotaged because of his expertise. “If they did not like the expert’s conclusion, they could insult him and demand the expulsion of Mr. Levsiu. They will come today, after he testified 37 times as a witness during interrogation, to say that he is not a witness … ”said one of the lawyers.

The prosecutor requested that the defense objection be dismissed, stating that both qualities, expert and witness, could coexist. He also asked, for special reasons, he said, that the court allow the appellant to review his notes without reading them.

As he said to thunderous applause from the victims’ relatives, “It is recognized that what was given in the testimony was written down and should not be removed from the record … Mr. Liotios can refer to the notes, not read”, and asked the court allow witness for special reasons the use of notes.

There was no shortage of tension in the courtroom when the defense attorney, referring to the “football conditions” in the courtroom, called on the victims’ relatives to leave for comment. Some in the hall shouted “shame, you do not respect the dead” when the lawyer said that no one “respects the accused”.

In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that it would accept the interrogation of Mr. Liotsos both as a witness and as an expert witness, allowing him to use but not read his notes.

^{Source: RES-IPE}