The case surrounding the death of the 41-year-old EKAV paramedic in Ano Syros is unfolding like a real-life thriller, with crucial pieces of the puzzle still missing. And as the investigation progresses, more and more questions arise about what exactly happened on the afternoon of July 23—but above all, why.

The ruling by the Syros Misdemeanor Court, which ordered the 41-year-old’s pretrial detention, highlights the contradictions the judges identified in his account, as well as the critical unanswered questions regarding the case, which initially appeared to be a burglary.

Why did she go to that specific house with her face covered? Why was she wearing surgical gloves and carrying a knife? And, most importantly, was there any connection between her and the people inside the house? The indictment does not provide answers to these questions.

However, it does provide an extremely detailed account of what happened from the moment the 41-year-old appeared outside the house with her face covered, until the moment when, about 70 meters away, she fell to the ground after receiving the fatal blow to her back. Above all, the Council explains why it was not convinced by the 41-year-old’s claim that the fatal blow had been inflicted inside the house.

SEE ALSO: Crete: Off-duty police officer injured while subduing a Dutch fugitive

The arrival of the 41-year-old woman

The court ruling provides a detailed reconstruction of the events. At 4:40 p.m., the 41-year-old returned to his home in Ano Syros. At 4:55 p.m., his wife also returned home. Seven minutes later, a person appeared who could not initially be identified. He was wearing a black T-shirt, black pants with two gray stripes on each leg, and black shoes with white soles.

He was carrying an Under Armour backpack, wearing blue disposable surgical gloves, had his head covered with a hood or scarf, and was wearing black sunglasses.

This person approached the entrance to the house and stood outside the door for 20 seconds, listening to the sounds coming from inside.

Then they rang the doorbell with their left hand. With that same hand, they took the backpack off their shoulders and placed it in the corner of the balcony. In his right hand, he held a knife over a white towel, with the silver blade sticking out, while in his left hand he held a black trash bag.

Face to Face with Knives

At 5:02 p.m. on February 17, the 41-year-old man’s wife opened the door, and the unknown individual forcibly entered the residence. That is where the first attack took place. The individual brandished a 30-centimeter knife at the woman, pressing it against her abdomen and causing a minor scrape. The woman began to scream, backed away, and tried to push the intruder away with her hands.

The man then turned toward the 41-year-old, who, according to the indictment, was sitting at the kitchen table with his back to the sink. The defendant stood up, took a step to the left toward the refrigerator, and grabbed a second knife from the table with his right hand— green in color, with a blade length of 12.5 centimeters.

For a few seconds, the two stood facing each other, each holding a knife. The unknown individual thrust his knife toward the 41-year-old, but then, in response to the man’s reaction, began to back away and eventually fled.

The Chase

From this point on, however, the case takes a different turn, according to the judges’ assessment. The ruling states that the defendant, seeing the intruder retreat and taking into account the intruder’s smaller build, “gained courage.” He then, holding the green knife in his right hand, followed the individual as he exited the house.

At 5:03 p.m., the unknown individual exits the residence, quickly picks up the black backpack from the floor, and rushes down the stairs. Immediately afterward, the 41-year-old also exits, holding a wooden chair and clutching the green knife in his right hand. He shouts something unintelligible and throws the chair at the person who is walking away.

At this point, according to the judges, the defendant could now tell from the person’s movements that it was a woman. Nevertheless, he decided to follow her. Of particular significance is the wording used in the ruling, stating that the 41-year-old was motivated by “a desire to retaliate for the insult suffered by himself and his wife.”

In simple terms, the judges found that, once the woman had left the house and was walking away, the 41-year-old did not limit himself to defusing the danger but chose to pursue her.

The Fatal Stab

The chase continued through the alleys of Ano Syros. The woman was moving quickly, and the 41-year-old man was following her. Along the way, according to the court’s description, the defendant picked up a plastic flowerpot and hurled it at the 41-year-old woman.

The flowerpot struck her, causing the woman to stumble and slow down. This allowed the 41-year-old to approach her. And it is at this very point that, according to the version of events adopted by the Council, the decisive blow was struck.

The defendant approached the 41-year-old woman and struck her with the knife he was holding in his right hand, wounding her in the posterior thoracic region, between the spine and the right shoulder blade. After being struck, the 41-year-old lost her balance.

According to the indictment, the spot where she collapsed was approximately 70 meters from the defendant’s residence. The 41-year-old immobilized her with a headlock, reportedly attempting to disarm her. At the same time, he threw the knife he was holding to the ground.

Shortly thereafter, the witness A.K. arrived at the scene, who helped the 41-year-old and took the knife from the person, who up to that point still had her face covered. This was followed by the removal of the scarf from her face. It was then revealed that she was Evangelia Zagorianou, the 41-year-old EKAΒ paramedic.

Shortly afterward, she lost consciousness. The 41-year-old died from chest injuries, and the police officers who were called to the scene found her lying face up on Agios Georgios Street, at the intersection with Velissariou-Ferri Street in Ano Syros, with a fatal wound to her back.

He failed to convince the judges

One of the most significant points in the verdict concerns the defendant’s claim regarding when and where the fatal wound was inflicted. The 41-year-old claimed that he had inflicted the wound on the 41-year-old woman inside the house, holding the knife in his left hand. The Court, however, finds this version of events unconvincing. It explains in detail why. The first piece of evidence examined is the absence of blood.

No bloodstains were found inside the house. The same applies to the entire 70-meter stretch from the residence to the spot where the 41-year-old woman was ultimately found lying on the ground. In the Council’s view, this evidence is inconsistent with the claim that the injury had already been inflicted inside the house and that the woman then managed, while injured, to cover that distance.

However, the Court also examines a second aspect of the 41-year-old’s account: the claim that, inside the house, he was holding the knife in his left hand. The Court’s ruling on this point is clear.

The judges consider it “contrary to common sense” that the defendant would have held the knife in his left hand and then appeared in the video footage, a few seconds after leaving the house, holding the knife in his right hand along with the chair he had picked up.”

The ruling also notes that in his defense, the 41-year-old stated that even after throwing the flowerpot, he continued to hold the knife with his left hand. This is a detail that the judges contrast with what, in their judgment, emerges from the evidence.

The Contradictions

The judges did not limit themselves solely to the issue of which hand he was holding the knife with. The ruling notes that the defendant had initially stated in his reenactment report that he did not remember which hand he used to bring the knife into the house. At the same time, his wife stated in her testimony that she did not see exactly when the blow was struck and that it was the 41-year-old who told her that he had struck the woman.

The Council is also taking into account the video and photographic evidence. As it notes, there is no indication that the 41-year-old, at the moment she was leaving the residence, had an obvious tear in her clothing at the spot where the injury to her posterior thoracic region was later identified.

According to the judges, this specific piece of evidence adds to the chain of evidence that weakens the theory that the fatal blow was inflicted before the woman left the house.

After evaluating the above evidence, the Council concludes that there is “strong evidence of the defendant’s guilt regarding the act attributed to him.” There was, however, the question of whether the 41-year-old should remain free on bail until his trial or whether he should be remanded in custody. The case reached the Council because there was a disagreement between the prosecutor and the investigating judge.

What the Misdemeanor Council’s ruling says

The Council was therefore called upon to provide the final ruling. The charge under consideration concerns fatal bodily injury in the aggravated form provided for by the Penal Code. This is a felony punishable by imprisonment for a term of 5 to 20 years. In reaching their decision, the judges consider not only the final outcome but the entire sequence of events.

This transition from what happened inside the house to what followed outside it, dozens of meters away, is one of the most decisive elements of the ruling. For the judges, this was not an isolated, momentary incident that concluded within the residence. The pursuit continued after the 41-year-old woman had already fled, until the point where she finally collapsed.

Based on this reconstruction of the events, the judges concluded that the conditions for the 41-year-old’s pretrial detention were met, putting an end to the previous disagreement.

According to the lawyer for the victim’s family, Marizana Kikiris, it was the defendant’s violent, aggressive, and antisocial behavior that led to the decision to remand him in custody, as it was determined that there is a risk he might commit further criminal acts.

Ms. Kikiris maintains that all the evidence in the case file points in this direction, while the family believes this was a case of intentional homicide and expects the charges to be amended accordingly. Meanwhile, results are expected from the lifting of telephone call secrecy, which may add new, crucial evidence to the investigation into the case.

SOURCE: Proto Thema