The investigation into the death of Giorgos Mazonakis is now focusing on the lifting of communications secrecy, as the Judicial Council’s relevant decision is expected in the coming days.
The information obtained from the lift of confidentiality will provide the 32nd regular investigating judge with a precise timeline of the final hours before the singer collapsed at the clinic on Karneadou Street. Who contacted whom, who knew that Mazonakis was having a medical issue, when help was requested, and what was said before and after his transport—these are some of the critical questions expected to be answered.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Rubio calls a Greek-Turkish conflict over GSI “unthinkable”
Mazonakis Case: Rapid Developments – The Doctors’ Daughter Testifies
The lifting of confidentiality is particularly significant because the testimonies given so far do not align on all points. Phone records and digital evidence are expected to be compared with the accounts given by the two accused doctors, the clinic staff, and the sleep therapist.
“Naso, help me”
The sleep therapist’s testimony describes a series of communications with the doctor in the days leading up to the fatal treatment and, in particular, how Mazonakis was led to undergo it.
According to his account, he initially refused to take on the singer, as he was aware of his previous medical history and believed he required special monitoring. He even asked for the singer’s medical records, which, he says, were not provided to him. They finally met for the first time on September 7 at a restaurant in the northern suburbs.
G. Mazonakis arrived about 40 minutes later and initially spoke with the people who had accompanied him regarding his professional obligations. The hypnotherapist then asked to speak with him alone.
According to his testimony, during the conversation, Mazonakis referred to a lifestyle that, as he said, he wanted to change, and expressed his intention to undergo a process to rid his body of harmful substances.
The hypnotherapist claims that he suggested the singer go abroad, to Switzerland, a suggestion the singer ruled out due to his professional obligations. A discussion then ensued regarding the blood and plasma purification process. According to the testimony, Mazonakis said he had already heard about this specific treatment and knew that the doctor provided it.
During the same meeting, at 6:08 p.m., Mazonakis asked the hypnotherapist to call the doctor on a conference call.The question posed to her, according to the testimony, was whether this specific procedure was safe for him. The doctor reportedly answered in the affirmative and stated that she could help him, while the cost of the treatment was also discussed. At the same time, an appointment was reportedly scheduled for the following day. Shortly thereafter, the hypnotherapist and Mazonakis agreed to meet again on September 9 in Kifissia to discuss his medical history in greater detail.
In his testimony, the hypnotherapist describes the singer as being particularly suspicious at that time and notes that he expressed the belief that certain people were acting against him. He clarifies that he did not make any psychiatric diagnosis. At the end of the session, he claims, Mazonakis shook his hand, looked him in the eyes, and said: “Naso, help me.” That same evening, at 7:28 p.m., the doctor sent him, as he claims, the website for that specific therapy.
The hypnotherapist reports that he opened it without reading the content in detail. Shortly afterward, he contacted the doctor again. She reportedly told him that Mazonakis was not always consistent with his appointments, as he experienced mood swings, and she reportedly told him, in particular: “Don’t be surprised if he cancels the appointment tomorrow.”
The next morning, at 8:41 a.m., the doctor reportedly forwarded a message from Mazonakis to the hypnotherapist, in which he expressed concerns about the cost of the procedure and stated that he could not afford the specified amounts.According to the sleep therapist, the message read: “My dear, when we spoke, our group was in a hurry, and I didn’t understand what this is that I have to pay 6,000 or 3,000 for— I’ll see for myself, so let’s talk about what and how, but I’ll come if I’m supposed to do hydrotherapy. In any case, I’m not in a position to pay such amounts. Let’s talk about this today.”
The hypnotherapist replied: “Sure… here we go.” A little later, he texted the doctor: “Listen, tomorrow I’ll be waiting for him in Kifissia to corner him.” As he explains in his testimony, by the word “corner,” he meant that he wanted to insist that Mazonakis seriously discuss his options with him and follow through on what they had agreed upon.
From “Everything’s perfect” to “I’ve got you by the throat”
On the afternoon of September 8, at 7:23 p.m., the hypnotherapist sent the doctor a message: “Did Mazonakis come?” The reply he received, according to him, was: “Yes, he’s here.” A short time later, the doctor reportedly told him that she had managed to convince Mazonakis to proceed with the treatment, which was scheduled for noon on September 9, while the hypnotherapist had a scheduled appointment with him at 5:00 p.m. At 1:43 p.m. on September 9, the hypnotherapist contacted the doctor and asked if Mazonakis had arrived. The doctor replied that he had not arrived yet.
About an hour later, at 2:45 p.m., the doctor sent him a message: “Everything’s perfect.” According to the testimony, she also sent a photo of Mazonakis, who was shown with his eyes closed. The hypnotherapist replied with heart emojis, assuming, as he states, that the procedure was proceeding smoothly. In hindsight, however, he considers sending the photo inappropriate, since, as he says, he did not know why she had sent it to him.
At 4:51 p.m., he sent the doctor a message: “How’s it going?” He received no reply, and a minute later he called her. According to his testimony, the doctor told him that Mazonakis was not well, that his blood pressure had dropped, and that an ambulance had already been called.
The hypnotherapist asked her why she wasn’t accompanying him, and, as he claims, she replied that she had another client and ended the call. A text message exchange followed regarding the possibility that the drop in blood pressure was related to medication that, according to the hypnotherapist, Mazonakis had told him he was taking.
At 5:25 p.m., visibly concerned, he wrote: “What a mess we’ve gotten ourselves into…. Who’s with him?” The doctor’s reply was: “The ambulance service picked him up.” A little later, she reportedly told him, “I’ll go with Ilias in a bit.” The hypnotherapist replied, “Don’t delay. One of you needs to go right away.”
At 5:27 p.m., he sent another message: “Don’t let this get out of hand. Let me know if you want me to come.”
As he clarifies in his testimony, by that specific phrase he meant to protect Mazonakis’s privacy until his health condition became known. Shortly afterward, he learned of the singer’s death from the media. At 6:01 p.m., he sent the doctor a message: “Did you hear?”
She replied: “Yes, just now.” He reportedly responded: “I can’t believe it… I’m choking on it.” In his testimony, he maintains that this particular phrase was an expression of shock and personal guilt over what had happened, and not an admission that he bore any medical or other responsibility for the death.
Who spoke to whom
Once the confidentiality is lifted, it will become clear whether the communications mentioned by the hypnotherapist actually took place at the times he claims they did, how long they lasted, and whether there were other communications not included in his testimony. At the same time, it will be possible to document his communication with the doctor before the start of treatment, as well as during the critical moments following the deterioration of Mazonakis’s condition.
The lifting of the gag order will also answer the question of whether there were communications between the two doctors, the staff, and other individuals during the period before and after the collapse. The doctor who administered the treatment in question denies the charge and maintains that she acted in accordance with medical science. According to her defense, Mazonakis suffered a cardiac arrest at approximately 4:15 p.m., and the ambulance service (EKAV) was called at 4:21 p.m., prompting criticism regarding both the manner of transport and the ambulance service’s response time.
The second accused doctor maintains that he had no direct involvement in the medical procedure in question.
According to his defense, at the critical moment he was in his own office with a patient and not in the area where the plasmapheresis was taking place.
In fact, he cites an electronic referral for tests at 4:06 p.m., a detail he uses to prove where he was at that time. Her exact location during those critical minutes, however, is one of the points that will be cross-checked against the staff’s testimonies and, now, against the phone records.
The statements of the clinic’s employees constitute an important part of the case file, as they differ in certain respects. The 56-year-old nurse who testified before the investigating judge stated that on that day, two hemodialysis procedures were being performed simultaneously in different rooms. She claims that she was in an adjacent room, while the doctor was in the room with Mazonakis.
Of particular significance is her account regarding the administration of the anesthetic. She reportedly claimed that she was asked for the antidote and that she subsequently contacted an anesthesiologist, a fact that will also become clear once the investigation is concluded. At the same time, there have been conflicting accounts from employees regarding Mazonakis’s time of arrival and who was present at the scene during the critical moments.
The same witness justified the discrepancies in her two preliminary statements to the police on September 9 and 10 by claiming that: “The doctor told us to present a unified account.” The lifting of attorney-client privilege is expected to be one of the most important next steps in the investigation, precisely because it will allow for the verification of the accounts of those involved, not only in relation to one another but also in relation to the communications data.
The question is not just who spoke to whom. It is what each person knew, when they knew it, and what they did immediately afterward.
And this is where telephone communications can take on particular evidentiary value: to show whether the timing of the testimonies matches the actual sequence of events and whether there are communications that have not yet been reflected in the testimonies.
Source: iefimerida.gr
