On Wednesday, the defense attorneys in the case against the two monks of the Avvakum Monastery focused on pointing out contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witness, Father V. in the case against the two monks of the Avvakum Monastery, on Wednesday, the defense attorneys for the two defendants during the cross-examination of the witness before the three-judge Criminal Court, presenting, among other things, photographs and videos of life at the monastery and in the confectionery workshop.
The defense attorney for the first defendant argued that the witness was lying, continuing the cross-examination in the same vein as last Monday, while the defense attorney for the second defendant subsequently presented videos and photographs as evidence, arguing that these contradict the testimony regarding the witness’s alleged oppression and unequal treatment by his client.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The cross-examination of the witness by the defense attorney for the second defendant is expected to continue and, according to the attorney himself, it will be extensive, given the number of photographs and videos he intends to present to the court and the witness as part of these proceedings. The Court, having granted a motion for adjournment filed by the defense due to an unforeseen absence, scheduled the continuation of the proceedings for September 23 and 28 at 9:30 a.m.
During today’s proceedings, the attorney for the first defendant, Kostis Efstathiou, after asking the witness whether he himself had seen that receipts for the sale of products were not being issued, as he had stated in his testimony in March 2024, argued that there were receipt books at the Monastery and that receipts were being issued.
The witness replied that he himself had not seen receipts issued during the sale of products. When asked whether he was constantly at the Monastery so that he could observe all transactions, or whether he spent more time in the pastry shop, he said that on Sundays, because of the Divine Liturgy, he was in the reception area, reiterating that at that time—when there were more visitors, as he said—he did not see any receipts being issued, noting that there was no cash register either. He also stated that he was unaware of the existence of receipt books.
Mr. Efstathiou then asked the witness about the process of issuing his ID card, pointing out that he had filed a report of a lost ID, whereas the witness had stated that his ID card was issued after the expiration of the one he had held before becoming a cleric. The witness said that upon his arrival at the Monastery, he had handed over his personal documents and that he had approached Fr. Porphyrios, as the expiration date of his identity card was approaching and he would need to travel, and that he was then told to apply for a new one by filing a lost document report.
The defense suggested to the witness that he was lying and that the ID card was not set to expire until 2025, so it did not make sense for him to claim that the document was about to expire. The witness replied that the result was the same, refuting the allegation that he was lying. He noted once again that the first defendant had been keeping his personal documents anyway, from the time of his arrival at the Monastery onward.
Mr. Efstathiou then presented the witness’s pay stub, to which his photograph was attached. The witness, when asked whether this was the same photograph that appeared on his ID card, maintained that it could not be that photograph and that the document was forged. He also stated that he did not know how that photograph came to be in the document in question.
The defense attorney for the second defendant, Efstathios Efstathiou, continuing his cross-examination of the witness, presented to the Court an external digital storage device containing a total of 16 multimedia files, five videos and 11 photographs, which was submitted as evidence. During cross-examination, the defense argued that the witness had not been treated differently from other members of the fraternity, a claim with which the witness disagreed.
In the first video shown by the defense, which was filmed at the pastry shop in Aska—as confirmed by the witness— during the Christmas season, with Christmas carols playing in the background, three monks and four women are seen making sweets. In fact, when asked by the defense, the witness pointed out three professional ovens inside the workshop in the video.
When asked whether he was required to work 24-hour shifts in that workshop, as he had testified, the witness replied that this was the facility and that work continued until the early morning hours.
Subsequently, the defense presented a photograph showing the witness along with two other members of the Monastery in Jerusalem on October 28, 2022, a time during which the witness confirmed that a pilgrimage had taken place. Following a prompt from the defense, the witness stated that he had a camera with him, which can be seen in the photograph in question, adding that he had it with him with the blessing he had received from the first defendant, after he asked to have something to capture memories, since he did not have a cell phone—something that other monks did have, as he said.
When asked what the first defendant’s reaction was to his request to have a camera, the witness replied that it was positive, adding, however, that this did not negate his testimony that he had been subjected to oppression, noting that other monks had phones, computers, or other electronic devices. He also added that this did not constitute equal treatment of all members of the brotherhood, later stating that he had acquired the camera after being ordained a monk and that his mother had given it to him.
In the next photograph presented by the defense, the witness appears with another monk building a snowman, and he describes that “they were playing in the snow” in that snapshot.
When asked by Mr. Efstathios whether they needed to receive a blessing to play in the snow—prompted by his earlier statement during cross-examination that he did nothing without first receiving a blessing, the witness said that a blessing was not required for everything, clarifying, however, that he would ask for a blessing before eating or drinking coffee.
In response to the defense’s observation that conditions at the monastery did not seem to be so strict, the witness said that, after building the snowman, he went with the fellow monk to the workshop, noting in particular that the ground was icy due to the weather conditions and that was why they were slipping.
Furthermore, the defense referred to a fainting episode experienced by the witness and other monks, asking him the reason for their fainting. The witness replied that it was due to excessive fatigue from working in the workshop, as well as a gas leak. When asked by the defense about the medical diagnosis, he replied that it was due to carbon dioxide inhalation.
The defense pointed out to the witness that in his explanation, he was selecting only those details that supported his account, as mentioned, but the witness rejected this, responding that fatigue also played a role, in addition to the gas leak.
He also claimed that a similar fainting episode had occurred at the monastery during a service, which was being broadcast live via video, as he said, although he noted that he does not have the video himself to present to the court.
READ ALSO: Doctor with PIS credentials at the suspect center in Larnaca: Lawyer instructed to investigate the case | AlphaNews
Source: CNA
