Amid allegations of “many lies,” questions about his credibility, and references to a sexual harassment case he is facing himself, the cross-examination of the prosecution witness, Father V., by defense attorney Efstathios Efstathiou, in the context of the trial regarding the case of the Holy Monastery of Saint Abba Kom.

During the hearing, Mr. Efstathiou suggested to the witness that, in an effort to conceal information concerning himself, he had given false testimony, referring to “many lies” which, he claimed, had been told before the Court.

The confrontation reached its peak when the defense attorney referred to a sexual harassment case which, as he stated, Father V. is facing before the District Court.

The defense attorney argued that the witness attempted to conceal this particular case and linked the issue to the witness’s credibility.

Father V. responded by pointing out that this is an allegation he is facing and not a proven fact, and added that the issues raised will be decided by the court.

At another point in the cross-examination, the witness stated that the allegations and evidence presented against him are intended, in his view, to discredit him and influence his testimony.

“Whatever I have to say will be determined by the Court,” Father V. said, adding that the evidence submitted against him is intended to discredit him.

Mr. Efstathiou pressed the witness, asking him to explain how these specific issues relate to the case, while referring back to points included in the indictment.

The Greeting Card and the 14-Year-Old

In the same context, Mr. Efstathiou referred to a greeting card which, according to the testimony, had been given by Father V. to a 14-year-old girl.

The witness confirmed that he remembered the card and stated that it was a birthday greeting card on which a wish had been written.

The defense attorney asked the witness to explain the significance of this particular card in relation to the facts of the case, asking whether its content or the circumstances under which it was given were relevant to the case.

Father V. replied that he handles cases and that the relevant allegations should be adjudicated within the context of the proceedings pending before the courts.

The documents, the signatures, and M.P.

Previously, Mr. Efstathiou had questioned the witness regarding documents that had been presented to him during his police interview.

Father V. confirmed that he had been shown a small handwritten piece of paper on which he recognized the signature “Rev. Var.” as his own.

Furthermore, according to the evidence presented before the Court, the witness had identified two signatures on an A4 sheet as his own, while other signatures were attributed to M.P.

When asked who M.P. was, the witness stated that he was “a child” who helped out at the monastery along with his mother.

Mr. Efstathiou then referred to G.P., aged 14, who, according to the testimony, handed over documents to the police. The witness confirmed that she is M.P.’s sister.

As he explained, M.P. and his sister were at the monastery every day last summer, working in the workshop and participating in other activities, where they volunteered.

The defense attorney asked the witness why G.P. handed over those specific documents to the police officer.

The witness replied that, following the complaint that had been filed and since the family was aware that there was an issue of forgery, it was possible to request samples of M.P.’s signature.

Mr. Efstathiou questioned the logic and relevance of this explanation, raising questions about how the documents and signatures came to be.

The Monastery or Nektarios?

Much of today’s cross-examination, moreover, concerned Father V.’s references to the “Monastery” and Archimandrite Nektarios.

Mr. Efstathiou asked the witness to clarify whether, when referring to expenses incurred on his own behalf, he meant Archimandrite Nektarios’s personal expenses or expenses of the Monastery.

The witness initially stated that it most likely referred to Father Nektarios, clarifying subsequently that the items purchased were not personal gifts, but rather necessities for a monk or deacon, which the Monastery was obligated to provide.

Mr. Efstathiou insisted that, since the expenses were paid by Nektarios and the witness benefited personally, these were expenditures or “gifts” from Nektarios to him.

Father V. disagreed with this interpretation, explaining that the Abbot acted as the intermediary through whom the purchases were made on behalf of the Monastery.

“When I say ‘the Monastery,’ I mean Nektarios,” the witness explained, clarifying that he turned to the Abbot because the Abbot managed the Monastery’s funds.

At another point, the witness stated that, if he needed something, he would turn to the one “who had the money”—that is, Father Nektarios—but clarified that the money belonged to the Monastery.

Mr. Efstathiou insisted that the monastery is not Father Nektarios and asked the witness to distinguish between the two.

Father V. replied that the Monastery constitutes the whole and that Nektarios, as Abbot, was the person who practically managed its funds.

The liturgical vestments and sashes

The cross-examination also covered the witness’s statements regarding liturgical items purchased for him, including three new sashes, a cope, and a hood, as well as shoes, clothing, and vestments.

Mr. Efstathiou argued that these items had been purchased for the witness and asked him why Archimandrite Nektarios would have had to buy them for him.

Father V. replied that these were ecclesiastical items necessary for his ministry at the Monastery and that, in practice, Nektarios made the purchases using the Monastery’s funds.

The witness further stated that several of the vestments he used had not been purchased specifically for him, but had been at the monastery for several years and had been used by other priests.

As he said, he had used, among other things, vestments belonging to another priest that had been at the monastery for about 20 years, as well as vestments that had been used by other deacons.

The Monastery’s Financial Management

Mr. Efstathiou returned several times to the issue of who handled the monastery’s funds and who made the purchases.

The witness explained that, although in his testimony he used the term “Nektarios,” in practice he meant the Monastery, since the Abbot was the person to whom the monks turned for their needs and who managed the funds.

The defense attorney, however, insisted on distinguishing between the Monastery as a legal or ecclesiastical entity and the Abbot as a natural person, asking the witness questions about who actually incurred the specific expenses.

The proceedings were adjourned, with Mr. Efstathiou stating that he would return to a specific aspect of the case on Wednesday, as, he said, additional evidence is needed.

The hearing will resume on Wednesday before the Nicosia Criminal Court at 10:00 a.m.

Source: CNA