On Wednesday, the prosecution witness, Father B., maintained his testimony that he had suffered oppression and unequal treatment during his stay at the Holy Monastery of Saint Avvakum, rejecting the defense’s arguments that the two defendants’ behavior toward him was the same as that toward the other members of the brotherhood and that his allegations were formulated after his departure from the monasteryand following advice.
During the continuation of his cross-examination by the defense attorney for the second defendant, Eustathios Efstathiou, the witness stated that the behavior of the first defendant, Father Nektarios, had been oppressive from the very beginning of his stay at the monastery, while he claimed that the second defendant, Father Porphyrios, had also addressed him on numerous occasions using offensive language.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The defense also raised before the witness the issue of the election of Father Nektarios as abbot of the monastery, as well as the members of the abbot’s council, arguing that the witness’s vote is inconsistent with what he is now stating regarding the behavior of the two defendants.
The witness stated that prior to the vote, Father Nektarios had done some “groundwork” regarding who would be elected, adding that it was “a foregone conclusion” that he would be elected abbot. He agreed that he voted for both Father Nektarios and Fathers Porphyrios, Avvakum, and Timothy for the abbots’ council, noting, however, that he did so “upon being advised to do so.”
When asked whether his vote at that time contradicted his statements regarding the abbot’s oppressive behavior, the witness replied that “his behavior hadn’t changed at all, and the vote doesn’t mean anything,” explaining that he considered it expected that Father Nektarios would be elected abbot.
“Constant work, shouting, cursing, constantly swearing, constantly yelling,” said the witness, describing Father Nektarios’s behavior, which, he said, persisted throughout his entire stay at the monastery. He added that the problem was not the chores themselves, but the workload, noting that both defendants would tell him, among other things, “You’re useless; you’re an idiot.”
With regard specifically to Father Porphyrios, the witness stated that Father Porphyrios gave him instructions regarding the work in the pastry shop and that he often reprimanded him, using derogatory language.
Mr. Efstathiou pointed out to the witness that these incidents were not included in his initial statement to the police and that he began mentioning them later. The witness replied that in his initial statement, he had simply answered the police officer’s questions and that subsequently, once he was in a position to speak about specific incidents, he began to refer to the defendants’ conduct as well.
The defense further argued that the witness’s allegations arose after he visited the Metropolis of Tamassos and following exhortations. The witness rejected this, saying, “I completely disagree.”
The witness then stated that, immediately before leaving the monastery, he was summoned to the Metropolis of Tamassos, where, as he said, he was briefed on the findings regarding financial and moral scandals and shown videos from the monastery’s closed-circuit surveillance system.
As he reported, one video showed Father Avvakoum anointing the cross of Saint Porphyrios with myrrh, while the other recorded a scene of the witness’s confession to Father Nektarios. According to the witness, Father Nektarios appeared to fall into a “supposed trance” and to impersonate Saint Porphyrios, after which he fainted. The witness said he would ask him if he was all right, trying to revive him. After a while, Father Nektarios appeared to be perfectly fine, as the witness stated, concluding that “the so-called ecstasy was a charade.”
The witness said that this particular video was what made him realize that “I don’t belong with these people.” As he explained, until then he had believed that the obedience demanded of him by “Saint Porphyrios” was simply part of life at the monastery. Upon seeing the scene of “ecstasy” in the video, he realized, as he stated, that Father Nektarios was allegedly feigning ecstasy and posing as “Saint Porphyrios.” This realization, as he said, “was the last straw,” as it made him realize that he no longer wanted to remain at the monastery.
When asked when his “break” with Father Porphyrios occurred, the witness stated that he had harbored resentment toward the priest’s behavior throughout his entire stay at the monastery. “I couldn’t do anything concrete or meaningful while I was at the monastery to put a stop to this,” he said.
Subsequently, the defense attorney for the second defendant presented a series of photographs and videos from the witness’s time at the monastery, arguing that they demonstrated he was not treated differently from the other members of the brotherhood.
Among other things, photographs were presented of the witness’s trips with Father Porphyrios and other monks, snapshots from the pastry workshop, from meals and activities at the Monastery, as well as videos in which he appears working or participating in activities.
The witness identified most of the images, noting, among other things, that he had traveled to Jerusalem and Istanbul with other monks, while regarding a photo of a meal at a fast-food restaurant, he stated that Father Porphyrios had paid the bill.
He also referred to a video in which he appears to be playing with a soap bubble toy, saying that he had it with the blessing of Father Nektarios, but that this blessing was revoked after two weeks because, as he said, he had done something wrong.
In another video, an ice cream vendor is seen outside the monastery and monks are buying ice cream, with the witness stating that, as he recalls, Father Nektarios paid for it.
After the evidence was presented, the defense argued to the witness that the treatment he received was the same as that of the other monks.
“I completely disagree. You have just shown me 10 videos, each 10 seconds long, and on that basis you are judging the entire two-year period I spent at the monastery,” the witness replied, adding that some of the videos were intended for posting on the two defendants’ personal social media accounts. “I don’t think anyone wants to publicize the bad things. As soon as the curtains fall, the real show begins,” he said.
At another point in the cross-examination, the financial circumstances of the monks’ lives were also discussed. The witness agreed that the monastery covered expenses for food, electricity, water, clothing, vehicle maintenance, as well as travel, hotel, and meal expenses during trips.
When the defense pointed out to the witness that he had isolated his salary from the broader context of communal life, whereas in a previous hearing he had stated that Father Porphyrios took his salary, the witness replied that he did not know where his money ended up. “If I had that money now, I could go ahead with whatever I want to do in my life,” he added.
Furthermore, the defense suggested to the witness that the Monastery had spent €20,000 on him, to which the witness replied that he was unaware of this.
The trial will resume on September 28 at 10:30 a.m.
It should be noted that the case involves monks Nektarios and Porphyrios, who face, among other charges, conspiracy to defraud, forgery and the use of forged documents, theft from an agent, illegal possession of property, money laundering, obstruction of justice, and filing a false tax return.
Source: CNA
