The “accused of” serial rape “, Dimitris Lignadis, through his defense attorney Alexis Kougia, denounces the” absolute invalidity “of the procedure, due to the criminal prosecution without his prior summons to explanations.
According to the content of the objection, which was submitted before the 19th investigator, although from February 11 Dimitris Lignadis asked to be summoned – at the stage of the preliminary examination – to provide explanations, however “unfortunately the prosecutor rejected my request without to call me for explanations and without a simple internet search to cross-check if the dates of various events and manifestations that refer to the testimonies of the two alleged victims (all are wrong) correspond to the truth, he prosecuted me for serial rape… With In this way, however, absolute invalidity was caused during the prosecution against me… “.
The accused turns directly against the interrogator, saying that: “There is no 'my contradiction' in the case file and 'therefore the abusive acceptance by the interrogator of the alleged perpetration of the prosecuted crimes is not due to the existence of serious evidence'. prejudice, in the unfavorable social and political climate for me and in the biased and one-sided over-projection of rumors by the media ''.
Also, in the case file that was formed according to the former artistic director of the National Theater, “there are no photos, forensic reports and messages either through a mobile phone or from a social network, from which it will be possible to confirm the accused”.
According to the allegations of the accused, which will be made tomorrow by apologizing to the complainants both in person and in a memorandum, they are persons who have seen them for more than two decades.
In particular, according to the objection document:
“On 5/2/2021, an indictment was submitted by Vassilios K. to the Athens Public Prosecutor for Misdemeanors, in which he essentially did not describe any criminal behavior, since according to his allegations, and allegedly true, the alleged sexual contacts with him were made with consent. while he was already 15 years old and without having the status of his teacher. In any case, the period of time to which he refers is more than twenty years from his adulthood and in view of the statute of limitations, the content of his report was criminally indifferent.
The prosecutor received an affidavit from a witness proposed by Mr. K. This witness testified that “during the period 2014 to 2016, ie at the age of 16 to 17, he allegedly had sexual intercourse with me of his own free will and that once During this time, among many other sexual intercourses, there was one that, according to him, he “did not want”.
On the same day, according to the request for annulment, Mr. Kougias testified and two more witnesses, a man and a woman. One of these witnesses “did not testify against me at all, as he did not notice any of my wrongdoing towards any minor.” The female witness “simply narrated her unfortunate and obsessive effort since her student years, specifically in the year 2000, to have an affair with me, without, however, realizing even a sexual intercourse with me or without her consent, even and a minor. “
What does he say about the second lawsuit against him
“On 19/2 the lawyer Giannis Vlachos submitted to the prosecutor's office his complaint from 17/2 (…) which states that allegedly in August 2010 I committed the crime of rape against him while the plaintiff was 14 or 15 years old , without this being clear as it only mentions the year of his birth, 1995. The plaintiff also proposed a witness who was examined by the prosecutor. This witness “confirmed my acquaintance with the plaintiff, but did not perceive any sexual intercourse with or without the consent of either the plaintiff or any other person, described in a completely different way the circumstances under which they had allegedly met me either inside or outside of the house and the top did not know even from a narrative any incident of sexual abuse of the plaintiff, although he obviously knew that a lawsuit had been filed against me and in fact he was not even sure if the plaintiff had met me again after the last time the witness and the plaintiff they allegedly visited me at my house.
When I was informed on 11/2 by the media that a lawsuit had been filed against me, I submitted a request to the Chief Prosecutor of the Athens Court of First Instance to be summoned “to provide explanations and to receive copies of any case against me, stating both known and permanent address of my residence for the last twelve years, in order to defend myself both against the accusation and against my extreme defamation by the media, due to which, as a result, I resigned from the position of artistic director of the National Theater, in order not to put in my face this important institution for the country and its culture “. Unfortunately, the prosecutor rejected my request and ended the interrogation without calling me for explanations “and without a simple internet search to cross-check whether the dates of various events and events mentioned in the testimonies of the two alleged victims correspond to the truth (they are all wrong) prosecuted me for serial rape όμως In this way, however, absolute invalidity was caused during the prosecution against me… ».
“They have been seeing me for many years”
“The counter-argument that my call as a suspect was well omitted… .because” it is clear that the suspect had planned the commission of new crimes is a completely unfounded argument, since the two acts attributed to me have an old time of execution, namely August 2010 and August 2015 , and the prosecution witnesses are not in a recent intercourse with me, but they have been seeing me for many years, based on their testimonies from 5 to 23 years, many of them live abroad and therefore were not able to contribute either from personal perception or referring to a third person in my environment even a recent incident, from which it appears that “I have planned” new crimes or similar to those attributed to me or otherwise “.
There are no forensic photographs and messages in the case file, either via mobile phone or from some social media, from which it will be possible to confirm the complainants.
The warrant does not state a risk of absconding but states that there are serious indications that “I have planned” the commission of other similar serious offenses against minors, but the above reasoning has nothing to do with the reasoning required by Article 276 par. . 2 Κ.Π.Δ. This is because, as mentioned – the two acts attributed to him have an old time of execution, namely August 2010 and August 2015, and the prosecution witnesses have been with me for many years and many of them are living abroad and therefore were not able to contribute “a recent incident which shows that” I have planned “to commit new crimes. There is also no “my contradiction” in the case file and “therefore the abasanist acceptance by the investigator of the alleged perpetration of the prosecuted crimes is not due to the existence of serious evidence….” but “in prejudice, in the unfavorable social and political climate for me and in the biased and one-sided over-projection of rumors by the media.
“Finally, two of the witnesses vaguely refer to rumors they have heard about me about a relationship she allegedly had with underage boys.”