The 43-year-old trainee lawyer who reported the 70-year-old criminologist for domestic violence and was arrested after the lawyer filed a trespassing lawsuit against her personal data.
The defendant was given the condition of not having contact with the criminologist and paying a bail of 5,000 euros.
The 43-year-old apologized in a memo. She reportedly claimed that she and the plaintiff attorney had a brief two-month affair from February to April 2024.
Describing the beating she claims to have suffered, she states: “On 28.04.2024 the perpetrator, among other things, beat me and on the same day I duly presented a summons against him and the following day I was examined by a forensic doctor.
He filed a subpoena against me after about half a month, and only after he had already been informed of my own subpoena. A few days later, and (I assume) another domestic violence case, another pair of lawyers and my own case gained publicity, without me seeking it. After the case became public, several people, close to the author and of course me, started a process to present me as unreliable, mentally ill, that I testify untruths and in general that my complaint cannot have the same weight as the other case that occupied the media.
Then press releases full of lies were released, messages that I exchanged with another person were broadcast on radio programs – that is, they did what I am currently accused of having done – and with “journalistic” information they tried to build an image, with the sole purpose of deconstructing my personality, so that in the next court, where my accuser will be the defendant and I supported the accusation of domestic violence, I will appear unreliable.”
Elsewhere in the memo, defendant claims that she appeared on a television show on June 28 to stop “my trolling and to protect myself and not hurt plaintiff. Furthermore, I did not reveal his identity, nor did I attempt to draw him. It is not explained, after all, that the very next day plaintiff’s wife appeared and formally announced the lawsuits. How was plaintiff identified?”
As the 43-year-old trainee lawyer states: “According to my opponent’s summons, evidence has been presented which, in his opinion, offends him. However, within the meaning of the law and for the purposes thereof, the following definitions apply: “Data subject”: the natural person to whom the data relate and whose identity is known or can be determined, that is, can be determined immediately or indirectly, in particular on the basis of an identity number or on the basis of one or more specific elements characterising his or her physical, biological, mental, economic, cultural, political or social status.
At no point in the television program in question was the intruder’s face shown, nor photographed, nor could it be related to anything that was shown. Absolutely no one in the audience or any third party could connect a “seventy-year-old criminologist” with my accuser. There are at least a thousand seventy-year-old criminologists in Athens, that is, an almost indefinite number of people, and in no way could the viewer relate the plaintiff’s face to the one mentioned in the program.
It is characteristic that in the indictment carried out by written order of the Public Prosecutor’s Office on 30.06.2024, the criminal decision of the Federal Supreme Court (686/2021) is prominently mentioned, in whose facts the defendant published without the consent of the victim, to various internet addresses, pornographic films representing short films (videos) of erotic content, which he had previously filmed with the consent of the latter, with the mobile device and in which the victim appears naked, during their sexual encounters and carnal their relationship. The aforementioned films constitute a personal data file, in which the defendant intervened and became aware, after having archived and stored them both on his mobile phone and on his personal computer, while processing them, “editing” them, so that the scenes showing his face are cut and only EP’s face and naked body and only parts of his own body, so that it is not possible for him to be recognized and “exposed” by hanging.”
Regarding the accusation of violation of personal data that she faces, the 43-year-old states that in no way could the criminologist be linked to everything that was presented.
“In the case in which I am accused, at no point in the program was any personal data presented.
In this case, I had no intention, not only of presenting personal data, which I did not present in the end, but I also had no intention of revenge, since this was done after my systematic slander. After all, if I wanted to take revenge on the plaintiff, why would I do it on June 28th and not 2 months earlier, whenever he committed a crime against me? The plaintiff himself, in some places, acknowledges the messages he sent me and in others he does not. So, why am I being accused of events that not even he himself is sure about yet?”
And the alleged victim concludes that he never made public the action he took against him.
naftemporiki.gr