Babi Anagnostopoulos Trial: The prosecutor catapulted the husband for the murder


The apology of 34-year-old Babis Anagnostopoulos for the murder of Caroline’s wife, the killing of her dog and the direction he set up to deceive the authorities, exactly a year ago, at the house where they lived in Glyka, was completed after ten hours. Water.

From 10.30am to 8.30pm, with only a ten-minute break in court, the pilot tried to convince judges and jurors that the Glyka Nera crime was the result of an intense charge, of his “blurred mind”, as he put it, and not a preliminary study and organization by an perpetrator who was in a calm state of mind as the accuser accepts.

Most of the time of the apology was devoted by the defendant to the description of his relationship with Caroline Krauts, a relationship that seems to have been recorded in the pilot’s consciousness as “ideal”, with fairytale conditions.

For five hours, the 34-year-old, despite the president’s pressure to reach “the time in question”, told the judges about the “beauty”, “happiness” and “love” that he and the victim experienced.

Although the crime has been confessed by him, the 34-year-old received for hours a rain of questions, both from the president and then from the prosecutor and the members of the court. He referred to every detail of the story, however, showing that it was not easy for him to refer with the same clarity to the time when clouds began to gather over their wedding. In the “aftermath” of the “fairytale wedding” in Portugal, when Caroline had two pregnancies, with the first ending in miscarriage and the second with serious problems of the pregnant baby.

Closing his apology, the accused wanted to say in his closing remarks, “sorry” for what he did: “After everything we have said today, there is nothing I can say to myself, neither to Caroline nor to Lydia, nor to any. There is nothing that can reach the magnitude of the disaster caused by my own responsibility. Every day I will apologize to my wife. All I wanted was to go back in time and have Caroline be here and let me be away. I want to apologize to my daughter and my mother-in-law, who hugged me. I hope someday, all those who have been hurt, those who have lost, will one day forgive me. I hope God forgives me. I myself will never forgive him. Be well…”.

Dialogues with the prosecutor and members of the court

A little while earlier, the pilot received many questions from the prosecutor, who had a very strict attitude towards him, stating from the beginning that he considered that he had a “cold feeling”. In an attempt by the accused to justify what happened in the maisonette, the prosecutor told him that “for me it is a cold feeling to see the woman of your life die, as you say, and not to go back. To kill in this way the dog that grew up in your arms “.

Defendant: I wish I could get back the results of this two hours even if I died the next day Ή It was the result of a day that made no sense. I lost my life on May 11th.

Prosecutor: You are still embellishing your words again and not answering me how the shock did not work, how you did not freeze to avoid death…

Defendant: I am also trying to explain how I was in such a rift.

Prosecutor: You have been trying for so long to pull facts to convince us of something. I do not know the cause of all this.

Defendant: Anyone who told me I was going to do this harm to Caroline and Roxola, I would say he’s crazy, I could not imagine… Trying to make sense in these two hours that everything happened is like trying to measure its height with scales. There is no logic. I am also trying to find answers with my life and the life of my child dissolved… There is no logic.

Prosecutor: It was like apologizing for an episode of domestic violence. You were trying to stretch a situation. Show that there was an escalating tension to justify a violent crime. We know from the forensic report that you were desperately trying to kill. You can not at this time think the opposite of what happened. That is, that he fainted.

Defendant: What I said is an attempt, not to convince of a situation that I first said could not be justified. Anyone in such a state of confusion…

Prosecutor: Even the use of the pillow has a purpose, not to be heard. So I want to understand this overstimulation. I only saw a rounded speech. I can not understand what could make you angry that night.

Defendant: We are not talking about an instantaneous reaction to an instantaneous stimulus. I was in a state of mind already tense, but not to the point of getting to this point. They are things that accumulate and add up, and that moment took them out of bounds.

Prosecutor: There is something in your allegations that does not meet logic at all. If you had thrown her from the stairs into the quarrel, if you had pushed her and knocked on a cupboard. I see an intention to commit murder and catch her asleep. That’s why you left the child down….

Defendant: Being confused is something you can not ignore. With a child in his arms at 4 in the morning he has to sleep.

Prosecutor: It is like not forgiving the minor and forgiving yourself for the major which is the crime. At that time you are killing for a reason which is a quarrel, which is “what are we going to do with the child” at a certain moment. Everything you say has a constant great contradiction with reality. The way you behaved that night was absolutely dominant. It makes me believe that something else existed.

Defendant: There was nothing else but the problems we have discussed.

Prosecutor: Those who spoke to Caroline say he was a man trapped in something. And a man who constantly says “I’m guilty, I’m guilty, I’m guilty. It’s all my fault”.

Defendant: She is not a person you make her do something she does not want to do.

Prosecutor: You spoke to the present tense.

Defendant: It was by mistake

Prosecutor: It does not matter. And the language inadvertently says many things. I want to understand a personality who says that “I love strays and pick them up from the street” and then describes that he hangs the dog and turns and leaves….

Defendant: I leave not to see, because I can not stand. I wish I could get the results back.

However, the accused also had an intense dialogue with a court representative, who asked him many questions about the 34-year-old’s claim that he was blurred on the night in question:

Participant: One can not so clearly think how to prevent suspicion from over and five minutes ago tell us that you are blurred…

Defendant: It was a spasmodic move without logic….

Participant: That is, everything you did afterwards, seems spasmodic to you because to me they seem completely cool. They all want a logical process.

Defendant: The fact that there was a thought does not mean that it was logical….

Conference: Once the incident happened you did not believe it. And after two hours you tied her hands and put the baby on her. Does this require composure?

Defendant: It was a blurred action…

Participant: We are looking for what brought you to this situation. What was it that got you out of your clothes? That did not work logically. This is the boiling of mental momentum to understand…. What events made you feel so overwhelmed?

Defendant: The blurring and thoughts that can go through the mind at those moments are so chaotic…. These are moments when there is no clarity…

Delegate: I want to say that because you did not have clarity.

Defendant: Fear and anger for the child.

Participant: Did the child suffer anything?

Defendant: He did not hit but felt fear. There was no logic in pushing the little one. I had a reaction that I could not prevent and control what happened….

Attendee: You had a fight and Caroline fell asleep. He did not go for a walk to think about it. This was something you used to wake up at 4 in the morning. Because it had to be done the way you wanted it. She had nerves, she had the right to want the child to sleep in his bed and not with her.

Defendant: No, he told me “do not bring it to me”….

Participant: How difficult was it to sit down and sleep with the child?

Defendant: It was wrong….

Participant: I understand that you were a couple who had no communication.

Defendant: Our communication in general can not be evaluated at a time…

Congressman: You said you did not want to kill her. What is the purpose of a person who puts a person’s head on the pillows. Between two pillows. It was five minutes. Τε So ​​you expected that nothing would happen? You had the time to think and step back…

Defendant: Time as minutes may have existed, but there is no logic. It was five minutes that my contact with the environment was lost….

Juror: Why did you kill the dog and not a kitten, since you also had cats you told us about?

Defendant: What happened to Roxy had no bearing on Caroline…. As much as she loved it, I loved it too. The only logic that can exist is that the dog is the guardian of a house.

Juror: You say that there was not a moment in your life that did not include Caroline. Have you ever wondered, how would you react if Caroline, as she grew up, asked you for a divorce? How would you react to this hypothetical scenario?

Defendant: Caroline was not my property. It had crossed my mind, but there were so many things that bound us…

The pilot stated that during those 37 days, where he appeared as a victim of robbers, he could have gone abroad with his daughter, but he did not do it because then “I would have betrayed my mother-in-law” as well as “the reason I live is Lydia, which is the reason she lives “(s.s. his mother-in-law).

President: You had all of Greece on you and not only: it had taken on international dimensions. And you tell us you did not leave because you were thinking about your mother-in-law. I am not saying that he is not a remarkable person, but you had entered the microscope of journalists, of the authorities…

The trial will continue on Monday, May 16, when the district prosecutor will submit her proposal, while it is not ruled out that the court will issue its decision late in the afternoon.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.