Bambi Anagnostopoulos submitted to a series of questions, accused of the murder of Caroline Crouch and mother of his child, the mental health witness Eleni Mylonopoulou[/B], who was watching him and the 20-year-old girl.
Defendant: a man who seeks to initiate and continue these sessions, who seeks counseling, how can you possibly describe a man who wants to cut off his "victim"? Isn't that a major contradiction? How do you justify it?
Witness: the first contradiction is that Caroline is dead in a grave and the defendant is alive in front of me.
Chairman: What he is asking you is wouldn't the victim reveal to you that you are manipulating?
Witness: manipulative people and manipulative spouses want to appear to do anything. I'm not surprised. That's the image he wanted to get across. It's about trying to get the whole social environment to have the best opinion.
Defendant: how can a man who has to cut off his partner from the environment bring a new man into his life?
Witness: for what reason he led her to me I answered. Going to counseling does not mean that you intensify your partner in a social environment. My position is not to be Caroline's friend to expand her social environment.
Defendant: I was not covered by the answer. Where does my general attempt to exclude Caroline come from?
Witness: I don't know what was going on behind the door of her house? I know what Caroline was telling me. She was telling me that she was cooped up in the house with a child, she had no activity. Whatever she did, she did it with her husband, she told me.
Defendant. She had contact with her mother by phone and with her neighbor. She came to Athens, she was not cut off from anyone. And two witnesses testified that she had outings every day. Where did she tell you she was cut off from? Did she tell you who specifically I maliciously cut her off from? And for what reason? I want a specific example.
Witness: cutting off has a very broad meaning. I talked about cutting off from what Caroline described to me. When she was telling me that she had no money on her, she couldn't go anywhere, that she had to be accompanied by Anagnostopoulos, that she didn't have her own wallet. That's a cutoff. All of a sudden Anagnostopoulos would appear in front of her and that caused her discomfort. I repeat what Caroline was telling me. She talked to her mother every day, but was she telling her about her way of life? That she had no money on her? No, he didn't. So she might call her mom, but she wasn't able to express her feelings. All she had was to walk the doggie.
Defendant: You're saying something like the fact that the husband would abruptly show up at her outings with her friend. You said this happened one time on May 10, which you were not in a position to know....
Witness. I am responding according to what Caroline had said. When the husband appeared that I do not know. I know he couldn't have gone anywhere. There was the surveillance app and that they were appearing in front of her.
Defendant: You mentioned as evidence of a manipulative person, that's me, who wants to remove his partner from civilization the choice of the house in Sweetwater.
Witness: I would like to remind the defendant that the three of us had this conversation and I told him that he was away and that he was isolating Caroline. I had said that it was a long distance from the University of Piraeus. So it is not feasible to take two hours to go and two hours to come.
Defendant: are you aware that the choice of the house was made by her before she went to the University? The house was rented months before my wife went to University.
Witness: May I remind you that I told you that you had to give your wife some time to calm down after the first miscarriage. Didn't I tell you to go to her university to do things?
Defendant: It is my custom to ask the questions and you to answer them. You said she had no say in the finances of the house and that she couldn't afford to buy a piece of gum. That she had an account where her mother's money was coming in, 1000 euros a month, which I didn't have access to. Did you know that?
Witness? I know that Caroline had no money. I don't know in their fund what was going on. If he wants to contradict Caroline, let him contradict her I know she had no money.
Defendant: Did my wife tell you that we as a family who fed and spayed and neutered 30 to 40 animals and adopted four others that she had no money for the animals? Are you looking me in the eye and telling me these things?
Witness: I am sure of what I am saying, because Caroline and I had a conversation about animals and their food, because I also had animals. On this part she was telling me about this food, that it was expensive I would not be able to get it.
Defendant: She had told you that the cheap food I chose?
Witness: She had told me that the husband would not agree to the expensive food. I can answer the question that made me look him in the eyes, "I always looked him in the eyes, he did not look me in the eyes after the murder."
Defendant: Did Caroline ever mention to you that I was buying clothes for myself but she had a restriction on what she would buy?
Witness: I told the defendant do something with her clothes, "it's very simple, help her come out of her shell."
Defendant: And what was my response?
Witness: I never got your response.
Defendant: You said she was locked in the house - that's a fact . I in the time you know me how many times did I go out, leaving my child and my wife at home for any reason other than work?
Witness: Caroline had not mentioned that to me. What she had told me is that 5:30 o'clock when you came back you hung up the phone and she can't talk anywhere. By the 5:30 you were coming back you had told me that your friends were calling you to come out.
Defendant: That didn't happen, it happened one time. It is important to clarify whether Caroline was cut off.
Witness: I did not have a camera in their house. I'm saying what Caroline told me.
Defendant: another question. On the fear part, you said. What was the fear that you said she had towards me?
Witness: She had never reported physical abuse to repeat only a shove. The fear had been present since January. If Mr. Anagnostopoulos, who was in the living room with the child, was listening...
Anagnostopoulos: Let's stick to the fear part. You say about fear ...
Chairman: You ask the witness to confirm your interpretation
Defendant: You are right but there is no other interpretation
Defendant: 13 May in your statement you say that I was nice and protective with her. You said the same thing in interviews afterwards. Is there anything you said that is not true?
Witness: all of this was said after we were together and because you were persecuted by journalists who thought you were guilty. All this was after communication and consultation between us. There was an intense emotional pressure.
Defendant. And he told you to go they are very well children and you have nothing to fear. Why should I tell you to go to the police and the press?
Witness: He was a man who made fun of me too. I had to believe the robbery too.
Defendant. Did she ever tell you directly that she had no support from me in the continuation of her studies?
Witness: Although I have answered I will remind you. There is a big difference between theory and practice, between saying "yes little girl go for it" and doing it. Caroline wanted the studies, but was she going to university?
Accused to the President this time: At the time we were seeing Mrs. Mylonopoulou, the loan and the land were not even mentioned.
Witness: do you remember when I asked you who would own the property because Caroline would be upset?
Accused: are you aware that the contract with the developer had both names?
Chairman: Leave this contract. The contract with the land was in your name.
Defendant: At 1:30 that night I was with my daughter in the living room, I went upstairs twice to beg her to let us all sleep together. Does that fit a manipulative person?
Witness: you wanted to get something and you want it now. I had told him that when there was tension to let her go. He went upstairs while the girl was sleeping ....
Defendant: You don't answer.
Witness: That's your interpretation.
Defendant: In our conversation you had told me: "We have an obligation to protect a mentally healthy person and cure a mentally unstable person," meaning me as healthy and my wife as mentally unstable. He even told me that in the effort a healthy person can be disturbed
Witness: when did all this happen?
Defendant: all the time we were together, in our weekly meetings we made a lot of effort. All that time did you not see from me sincere love for my wife? That I want my marriage to work, I want her to be well?"
Witness: That's how he appeared, but his words in relation to Caroline's reports were absent. I intended him to be the one who took her life. I have a son his age!
Defendant: Did Caroline ever tell you that she lacked love from me? That I don't give as much love as I have to her?
Witness: There is a very characteristic phrase. It was a kind of smothering love. Those were her words.
Source: in.gr
Contents of this article including associated images are belongs to Cyprus Times
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or Cyprus Times
Source[/URL].
