![](https://thepressproject.gr/app/uploads/2025/01/dikaimagg.jpg)
On Monday morning, I attended the trial of three police officers accused of the brutal beating of Vasilios Maggos in June 2020. The courtroom was packed with police officers and their supporters, who had arrived early, effectively blocking the victim’s friends and comrades from entering. Inside, the proceedings unfolded in a manner that laid bare the systemic culture of impunity within the Greek police force.
Report by Konstantinos Poulis
What followed was a parade of police officers, all testifying in defence of their accused colleagues, extolling their virtues, and painting them as exemplary professionals. Their testimonies, however, achieved the opposite effect: they confirmed, in chilling detail, the deep-rooted lack of accountability that allows police brutality to persist.
A trial without prosecution
This trial was not a fair contest—it was a one-sided process, a match played without an opponent. Due to a court decision, the Maggos family was not represented and had no right to speak. This meant that:
- Contradictions and inaccuracies in police testimonies went unchallenged.
- Evidence from video footage and official reports could not be properly presented.
- The defence team controlled the narrative, with four lawyers questioning their own witnesses without pushback.
As lawyer Annie Paparousou pointed out, the legal absurdity of this case is staggering: the victim himself had not filed a lawsuit before his death, leading to this completely imbalanced trial. This is yet another case of police brutality being treated as an isolated incident rather than a systemic failure.
You can watch below the interview of Yannis Maggos, father of the deceased Vassilios (Greek and English subtitles available).
The testimonies: contradictions and unchallenged narratives
The first witness, the police driver, was asked if there had been any other possible course of action that night. His immediate answer was that there was absolutely none. He justified police actions by saying Maggos had his hands raised in fists—therefore, he posed a danger.
Later in the trial, it was repeatedly mentioned that Maggos had stopped moving towards the police, yet the defence continued to argue that he “could have” been carrying a weapon because he was wearing a jacket—in the middle of summer. His father, Yannis Maggos, stood silently in the courtroom, holding up the same jacket—a thin cotton garment—but this silent act of defiance did nothing to stop the defence’s continued justification of the attack.
Another defence witness, the head of the Units for the Reinstatement of Order (OPKE), went even further, speculating that Maggos could have been carrying stones in his fists, ready to strike at close range. These claims, despite being unsupported by any evidence, were made without fear of contradiction, as the victim’s family had been barred from speaking.
“Honest family men” and systemic impunity
At one point, a defence attorney posed a bizarre question:
“Do the accused police officers have obsessions? Could they ever target a citizen?”
A witness responded:
“They are good at their job. Honest, family men.”
This absurd defence—that family men do not commit crimes—was repeated multiple times, despite overwhelming evidence that the Greek police force systematically engages in violence and cover-ups.
In fact, according to a 23-page report by the Greek Ombudsman, the Director of the Volos Security Sub-Directorate admitted that:
“The intervention of the OPKE team was triggered by suspicions about the victim’s behaviour, his continuous participation in various collectives, and his general criminal behaviour.”
This statement directly contradicts claims that the police did not target Maggos. The fact that his political activism was cited as an aggravating factor proves he was targeted long before the night of his brutal beating.
The police witnesses: rehearsed testimonies and blatant contradictions
One by one, senior police officers took the stand to praise the accused officers. They insisted they had acted professionally, followed proper procedures, and that their service records were spotless.
However, their own testimonies revealed contradictions:
- One officer testified that Maggos stopped and retreated, undermining claims that he was an active threat.
- The prosecutor intervened, asking, “So, at that moment, the attack stopped? Then how was the man on the ground attacking?”
- The police response: “The incident was not over for us.”
The deputy commander then took the stand, again stating that the accused officers were exemplary professionals. He insisted that the only force used was against Maggos’ extremities, per police guidelines and training, despite video evidence and medical reports confirming severe injuries to his body.
The head of the OPKE unit and their trainer took the stand, boasting that his team had made 270 arrests in a year without a single complaint. When asked whether the accused officers had exceeded their authority, he dismissed the concern outright, insisting that they had merely “protected their physical integrity.”
However, this claim stands in stark contrast to official findings. The Deputy Prosecutor of First Instance, in a March 12, 2021 report, explicitly stated:
“The actions of the riot police officers, as seen in the video, exceed—even if only marginally—the limits of their duty to restore order in an ‘explosive’ environment.”
Even the prosecutor in the current trial expressed disbelief at the level of force used, questioning how officers trained to handle violent crimes such as robberies and hostage situations could justify treating a defenceless man on the ground as an extreme threat. Yet, this narrative of imminent threat ran through all the testimonies, reinforcing a deeply ingrained culture of impunity.
A legal scandal: protecting their own
Perhaps the most telling moment came from another police witness, who said:
“These three men have heard a thousand accusations from social media and the press. I am impressed by their silence and respect for the victim’s family.”
This bizarre argument suggested that the officers should be commended for not publicly attacking the family of the man they brutalised.
Another officer dismissed the possibility of police targeting individuals, exclaiming:
“We got hired after passing national exams! Did we train in jihad? It’s impossible to target people!”
This moment was so absurd that even the judge had to intervene, telling the witness to limit his statements to the facts of the case.
This argument is a recurring police defence, resurfacing in courtrooms with an air of plausibility, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Officers routinely pose rhetorical questions:
“Why would we do this? Are we sadists? Do we hold personal grudges? Why would we attack someone for no reason?”
They insist they are simply professionals doing their job.
Yet, a wealth of research on police violence paints a very different picture—one of systematic criminalisation, deception, and cover-ups. The latest findings, including the Hellenic League for Human Rights report (here in English) and Natasha Tsoukala’s book, The Systemic Nature of Police Violence in Greece, document an even more alarming reality: police officers routinely lie under oath in cases that ultimately collapse, yet face no consequences whatsoever.
This is the real context in which the officers’ testimonies must be understood—their insistence that they acted with restraint, their praise for the accused, and their carefully rehearsed denials of excessive force. Not as an objective recounting of events, but as yet another layer of institutionalised impunity.
Forensic evidence: exposing the truth
Despite police claims that Maggos’ injuries were minor, forensic pathologist Galenteris provided a damning testimony:
- The injuries were fresh and severe, contradicting the police’s claim that he was barely harmed.
- His injuries peaked during hospitalisation, proving they were inflicted just hours before his admission.
This directly refuted the testimony of a forensic pathologist brought in by the defence, who had argued that Maggos’ injuries must have occurred at an earlier time.
The second recurring argument is the emphasis on substance use. One of the four defence lawyers asks:
“Does a person who uses heroin feel pain?”
“Could his history of substance use be a factor? Could liver damage be related?”
The forensic pathologist firmly refutes this, explaining that the liver damage observed was not consistent with substance use but with physical trauma from the beating.
Yet, the facts seem irrelevant to the defence strategy. As Vasilios Maggos’ father has repeatedly stated, the police were well aware of his history as a user—and far from showing restraint, this knowledge only fuelled their brutality.
A wider problem: systemic police violence
This trial is not an isolated case—it is a symptom of a wider problem. The National Mechanism for the Investigation of Arbitrary Incidents (EMIDIPA) found that the investigation into Maggos’ death was fundamentally flawed:
- No eyewitnesses were sought, only police officers.
- No CCTV footage from the police station was requested, despite allegations of continued abuse while in custody.
- Illegal access to Maggos’ medical records was discovered.
This fits into a broader pattern in Greece, where police brutality is routinely dismissed, covered up, and ignored.
Conclusion: a trial that exposes itself
This trial was meant to examine the actions of three police officers—but instead, it exposed the entire system that protects them. The testimonies of their colleagues were not just a defence of three men—they were a defence of a culture of impunity.
Every witness who took the stand was not just defending the accused but was also protecting themselves and the institution they serve. Their message was clear:
We stand together. We do not turn on our own. We will protect each other, no matter what.
The most damning indictment of this process does not come from the prosecution—because there is no prosecution. It comes from the police themselves, who, in their desperate attempt to defend their colleagues, have shown us exactly why police brutality continues unchecked in Greece.
The judje adjourned until next week. On Monday, February 3, we will hear the prosecutor’s proposal, followed by the speeches of only one side—the lawyers defending the police officers—and likely, the court’s final decision.
______________________________________________
Are you seeking news from Greece presented from a progressive, non-mainstream perspective? Subscribe monthly or annually to support TPP International in delivering independent reporting in English. Don’t let Greek progressive voices fade.
Make sure to reference “TPP International” and your order number as the reason for payment.