REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE TRIAL, SESSION 34, TUESDAY 23/10/12

Act for freedom now/boubourAs
REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE TRIAL, SESSION 34, TUESDAY 23/10/12
After two postponements (Tuesday 9th and Wednesday 17th), one because of an illness of the court secretary and one because of a lawyer strike, and with a two hour delay, because of the participation of the secretary in the strike of juridical employees, came the time for the terror-court to hear the defence witnesses of the six accused comrades, who from the first moment -without hiding their political opinions and positions, as well as their comrade and friendly relations with the three members of the R.S. and unforgettable Lambros Foundas- have refused their participation in the organization, beginning with the defence witnesses of Christophoros Kortesis.
Biologist Artemis Rubu, a professor in natural sciences, with doctorate studies in Zurich and years of research work in greek and foreign universities, gave an amazingly clear presentation about the identifications based on genetic material.
Her very simple and clear presentation was accompanied by big boards which explained what “researching the DNA and searching for identifications” means. The fact that she knows this specific scientific matter in depth, because of special studies and research work (“more than 10.000 samples have passed before my eyes” she characteristically mentioned), helped in the simplified presentation, to a point where there cannot be the slightest dispute to what she said.
A.Rubu stated that she was summoned by Kortesis defence team to study the reports in the indictment, together with the professor of Biochemistry of Patras University Mrs.Georgiou, specialized in statistic analysis, with whom she co-signed a relative report which has been added to the indictment. Her basic points were these: Although the CID (Criminology Investigation Directorate) defines what is a “sample”, in this case there was a total lack of these values of analysis. Samples were attributed to individuals which were not even from people! These consist a genetic type and not samples.
Thus, Kortesis is attributed with two “touch samples” which were taken with a scan of a bandanna and some wires found in his house. These samples are very small, while also it is not defined what cells they come from. These samples were taken from an environment with a high level of infection danger, as shown from the reports of the CID itself.
Although in the second “sample” does not define even the sex and there are 50% chances it belongs to woman, the CID identified these two samples and attributed them to a male individual, which they named X5! How was there an identification, when one sample is relatively complete, while the second is missing four “topoisomerases”, amongst which the “topoisomerases” of the sex, while the DEE demands that there is an identification of 15 “topoisomerases”
A.Rubu, without using demeaning comments, spoke in formal scientific language of a “methodological leap”. Then, the CID identifies “individual” X5 with 38 laboratory samples, which were taken from objects in houses of the RS and from Kortesis motorbike.
How do they make the identification? With the first or second sample of X5, since these two are not identified? Normally, all further research should have stopped, noted the witness. The three member scientific team, wanting to go further, committed the “mistake”, as A.Rubu characterized it, to check all comparisons, which was anti-scientifically carried out by the CID, using as a base the “sample” which was relatively complete. And what did it find? That based on statistical facts, which she presented, the specific DNA could belong to millions of people! The three researchers used a ready base of the FBI, which includes samples of 700 americans, and found that 31 of them are included in this “sample”! Why? Because it is a mixture as says Butler, an FBI criminologist, mixtures with more than DNAs are useless for research. In this case, they were all mixtures and from “touch samples”! In half of these mixtures the relatively complete sample is not included. As A.Rubu stated, however, she was shocked when she read the DEE report and saw that identifications were mentioned! She spoke of manipulation and false statement.
The three scientists asked, through the advocates, for the crude facts of the “laboratory” of the police, but they did not give them. From their experience however, they concluded that what is presented as relatively complete sample does not belong to an existing person, but is a product of a chemical reaction. Because, when there are small quantities of DNA, it increases the sensitivity of the method with which they research, they go out of the limits of tolerance and the result is that non existing facts appear.

The reports of the CID, however, do not even mention the cell type, neither the quantity of DNA, nor the PCR protocol used (which means how much was the the sensitivity of the method increased), nor the “threshold” of the method (from which the possibilities of mistake are calculated).
Why is the scientific team convinced that the specific “sample”, which was attributed to Kortesis, is a product of a laboratory reaction and not a sample from a person? Besides everything else also because the specific “sample” was found only once! It is not possible that it belongs to him if they found it only once on the motorbike and house of Kortesis. That is absurd.
The scientist completed her presentation with a general review of the reports of the CID. Of the 500 samples allegedly examined by the “laboratories” of the CID and are presented in the 8 reports of the indictment only 13 gave complete genetic types! A percentage of 2,6%! Therefore, there is a great failure of the procedure of collecting the samples and the method of research. Of the 13 complete genetic types, 7 of them belong to “justifiable touched”, which means cops who were involved in the procedure!
This is why it is more possible that the genetic profiles are a product of the method, which was pushed to function beyond its limits, and not genetic profiles which correspond to individuals. The method is very difficult, concluded A.Rubu. It is not automated, you do not put the samples into a robot and you collect the results. At every step lurks a mistake. This is why in these cases the procedure has to be repeated in another lab, in order to compare the results and exclude the danger of infections (many samples are examined in the same lab) and the danger of fictitious genetic profiles because of the failure of the method. The prosecutor, embarrassed, first attempted to make a compromise with the scientist, by asking her if the reports of the CID are of zero value.
A.Rubu was categorical: they are of zero value. Even more embarrassed, the prosecutor transformed into a cop for a little, by asking her where she works and who she does the DNA research for. A.Rubu answered calmly, that now she is a researcher in the state university of Humboldt in Berlin and that all during her scientific course she has worked exclusively in universities as a researcher. Never in the private sector, never for specific clients. The prosecutor continued the same desperate attempt: “I can accept possibilities of mistake, but I do not understand zero value”. “I did not speak of a possibility, but of certainty of mistake”, was her answer. That is when the prosecutor gave up and found refuge in an incomprehensible question.
He asked if by mistake there could be found human DNA of a person who was never at the area of sampling. The answer of Rubu who analyzed extensively, was that yes, that can happen too. Other questions were not made from the judges.

<

I. Rahiotis commented that after A.Rubu’s testimony there is not even an indication of Kortesis DNA, but if the court has doubts, then the defence brings back the demand for a new examination by a university laboratory. The rest of the witnesses were what we call “political witnesses”. People who met Ch.Kortesis in various activities of his life, mainly in the struggles of the anarchist movement. In the latter category are Anastasia Ananiadou, Giannis Aggelopoulos, Giorgos Kostopoulos.
They spoke of their common struggles, their friendship, the fighting substance of Kortesis, of persecutions they have suffered, the targeting of the anarchist movement, of the fact that anyone of them could be in the position of Kortesis, because they could have been eating at a sandwich shop together with their comrades Nikos Maziotis and Pola Roupa, as happened to Kortesis when he was arrested (“he had the bad luck of being with Nikos and Pola” was the expression they used).
Spiros Kogiannis testified his own experience as a “usual suspect” of a past era, while the journalist of ‘Eleftherotypia’ newspaper Dimitris Nanouris spoke of his accidental meeting with Kortesis (they travelled together to Milan, to watch their a game of their favourite team AEK) and extensively referred to the journalistic game of targeting and of those arrested, comparing this game to other similar ones in the past.
Friend and classmate of Kortesis, Panagiotis Papadimitriou referred to their long friendship, the ideas which Kortesis never hid, the targeting of the anarchists. Finally, mathematician Thodoros Koutsoubos mentioned the advance incrimination of those who are accused in this room, the creation of special courts for these political cases, the incrimination of Kortesis because of his friendly and comradely relation with Maziotis, the application of collective responsibility which reminds us of other times.
At some point, because of a question of the prosecutor who wanted to learn from the witness what exactly these preventive arrests are, Vaggelis Stathopoulos sated that he has also suffered preventive arrests for years now. That on the 12th of February and the recent strike he was also arrested, while numerous times he has seen the undercover cops outside his house or his shop, without hiding their presence.
I am a usual suspect and this is why I am here, he concluded.
Kostas Gournas, who represents the Revolutionary struggle in this trial, after the absence of Maziotis and Roupa, replying to an opinion expressed by a defence witness, that Kortesis could not be a member of the RS, because he was at the front line of anarchist action and this would create security problems for the organization, and that if he took the big decision to “bear arms”, he would have to withdraw from the procedures of the movement, as done by Maziotis and Roupa, who retained only their friendly relations.
I am sorry, Gournas said, that I am made to make this intervention, but I would like to ask the comrades who testify here as defence witnesses of the other comrades to not bring in formations of the organization RS, which they are in no position to know.
The trial will continue on Wednesday October 31st, again with defence witnesses of Ch.Kortesis.
This entry was posted in General and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *