Throughout these past months we have been entertaining a period of rigorous revival of the political conscience of the People from the suspension of several years which was cultivated and actualized since 1960 and onwards at least, in different forms and different methodologies. The political spirit of a People stems from the sense of power and the capacity for meting justice without gagging ideas and individuals. The sense of terrorism in any level and especially on the level of social decry as repercussion for the active thought and estimation of thing that may not be fully within the boundaries of the acceptable mainstream propaganda is the basic and highest tool of smothering the political spirit of the Citizens.

With the occasion of the anniversary of November 17th 1973 and up until December 25th we will embark on an analysis of a series of political crimes primarily against individuals such as Georgios A. Geritsidis and secondarily against the People by the same regimes claiming they brought on change from the totalitarianism of the fascist administration the People opposed.

THE CASE OF THE ASSASSINATION AND STATE COVER-UP OF GEORGIOS A. GERITSIDIS

A. BASIC ELEMENTS OF COMMUNICATION POLICY

Always in a research, in order to discover anything that happened for which we were not present or for which there is conflicting evidence and indications/ claims, we must begin from the official version / report of the happenings and gradually check on the basis of logic and objectivity the reality of these claims.

The best way to cover up a crime is to present it as an accident / natural occurrence of events or collateral damage of another event. That holds for all the covered up assassinations from the simple ones (i.e. designed by private individuals against another private individual) to the more complex ones (i.e. designed by a group of individuals/ state executives/ assorted organizations against one or some individuals). The assassinations that are not to some degree covered up are relatively few.

The communication policy thereby used when there is a loss caused malice prepense is to conceal this malice prepense and if possible the causation of this loss as having occurred by anyone else except circumstance of all types.

B. BASIC METHODOLOGY FOR EXAMINATION OF EVERY CRIME OR ACT OF WHICH THE PERPETRATOR IS IN QUESTION

A basic principle for all the range of human behavior is that in order for someone to act on something, that someone must have the motivation to do it. This motive must be strong enough to overcome a) the inertia which can and usually does exist in a person and b) any sanctions/ repercussions/ problems/ schedule disruption / other issues and obligations that may be disrupted if this man is to act on that something, good or bad. Also, it is important to note that there are objective motives and subjective motives: objective are the motives with which 90% of the population would respond with actions. Subjective are the motives regarding which we ca't quantify with accuracy the reaction with actions by the population. The subjective motives are usually highly personal reasons which are a result of psychological processes and/ or pathology and cannot be generalized beyond the case of the particular person possessing such motives.

In the case of the criminal activity, the issue of motive is formed as follows: The perpetrator of a criminal act (and when we say criminal act we mean of the simple criminal code and/or the so-called White Collar Crime) must have a motive strong enough to defy the threat of persecution by the Law in case he/she is revealed, defy the Moral Code demanding of the perpetrator not to act that way and defy all the factors threatening the opinion he/she has of their own self as 'good' (from parental teachings to religious dogma).

In order to achieve such a powerful motive as we described, that which the perpetrator will gain must be not only equivalent but by far surpassing that which he/she needs to defy. For that reason, usually the motives that are strong enough to push someone to crime are mainly the avoidance of problems / sanctions and secondarily motives of acquisition of power which must be even higher than the previous. Also, there has to be a strong enough level of conviction/ affirmation that for the particular crime there will be impunity either from the State/ Law or some other Moral Code (e.g. the promise of reward in the afterlife).

Based on these principles, it is a natural conclusion that the more a person is at the extremes of society (i.e. either in the lowest social levels or in the highest) the more this person has a propensity to acquire motives promoting crime.

The capacity to cover up, always based on logic, are far higher in the highest levels of society rather than in the lower ones. That is because covering up a crime demands the capacity to acquire certain means which preclude a specific buying power or the capacity to acquire accomplices which precludes the ability to create motives in third parties so that they will become accomplices in a crime. That is why the chances of solving a crime grow greatly the more the socioeconomic status of the perpetrator lowers.

Reaching the highest socioeconomic levels of the so-called ruling classes, the capacities to solve crimes taking place at those levels are as small as the capacity to collect data from/by these leading classes from social scientists over the ages. Also, in those classes a great inhibitor against committing crimes is raised as the persecution of individuals belonging to these classes is rare, hard and highly lenient. Many times even if the crime is not actually covered up there is no persecution or examination (e.g. the classic case of the murder/ violent death of the first wife of the ship owner Stavros Niarhos, named Eugenia).

Only one positive result exists from this situation for everyone who wants to search and reveal or form correct hypotheses, conclusions and views on such crimes: the fact that due to the guarantee of lack of persection/ examination, the cover ups taking place are easy to analyze and shoot down based on simple documents and logic.

C. THE CASE OF THE ASSASSINATION OF GEORGIOS A. GERITISIDIS AND ITS COVER UP

1. OFFICIAL VERSION

Officially Georgios A. Geritsidis is a victim of the violent skirmishes which took place on November 17th 1973, murdered by a bullet of a firearm (and specifically a pompom) which was stray and struck Georgios Geritsidis while he was in his car in an area far removed from the centre of the skirmishes and highly unlikely/ irrational for his usual professional schedule. This was unofficially justified in retrospect by saying that at the moment of his death Georgios Geritsidis was evacuating people from the dangerous zone and was giving them a ride home.

The above version is the one regurgitated ever since and which is not supported by any other evidence than testimonies of witnesses that were never presented or were not eye-witnesses or reported hearsay. Not once did a true witness, by name or anonymously, come forth presenting evidence that can be cross-checked and verified.

Also, it is important to note that there was a great guarding of the body of George Geritsidis by armed forces and police up until the very moment of interment, to the point that it was circulated that arrests took place of people who took part in his funeral, which had taken the level of a peaceful and silent multitudinous demonstration. During the eulegies, there was a great pressure from state representatives and priests so that no speech would be delivered at all, and if a speech could not be avoided, it would be strictly personal.

The municipality donated, with the reinstitution of democracy in 1974, the (three-year use) grave in which he had been buried for ever, so that he would never have to be exhumed.

2. FACTS

1. The bones of the body prove that there was never a bullet wound of any caliber while there is a definite indication that he sustained torture and death is obvious to have been caused by a blow with a blunt instrument (probably a bludgeon) at the base of the skull aimed at the victim's slow death.
2. The car in which it was officially said that the wounding and the profuse bleeding resulting from it took place does not bear any blood indication and never did.
3. The hole from the bullet which is shown to be the one deadly injuring Georgios Geritsidis is not correspondent to the caliber of the official version and neither is it possible by projection of its course to have been the one to cause an entry wound (i.e. it wouldn't have been able to cause the wound they say it did from the angle and position it pierced the car).
4. The witnesses testifying the official version bring forth evidence, official or unofficial, which contradicts the official version (i.e., they mention conditions / situations that are in contrast with one another or cannot be supported by physical evidence).
5. The filing in the Book of Incidents and Crimes of the authorized police precinct illegally and arbitrarily precludes/ eliminates the conducting of an investigation for criminal activity even though it mentions (with additional arbitrary medical diagnosis/ terminology by the filing nameless police officer) 'mortal injury of person with gun within city by unknown perpetrator'
6. In the autopsy which was ordered there is no filing of the findings nor any other indication that the autopsy was performed (which can be proved that it took place by examining the bones).
7. The autopsy was ordered (and is logged to have taken place) in a date after the funeral and burial of the body.
8. The filing of the autopsy in the morgue is empty and the filing number matches an autopsy of a woman which took place on a different day and time. There is no logging or signature of a coroner.

Just by listing the above true and provable facts it is obvious that here there has been a cover up of the particular assassination. Also it is obvious that the cover up has not happened from the low socioeconomic levels because it demands the creation of accomplices in positions where there are several inhibitions in the creation of an accomplice motive. Therefore we are led to the conclusion that the cover up came from the high socioeconomic levels and actually those having a direct interaction with the state administration and power.

That which remains so that we will be able to see the picture and possibly delineate the perpetrators is the motive. Why would the State or those the State protects murder and cover up the assassination of a middle class public servant?

3. MOVATION ANALYSIS

In order to be able to analyze correctly all the factors which react between them in cause-effect relationships so that we can reach the result we are analyzing (in this case the partuclar assassination and its cover up) we need to ask and answer logically and scientifically the following questions:

- who has interest/ has benefited from the incident?
- Who has the capacity to cause the incident?
- What was happening in the direct and secondarily indirect environment of the victim?
- What would the victim affect had he/she not been removed from the setting and his/her activities?

In order to be able to answer these questions we will have to look into the environment and activities of Georgios Geritsidis. Through the analysis of these we will be able to find possible candidates for the motive to execute him.

George Geritsidis was working in the IRS in the Public Sector. He had the rank of Second Grade Department Head, which means he had the capacity and obligation to perform investigations with the weight of signature higher than that of a simple investigator. In order to be able to be fully prepared for an in depth and fair investigation of the big corporations he was assigned, before performing the investigation George studied deeply the object of each corproration/ business so that he would be able to judge whether the excuses or the expenses were true to reality or not (e.g. before he investigated a timber importing company, he studied everything on timber commerce, types and qualities of timber, needs/ expenses necessary or redundant regarding the protection and maintenance of the timber, and other things). Afterwards he performed the investigation and often made suggestions as an economist for better, more effective organization charts for these businesses so that they would have a healthier business and tax image from then on.

George went through several types of tax services bureaus where he handled cases of small and large companies as well as individual businesses in the same manner, attitude and offer of suggestions. He trained and informed his colleagues and righly gained the stature and reputation of an objective and rigorous tax officer who supported the interest of the Public Sector without, however, undermining the interest of the Citizens (his refusal to be bribed led often to adverse transfers or loss of his entitled promotion).

Nearing the time of his murder, George was working in the Chemical Businesses IRS. In this IRS were submitted companies that dealt with the production/ examination of food and drink, medicines, cosmetics and other products demanding chemical and industrial processing. For each of those, he studied to learn their field from levels of danger to basic chemical compounds used in the sector as well as all types of control checks demanded (and therefore require expenses) for the 'all's wel' of these products.

On the day of his murder (Saturday 11/17/1973) George had gone out to visit a pharmaceutical company regarding the investigation he was running. The itinerary which he was going to follow was known to his family and did not pass from areas where the skirmishes were taking place even though the IRS offices were in the centre of Athens where on that day there were snipers and all kinds of dangerous elements.

His trail vanishes until his family is alerted by phone to go to Rithmistiko Hospital (currently General State Hospital 'Georgios Gennimatas') to his aid without being informed if and how he ended up there nor what his condition was. In the end the search for him in a chaotic hospital where the relatives of the innumerable wounded of that day as well as the wounded themselves filled without order the areas and wards ended in the mortuary where he was located after an agonizing search with no help or information by anyone in charge.

Explanations and manner/cause of George's death were unclear and vague, mutually contradicting among different doctors/ coroners who attempted to explain the facts from that night onwards. Without explanation and no support from the assorted official versions for his time and place of death, George's Service (the IRS) declared him 'fallen in the line of duty and because of it' and gave to his widow and orphan the matching pension.

Here it is important to note that 'fallen in the line of duty and because of it' for a Public Servant means that the person in question is summoned to a service (in this case, tax investigation) and because of his performing of this service and because of that service being performed that person dies.

Afterwards, in the beginning of the reinstitution of democracy and the sensational trial of the colonels, the issue of George's assassination was examined as a simple mention with no other witness than his not yet of age daughter, who was still under shock and intense emotional distress and to whom assorted stories had been told from doctors, ranking officers, 'eye witnesses', colleagues, IRS Department Head, relatives and policemen (who were never once called or presented themselves to testify under oath and name anything). These versions and claims were filed as the official version although George's daughter testified both to the examiner Tsevas and in the official hearings that all of these stories were unverified and only hearsay.

After the conclusion of the trial and the 'closing' of George's case, George's house was monitored by police officers although theoretically everything had been settled and the regime itself had falled.

Bearing in mind the following:

1. upon first glance, there is nothing in George's activity justifying his death in context to the series of events of the Polytechnic, not even as collateral damage.
2. everywhere in the official versions he is referred to as acting alone, even during his visit to the particular pharmaceutical he was investigating, although the service regulations (and in order to ensure his work wouldn't be cancelled by a technicality) demands the presence of at least one more tax officer who co-signs the case. (the co-signed known by name tax officer was never called by the examiner and was generally removed from every effort of George's family to ask him for information as the last man who saw him alive).
3. the hearing/ investigation of George's assassination case as a criminal act by the state denounces and shoots down the official filings by the police.
4. the 'loss' of several documents and loggings certifying the manner of death and its cause by the hospital, the morgue and later George's service (the Ministry of Economics) as well as sections of the Police (e.g. homicide) leaves unsubstantiated and therefore, without examining it, impossible to attest the validity/ correctness of the findings (which are fully refutable).
5. The body was unlikely to ever be examined again since, making a singular exception for George (after his family petitioned to exhume his remains in 1975), the Municipality granted him for free and for ever the grave in which he was interred and consequently denied the petition to exhume.

Also keeping in mind regarding George:

1. that he was very thorough in his work.
2. that he learned everything regarding the field/ object of the companies he investigated.
3. that he would not be bribed.
4. that he would not be blackmailed.
5. that human life and especially that of unknowing/ peaceful/non-fighting populations (as can be attested by his action in war periods for which he has been decorated) came at first priority.
6. that he was investigating and therefore was studying the object of a specific multi-national pharmaceutical and its import-exports as well as toxicity ingredients (because they were linked to expenses) of relevant substances in use.

That which we can conclude is that candidates for a motive high enough to coordinate accomplices in several positions and ranks of the state machine (from coroners and attorneys to executives of Public Servants and politicians) can't but be in the very high social strata. Also, they will have to be high enough in the social scale that the change of governments and regimes not affect the factors ensuring the continuation of the cover up (therefore they are plutocrats above governments). That sort of accessory before the fact needs a motive or profit large enough so that it will draw their attention to a unit (not group) within a social class that for them seems non-consequential.

The only way for that to be achieved is if that unit threatens either the acquisition of the usual level of income or the need to remain protected from revelations that will turn not units, but whole social classes (i.e. all the public opinion) against them.

Therefore, based on the above analysis we can safely say that George Geritsidis was not killed as collateral damage or direct damage of the events in Polytechnion, but was hideously murdered due to his personal activity as Citizen and conscientious Public Servant.

4. THE NATURE OF THE ASSASSINATION COVER UP

When a killer covers up his/her crime, he/she composes a different version of the conditions of the victim's death which based on the victim's action and profile is such that those who knew him, his friends and relatives will not question it.

That which circulated (no state agent or other agent ever officially say where, when and how he was killed except after 25 years had passed and the law allows the denial of investigation of any new or unforeseen new version or evidence, especially since the doctors implicated have all regardless of their age died) was that George was killed due to his action to protect activists against the Junta and/or a mother with a child being in danger from the gunfire. Also, that generally, George was a victim of his conscientiousness and thirst for Justice and Humanity.

The attendance of such a multitudinous crowd of unknown people (famous and not) who all attested to knowing him as an Individuals as well as a politically spirited active Citizen confirms that the above version was designed because George's political action was known to many and good enough to warrant his assassination on a day like the Polytechnic's, especially after the assassination of his collaborator Gregory Lambrakis.

Therefore, the version of George's death on the line of duty and protecting the ones needing protection was believed because it was true not only regarding his general activity but also the unsung, specific action he took as Second Grade Department Head, which took his life for the same ideals on the same scope. The only difference was that in this manner, the real perpetrators remained and remain in hiding.

In the name of Justice and Truth to which you were so devoted.

Olga Georgiou Yeritsidou

GUESTBOOK

For your comments please click here.