“Jason is not responsible for his own death”

23-year-old Jason bears no responsibility in the traffic accident that led to his death outside Parliament, in March 2021, he argues, speaking to NEWS 24/7the Road Accident Specialist, Antonios Morfonios, appealing to the Judiciary not to recognize the convergent complicity proposed by the Prosecutor of the seat of the Three-Member Misdemeanor Court of Athens, yesterday, Thursday (25/4).

“The Prosecutor moves in the opposite direction, in part, in relation to the actual circumstances of the legal conflict, since in no case does any percentage of complicity fall on the unfortunate Jason“ states characteristics and explains:

“From the hearing process and the testimony of the experts, it is clearly understandable that the speed developed by Iasonas, which is set at 67 km/h, with a speed limit of 50 km/h outside the Parliament, is not causally related to the cause of legal conflict, since it is estimated that even if Jason was moving within the prescribed speed limit the collision would still be unavoidable, as when the police officer made a sudden irregular maneuver to the left, it interfered with Jason’s path, momentarily limiting his visibility without leaving him any room to react while at the same time the vehicles were at a very close distance.

Nevertheless, the unfortunate Iasonas, driving prudently and paying close attention, made a speedy maneuver to the left, as foreseen by the KOK, but he did not manage to avoid the fatal collision for him, while it was not proven that he lost control of the machine due to the speed had developed. The Prosecutor’s motion is wrong with regard to the convergent culpability he proposes“.

It is recalled that on Thursday (25/4) the district attorney proposed to the Three-member Misdemeanor Court of Athens to convict the police officer of manslaughter commenting that “the heaviest percentage of negligence falls on the defendant”. In particular, he said that the accused “he did not show the due care and with this negligence he caused the death of Jason Lalaounis, driving recklessly and not respecting the KOK. He knew very well that it was forbidden and followed the dangerous practice. There was a legal way for the vehicle to enter Parliament, a way that was not followed. Cumulatively demonstrated negligent conduct“.

However, as he pointed out, there is complicity of the deceasedwho “He was driving above the legal speed limit and apparently realized that the taxi had stopped. This can be taken into account penalty measure”.

“He was doomed to crash”

The deposits of technical experts, which they testified in court, insisting on the fact that the 23-year-old motorcyclist had neither time to react nor sufficient visibility.

Specifically, the technical expert of Jason’s family, Panagiotis Madiasclaimed that the 23-year-old “found himself in a dangerously constituted situation resulting in his complete surprise”adding how “He didn’t have time to react. And with 50 kilometers to go, he still couldn’t avoid the danger”. According to him, the machine was traveling at 67 kilometers at the time of impact.

“At the time he was surprised, he was 17 meters away from the vehicle. He was doomed to crash. It did not have unlimited visibility. The volume of the cab blocked his visibility. He could not foresee the unforeseeable.”

According to second expert Vassilis Arabatzakis, 67 kilometers at the time of impact is justified, as the motorcyclist “he made an acceleration maneuver because he couldn’t stop with the brakes. It was all he could do”.

According to the witness: “except for the illegal movement to turn left, the official vehicle surprised the driver because it stopped on the road. And this while the space on the pavement is sufficient to place the entire vehicle even if the bar is closed”.

The deconstruction of arguments of the passenger in the police vehicle

Mr. Morfonios, in addition to commenting on the prosecutor’s proposal, also proceeded to deconstruction – based on the Road Traffic Code – of the arguments of the eyewitness and passenger in the EL.AS vehicle who killed 23-year-old Jason Lalaounis, as heard in the courtroom, yesterday, Thursday (25/4).

“The eyewitness, who was not wearing a seat belt (but imposes administrative fines for not wearing a seat belt) deliberately ignores the rules of the KOK, in order to cover for his colleague, regarding the fatal wounding of Jason” emphasized and detailed his counter-arguments:

1. “The passenger states that at the point of collision the vehicles are ALLOWED to turn, since there is no sign that it is forbidden to turn, a completely false and misleading claim, since there is a demarcation for a compulsory course towards the Constitution. If he had the slightest empathy for the tragic event, he could have been informed by the Council about the signage outside Parliament and would not have claimed that you are allowed to turn on the grounds that “all vehicles turn at that point”, to enter in Parliament. He confesses in a few words, that all the drivers who enter the Parliament, as long as there is no traffic warden, endanger the physical integrity and the lives of passing drivers!
2. What, testified that the defendant could not have foreseen that the machine would be moving at the point of collision. Really, how is it possible in a country with hundreds of motorcyclists in the center of a European capital, to be unable to predict the movement of any motorcycle within a residential area?
3. On the one hand, he claims that he miscalculated the line that the unfortunate Jason was moving, but on the other hand, when the collision occurred, he did not understand how it happened, falling into apparent contradictions.
4. He does not comment that overtook from the right the vehicle moving evenly from the lefttrying to create an image of a negligent Jason, but there is no connection with the legal conflict, which is caused by the completely sudden and irregular course of the accused.
5. Regarding the allegedly priority given to him by the taxi driver, the claim in question is classic in civil courts and produces no effect. After all, it was never proven that the taxi driver gave him a nod to pass.”