Chios: The differences between statements collected by the coast guard and those given during the judicial investigation

NEWS 24/7 reveals from the case file the differences between the preliminary statements of the survivors collected by Coast Guard officers and the statements the same survivors gave to the Investigating Judge of Chios shortly thereafter. This is not the first time such a situation has occurred. It is recalled that in the past Greece was convicted for inadequate investigation in the case of the deadly Farmakonisi shipwreck, when the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found in its ruling that the statements collected by the Coast Guard in the first hours were extremely deficient.

Indeed, those statements—where survivors appeared to describe the circumstances of the shipwreck using identical wording and in agreement with the Coast Guard’s account—were taken into account by the Piraeus Naval Court, leading to the case being shelved. However, several years later, they were characterised as “unreliable” by the European Court in its conviction of Greece for the manner in which the case was investigated.

What happened, however, from the morning of last Wednesday?

At 10:15 a.m., two Coast Guard officers took the first statement from a female survivor. The woman had been aboard the inflatable boat with her husband—who is among the deceased—and their three minor children. In the document they drafted, the Coast Guard officers wrote that the survivor stated:
“We had been underway for about half an hour and were quite close to the Greek coast, when at some point I saw a large white light and felt as if an explosion had occurred. I then realised that we had collided with another vessel, without having reduced speed.”

The same woman, two days later, while still hospitalised at Chios General Hospital, spoke to the Investigating Judge handling the case, who visited the hospital.

In her statement, whereas in the Coast Guard record she appears to have used the words “we collided with another vessel,” when the Investigating Judge asks her how the incident occurred, she replies:
“For me, this was not a collision. It was as if they wanted to hit us. We were two minutes away from reaching Greece and from a distance we saw a white light. I think we saw it from the left. We all realised it could be another vessel and that is why we all told each other to continue carefully so that there would be no collision.”

When the Investigating Judge asks about the speed at which the driver of the inflatable was travelling, she says:
“We were telling him when to go fast and when not to, depending on whether there were waves or not.”

Asked how much time passed between seeing the light and the collision, and whether she noticed the inflatable turning, she answers:
“About 2–3 seconds after the light, I believe. We were going straight ahead, we did not turn.”

In her preliminary statement, there is no question or answer regarding whether she saw or heard visual or audible signals from the Coast Guard vessel. By contrast, the Investigating Judge asks her whether she saw a siren or a blue light before the collision, and she replies:
“I did not see any of those.”

A second survivor was initially examined by Coast Guard officers at 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, giving a statement in which he describes the incident as follows:
“We had been underway for about half an hour when one of the passengers who was next to me informed me that we had almost reached Greece. The very next moment I saw a large white light coming towards us and felt the impact.”

The same person testified before the Investigating Judge of Chios two days later:
“The boat was going very fast, I saw some white lights, very strong; all around me the sea was white from the light and then the collision happened. The light was coming from our left. We were going straight ahead, we did not turn.”

As in the previous case, the statements taken by the Coast Guard contain no questions or answers regarding warning signals. The Investigating Judge, however, in her own examination, asks the survivor in detail:
“Did you hear a siren? Did you see any blue light? Did you hear the word STOP?”
The witness replies:
“No, I did not hear anything. I did not see any blue light, nor did I hear ‘stop’. After the collision, I heard people asking for help.”

Difference in both description and identification

Another statement is that of a woman who initially, when speaking to Coast Guard officers, identifies the 31-year-old Moroccan man who was remanded in custody as the driver of the vessel. This woman was examined at 4:10 p.m. on Wednesday by Coast Guard officers inside the hospital. By that time, six survivors had already been examined, to whom the Coast Guard officers showed a photograph of the Moroccan man and—according to what is written in the statement document—asked the question:
“Do you recognise from the photographs shown to you the smuggler of the boat?”

The first five did not recognise the Moroccan man shown to them by the Coast Guard as the smuggler. The sixth survivor—who has since left the island and therefore could not be examined by the Investigating Judge—did recognise him. The second identification of the Moroccan man came from the survivor whose statement follows. The woman is initially asked by the Coast Guard how the incident occurred:
“At some point, while we were underway, we saw a large light. A few seconds later, while the smuggler did not reduce speed at all, we collided with another vessel.”

In her statement to the Investigating Judge two days later, she describes the incident somewhat differently:
“Shortly before we arrived, I saw a strong white light from our left. This light turned on and off once, as if it wanted to scare us. When we saw the light, we all became anxious because we thought we would be sent back. About one second after the light went off, they hit us very fast and very hard. After this collision, how we are alive today, God knows. I did not notice our vessel turning either right or left; it was going straight and it hit us on the left side.”

To the Investigating Judge’s questions as to whether she heard a siren, heard ‘stop’, or saw a blue light, she answers negatively to all three.

Regarding the identification of the Moroccan man, in her preliminary statement she answers the Coast Guard:
“Yes, I recognise him as the smuggler of the vessel that transported us to Greece, as I was sitting right next to him.”

In her statement to the Investigating Judge two days later, the woman is asked whether she saw the driver of the vessel clearly and whether she can describe him:
“Yes, I saw him and I can recognise him even though he was wearing a black mask covering his entire face. Only his eyes were not covered, and those were the only thing I saw. He is tall; I do not remember any other distinguishing feature.”

When the Investigating Judge shows her a photograph of the Moroccan man, she replies:
“I did not see his hair or the rest of his face, but as I see him now, I think it is not him.”

She is then asked why she identified him in her statement to the Coast Guard, and the survivor replies:
“At that time I was not very well, I was shaken by the incident, I was crying and I was not in a state to remember clearly. Now I am better. I am not sure, but he resembles him. The police showed me another photo on a mobile phone, of the same person, but not the one you showed me.”

It is recalled that, with the joint agreement of the Prosecutor and the Investigating Judge, the 31-year-old Moroccan man has been remanded in custody and charged with the felonies of illegal transportation of foreign nationals, causing a shipwreck, and illegal entry with the aggravating circumstance of loss of life.

He has denied the charges from the outset, stating that he was one of the passengers, while his two defence lawyers speak of “the remand in custody once again of a victim of a shipwreck. We will persist until the truth is revealed. We saw it also in Pylos with the nine Egyptians who had been remanded in custody as smugglers.”