Joanna Tuni: The decree referring the two men to trial for the revenge porn video – The entire chronicle of the influencer nightmare

The decree referring to a trial of criminal offences, the two persons reportedly released her video and responsible for her campaign, brings newsit.gr to the public. Through the 20 pages of the Parliament of the Council of Defects of Thessaloniki, the whole scene set in July 2017 in Halkidiki, within the white Range Rover, the 37-year-old companion of the well-known influencer and his 43-year-old friend who allegedly had taken on the role of a “cinematographer”, what was grimly lived by Joanna Tuni for over three years, but also the reasoning of the judges for referring to a trial of the two accused for the leak of personal data. Revenge porn video and insults In the early pages of the parliament, it describes how this nightmare began to unfold. “The launched Joanna Tuni on 9/5/2020 was informed through numerous third-party messages on her personal account, on the social networking platform Instagram, that on the internet a video of erotic content in which she seemed to have participated herself. Due to its previous participation in a popular television station program of nationwide range, it had become identifiable to the general public and after the video was released, she found that in much of the messages she received from third parties, in which there was either the video, or photographic display of it, third parties, had added comments accompanied by extremely offensive and vulgar about the same characterizations. This video was leaked massively to the printed and electronic press and the internet, including on pornographic websites. And the titles that accompanied it online referred to its name with derogatory and highly defamatory characterizations. In addition, photographs of her from the same night on which she was portrayed naked and unconscious in the back seat of the accused Range Rover brand car, color white. The next lines mention the scene of the crossing of Joanna Tuni with one of the defendants. In fact, as the woman pointed out, she does not seem to have any contact with the environment as she was in a state-like state, as it is said, “acute drunkenness”. “It further emerged that the incident of her meeting with the defendant took place after having fun at a health store in Halkidiki, where she met the woman who had been with him for years, as they worked together at a fun shop in Halkidiki and with whom she left for an acute intoxication period of 23:00 and went to his car parked at a remote point, near the store, where they met. And then the defendant who was in semi-dizziness, consequence of drunkenness, condition, remembered herself after meeting, naked in the rear seat of the car and then the above to drive in an unknown direction.” In the meantime, her cell phone was repeatedly called by her friend who was aggressively asking to know where she was and asked to come and get her, but the defendant could not talk to him. And the defendant spoke to him, told him they were together and hung up. He left her in a friendly house and went for a drink. “Get out of here and go now” As quoted in the decree, the 37-year-old accused, immediately after the setting, led Joanna Tuni to a friendly home and then went for a drink. In fact, a little while later when influenzar recovered, she heard the defendant arguing with a man and telling him “get her out of here and leave now” “Then he led her to a house and left her there, while he left, telling her he was going to a club for a drink. When at dawn the defendant began to recover, he heard the defendant arguing with another man who told him: “Get her out of here and leave now.” Then the defendant transferred her to another nearby house, in which the second defendant, unknown until then in the opening, which in the morning woke her up as “Babys”. The opening after this incident, she maintained a relationship with the first defendant for about a month.” As described, while Joanna Tuni was in a miserable state of extreme intoxication, the 37 – year – old seemed sober. In fact, as noted, he looked at the camera and laughed. “In the same video, it was found that the first defendant appeared clearly and anyone who, unlike the opening who was in an obvious state of extreme drunkenness, seemed sober, looked at the camera directly and made mocking negs, laughed, did morphism and in general clearly seemed to know the video as well as to act in consultation with a third person who was filming. It further emerged that when the video was leaked widely, known to the defendant, they approached and informed her that the defendant had held the on-the-spot video with the photographs, that he was showing them and sending them with messages to third parties, and furthermore it was reported to her that this video and photos were already circulating in Thessaloniki for longer than the year and were posted on pornographic content websites.” She demonstrated the video as a trophy Some friends of Joanna Tuni who were either informed about the reverne porn video, or were received, were the ones who rushed to inform her. ” Among those who informed the defendant of the above were also known – referring to two known persons of the domestic showbiz – who in June of the same year 2020 reported to the defendant that the video in question and the corresponding photographs depicting it, were held by the accused as early as 2017, showed them as a trophy, sent them from his mobile phone systematically to third parties, and her first friend reported to her that he was himself among those to whom the accused had sent the video. Previously, on 11/5/ 2020, it emerged that the defendant went to the E-Crime Persecution to submit an appeal for the relevant video posted at various addresses on a pornographic content website when she found that on the very day before 10/5/ 2020 the defendant had likewise submitted a call to unknown persons in the same service for the same event.” Preliminary in the file and haul As stated in the recommendation: ‘After the complaint lodged at the Department of Electronic Crime in Northern Greece, criminal proceedings were formed and after a preliminary examination was initially placed on the record of unknown perpetrators and was recovered on 17/3/2023 and associated in the present case which was formed on 19/1/2022 at the time of an appeal against the Prosecutor of Demeliotics Thessaloniki against the defendant and the second defendant. The opening said that in the year 2017 two photos of herself were released for the first time in a semi-difficult state and had been aware of them and had then addressed the above defendant, who had categorically denied knowing something, saying he did not take photographs himself. However, when the video was leaked it found in conjunction with the information given by the third party, that he was himself responsible for the capture and leak of both the photographs and the video, but at an initial stage, he wanted the issue to be further investigated.” The coffee meeting and admission: “To have fun” As reported in June 2020, Ioanna Tuni met with the first accused in central Thessaloniki coffee. With her was a friend of her, ex-player of “My Style Rocks”. As indicated “The above defendant admitted that she was filmed by his friend, in consultation with him and that they did so to break a joke. He had sent it to some people, but now he has erased it and has no possession of it. The above results from descriptions and the non-disclosure testimony of the launched Joanna Tuni. Her friend Tuni fully confirmed the meeting with the defendant at a coffee shop in downtown Thessaloniki and the latter’s admission that the reception was made by the second defendant and friend of the first defendant. And he said they did it to break fun and that they no longer had it in their possession as they had erased it.” Friends of Joanna Tuni who testified described the situation with the blackest colors. Influencer, as they said not only lived nightmarishly elicited but was also abandoned by her then companion who, as they said, chose to end their relationship because she couldn’t stand the crossing. “The above is also confirmed by the testimony of a friend of Joanna Tuni who was with the defendant before the meeting with the first defendant, confirmed what the defendant and her friend had transferred to him for the admission of possession by the senior defendant and for the participation of the co-defendant. Moreover, she testified that in April and May 2020, unknown individuals were sending to the Instagram accounts of the same, the defendant and her then partner, the particular video and that after this disclosure, the defendant found herself in a bad psychological state, was saddened as her honor and reputation was offended, publicly spread, and her partner then broke up with her, because she could not stand this rumour. […] The defendant suffered enormous moral harm, resulting from the video’s publication, collapsed psychologically from the publication combined with countless abusive and vulgar messages and comments to her face, even live by unknown passers-by as she was publicly broadcast. And the gravity of the screening combined with its recognition, due to its participation in a television game, was such that it made the living of the unbearable.” The first defendant, in his apology denied the charge claiming that the indictee material and see the video and photographs, was never in his possession and only after being posted they were sent insisting that he did not know he was circulating. As stated “he justified the fact that in the video he looked at the camera and smiled because of the particular mood and condition of that moment, claiming that he saw a light and turned towards that place and that he doesn’t know and didn’t even realize that someone was shooting videos, except that someone approached them. He claimed the same thing about the photos. He said that when this happened and they realized that someone had approached them, as much as the defendant gathered and ran into the car, from his panic left the back right door without closing it, which closed at the speed of the car, that she entered the car to leave and Mrs. Tunni was lying back without closing the door and apparently that’s when the photos were taken. He further claimed that he does not know who released the video and the photos and that he believes he is the unknown who approached them that night and after getting the issue released. Further and in relation to the rumours that the defendant himself released the video and the photos, he claimed that witnesses are lying, that he has already filed a lawsuit against them. Further, he claimed that the defendant accused him of not accusing him of posting, because apparently it suits her that he is offended as his face is seen while the defendant is not identified. Moreover, he accused the instagram itself in January 2022 and did not name him in the first place, that unlike the launcher who increased her followers on Instagram and respectively increased her profits, he has been seriously harmed and that the witnesses whom she mentioned as informants do not confirm her words. The second defendant denied the charge claiming to have learned about the video in May 2020, when his co-defendant sent it to him with a link because he was upset and even he told him to go immediately to the Security Department, that with the photos he had heard something but did not mention it to the co-defendant, that he himself was an observer and did not concern him. At the same time, he refused to participate in the release of the video.” The trafficking As mentioned in the bill ‘strengthenments in general of the defendants, are not considered convincing and are rejected by the above-mentioned means’ and in the following lines it refers in detail to the incident and trafficking. “The evaluation of all the elements of the case revealed that the defendants from 23/7/2017 to 31/12/2017, and in 2020, made available, disseminated and communicated, sending to many different unknown persons, without the consent of the suffering Joanna Tuni through the mobile phone and using online applications and social networking applications such as Instagram, at least two photos taken 23 July 2017 with the mobile phone camera, further emerged that during the period from 23 July 2017 to 10 May 2020 more than once jointly they made available, disseminated and shared, sending to many different known in the interrogation third persons, without the consent of the patient, via his mobile phone and using online social networking applications such as Instagram a video – film – with a 35-second sound taken on 23 July 2017 by a common mobile phone machine in which the patient appears at personal moments. This video further emerged that they recovered it on 8 May 2020 and had it posted by at least 11 May 2020 without the consent of the sufferer on specific web pages. Generally it emerged that the aforementioned short film as well as photographs taken using a mobile phone camera, are personal data files, in which they intervened and received knowledge of them and after copying and storing them on their mobile phone instead of erasing them, used together, distributed them and shared them through online applications and social networking applications such as Instagram to many different thirds unknown to the suffering persons without her consent. And they acted in order to brutally insult her personality, as through the aforementioned ways, they presented the suffering as a person of light morals, thus brutally hurting her social standing. Since there are further evidence of guilt, capable of publicly supporting a category in the audience against the defendant for breach of personal data, relating to the sexual life of a natural person through previous interventions in a data archiving system in the form of collection, use, transmission, dissemination, disclosure, disclosure to third parties, I am not entitled to persons for the purpose of harm, together with and continuously, your Council should decide to refer them to the audience of the Three-Member Court of Appeals of Thessaloniki which is competent. Furthermore, the limitation term of guarantee of EUR 2000 imposed on the first defendant should be maintained to ensure that he appears before the court and is subject to the enforcement of the decision to be adopted until the final judgment of the charge, and there was no reason to impose on the second accused measures of procedural coerciveness. The legal view Newssit.gr contacted the lawyer of one of the defendants, 37-year-old Mr.John Honey who pointed out that his principal denies the charges and will prove his innocence in court