Kolonos: “The prosecutor’s proposal is unacceptable,” says 12-year-old mother’s lawyer

Intense reactions have been triggered by the 12-year-old’s case of pimpling and rape to whom she has shocked the country. In fact, the Apostle Lytras, a lawyer of the 12-year-old’s mother to Kolon, speaking in Live News described the prosecutorial proposal as “unacceptable” and that he “will not stand in court”. It is recalled that the prosecutor suggested the discharge of the main defendant, Elias Mihu, for the offence of masculinity and rape, while proposing that he be found guilty of all the offences charged by the 12-year-old’s mother. “The prosecutor’s proposal is unacceptable” “Mrs. Prosecutor not simply surprised us, it is a prosecutor’s motion unacceptable,” says, speaking to Live News, the lawyer of the 12-year-old mother, Apostle Lytras. “He said he actually accepts what the 12-year-old said and suddenly after accepting them we have a discharge due to doubts about the first accused of rape. So how does she accept them when she said she was raping her and even with a description she made?” As Mr Lytras says: ‘ He asked for the punishment of the first defendant for malpractice but not in financial return, but with ease. The 12-year-old had reported that the first accused was also taking her to brothels, which Mrs. D.A. actually took it out of the frame for the first of the defendants and essentially blames the issue of pimping on the mother.” According to the lawyer: “I will reveal to you that she was examined as a university psychologist, the child psychiatrist who has been watching the minor for two years and another psychiatrist. All experts said that the child is telling the truth about the first defendant and that she is telling the truth about her mother. This kid’s been searched by the experts. And now there’s a prosecutor’s proposal coming along without a report… I’ve never seen this before.” “This proposal will not stand in court,” concluded Mr. Lytras. The prosecutor’s proposal In particular the prosecutor sought the guilt of the main accused for a distinguished abuse of a minor who did not complete the 14 years by a person who had been entrusted to him, for possession of pornographic material with a minor under the age of 12 but without coercion and speculation, for facilitating the minor to be extradited, as well as for gun possession. Instead, he asked to be declared innocent due to doubts about child rape, over pimping in brothels, and by coercion through coercion with a deduction of porn revenue. The 12-year-old’s mother’s guilt was suggested by the prosecutor. The prosecutor’s office, assessing the evidence of the procedure, suggested to the court the defendant’s guilt of pornography and contravention. In particular, the prosecutor asked the mother to plead guilty to a distinct case of pornography as she allegedly distributed material of the minor to co-defendants. Also, for a prominent case of pandering with the aggravating circumstance that she is a person who has custody and care of the minor. According to the D.A., she reportedly carries the form of ejection and facilitation through unbearable pressures, emotional blackmail and urging her minor daughter to be published to bring her money, but also through information systems in the form of unbearable pressures and exhortations to produce underage videos and photographs to bring her money. Finally, according to the same information, the prosecutor suggested that the defendant was guilty of extortion to a degree of misdemeanor against the former wife of the main accused. Guilt for 22 of 23 clients Also, for the so-called “clients” of the 12-year-old, 23-year-old defendant, the prosecutor proposed the guilt of 22 for sexual acts with a minor who has completed 12 years while for one, Pakistani origin, she proposed to be found innocent due to doubts. As far as the second main defendant known as “Michalis” was concerned, he was asked to be found guilty of distinguished facial pimpling of a younger 15-year-old for profit and for distinguished pornography under the age of 12. Finally, his acquittal for a sexual act with a minor for a fee was claimed not to have appeared to have met with the 12 year old.