Hi everyone, I’m Stefanos Baziotis. This is a special article and it will be unlike the content you may follow me for. This is a political article, which I normally don't concern myself with. But this is a special and tumultuous period for Greece, and it demands special action.
This article is about the state crime in Tempi,1 which happened in my country, Greece, on Feb 28th, 2023, almost exactly 2 years ago. Two trains crashed into each other, causing the death of 57 people. It is the deadliest train accident that has been recorded in Greece. Furthermore, at least 85 people were injured, of whom 25 were seriously injured. Below is an interview (with non-auto-generated English subtitles) of one of the seriously injured survivors:
What followed was an unbelievably obscene, offensive, irresponsible and provocative response from the Greek government, which is still unfolding. Greece is plagued by corruption, dissimilitude, and Goebbelsian propaganda. 2 years later, and still no justice has been delivered; no repercussions have been suffered by those who are responsible.
I thought long and hard of how I could contribute meaningfully and here's my conclusion. On the one hand, there's a lot of international coverage of the “cold facts” (and we thank you for this). For example, this article by ESG Voices seems pretty accurate and well-researched. But, on the other hand, people who don't speak Greek don't know about the statements by politicians and journalists which have contributed significantly to the anger and indignation that has surged in Greece.
So, in this article I will translate important and relevant statements from Greek to English. Of course, most, if not all, of the content in this article is not mine. I’ll merely translate relevant segments, while providing context whenever I deem it necessary.
Note: The bold in all the following quotes is mine.
It's surprisingly difficult to translate Greek to English. There are syntactic forms in Greek which are impossible to translate to English. For example, it's common in Greek for the subject to follow the verb even in the active voice. For instance, in Greek it's not uncommon to say: “Αυτό είπε ο πρόεδρος”. A literal translation of that would be something like: “This said the president”, which makes no sense; it's akin to “Thus spoke Zarathustra”. In both cases, what we want to convey is “This is what Zarathustra / the president said”. But, as you can see, the subject must be moved before the verb (assuming we want to maintain the active voice). So, it's essentially impossible—except for some cases when it's possible but absolutely weird—to preserve the order if we want to also preserve the active voice. We can switch to the passive voice, e.g., “This was said by the president”, but this would be a terrible mistake. The active and passive voices are used exceptionally tactfully by politicians, journalists, and other figures addressing the public. In particular, the passive voice hides the actor, which can be useful e.g., if a politician wants to talk about an inappropriate action but wants to conceal that he/she was the one who did it. So, switching voices essentially constitutes deliberate misinterpretation.
As a result, I struggled in almost every sentence with hitting a balance. On the one hand, I tried to come up with a literal translation that is as close to the original as possible so as not to distort the intended meaning. On the other hand, I tried to make sure that it was grammatically correct and that it ultimately made sense. I am somewhat satisfied with the result, but to get there, I felt the need to use a lot of explanatory notes within the text, as well as a few footnotes. Both are intentionally easy to distinguish. In particular, my notes / additions within the text are enclosed in square brackets “[]”. For example, if I quote “This is what [he] said”, then “he” was added by me. Most of the time these notes are pure additions; in rare occasions, the brackets indicate that I used a non-literal translation that differs significantly from the original (because the original would not make sense).
I'm open to any suggestions for improvement! And please let me know if you find any mistakes!
The natural starting point when anyone talks about Tempi is the (at the time) Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation, Konstantinos Karamanlis, i.e., the one responsible for ensuring that the railway functioned properly. He's probably the main person to be held liable for what happened, both morally and legally.
For reference, Karamanlis is a member of New Democracy, the party which was in power at the time of the accident, which got re-elected in June 2023, and which is still in power.
Shortly before the accident (on Feb. 7th), a trade union had sent a warning to the government that the condition of the trains was terrible and it’s highly likely that a fatal accident will happen. In this article, you can access the full announcement by the ΔΕΣΚ-Σ, i.e., the Δημοκρατική Ενωτική Συνδικαλιστική Κίνηση Σιδηροδρομικών, or the Democratic Unifying Syndicalist Movement of Railroaders. I'll quote some important pieces along with a translation. For each piece, the Greek text comes first, followed by the translation. The pieces will be separated by an ellipsis.
Άλλα δύο ατυχήματα τις προηγούμενες ημέρες προστέθηκαν στο μακρύ κατάλογο με τις Αμαξοστοιχίες 51 και 61 αντίστοιχα, θέτοντας σε άμεσο κίνδυνο το συνάδελφο Μηχανοδηγό αλλά και τους επιβάτες.
Two more accidents of the last few days were added to the long list, [this time] with trains 51 and 61, respectively, directly putting at risk [both] the train driver, but also the passengers.
...
Είναι πλέον εξοργιστικό αυτά να αποτελούν σχεδόν καθημερινό φαινόμενο και να μην παίρνεται κανένα ουσιαστικό μέτρο, να μη δρομολογείται καμία βελτίωση στην υποδομή και λειτουργία, να μην ελέγχονται οι εμπλεκόμενοι φορείς και να μην αναζητούνται ευθύνες.
It is now exasperating that [such accidents] constitute daily phenomena and no meaningful measure is being taken, no improvement is being put into action in the infrastructure and operation [of the trains], none of the entities involved are checked, and no liabilities are being sought.
...
Δεν θα περιμένουμε το δυστύχημα που έρχεται, για να τους δούμε να χύνουν κροκοδείλια δάκρυα κάνοντας διαπιστώσεις.
We won't wait for the fatal accident that is approaching to see them shedding crocodile tears [and] make ascertainments.
As you can see, the astute workers foresaw not only the fatal accident, but also, as we'll see, the crocodile tears of the government.
Of course, the Minister and anyone in the government completely ignored the announcement (it wasn't the first anyway).
Again shortly before the accident (this time on Feb. 21st), there was a discussion in the Parliament about the condition of the trains in Greece. Because someone—get this—dared to raise safety concerns, the Minister blurted the flamboyant “It’s a shame and I’m ashamed”. But let's start from the beginning.
That day, a parliamentary assembly discussed, among other things, the condition of a (historic) train in Pelion (Πήλιο). This is actually something that even Greeks miss: the concerns were not raised (by the other member of the parliament) for the Athens-Thessaloniki route, where the accident later occurred. However, the Minister chose to claim that the route in Pelion enjoys the same safety guarantees and adheres to the same standards as the Athens-Thessaloniki route, giving examples of why these standards are high.2
Let's get to the specific words.3 The relevant recording of the assembly discussion can be found on this page.
First, a translation of the segment 2:19:09 - 2:19:54. For simplicity, I will only include the translation.
Currently, the same safety specifications that hold for the route Athens-Thessaloniki, hold for the (little) train in Pelion. The same prerequisites that have to be satisfied by the train driver who drives the train in the Athens-Thessaloniki route—meaning certifications, medical examinations—have to be satisfied by the train driver in Pelion. So the passenger can feel the same level of safety. If we exempt the little train [in Pelion] from the provisions, then the safety for [i.e., of] the passengers will vary qualitatively. And I think that you will also agree that the State can't mess around with the safety of the passengers.
Now, we arrive at the highlight: the short clip 2:30:43 - 2:31:07.
It's a shame—and I'm ashamed—that you're raising safety issues; and I would like you to recall [your statement] immediately. It's a shame! When I explained to you, and I'll say it again, that the fact that currently ΥΔΥ4 exist, we're ensuring the safety. We're ensuring the safety!
K. Karamanlis resigned, accepting responsibility for the accident. Of course, he has still not faced any actual repercussions, including no legal repercussions, and clearly no political repercussions. Why? Because in June 2023 (a couple of months after the accident), Greece had an election. And guess what! Karamanlis ran for parliament again! That's how sorry he was.
But of course, we (meaning Greek people) should accept our own responsibilities and, for that matter, our self-imposed fate. New Democracy won the election and Karamanlis got near 100% of the votes in his area! So, they are not the only ones to blame.
One important thing to note is that if you're a member of the Parliament, you have parliamentary immunity (sometimes called “legislative immunity” and in Greece usually called “political immunity”). This is a system in which members of the parliament “are granted full immunity from legal prosecution, both civil prosecution and criminal prosecution, in the course of the execution of their official duties.” That's why it was important for Karamanlis to get re-elected.
Sure enough, shortly after the accident, crocodile tears were shed. We begin with the government spokeperson Yannis D. Ekonomou. He spoke live to the press regarding the accident, but unfortunately for him, the camera recorded statements that were probably supposed to be behind the scenes. Here's the clip (3:05 - 3:28):
In this case, you don't even need to speak Greek to get what's happening. Observe that roughly from 3:05 to 3:08, he stands still in front of the camera, and in character. But at 3:08 you see him getting out of character; his expression changes from the sad-and-sorry, and he starts moving around. This is because he did get out of character. At that point he asks the reporter (twice): “Can we go again?”—meaning, “Can we do another take?” Then we cut to the next clip, with him again in character, this time until roughly 3:24. At that point, he gets out of character again, asking the reporter: “Do you wanna go again?”, i.e., “do you need another take?” The reporter replies, “I think this one was good”.
In short, so shocked was the spokesperson that he needed to do multiple takes until it's good enough. Look, if you are actually shocked, as you should be after 57 people died on your watch, you don't need to “fake it till it's good”. This is a quintessential case of hypocrisy.
Next in line is our one and only Prime Minister. He made some statements at the scene of the crime, but apparently, he needed instructions on how to look sad enough. Here's the short clip, from 0:05 to 0:13:
While preparing to make a statement, we can visibly see him trying to frown, trying to bring his eyebrows together. Unfortunately, he's holding his head high, which doesn't “look good”. At that moment, we hear others telling him “low” and “lower your head”, i.e., instructions on how to look sad, humble, and sorry. You can actually observe that around 0:12, the Prime Minister cast a glance at the person who's giving him instructions.
And of course, the star of the show, K. Karamanlis, can't be absent from the recital. But this time, the performance was scripted. In this video, we see the leaked resignation letter, which, however, included a “cheat sheet”—as the show host called it. And indeed, at the end of the document (which becomes the focus of the video at 4:21), we see the said cheat sheet. It includes instructions on how to handle questions. The instructions are two and simple:
Because of course he needed such instructions; because, you know, he was too shocked to handle it.
At this point, let me try to give shape to Greece's indignation so that you can follow along and understand what has pissed people off. There are two common threads across all the issues is: (a) coverup and (b) that this coverup has not been uncovered, and the ensuing lack of justice.5 By that I mean that those responsible (some say “the culprits”) have not faced legal consequences (or, for the most part, any kind of consequences).
The main question here is: To cover up what? We can break this down into 2 categories: Firstly, we have the management of the railway system. Greek people are indignant because the trains were poorly maintained while (as we saw above) the government knew about the problems and they did nothing; that's what they're trying to cover up. And so, it is reasonable that people think that the government is guilty both because it has been irresponsible and because it's trying to cover up that it has been irresponsible.
Secondly, as things unfolded, it seems that there was more to the story. One of the two trains was a freight train. That train seemed to carry an illegal and flammable substance which caused a fire, which in turn killed people who were not killed by the crash.
Let's consider these two separately.
As you saw above, there were multiple warnings that the condition of the railways was terrible. In fact, New Democracy itself, as part of its election campaign (before it took power in 2019), pointed out the problems!
Below is K. Mitsotakis (who went on to become the Prime Minister) before the election. The relevant clip is from 0:38 to 1:07, except for 0:56 to 1:02, because that's a clip of Karamanlis which we saw earlier.
Regarding the railways. We insist on interventions which are not very attractive; to put it simply, they are not very sexy. That's why we insist so much on maintenance and modernization [or upgrade] work of this [railway] network, which, since 2015, has been abandoned. [...] Probably [the trains] would derail if we attempted to operate them at these speeds [replying to a question].
Needless to say they did almost nothing.
Now, one of the problems of the obsolete railway system was the train control system. The Athens-Thessaloniki route was supposed to have a Central Traffic Control (CTC) system in place.6 In fact, as the announcement-warning we saw earlier states (in a different excerpt), the Greek government has gotten loads of money from Europe to implement it.
More specifically, because Greece is in Europe, when we're talking about CTC, we're talking about a very specific kind (!): the European Train Control System (ETCS). In what follows, you will see that people don't use this term, probably deliberately, which leads to confusion and vagueness.
In any case, that route did not have a working ETCS. On the contrary, the train control system relied extensively on humans. Here's a clip in English which explains the situation (18:25 - 19:06)
Unfortunately, on the day of the accident, there was a human error (by the traffic controller). The government, with the help of the not-so-free press, tried to emphasize that aspect, to divert people's focus from the real problem: that the system was (and still is) incredibly susceptible to human error. What follows (1:10 - 1:40) is a highlight reel of multiple people, starting with the Prime Minster of course, emphasizing that it was due to human error:7
But at 1:46 (until 2:01) we have a surprise by a news reporter, who highlights that the point is not the human error of course. This is important, so let me translate it. The two reporters involved are Rania Tzima (the female reporter who's the main host)—abbreviated as “R”—and Yannis Pretenteris (the white-haired male)—abbreviated as “Y”.
Y: So, the human error is not in doubt.
R: Was it only that? Only the human error?
Y: What else could it be?
R: What else could it be? All these things that should have been in place, and have not been in place, to prevent the human error, so that even if this [i.e., the human error] occurred, we wouldn't grieve for 50, 60, 70, 100, 90 fatalities.
Then, the government started changing the narrative, this time focusing on whether there was any (functional) CTC. Of course the government argued that there was, in fact, a functional CTC, because that would minimize their responsibilities and pin the blame mainly on the traffic controller (i.e., we're back at the human error).
So, they gathered up at a traffic control center to prove (although they actually disproved) that there was a CTC system in place (I'm using the more general term CTC because that's close to what they use too). Here's the clip (23:39 - 25:50) which I can't embed for some reason.
There are 4 main people involved here: (1) the deputy minister (of Infrastructure and Transportation) Mihalis Papadopoulos (the male in the grey suit, abbrev. “M”), (2) the expert / traffic controller (the male in the Lacoste, green-and-brow, V-neck shirt, abbrev. “E”)—not the one who made the mistake; a different one who was requested to give his expert opinion—, (3) the reporter (presumably female, judging from the voice, abbrev. “R”; other reporters, identified as R2, R3, etc. pop up at times), (4) the unknown man in the brown jacket (to the back-left of the deputy minster, abbrev. “B”). Here's the translation. One thing to keep in mind is that there's a game of words here which seems impossible to conveys if we use the correct terms in English. I did my best.
M: We will not allow anyone, neither within the parliament, nor outside the parliament, to disinform the Greek society. That's why we're here today, in the traffic control center in Larissa, to show what we said today in the parliament, and which unfortunately some did not understand and did8 the exact opposite: to show that this [control] panel—the local tele-control system9 works. [... the video cuts to the expert]
E: We are here in front of the local control system of the Larissa train station. We have a view that spans around 8 kilometers in the local control [system].
R: Is this CTC?
E: No, this is not CT... We said, this a local control system.
R: It's not CTC (?)
E: There's no CTC currently. This is a local control system.
R: On the deadly night10 was there [a] CTC?
E: There is local control.
R: CTC!
E: This is the local control system.
R: [Speaking simultaneously] No, this is not CTC.
E: We said it's local control.
R2: [This is a different reporter] It's for few kilometers?
R: It's... It “sees”...
E: We said for 8 kilometers, I told you, for 8 kilometers.
R: 5 kilometers from here onwards?
E: It has a view of 3.5 kilometers from the exit of the train station and about 1.5-2 kilometers from the South [not if I caught the last word correctly.]
R: If there was a CTC, how far would it be able to view?
R3: [A different reporter] Mr. Tsapati [referring to the expert; that's how I heard his name], since when CTC doesn't exist [i.e., since has it been inactive] here in Larissa?
E: CTC got completely out [i.e., got deactivated for good] ...
R3: Ok
E: ... since [i.e., in] July 2019.12
R: Since 2019, and until today, there's no CTC in Larissa.
E: There's no CTC, no. There's a local control system.
R4: [I think this is yet a different reporter] For which reason [i.e., “but why”] though?
M: This local control system, however, of the local [control] panel of teleadministration [i.e., CTC] we call it13 has been functioning since November 2022. However, it's enough [i.e., adequate] for [something unintelligible] to prevent, unless there's a human error, to prevent such a...
R: Yes, [but] the safeguard of the other two traffic controllers, who would see the mistake of the traffic controller here, does not work. CTC has two more traffic controllers, who would catch the mistake of the traffic controller in front of this board and they would fix it...
M: The traffic controller here should have seen it on his own from the control panel.
R5: [A different reporter] Can I ask you something Mr. traffic controller?
M: Thank you very much.
R5: CTC was in a different room until 2019, or in this room?
R: [It was] in the one that is being maintained / repaired.
E: In the one that is being maintained / repaired...
B: [Tapping E and waiving his hand] [The] end [i.e., stop]
The last moment is crucial! The guy in the brown jacket—nobody seems to know who he is, but we all suspect his affiliation—signaled to the expert to stop talking. Why he did that is left as an exercise to the reader.
But, there's more of trying to “make the white black”,14 as we say in Greece. George Gerapetritis, one of the then minsters of New Democracy, was claiming in the partliament that there was a CTC system. In fact, he was referring to the CTC system, from which one can only reasonably conclude he was talking about ETCS. Here's the clip (26:16 - 27:23). He first says:
The CTC in Larissa was handed over to us in 2019, destroyed. It didn't work because there was a big fire at the beginning of 2019.
Here (at 26:27) the video cuts to another clip in which someone talks about the fire:
The fire that started in July 2019.
So, that's one lie; it wasn't in the beginning. This is corroborated by the expert in the previous video. If you look again, you'll see he also refers to a fire in July 2019. Anyway, let's proceed. The minister continues:
The traffic control center of Larissa was working perfectly!
The video then cuts once more, this time to Nikos Tsikalakis, the President of ΟΣΕ employees; ΟΣΕ is the the Hellenic Railways Organisation. And he says (referring to the previous statement):
I want to emphasize... Obviously, because he's new in the ministry, he hasn't been informed correctly by the gentlemen who inform him [video cut] CTC is from Palaiofarsalo to Platy [the latter was mentioned above by the traffic controller], and such technology doesn't exist. It used to exist... which got destroyed. So, what works in Larissa, and [which] would [allow] the traffic controller to have a view, is the local control system of the [train] station.
The reporter asks:
So this is the control panel, it's not the CTC, right?
To which he replies:
No, that's not CTC.
Things now get murkier. As I said earlier, there were 2 trains that crashed: one passenger train and one freight train. It turns out it's crucial what cargo that freight train was carrying. This is because it's now clear that many of the deaths were caused not because of the crash, but because a fire that followed. This includes both people who literally were burned alive, but also people who died from lack of oxygen. This is why the slogan of the Tempi 2023 movement is “I don't have oxygen”.15
It's now relatively clear that this fire—or at least the size and extent of the fire—was caused by some illegal substance (as far as I understand, at least it was illegal for that freight train to carry it), and the only thing that could carry it is the freight train. The government has been trying cover this up. Let's get to the clips.
One huge source of clips is a recent, and now infamous, interview of the prime minister K. Mitsotakis.
To be honest, the whole interview is a highlight reel of audacity. Every question is a fire arrow that the PM avoids ineptly. But because it's about 40 minutes, I'll give you the highlights of the highlights.
First, consider that shortly after the accident, Mitsotakis denied emphatically any possibility that the freight train was carrying anything illegal (we'll look at the actual statement shortly). Let's start with 4:12:
Reporter: These gatherings16 [Mr.] President—so that we can put things in order and address all the issues—came about after new data in [i.e., regarding] this case. This data was a lot; I'll just tell you [about] two main [pieces of data]. The first is these dialogs—these shocking dialogs—of the children [i.e., young people] who got lost [i.e., died]—and it was proved that many of these children were alive after the crash, and were burned by the fire, or choked on the fire fumes later. The second is from the finding—one of the findings—the finding of Mr. Kokotsakis this time [i.e., in this case], who talks clearly about chemical solvents, which were in the train, and which caused the crash [he probably means “the fire”]. These are the two [pieces of] data which—I'm guessing you don't disagree—brought people out onto the streets.
I'm skipping some stuff from his response that I consider irrelevant, and I'm jumping to 5:20:
PM: [...] surely—I don't know how many they are [i.e., were]—there were people who died in the train not because of the crash. How many they are, we will never know. And that's why the cause that generated the fire matters. But I want to stress that there's not just one finding [from experts]. There are many experts who will contribute to this effort to find out the truth.
The response was an empty deflection, but it provided a nice opening for the reporter to quickly counteract this deflection:
Reporter: A second finding which is expected in the next couple of days is the finding from the Polytechnic school; a finding from credible scientists. This finding hasn't been published [yet, but] there is some information [available]. My information is that [this finding] too comes to a conclusion, and the conclusion is that the fire was not caused by the oils that the train engine has, but from something else.
You'll see why I bolded this segment shortly. The prime minister replies:
PM: You know this question has troubled me a lot. And it has troubled me because I myself—I'm guessing you will ask me so I'm [replying preemptively]—fifteen days after the accident, based on the information I had at my disposal at the time, I said that this freight train didn't carry anything suspicious...
Reporter: You were absolutely certain!
PM: Yes! And why was I absolutely certain at that point? Because that's what those involved had informed me about. Hellenic Train17—with a response to a question that was raised in the parliament—, the Fire Department, OSE. However, one year later I said that all possibilities are open [i.e., on the table]. So, I'm equally interested in finding out whether there was...
Reporter: So they misled you?
PM: [Hold on]. They told me what they themselves knew. I'm not going to use such an expression [referring to the word “misled” above.]. That's what we knew, that's what we said. As time went by, I'd say, this discussion flared up [i.e., it was being discussed more and more], for which we have yet to receive a clear answer. But I would like to also point out—since you referred to... and surely everyone is scrutinizing what I've said—in every one of my statements, I mention that it was good that a second [field] expert was appointed by the prosecutor; because we have to give an answer. What might have seemed an impossible scenario back then, may turn out to be possible.
I'm skipping again a bunch of empty-talk (I'm here if anyone disagrees) to jump to 7:35 (until 8:16):
Reporter: 15-20 days after the accident, the country's prime minister comes out, assures us that the train didn't have any dangerous or flammable cargo, and at the time he talks about conspiracy theories regarding anyone who was talking about such scenarios and now, we come to the present day, to discuss a singificant possibility that there was something illegal or flammable.
PM: I repeat...
Reporter: You were wrong [back] then...
PM: I... I wasn't wrong! I communicated the information I had.
Reporter: Didn't you prepossess the justice [system]?
PM: No. In no case. At that moment, the information we had was that. And at the end of the day, Mr. Sroiter [the name of the reporter], to prepossess the justice [system] in which way? Saying [i.e., transferring, communicating] the opinion that they had conveyed to me at that moment about what the train did and did not carry?
To finish up with this part, let's finally see the statement that was made back then by the prime minister (6:47 - 7:28):
Reporter: What did the freight train carry? Meaning, was the big fire in any way connected to the substance, the materials, which it [i.e., the freight train] carried?
PM: None. We know that now with certainty. We know what exactly the freight train carried, there was nothing flammable. The collision was so violent and so severe that caused—that's what the experts tell us—an initial ignition, and obviously afterwards there were flammable materials, oils, which caught fire when the collision happened. I would like to respond to this categorically because, you know—at this point not only in our country—conspiracy theories thrive everywhere; there was nothing suspicious in the freight train.
Few days after the accident, the local authorities covered large areas of the accident site with materials such as rubble and concrete. Some potential evidence, like debris and soil, was also moved around. The result is that the site got contaminated, thereby making any attempt to uncover evidence much harder, if not impossible. What did the government had to say about destruction and contamination of evidence?
In the much mentioned interview, the reporter raises this question, from 16:14 to 17:30 (what follows is cheap rhetoric):
Reporter: Let's move to the topic of the accident site, Mr. President. Experts say that if this site had not been tampered with, if soil had not been moved around, if part of it had not been covered [or filled in]—so that rescue operations could be carried out, as you have said—the traces of the chemical solvents would have been traced much more quickly.
PM: If they existed; again, this is a hypothetical question.
Reporter: What is not hypothetical Mr. President is that the site of a crime—inside quotes, or not—got altered, while [even when] a murder occurs, we fence in the scene—you know these [things] well, you see what the police practice is. Nobody approaches, nobody touches the site. An airplane crashes and for 6 months nobody touches—apart from the rescuers—nobody touches the crash site so that the analysts, the investigators can go to see [i.e., figure out] what exactly happened...
PM: Some decisions were taken...
Reporter: The next day here [i.e., in this case] we saw bulldozers...
PM: [Hold on]. Some decisions were taken at the site. I repeat that on my level, my concern at that moment was for us to be able to retrieve and identify the bodies. If some operational decisions were taken to stabilize the ground, so that a crane can enter and pull up the train so that we can see what lies underneath it, I don't know these [decisions], and I don't have to know them. But I'm sure that everything happened in good faith!
Of course it should be obvious that the “I don't have to know” is especially infuriating. But let's first focus on the main claim, which is that these operations happened so that e.g., a crane could enter. But, take a look at this clip (27:57 - 28:28):
Presenter: Get this now. They say that the site was covered so that cranes could drive on it. But, are we going to lose the dates too? Isn't it enough that you brought us videos which were delivered a couple of days after the day you presented them, are you also going to derange us in front of our eyes?18 There are pictures of cranes from the next day [i.e., the day immediately after the day of the accident], while the filling in and de-filling in and the rubble you laid happened a couple of days afterwards. Were these different cranes? So, there are cranes which drive on the ground and there's no problem, and then other cranes came which [can't] drive on the ground and we have to put rubble underneath?
Now let's move to this “I don't know”. The following video is gold, but it is heavily edited. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to retrieve the original video from Mega channel. So, I will only translate from 0:23 to almost the end, but only the parts of the news (i.e., the parts with the two female reporters on the upper left and upper right, and the two male reports on the lower left and lower right).
Female reporter (upper left): You have in your possession 2 testimonies in court by police officers who claim that they were pressured—heavily pressured—to allow the covering of the [accident] site
Male reporter (lower right): This theory that has been developed, and which had been supported initially, that [the covering] took place so that the cranes could drive, the soil to be raised [... after video cut ...] But we reveal now that this wasn't the meeting that led to the covering of the site. The cranes were raised, the cranes stepped, but then complete clearing [of the field] followed, rubble was laid over the site, nothing remained from the point of the train tragedy so that the scene of the tragedy could be erased for communication purposes, so that these dramatic situations would not get reproduced. [... after the cut at 1:31 ...] The officers were called on March 3rd, i.e., 3 days after the accident, when an assembly of government officials, and representatives of the local authorities...
Female reporter (upper left): Do the police officers name them?
Male reporter (lower right): They name them, we'll see it later...
Female reporter (upper left): Meaning, do they say who pressured them?
Male reporter (lower right): Exactly, Mr. Triantopoulos was present, [as well as] Mr. Xifaras—the Secretary-General in Ministry of Transportation—, Mr. Agorastos [... after the cut ...] They [meaning the police officers] mentioned that there was pressure—despite the fact that they [again the police officers] were stating that the site should not be covered because autopsies were in progress, and because if they did it, the judiciaries would have to be informed. [... after the cut ...] Something, however, which they overcame and the covering happened in the end. [... continuing at 2:14 ...] They [i.e., the government officials] called them [i.e., the police officers] regarding this [issue], they told them that we want you to give your permission to cover the site using as a justification that we want to open up the rail tracks to start servicing [train] routes. [... after the cut ...] Let me say that the services started again after thirty days.
The magistrate (who was appointed for this case) requested—just 40 days after the accident—the destruction of biological specimen of the 57 people who died in the accident. Here's a relevant article. As the article states:
Τα συγκεκριμένα δείγματα θα μπορούσαν να κρατηθούν και να γίνουν τοξικολογικές εξετάσεις ώστε να διαπιστωθεί εάν ο θάνατος προήλθε από τα τοξικά αέρια, από τη φωτιά ή από τη σύγκρουση. [...] σύμφωνα με την αστυνομία, τα δείγματα καταστράφηκαν μόλις σε 40 ημέρες ενώ συνήθως κρατούνται μέχρι και 7-8 μήνες.
These particular samples could have been held and toxicology tests could have been conducted, so that it could be determined whether the death was caused by toxic fumes, by the fire, or by the crash. According to the police, the samples were destroyed only after 40 days, while they are usually preserved for up to 7-8 months.
As is reported in this video, the same magistrate did not think of requesting on time the Call Detail Records (involving train drivers, traffic controllers, OSE officials, ministers, etc.) of the critical period. He requested them with a huge delay, when the experts and the relatives pressured him. In fact, he requested them one year after the accident, at which point the carriers said they couldn't give out anything because by law CDRs cannot be kept for more than 12 months.
Soon after the accident, a “journalist” thought of... helping the government reduce the political cost incurred by the accident:
If the government has any chance of counterbalancing the political cost, which it will certainly incur from the accident, it is exactly this: comparing itself with previous governments. The prime minister [should] also pose this dilemma in the election19 and say “This how we handled this, and this is how others handled it.20 When something goes south on our watch, we resign.21 In our hands, our primary weapon is honesty. We didn't hide the [number of the] dead [bodies] as others did. We announced them every time, and we were announcing them, and the mechanism”—this is the third argument—“worked”.
And then we have one of the most unpopular “journalists” in Greece, Aris Portosalte, saying the following in this clip (9:54 - 10:42):
I have a hunch—a hunch, I don't know, I have a hunch—that when the shipwreck of Express Samina happened, and people were lost outside Paros, we modernized the maritime cabotage. When three accidents happened—two at Tempi,22 one with the PAOK fans, and one with the students from Imathia23, and the third in Aghios Konstantinos, again with students—we decided that we had to construct a road network. We opened tunnels above [meaning on the map] Aghios Konstantinos, we went further up [again on the map], we made tunnels at Tempi; both train and road tunnels. So, unfortunately, young people—there too kids, school kids—had to die [... he gets interrupted]
No, this is not a mistranslation. He actually said they had to die. I'm saying this because soon after this statement, he was heavily criticized, and a politician from New Democracy felt the need to defend him (here's the clip). He read aloud on TV news one of Portosalte's tweet in which he (i.e., Portosalte) claimed he didn't actually say “they had to”, he only said that “it happened”. By the way yes, you read correctly: a politician went out of his way (he wasn't asked to comment on this by the reporters) to defend a journalist. If you're wondering about articles like this, now you know why.
The politician mentioned right above is Adonis Georgiadis. This is a notorious Greek politician, especially lately. Here I just want to present two more highlights from him related to the Tempi accident.
The first is an extended statement on political responsibility which he voiced when New Democracy was an opposition party. Here he's referring to the 2018 wildfires and especially the one in Mati. Here's the clip (27:35 - 28:31):24
On your watch a hundred people die[d]. You say “I did everything perfectly. I did all I could. I didn't... this was the extent of my abilities, this was the personel I had, this was the wind... it was a bad time, I couldn't do anything more [i.e., else]!” Just for these hundred people who “left” [i.e., died], don't you say “because it happened on my watch, I'm leaving [i.e., I'm quitting].” Simply as a sacrifice, so that it can stay with the souls of the innocent people. To show that there are still people with a soul in Greece, and sensitivity. Is it necessary for Adonis to tell you that [i.e., all the above] for you to quit? Is it necessary for New Democracy to say “quit because a hundred died”? Don't you get it on your own? What do you want history to write [i.e., say] ? That a hundred died and you remained on your chair? Or that a hundred died and you said “I'm leaving so that someone pays the cost”? These are obvious. In Janpan they would commit Harakiri. Here, you say “I'm quitting”. We didn't ask you to commit Harakiri. To leave... since you're planned to leave in a few months [anyway], to leave 2-3 months earlier. What happened anyway?
Why the same doesn't hold for New Democracy when 57 people died on their watch is still a mystery.
The final highlight is that Adonis decided to bring up the Marfin bank arson. This was in light of the big Tempi protest that was being planned for Feb. 28th, 2025. Basically, Adonis wanted to warn (or scare) people that a similar incident was possible. The popular narrative for what happened at Marfin is that a bunch of random, unstructured anarchists (who are thought to appear in similar protests) caused the arson. However, as the reporter explains in the video, and as you can read on Wikipedia:
Eye witnesses testified that the arson was carried out by a structured, organized group of people with a hierarchy and a leader. Testimonies include that the group was not comprised by the “usual people that go to protests” and that the person who lighted the fire threw a “probably new” material inside the bank that “caught fire immediately”.
It's up to you to figure out who could have carried out such an operation.
I really don't want to end on a sad note. I'm writing this at 3am on March 1st, 2025. This morning, on Feb. 28th, 2025, the protest for the 2-year anniversary of the Tempi accident took place. The turnout was unbelievable. Hundreds of thousands of people showed up to peacefully demand justice to be served. Now you know why they showed up.