Theodekti Vallianatou made false claims under civil oath at court today in Larisa, and one of these false claims seems to be guided by a sinister purpose in relation to an essential witness in my case, namely UK national Theoktisti Nicola Emsley.
According to an oral translation of a copy of Theodekti’s written sworn witness statement, she made three claims that can immediately and quickly be proven to be false, but the most concerning is made in relation to the scope of knowledge of my journalism activities of essential witness Theoktisti.
First false claim.
Theodekti claimed that Theoktisti Nicola Emsely has no information concerning my journalism activities in relation infectious diseases, vaccines etc.
However, my emails to Theoktisti prove that I kept her informed about this very topic. Specifically, I kept her informed her about my Open Letter concerning Ebola vaccines and the Medical Innovation Bill in February 2015.
On the day I forwarded Theoktisti a copy of my Open Letter on her request, I even thank her in an email for her help.
“Thank you for all your patience and kind help!” I write to her in an email forwarding my Open Letter to UK MPs in February 2015.
Help is something a person receives in performing a task, specifically, in this case, my writing of my Open Letter.
I forwarded Theoktisti other documents and emails, specifically on the Medical Innovation Bill. In fact, Theoktisti dubbed it the Mengele Bill, a name I have adopted on this blog without attributing the source.
Bear in mind that most of my communications on this topic with Theoktisti were inevitably oral since we both speak English, were in the same monastery and talking was more natural than emailing unless it concerned a copy of some document or other.
UK national Theoktisti was interested in this particular piece of UK legislation because her mother was a doctor, and she is a graduate in Oxford in pyschology increasing her interest in medical subjects.
We had extensive conversations on the topics on my blog. In fact, I hardly discussed any other subject with Theoktisti.
I also sent an email to Theodekti Vallianatou as well as Theoktisti that I have sent information to an Orthodox priest in Sierra Leone on the Ebola vaccines on their suggestion.
In addition, I sent Theodekti an email about Gardasil on April 15th 2015 on her request. Theodekti told me a priest in Thessaloniki who had a teenage daughter had asked her about this vaccine. She had replied that she would ask me. She did. I sent her information in an email form.
In short, I can prove from my emails that both Theoktisti and Theodekti were informed of the content of my journalism activities on my blog and knew it was about vaccines and infectious diseases. In fact, most of our communications on this topic were inevitably oral.
Second false claim made under oath today.
Theodekti Vallianatou claimed I send hundreds of defamatory and threatening emails to her and the Bishop of Volos concerning imaginary scenarios.
In fact, I send far fewer and refer to factual events, mainly the transfer of significant sums of money to the private bank account of Theodekti which she has in violation of church rules.
My transfers to her private bank account are proven by my bank statements. They are not an imaginary scenario.
Thirdly, Theodekti falsely claimed I have called her a murderer. That is not true. I am still alive. For her to be a murderer, there must be a murdered person, a dead body. I have said she attempted a de facto murder attempt, and given substantial evidence in criminal charges filed at Larisa police station concerning this.
These three claims of Theodekti Vallianatou can, therefore, be proven to be false.
My emails prove that both Theoktisti as well as Theodekti were informed about my journalism activities in relation to infectious diseases such as Ebola and vaccines.
My bank transfers to her private bank account are just one of many facts I refer to in emails to her and the Bishop of Volos, making the legitimate and reasonable request to have my defrauded money returned to me.
Anyone who reads my blog or criminal charges knows I have never called Theodekti a murderer. I have stated she made a murder attempt against me, something that is warranted by the evidence and the subject of criminal charges.
Given the fact, Theodekti made three false claims, it is reasonable, therefore, to call her other claims in her sworn witness statement into question.
Theodekti claimed she only became acquaintted with lawyer Samaras in the firt week of February when he called her by phone concerning a post. How plausible is this?
If Samaras wanted an independent and more credible witness to prove he had no working relationship with Theodekti, he could have called his colleagues as witness or produced his diary or some other piece of independent evidence.
Instead, he produced the very person who has the biggest motive to conceal any relationship, and whose testimony is most likely to be biased.
Also, the relationship may not necessarily have been a formal one between Theodekti and Samaras. It could also have involved other Orthodox clergy as intermediaries such as the Bishop of Volos or Thessaloniki.
Also, Theodekti claimed in her sworn statement that Theoktisti Emsley has suffered no bodily threat. This may or may not be true but it would be better to hear it from Theoktisti Emsley herself.
Also, no bodily threat does not mean Theoktisti Emsley has not suffered other threats, such as bullying. Even if Theoktisti Emsley has not suffered any threat, it does not mean she is not in danger as an essential witness. She may not even be aware that she is an essential witness who just by virtue of being sent away at the time of the de facto murder attempt of Theodekti Vallianatou is an essential witness.
My emails at the beginning of this post prove Theoktisti was informed of my journalism activities, specifically the Ebola vaccine and Medical Innovation Bill. The reason why I sent Theoktisti the information was because of her interest in understanding issues that affect the UK and her request to keep her updated.
I strongly suggest the notion that Theodekti’s lies in relation to Theoktisti Emsley state of information are guided by a sinister purpose. By trying to give the false impression that Theoktisti Emsley was not informed of my journalism activities, Theodekti appears to be trying to exclude her from the status of essential witness.
Also, note that Theodekti made claims concerning Theoktisti Emsley that Theoktisti Emsley should and could make under sworn oath if they were true, but did not.