A life sentence without any mitigating circumstances was imposed today by the Kozani Mixed Jury Court of Appeal on the 49-year-old husband for the murder of his 37-year-old wife, Anthi Linardou, in January 2016 in Velvendo, Kozani.

The court unanimously adopted the Prosecutor’s recommendation of “premeditated murder in a calm mental state” and convicted the perpetrator of the crime. The court also unanimously rejected the defense’s request for mitigating factors, such as leading a lawful life, remorse, good behavior after committing the act, and provocation by the victim. It then also unanimously rejected the defense’s request to reduce the life sentence to 10 years. As the final reading of the sentence was delivered by the presiding judge, the victim’s relatives erupted against the defendant, and the intervention of the Special Police Force was required to calm the situation.

During his defense, the defendant stated that he sincerely regretted what he had done and apologized to the mother of the deceased woman. He described the scene of the murder, saying: “My wife said she wanted a divorce and to take the children to Athens. She told me that her decision was final, and the thought of losing my children enraged me.”

In court, he claimed that he told his wife that he knew all the messages she exchanged on her phone with her former lover, mentioning that he lost his composure when she slapped him in the face. He then slapped her back and, in order to stop the children from hearing her screams, he covered her mouth and nose. The president of the Mixed Jury Court and the Prosecutor repeatedly asked the defendant if, during the 15 minutes of struggling until his wife lost consciousness, he ever questioned what he was doing or thought about stopping. The defendant said that he did not have the mental clarity to think at that time and that everything happened very quickly.

The Prosecutor, in his speech, argued that “the malice aforethought includes the knowledge of the act” and that the defendant “was aware of his actions not only at the moment he committed the crime but also afterward when he tried to conceal it, burying her body in the field, disposing of her clothes, plowing the land, and attempting to mislead the police by reporting her as missing.” The Prosecutor requested the court to find the defendant guilty of premeditated murder in a calm mental state.

The Civil Action agreed with the Prosecutor’s argument, emphasized that the defendant’s claim of a “crime of passion” was unfounded, and read the detailed statement the defendant gave to the police, where he described the crime and the last moments of his wife in chilling detail. “No one who acts in a crime of passion remembers such details of the crime, as described by the defendant to the police,” said the Civil Action, adding: “The defendant’s apology heard today in court would have meaning and substance if it had been expressed through actions immediately after his criminal act, something we did not see in the evidence presented.”

The defendant’s defense team attempted to create cracks in the established and substantiated First Instance ruling of committing the crime in a calm mental state, claiming that “no one decides to kill in their own home, especially when their children are in the next room,” and that the crime “was the result of an initial argument that escalated, leading to an explosive situation and the condemnable act.” Finally, they requested that the court recognize these aspects of the defendant’s actions.