The “Sandy” case is not just another scandal that briefly hijacked public debate. It exploded at a moment when scandal after scandal — combined with the impunity surrounding many of them — had already pushed public suspicion and distrust in institutions to breaking point.
Now, with the investigation seemingly nearing its end, one thing is crystal clear: the police cannot get away with issuing one of their routine, lifeless statements and calling it a day. If they mishandle the final presentation of their findings, they will smash whatever remains of state credibility into pieces.
So far, the information emerging from police sources does not support the narrative that shocked public opinion. Quite the opposite. It appears to dismantle it almost entirely.
The infamous “Sandy” is reportedly admitting responsibility for fabricating the messages. She is said to have told investigators she used applications to create conversations based on fragmented information pulled from public discussions.
The bank accounts examined do not confirm any of the claims about large sums of money moving in her name. Photographs included in the “Sandy” messages reportedly turned out to be lifted from the internet. Trips that were supposedly made cannot be verified. And the most serious allegation of all — paedophilia, as referenced in the Drousiotis complaints — appears to collapse under the weight of the evidence itself, with dates, ages and incidents that simply do not match reality.
And yet suspicion remains rock solid for many people.
Because in a society that has learned — not without reason — to doubt everything, truth is not enough. It has to be proven. And proven in a way that convinces.
That is the critical point.
Whether the police understand it or not, they are no longer dealing merely with a case file nearing completion. They are facing an entire society demanding answers. Specific answers. Documented answers. Answers that can withstand scrutiny.
Because the questions are not simple — and they will not disappear through some sterile two-paragraph press release.
They are numerous. Relentless. They linger even in the minds of those least inclined towards conspiracy.
How did a woman with no obvious access to centres of power manage to construct such a sophisticated, multilayered narrative? How did she identify individuals who are not widely known to the public — such as Mylonakis? How did she fabricate hundreds of messages that, at least on the surface, looked so convincing?
And above all: are we dealing with an elaborate work of fiction on a staggering scale, or is there still some trace of real events buried somewhere beneath it?
Then there are the people who were targeted. Those who saw their names publicly dragged through the mud. Linked to horrific crimes with — apparently — no factual basis whatsoever.
Here, the responsibility of the state does not end with establishing the truth. It extends to restoring the damage.
Will there be prosecutions? Will responsibility be assigned? Or will everyone quietly shuffle towards the “next day”, leaving ruined lives behind as collateral damage?
This column warned early on that a foreign criminal investigator should have been brought in precisely to contain this deeply rooted suspicion. Nobody listened.
And so the burden now falls entirely on the shoulders of the police leadership — with absolutely zero margin for error.
Because if the final briefing comes wrapped in the usual soulless bureaucratic language the police so often default to — vague references, wooden phrasing and sanitised formulations — then the outcome is already written.
It will achieve absolutely nothing.
Society is not asking for a dry administrative memo. People are not looking for carefully engineered wording designed not to upset anyone. They do not want one of those classic official statements that says everything and nothing at the same time.
That kind of sterile institutional language will backfire spectacularly.
It will feed suspicion even further. It will supercharge conspiracy theories. It will allow doubt to sink even deeper roots.
What is needed is something far more substantial: full transparency. A detailed, evidence-based presentation of the findings. Facts that can survive scrutiny. Answers that genuinely answer the public’s questions.
Because at the end of the day, what is at stake here is not just the truth about the “Sandy” affair.
It is the credibility of the institutions themselves.
And credibility is not restored through announcements. It is earned through proof.
If that battle is lost once again, the blame will not lie with “Sandy”. It will lie with those who had the opportunity to restore public trust in the state — and failed.
Failed because, once again, they underestimated how monstrously large this beast of suspicion has become.
And how close it now is to crushing whatever is still left standing in this unfortunate country.
