Greek Court Weighs Conflicting Medical Opinions in Child Deaths

Greek Court Weighs Conflicting Medical Opinions in Child Deaths

kathimerini.gr

Greek Court Weighs Conflicting Medical Opinions in Child Deaths

Conflicting medical examiner reports on the deaths of two young children lead to disciplinary investigations and a complex legal battle.

Read original article in Greek
Greek
Greece
Human Rights ViolationsHealthLegal CaseExpert TestimonyMedical MysteryCourtroom DramaScientific Dispute
Athens Mixed Jury CourtProsecutor's Office Of Athens
Roula PispirgouChristina TzakonaAngeliki TsioulaNikos KarakoukisNikos Kalorhgas
What specific aspects of the evidence are disputed among medical examiners?
A key point of contention is the interpretation of physical findings. Experts disagree on the significance of various marks and discoloration, with some interpreting these as signs of asphyxiation and others attributing them to other causes.
What difficulties are involved in determining the cause of death in this case?
The differing opinions highlight the challenges of determining cause of death, especially in complex cases with ambiguous evidence. This has led to extensive testimony and questioning in court, with judges and the public grappling with technical medical terms and conflicting expert opinions.
What are the conflicting causes of death proposed for the two younger children?
The deaths of the two younger children, Iris and Malena, are the subject of conflicting medical examiner reports. Some attribute the deaths to natural causes (e.g., fulminant hepatic failure), while others claim they were caused by asphyxiation.
What actions were taken in response to the conflicting medical examiner reports?
The discrepancy in findings led to disciplinary investigations of the involved medical examiners. One investigation appears to have cleared the medical examiner, while another is ongoing and could lead to disciplinary action.
How do the medical examiners' statements about expressing scientific opinions affect the judicial process?
The repeated assertion by medical examiners that they are simply offering their scientific opinions, while helpful to the court, doesn't fully resolve the underlying conflict, leaving the judges to weigh highly technical and conflicting evidence to determine the cause of the deaths.