For eleven hours, Eprosecutor of the MOD Evangelia Spyridonidou deconstructs one by one all the claims put forward by Rula Pispirigou for her death Georgina.

Mrs. Spyridonidou, during her long speech, invokes many of the statements of about 60 witnesses which they testified at the 89 sessions of the court and in combination with other evidence concludes that “the claim of Ms. Kategoroumenis is not true”.

At the same time, he makes use of excerpts of the material from the declassification of the accused’s communications by reading messages from which, as he said, it emerges a mother dealing with “her self”. A mother who, although she had already lost two of her children, showed apathy towards what was happening with Georgina’s health.

“It was herself first, not her child. “Who thinks of me” he said in the messages. Not her child who had encephalopathy.”

According to the prosecutor’s office, the defendant’s reactions, behavior and messages, while her daughter is hospitalized, “show a person who is either not aware of what is happening, or does not care.”

Looking several times at the accused, who was listening to her while appearing calm, Mrs. Spiridonidou with suggestive expressions and harsh language criticized Roula Pispirigou for her choice to have sex with her estranged husband, without at all seeking his understanding and cooperation, for the dealing with the situation. Especially, “since Georgina, after the encephalopathy she suffered from the first interruption, had become “a special child who needed care, love and a calm environment” as she said”.

“Georgina might not speak, but she felt and understood everything. She recognized her parents, looked childishly and laughed, was uncomfortable when the physical therapist came to pick her up. No one knows and will never know, what development this child would have had if he was alive…” said the Prosecutor.

Commenting on the reactions of the 35-year-old when Georgina, after vomiting in January 2022, entered a clinic in Rio, the Prosecutor said:

“The accused wanted to put the child in ICU. For what reason I don’t know. I can guess something, but I won’t say it here. Nothing has come up. Does he want to show the seriousness of the situation? To whom;” adding that the difference between the clinic and the ICU, in Georgina’s case, was that “a parent does not need to be in the Unit”.

Citing Pispirigou’s messages from July 2021, when, after hospitalization, Georgina returned home in a wheelchair, until her death nine months later, Mrs. Spyridonidou pointed out that:

“We have very little information about Georgina’s home life. We know that he was not sleeping, from the mother’s text message dialogue with intensivist Andreas Iliadis where she tells him that she increased the melatonin. “We don’t play with drugs. I don’t recommend it,” the doctor replies. This shows a special ease of the accused with the little one’s medicines”.

The Prosecutor emphasized, too, in particular some dialogues of Pispirigou with Daskalakis a few days before Georgina suffered the fatal attack, on January 29, 2022. As Ms. Spyridonidou said, on January 17, 2022, while Georgina was having an MRI, when the father sent the 35-year-old a message to find out what was going on, his accused asks to go get his clothes to leave the house, threatening to take them out on the street. Through messages the couple communicates tensely, while the child was in the tomograph.

In one of the messages read by the Prosecutor, the father writes: “If something happens to my child, I will break you up” and the mother answers “If you didn’t want your child to get hurt, stay home.” The Prosecutor pointed out that “in her testimony, the defendant told us that “when you have children, they are in the first place”. He must have forgotten then, that. The child is in the tomograph, she is late waking up from hypnosis and she is doing what? It seems from the messages! It is the same day that Mr. Iliadis has told her that these children have a low life expectancy and she does not say anything about it to the father. No mention.. .’

Citing the medical evidence and similar statements, the prosecutor responded to each of the defendant’s allegations, for which she said that from her messages as well as her searches on the internet “shows a familiarity with all things medical. Her searches are in a specific field. He never looked for the therapeutic hypothermia that was done to the child in the ICU in Rio… He is looking for specific drugs.”

The Prosecutor was particularly critical of the defense’s allegations against Mr. Iliadis regarding his intention to take Georgina’s organs. In a very strong tone, after he pointed out that the discussion about organs for transplantation begins when we have brain death, he said that “Mr. Iliadis’ first concern was to save the child’s brain. Was this the doctor who approached her for organs? All these are rumors and I wonder why Ms. Kategoroumeni allowed this (to be heard in court). Is it possible to talk about transplants to a doctor who has done everything to save the child?”

Mrs. Spyridonidou rejected defense claims that ketamine may have been administered by mistake during Georgina’s resuscitation at Aglaia Kyriakou. Reading a certificate from the hospital that this substance was not administered, neither during resuscitation nor during the hospitalization of the 9-year-old, but also the protocols for the drug, the Prosecutor stated that “it is a substance that if it falls into the wrong hands can cause death”. There is no evidence to prove that the doctors administered ketamine to the child,” the prosecutor said, referring to the procedure followed by the nurses, ruling out the possibility that a mistake was made and they confused ketamine with adrenaline. “The ketamine in her bottle has a red line because it is part of the drugs… Doctors and nurses had no reason to lie,” he said while emphasizing that ketamine is indisputable in Georgina’s blood.

For the day of death in Children’s, the Prosecutor emphasized that the accused, while she knew what condition the child was in by walking as if “looking for something”, approached the nurses’ station where the nurse was, who asked her if the child was having a new episode. When the doctors entered the room the child was bruised, “he had no contractions, he was in a state of contraction”, as noted by the prosecutor, who spoke about the efforts of the doctors to bring the child back, as well as the drugs administered to him.

Commenting on the defendant’s wish to have the autopsy performed, since it was a sudden death in a hospital, in Patras instead of Athens, which she expressed immediately after she was told that Georgina did not make it, the Prosecutor stated: “She told us that she asked for it because they had litigation with the Forensic Service of Athens after the lawsuit they had filed against Malena. But the lawsuit was against doctors. In any case, this part was so “technical” that it is surprising, at the moment her child has lost interest in it.

Mrs. Spyridonidou also did not leave the testimonies of the scientists called by the defense unaddressed. Especially regarding the statements of the two medical examiners who testified as witnesses on the defendant’s side, the Prosecutor, among other things, said that “it would be good if they stayed with the forensic autopsy, findings and not get into clinical issues.”