In his statement, Yiannis Mantzouranis, a lawyer representing families of victims of the Tempe tragedy, expressed his strong criticism of the Professor D. Karoni’s finding. Mr. Mantzouranis said that after a long and laborious process, Professor Karonis resulted in an indefinite and vague case, according to which “it is reasonable to assume” that silicone oils “participated in the fire” due to the high temperatures that prevailed.
The family’s lawyer pointed out that this case is in stark contrast to the finding of Professor Constantopoulos, who undoubtedly concluded that the fire and fireplace were not caused by silicone oils. Mr. Mantzouranis emphasized that the gaps of meaning in the phrases of Mr. Karoni, such as “it is reasonable to assume” and the fact that the oils “participated in the fire” without specifying who else participated, are not covered by the numerous non -existent or incorrect conditions.
In addition, Mr. Mantzouranis emphasized that the unraveling and subsequently painting the accident space, under the supervision and mandate of the government, resulted in the destruction of all the necessary evidence to reveal the truth. In his view, even if the case was accepted, which he described as “blasphemous” that Professor Karonis supports the governmental version of silicone oils, the actions and omissions of the government and the related public bodies do not allow him to reach solids.
In closing his statement, Mr. Mantzouranis expressed hope that there would be no judges in the forthcoming trial who would refuse Professor Karoni’s examination at the hearing. The purpose of this request is to undergo the professor of public control and to clarify the unclear and incomprehensible, as he described them, rational jumps in his findings.