A teacher told the Nicosia District Court on Thursday that she had informed the school's management about accounts given to her by Stylianos concerning violence in his family, with the incidents subsequently referred to the relevant authorities.
During cross-examination in the case concerning the death of 14-year-old Stylianos Konstantinou in September 2019, teacher E.S. also acknowledged that “as a state, we did not function as we should have to protect Stylianos”.
The teacher had taught Stylianos in his first year of primary school during the 2010-11 academic year.
“I reported everything Stylianos told me about violence. I did not hide anything,” she told the court, adding that the school management contacted specialists and that four multidisciplinary meetings were held during the school year.
Teacher defends observations of child's behaviour
During cross-examination, lawyer Konstantinos Kazantzis, representing Stylianos' father, put it to the witness that her references to the child's aggressiveness and behaviour at school were her own conclusions and that she could not know what was happening at home.
The teacher said these were her own pedagogical observations, explaining that the child's behaviour fluctuated and that he had difficulty concentrating.
She added that his family circumstances “did not allow him to function academically without disruption”.
Particular attention was paid to scratches, a head injury and a burn mark on the child's body, which the witness had referred to during her previous testimony.
According to what she said Stylianos had told her, the burn mark had been caused when his father allegedly extinguished a cigarette on him.
When she was told that the child's father had never smoked and that his mother had also not smoked at the relevant time, the witness replied: “I cannot know that.”
Witness explains differences between statements
Mr Kazantzis also questioned the witness about incidents she had mentioned during her previous appearance which, he said, were not included in her 2020 statement to investigators.
The teacher explained that she had mentioned many things at the time, but they had been recorded “in a laconic manner”, and that she had not been asked specific questions.
“Seeing that the trial would take place and recalling my memory, some incidents came back to me,” she said.
She added that, now that she had been given “a second opportunity to speak on behalf of my pupil”, she wanted to speak and “do everything correctly”.
Asked whether the child's accounts could have been fantasies, the witness said teachers do not interrogate children but allow them to express themselves and then inform the relevant services.
“In my 13 years of service as a first-grade teacher, for a child to confuse reality with fantasy means that they have a psychiatric condition and it needs to be investigated,” she said.
She added that Stylianos had been assessed and there had been no finding that he confused reality with fantasy.
The teacher acknowledged, however, that she had not witnessed what happened inside the family home and had testified about what the child had told her and what she herself had observed.
Witness questioned over head injury
During cross-examination by lawyer Jonathan Bettito, representing Stylianos' mother, the witness was questioned about the incident involving the child's head injury.
Mr Bettito put it to her that she could not know the extent of the injury or whether it had already been treated by the parents before Stylianos went to school and subsequently reopened.
The witness replied that the wound did not appear to have been treated and that it was extensive.
“In my 26 years of service, I have never again had children come to school injured and without care,” she said.
Asked how she could know that the mother's accounts of violence were truthful, the witness said the mother had told her that she had gone to the police and made a complaint.
Defence raises allegation of witness coaching
Cross-examination was subsequently taken over by Viktor Akamas, lawyer for the social welfare officer responsible for monitoring Stylianos.
Mr Akamas focused on incidents the witness had mentioned during her evidence-in-chief which were not contained in her original statement.
The witness had previously explained that she had had little experience when she gave her statement and that, after reviewing it and learning that the trial would take place, she remembered and disclosed additional incidents.
Asked when she had reviewed her statement, she said that, before appearing in court, she had gone to the office of a representative of the prosecution, who had informed her that she would have to appear as a witness and explained the procedure.
She said the lawyer had asked her to explain an incident mentioned in her statement, as well as what she knew about reports of violence and neglect involving Stylianos.
When Mr Akamas put it to her that the meeting involved discussing points and seeking clarification on matters not included in her original statement, and that these details were subsequently given in court, the witness denied this.
“No, I mentioned some things she asked me about so that she could understand what had happened. She was not preparing me for anything, if that is what you mean,” she said.
Mr Akamas put it to the witness that this amounted to “coaching” a witness, which he said was impermissible in court proceedings.
Teacher says she followed reporting procedures
Mr Akamas also questioned the witness about the procedures manual for incidents of domestic violence.
She said she had followed the chain of command by informing the headteacher, who, she said, contacted the Social Welfare Services.
Regarding a letter sent by the school principal to the Social Welfare Services in March 2011, the witness said it recorded an escalation in Stylianos' behaviour and an incident in which he had left the school.
When Mr Akamas pointed out that the letter did not record specific incidents of violence or injuries, she replied that this “does not mean they did not happen”.
She maintained that the incidents had been reported by her to the school management, which then informed the Social Welfare Services.
“I did not imagine all these things I have told you. I communicated with the headteacher about all the incidents and she gave me feedback,” she said.
She added that “I immediately reported the serious incidents to my headteacher and she immediately called the Social Welfare Services”.
Cigarette burn allegation discussed
Regarding the alleged cigarette burn, Mr Akamas put it to the witness that she had not seen the injury and that, had she done so, she should have reported it to the police.
The witness replied that the incident had been reported to the Social Welfare Services.
She said a police complaint would have subjected Stylianos to “a very difficult process”.
“He was a minor. His father — the perpetrator — would have had to take the victim child to the police to testify against him. We did the best for the child,” she said.
When Mr Akamas suggested that she had been biased against Stylianos' family because she had referred to a “perpetrator” and a “victim”, she clarified that she had meant “potential perpetrator and potential victim”.
Teacher says she wants to restore pupil's memory
Asked about her earlier statement that she was speaking “on behalf of her pupil”, the teacher said that, with hindsight, “as a state, we did not function in the way we should have to protect Stylianos”.
“The specialists were there, but we did not manage,” she said.
“Today I am being given a second opportunity to restore the memory of my pupil as I know it.”
The witness's cross-examination will continue on 15 September at 8.30am.
The case concerns an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of 14-year-old Stylianos Konstantinou in September 2019. The court is examining potential responsibility both within the family and on the part of state services.
Source: CNA
