Petőcz Kálmán (szerk.): National Populism and Slovak - Hungarian Relations in Slovakia 2006-2009 (Somorja, 2009)
Annex
The Case of Hedviga Malinová the attack, since he paid virtually no attention to the victim’s mental condition and the trauma she had been through. Based on his assessment of “examined documentation” (that was not specified) and photographs, his own observations and “consultations with experts”, Labaš came to a conclusion that Hedviga Malinová had not been battered. According to the document, Malinová had bitten her own lip because if she had sustained a blow to the lip, the swelling would have grown and not diminished in the following days. The laceration on her lip and the contusions on her thighs originated before August 25, 2006; the report also concluded that Malinová did not suffer a concussion and therefore any memory loss. At the bottom, next to the stamp of Comenius University’s Medical Faculty, the report stated the names of twelve collaborators but only one signature - that of Labaš. He explained this by saying that it was a collective effort and that he had consulted his colleagues anytime he deemed it necessary.50 CiTEd EXPERTS objECT Most doctors identified as the report’s co-authors were totally reluctant to speak for the media regarding the issues Peter Labaš had consulted with them; however, their reactions indicate that they were asked rather general questions by Labaš, they did not know that they would be identified as the report’s co-authors and they did not sign or even read the final report.51 On September 9, 2009, two of the phantom co-authors, namely psychiatrist Viera Koŕínková and dental surgeon Peter Stanko, publicly dissociated themselves from the Labaš report. Koŕínková stated she was not aware that her name appeared on the list of experts, adding that she had turned down an offer to cooperate on the matter back in summer 2008. According to her, Labaš never consulted her regarding Malinová’s condition; all he did was ask her to describe to him the mechanism of Diazepam’s effects with special reference to patient’s reasonableness. Koŕínková provided Labaš with a general characteristic but stressed that in order to assess a concrete case she would need an opinion of psychiatrists treating the patient and a number of specific information. Since Korínková considered incorrect that the report had identified her as one of the co-authors without her knowledge and consent, she visited Labaš in person and demanded that her name be withdrawn from the list; Labaš refused to comply. Peter Stanko, dental surgeon and the university’s senior lecturer, objected to the report’s passage in which Labaš concluded that the laceration on Malinová’s lip could not have been caused by a blow. As he recollected, 331
