RTÉ has defended a programme dealing with the death of Dublin teenager Brian Murphy (18) after his family criticised comments made in it by the State Pathologist Dr Marie Cassidy.
In the Death Dutiesprogramme aired on Monday night, Prof Cassidy said she believed the teenager, from Clonskeagh, Dublin, died from head injuries combined with the effects of alcohol.
However, Mr Murphy's parents, Denis and Mary, issued a statement saying both Dublin city coroner Dr Brian Farrell and the jury at their son's inquest had "rejected" Dr Cassidy's evidence in finding the teenager was unlawfully killed.
"As far as we are concerned, the matter was clarified for once and for all at that point," they said.
RTÉ replied in a statement yesterday that the programme had acknowledged the inquest verdict of unlawful killing.
It also said that Death Dutiesincluded a number of other views, regarding the cause of death including those of former State pathologist Prof John Harbison.
It acknowledged the distress that may have been caused to the Murphy family but said the programme makers had been in contact with the family during production.
RTÉ added: "Because of representations from the Murphy family, RTÉ Television was also happy to specifically include the view of Dr [ Derek] Carson, the pathologist engaged by the Murphy family, that alcohol did not play a significant part in Brian Murphy's death."
The Murphy family said while entering public debate on the issue was "extremely distressing" they felt they had no choice given the nature of Monday's programme. They believed they had a duty to speak out to "set the record straight and uphold the memory of our son Brian".
The hour-long show was the second in a three-part series on Dr Cassidy's work in which she spoke about a number of her high-profile cases. One was that of Brian Murphy, who died after he was attacked by a group outside Club Anabel at the Burlington Hotel in August 2000.
Prof Harbison carried out the postmortem. However, due to ill health he was unable to give evidence at criminal trials related to the fatal attack and at Mr Murphy's inquest in September.
Instead Dr Cassidy was given restricted access to Prof Harbison's papers and was asked to form a view, for evidential purposes, on the cause of death.
She at first concluded the cause of death was head injuries exacerbated by the consumption of alcohol. When given access to Prof Harbison's full set of records she appeared to change her mind and told Mr Murphy's inquest that the cause of death was head injuries. However, in Monday's programme she appeared to revert to her original conclusions.
She said in the programme: "At the end of the day my opinion was, having looked at the papers I was given access to, that death was due to head injury complicated by alcohol. Having heard Prof Harbison's report my opinion remains the same. And following the information that came at the inquest, my opinion has always remained the same; his death was due to head injury and that the reason he died from this type of head injury was complications caused by alcohol."
The Murphys pointed out that Dr Cassidy had not carried out the postmortem and had acknowledged that the best person to state a cause of death was the person who did the postmortem.
