Disturbing Details Emerge in Diego Maradona Death Investigation
Argentinian soccer legend Diego Maradona passed away at age 60 on Nov. 25, 2020, due to a cardiorespiratory arrest. Now, his death is under investigation, and some disturbing details have emerged regarding his final few hours.
At Maradona's family's request, eight medical professionals, including doctors and nurses, are on trial for allegedly causing his death. This week, that investigation and trial revealed that Maradona was in extreme pain and discomfort in the hours leading up to his death.
On Thursday, Carlos Cassinelli, director of Forensic Medicine at the Scientific Police Superintendency, gave some disturbing details from the autopsy that was performed the day of Maradona's death as he revealed that the soccer legend was in "agony" for at least 12 hours before he died.
'The heart was completely covered in fat and blood clots, which indicate agony,' the specialist said, according to the Associated Press.
More than that, Cassinelli went on to say that Maradona's death was not a result of an acute condition. He was suffering symptoms days before his death that "any doctor" should have been able to see.
'This is a patient who had been collecting water over the days; that's not acute. This was something that was foreseeable,' Cassinelli said. 'Any doctor examining a patient would find this."
At the time of his death, Maradona was being treated at a rented home after a surgery to extract a bleeding in his brain. He was under regular care by medical professionals, and the prosecution claims that the accused medical professionals – a neurosurgeon, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, doctors, and nurses – failed to provide adequate medical care, which allegedly led to his death.
Maradona is widely considered one of the greatest soccer players of all time. He famously helped lead Argentina to the 1986 World Cup title.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: How Much More Positive Head Start Evidence Do We Need to Save It?
The Trump administration's first four months have been rough on U.S. children. They certainly don't deserve the punishment. From polarized and destabilizing politics to a global pandemic, increasing environmental pressures from climate change (and more), this cohort of children is coming of age in a particularly difficult moment. And yet, we have reached what is perhaps a zenith in Trump-era politics of disinvesting in children and families. The administration's response to America's youth crisis has been stunningly consistent: again and again, it has balanced occasional, vague promises to do something constructive to address child care costs or infertility challenges on the one hand with real and stunningly concrete attacks on children's well-being on the other. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter Perhaps the most direct and comprehensive assault on children is coming through the administration's war on Head Start. At $12.3 billion last year, it's the federal government's largest-single investment in early learning, and it serves almost 800,000 children and families per year. Over its 60 years, Head Start has provided high-quality early learning as well as connecting around 40 million children and their families to comprehensive support services like health and dental care, nutrition and housing assistance. During the 2024 campaign, Donald Trump echoed the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 playbook in calling for Head Start's elimination. This was hardly novel: though Head Start has long enjoyed bipartisan support, a subset of conservative researchers, activists and politicians have spent decades attacking the program. While the administration's chaotic first 100 days decimated portions of the federal government supporting health and well-being, its attacks on Head Start have been uniquely unpredictable. In January, as Elon Musk and his underlings at the Department of Government Efficiency hacked away at the federal civil service, Head Start providers across the country reported that they were unable to access their normally scheduled federal payments. This posed a particular challenge for Head Start center directors navigating the tight margins that define the early education market; hundreds of early care and learning centers warned that they were at risk of closure. Related Later in the spring, the administration abruptly pulled funding from regional Head Start centers that offer resources, support and oversight for Head Start providers. Several weeks ago, it appeared that the administration was preparing to act more decisively to abandon U.S. kids and families who depend on Head Start. On April 17, the Associated Press reported on leaked documents indicating that the Trump administration would erase Head Start funding in its forthcoming budget proposal. Once this hit the news, Head Start supporters mobilized to save the program, and the administration reversed course. While it appears that the administration isn't (yet) ready to deliver on this promised assault on children's well-being, it's worth reminding ourselves just what a stunning mistake it would be to reduce this particular investment in U.S. kids and families. Related Head Start has been studied many times, and the results are broadly positive. Research on it — and other early education programs — finds a relatively consistent pattern: Early education programs are reliably good for families and at preparing kids for kindergarten There's some waning of positive academic impacts as kids go through K-12 But the long-term impacts of early ed investments are generally positive. First, Head Start appears to be particularly effective at helping children from historically marginalized communities. Perhaps most importantly in the present political context, early education programs tend to promote better child development outcomes that create cost savings for school budgets. This mostly results from pre-K programs like Head Start reducing the likelihood that children will later require special education services or need to repeat a grade. For instance, economist Tim Bartik notes that studies show possible special education cost-savings of '23 to 86 percent.' Meanwhile, if a child repeats second (or any) grade, the public pays an additional year of per-pupil funding, and it also delays their entry into the workforce. As such, pre-K's ability to lower grade retention and keep students on track for college and career is a particularly efficient return on early education investments. Finally, early education programs like Head Start are a boon for working families because they help parents get back to work sooner after having a child. Most encouraging of all, Head Start appears to create some long-term positive effects. In 2022, researchers at the University of Notre Dame and Texas A&M found that the children of Head Start participants garnered benefits like higher high school graduation and college attainment rates, lower rates of teen pregnancy and reduced rates of interaction with the criminal justice system. For instance, critics often point to the federal Head Start Impact Study, which gathered data on programs in the early 2000s. It largely found that Head Start had positive initial effects on children's development, but that these effects 'faded out' as kids worked their way into the K–12 education system. But problems with the study's data prompted a field reassessment of its findings in the 2010s, with most researchers concluding that it meaningfully underestimated Head Start's benefits to children. This begs some critical questions about how the public should measure 'success' for Head Start. Begin here: nearly every study of nearly every early education investment shows that these programs are effective at getting kids ready for K–12 schooling. Put simply, pre-K appears to be good at getting kids 'pre'-pared for K(indergarten). Related The trouble is, political rhetoric about early education investments has sometimes presented them as an invulnerable 'inoculation' against all challenges that children may face later in life. This is the wrong way to think about whether early education investments 'work,' because it sets an impossible bar for success. Head Start — or pre-K programs more generally — cannot wholly blunt poverty, poor health or the impacts of low-quality K–12 classrooms. Indeed, even less rosy findings, like those in a recent study of Tennessee's public pre-K program, indicate a positive path forward for public early education investments. Initial studies of the program garnered headlines. While Tennessee pre-K attendees were generally more ready for kindergarten than their peers who did not attend the program, pre-K attendees scored worse on a range of metrics by the end of elementary school. This is concerning! But a more recent analysis of Tennessee's data found that pre-K's benefits were 'most likely to persist until 3rd grade among those students who went on to attend high quality schooling environments and were taught by highly effective teachers.' That is, Tennessee's pre-K programs succeeded at preparing children for kindergarten, and kids who went from those programs into higher-quality elementary classrooms continued to do better. In other words, if Head Start and other pre-K programs are measured as a one-time public investment that will solve all systemic inequities in American schools and society, they will inevitably appear to fail. But if they are measured against their ability to prepare children for elementary schools, it is clear that they are a success. Furthermore, this fairer definition of Head Start's effectiveness would allow policymakers to focus their attention on the necessary work of investing and improving K–12 schools so that they bolster children and families beyond the early years.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
At least four killed by Israeli fire near Gaza food point, officials say
At least four people have been killed and others injured by Israeli fire about a kilometre from a food distribution point in Gaza, Palestinian health officials and witnesses said, the latest casualties of a new system to provide supplies that critics say is unethical, chaotic and dangerous. Palestinian witnesses said Israeli forces had opened fire on Sunday morning as people went to receive supplies from a site in Rafah run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), an Israeli and US-backed group. Israel's military said it had fired warning shots at people who had approached its forces. It acknowledged reports of injuries but did not specify how many people it believed had been affected. Bodies were brought to Nasser hospital in Khan Younis. Al-Awda hospital said it had received the body of a 42-year-old man, as well as 29 people who had been injured near another GHF distribution point. The Reuters news agency reported that four people had been killed by the Israeli fire, while the Associated Press put the death toll at 'at least' five. The deaths bring the number of people who have been killed while trying to find food in Gaza since 27 May, when GHF became responsible for civilian food provision, to 110. More than 1,000 have been injured. Witnesses said Sunday's shooting in southern Gaza occurred at about 6am, when they had been told the site would open. Many had headed towards it early to try to get desperately needed food before the crowds. The military had announced on Friday that the sites would be open from 6am and that the area would be a closed military zone from 6pm until 6am. A GHF spokesperson said there had been 'no incident at or in [the] surrounding vicinity' of any distribution site. Adham Dahman, 30, who was at Nasser hospital with a bandage on his chin, told Associated Press that a tank had fired in their direction. 'We didn't know how to escape,' he said. 'This is trap for us, not aid.' Zahed Ben Hassan, another witness, said someone next to him had been shot in the head. He said he and others had pulled the body from the scene and managed to flee to the hospital. 'They said it was a safe area from 6am until 6pm … so why did they start shooting at us?' he said. 'There was light out, and they have their cameras and can clearly see us.' Sanaa Doghmah told Reuters that her husband, Khaled, 36, was fatally shot in the head while trying to reach a distribution site in Rafah to collect food for their five children. Khaled's aunt, Salwah, said at his funeral: 'He was going to get food for his children and himself, to make them live, feed them, because they don't have a pinch of flour at home.' There have been frequent shootings in the past two weeks near the new hubs, where thousands of Palestinians are being directed to collect food. Coverage of the war in Gaza is constrained by Israeli attacks on Palestinian journalists and a bar on international reporters entering the Gaza Strip to report independently on the war. Israel has not allowed foreign reporters to enter Gaza since 7 October 2023, unless they are under Israeli military escort. Reporters who join these trips have no control over where they go, and other restrictions include a bar on speaking to Palestinians in Gaza. Palestinian journalists and media workers inside Gaza have paid a heavy price for their work reporting on the war, with over 180 killed since the conflict began. The committee to protect journalists has determined that at least 19 of them 'were directly targeted by Israeli forces in killings which CPJ classifies as murders'. Foreign reporters based in Israel filed a legal petition seeking access to Gaza, but it was rejected by the supreme court on security grounds. Private lobbying by diplomats and public appeals by prominent journalists and media outlets have been ignored by the Israeli government. To ensure accurate reporting from Gaza given these restrictions, the Guardian works with trusted journalists on the ground; our visual teams verify photo and videos from third parties; and we use clearly sourced data from organisations that have a track record of providing accurate information in Gaza during past conflicts, or during other conflicts or humanitarian crises. Emma Graham-Harrison, chief Middle East correspondent The GHF announced on Wednesday that its operations would be suspended for 24 hours after Israeli troops opened fire on a crowd of Palestinians, as it pressed Israel to improve civilian safety beyond the perimeter of its distribution sites. Israeli troops killed at least 27 people and injured hundreds on Tuesday far beyond the perimeter of the distribution sites. They denied firing at civilians, but an Israel Defense Forces official admitted soldiers had fired 'warning shots toward several suspects who advanced toward the troops' near the food distribution site, without specifying who the suspects were. On 1 June, 31 Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire as they went to receive food. Israel said it had fired warning shots towards several suspects who advanced towards troops. Israel imposed a blockade on all supplies to Gaza in March, saying Hamas was seizing deliveries for its fighters, which the group denies. A global hunger monitor said in May that half a million people in the strip faced starvation. The IPC estimated that nearly 71,000 children under five were expected to be 'acutely malnourished', with 14,100 cases expected to be severe in the next 11 months. The hubs are set up inside Israeli military zones, to which independent media have no access, and are run by GHF, a new group of mainly US contractors. Israel wants it to replace a system coordinated by the UN and international aid groups. The UN and other humanitarian organisations have rejected the new system, saying the GHF will not be able to meet the needs of Gaza's 2.3 million people and that it allows Israel to use food as a weapon to control the population. Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Trump's travel ban stalls lifesaving treatment for Haitian children who need to travel for surgery
Leaders of an aid organization that has sent more than 100 Haitian children with serious cardiac conditions to the U.S. for heart surgery said President Donald Trump's ban on travelers from 19 countries will stall or cancel lifesaving procedures for at least a dozen children or young adults. The ban, which goes into effect Monday, has led to widespread uncertainty for many and drawn condemnation from international leaders. The proclamation issued Tuesday offered exceptions for those who are lawful permanent U.S. residents and those traveling to the U.S. for the World Cup and the Olympics, among other examples. No such mention was made for cases of medical necessity, such as those who are seeking treatment in the U.S. through the International Cardiac Alliance. The International Cardiac Alliance's total waitlist for Haitians, ranging from infants to young adults, totals at least 316 people who need heart surgery, said Executive Director Owen Robinson. Some are placed in hospitals in the Dominican Republic and occasionally the Cayman Islands. But there are currently five open surgical slots in the U.S. 'Some of them might be able to wait a few months, and others, if they don't go now, they're going to pass away very quickly,' Robinson said. The president's executive order adds that the secretary of state can issue exemptions for visas in cases that 'serve a United States national interest.' It is unclear if clients of the International Cardiac Alliance with medical needs would fit into that description. Neither the White House nor the State Department responded to a request for comment on the matter. 'We do have kids die every week waiting because there's not a lot of international slots for these kids,' Robinson said. Some of the children in the program travel directly from their home country to the U.S., undergo surgery, and then return to Haiti. But for many Haitians, international travel requires multiple levels of logistical wrangling, Robinson said. Some patients and their parents who can secure surgeries in other countries must apply for a visa to the U.S., travel here, and then head to their eventual destination. The United States' travel ban now throws a wrench in that process. Fabienne Rene, 16, was diagnosed with rheumatic heart disease in February. Because of her condition, Fabienne, who lives in Port-au-Prince, cannot even attend school since she experiences shortness of breath, said her father, Fignole Rene. The 'bad news' he received about the travel ban causing the postponement or potential cancellation of his daughter's travel through the U.S. to the Dominican Republic is 'really disturbing and breaking my heart,' he said. 'I was not waiting to hear something like that,' Rene, 53, said in Creole through a translator. 'We know for sure that there is nowhere in Haiti we can have this possibility. The only option that we have was just waiting to have an open door from the Cardiac Alliance.' He also said the news will be troubling for his family to hear and that they don't know 'where they will find another open door that can give her a chance.' Robinson said the U.S. Embassy in Haiti recently informed him that it most likely wouldn't be able to issue any visas due to the travel ban. In the past, the embassy has repeatedly issued visas for Haitian children to travel to the U.S. for care. The office of Rep. Becca Balint, D-Vt., has offered to reach out to the State Department to see if the children can receive exceptions, he added. Dr. John Clark, a pediatric cardiologist at Akron Children's Hospital in Ohio who has worked with the ICA, said many children in impoverished countries like Haiti suffer from Fabienne's condition because they are not seen by a doctor and treated for the common illness strep throat. Untreated, recurring strep infections can lead to rheumatic heart disease. St. Damien Pediatric Hospital in Port-au-Prince received visiting pediatric surgical teams from 2015 to 2019, Robinson said. Now, dangerous conditions in Haiti prevent doctors from other countries from entering or providing care. Meanwhile, Haiti does not have enough doctors practicing there, and the loss of opportunities for a medical education in Haiti only perpetuates the problem, Clark said. Clark participated in a surgical mission there in 2019, when visiting U.S. doctors were performing two heart surgeries per day, he said. A drastic rise in gang violence — including an attack on one of the hospital's ambulances and a worker being stoned to death — ended most medical missions to Haiti. Gang violence has only escalated since then, United Nations figures show, particularly after the assassination of Haiti's President Jovenel Moïse in 2021. Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world, and more than half of Haitians live below the poverty line. The country is also plagued with government corruption, gang violence and food insecurity, as well as vulnerability to natural disasters, including a devastating 2010 earthquake that killed at least 220,000 people. Lack of adequate health care also fuels diseases like cholera, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. 'I hope things can calm down one day enough that we can get back there [to Haiti],' Clark said. 'But right now, there's no way for us to go back down.' Andrice Boncoeur of Port-au-Prince received free open-heart surgery at CEDIMAT Cardiovascular Center in the Dominican Republic to repair a valve when he was 9 years old. That procedure, however, was only meant to be a temporary solution. Now, plans for Andrice, 16, to travel through the U.S. for more permanent surgery have been disrupted. On Thursday, Andrice's father, Andre Boncoeur, said he had not yet told his son about the travel ban preventing him from passing through the U.S. Boncoeur said he knows 'something can change at any time.' Still, children like Andrice do not have much time to wait. In April, Andrice was once again hospitalized for three days at Haiti's Centre Hospitalier Eben-Ezer for heart failure. Boncoeur said his family has spent 'everything that we had' and that their funds are 'almost gone.' He said he hopes the situation will change so that his son, who aspires to become a pastor, 'can have a chance to live his life as a normal kid.' Clark, Robinson and the patient's parents all agree it comes down to the Trump administration's willingness to accommodate the sick children. 'These children are somebody's child and somebody's grandchild and they don't have access to lifesaving care,' Clark said. 'Is there any room for compassion?' This article was originally published on
