Firstly may I state that I believe the findings of the Greek courts are outrageous.
I know one of the accused personally and be assured I find this outcome a complete travesty of justice.
However I do find this statement of yours odd:
Physical evidence provided by the Canadians was brought forward confirming that the aircraft sustained a Catastrophic pressurisation failure and therefore the pilots would not of regained control.
I have personally experienced a complete pressurisation failure in a B737 (as well as partial failures in B747's).
In the B737 failure at cruise altitude we did not regain control of the pressurisation but took the appropriate steps to ensure the safety of the pax , crew and aircraft. We donned oxygen masks, attempted to identify and fix the problem, and when we were unable executed an emergency decent.
Whilst I would never suggest that my S/F/O and I carried out the 'perfect' response to the situation we were presented with, I do believe that the basic actions were in general compliance with SOP's at the time.
Evidence would suggest that the actions of the crew of the ill fated aircraft were not in general compliance with SOP's at the time.
To put it in very blunt terms:
The Pilots may not have been able to control this 'catasprophic' pressurisation failure, but they were qualified and therefore should have been able to execute control of the aircraft subsequently to a safe landing. It would seem that they failed to do this.
May I also say that a pressurisation failure should never be decribed as catastrophic. Events leading up to a pressurisation failure could be 'catastrophic'
These events could be things such as a bomb which brought down Pan Am over Lockerbie. In this case the bomb led to a pressurisation failure (to say the least!), and the rest is very unpleasant history.
Pressurisation failures are not that common (one for me in 37 years), but do occur. Most result in a normal landing with no significant injuries.