[JA1] What does this reaction signify?
[JA2] Same doctor in both cases.
[JA3] Christopher was cremated so what kind of tests could have been performed a year later to warrant a change of opinion?
[Note4] This information was divulged by the parents to their friends and health advisors. If the mother wanted to cover up any evil deed why would she inform others about her sons nosebleed?
[Note5] The muscle which holds the underside of the tongue to the base of the mouth.
[JA6] How unlikely?
[Note7] Were these bruises noted in the Doctors post mortem report?
[JA8] What has the profile of the appellant to do with cot death (which can strike anyone)?
[JA9] If correct, this would allow the presence of a reasonable doubt
[Note10] This doctor originally stated that Christopher had died from a respiratory infection. How reliable was that finding?
[JA12] abnormality of the epithelial lining of the alveolar or bronchiolar capillaries.
[JA13] How would the doctor know if this was an over-reaction? How many times had she witnessed a mothers reactions in such circumstances?
[Note14] Yet Dr Williams said that any biological tests on blood would be meaningless.
[JA15] Why tell her about the nosebleed if she had anything to conceal?
[JA16] If this witness was introduced to the jury as such, this would have produced a prejudicial effect on the jury.
[Note17] Dr Cowan and a sergeant had earlier not noted any bruises or external marks.
[JA18] Was this decision based on any medical evidence? If not, what can the opinion of this doctor be worth? If the cause of death was simply a guess to expedite the funeral arrangements then the doctor's credibility would be an issue. If the cause of death was however accurately described at the time, then Christopher was not murdered. This doctor was the prosecution's main expert witness and the reliability of his testimony is crucial to this case since it was only he who examined the bodies of both children. Why did he change his view of Christopher's death one year later when the appellant's second child Harry died?
[Note19] This would be true of normal babies
[JA20] Why hadnt Dr Williams formed the same view at the time of Christophers post-mortem?
[JA21] These experts never examined Christophers body which had been cremated and only examined photographs which were apparently of "poor quality".
[JA22] This was a room containing a television where the mother could both watch TV and her baby.
[JA23] Mothers usually spend more time alone with their babies.
[JA24] This was not noted at the time by Dr Williams. A year later, from photos and a few slides, this view was however adopted by the experts.
[JA25] The prosecutions experts concur that the cause of death was unascertainable. At the same time they are sure it was not Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, although they do not know the causes of this condition.
[JA26] How many times did the husband leave the TV room in the course of an evening?
[JA27] If his office was paying for the taxi journeys this does not take much of a discovery and Mr Clark (a lawyer himself) would have been rather naïve to assume that he could conceal his time of arrival.
[JA28] The experts are drawing their conclusions from photographs not from an examination of the body.
[JA29] What relevance has this to the credibility of the defendant?
[JA30] Was this in any way different from the distrsss shown to the ambulance men?
[JA31] Mr Clarks time of arrival was evident from the taxi company records which showed that he had been coming home earlier in recent days. If he had deliberately tried to protect his wife by claiming to have arrived home earlier, this does not mean it is because she was guilty. People can be mistaken about timings which is not an issue in this case.
[JA32] This was not claimed by Doctor Williams at the time of Christophers autopsy who he put the cause of death as lower respiratory infection. He changed his view one year later after Harrys death.