‘You have not received letters of appreciation, congratulation, from other specialists in your field?’
‘Not from Dr Abrahams.’
‘But from others?’
‘Occasionally.’
‘As I made clear, I asked you to give your qualifications in full for the benefit of the court record. In assembling them for myself I discovered the possibility of you taking up a position as lecturing microbiologist at Boston’s leading teaching hospital, which would accord you the title of professor, would it not?’
‘The appointment has not yet been made.’
‘Were it to be made in your favour, Dr Chapman, would you include the diagnostic importance of antibodies and antigens in your lectures?’
The man’s second hesitation was as long as the first. Eventually Chapman said, ‘Of course I would!’
‘Of course you would,’ echoed Beckwith. ‘Because as we have heard in very informative detail from Dr Abrahams, the discovery or otherwise of antibodies and/or antigens is a very necessary part of the investigation into infections and disease, either bacterial or viral, are they not?’
‘Yes.’
‘Why then, doctor, didn’t you include your discovery of antichlamydia IgG in your examination of Alfred Appleton, the purpose of which was to establish whether Alfred Appleton had suffered, or was suffering, a chlamydia infection?’
‘I was responding to the instructions with which I had been served,’ said Chapman, with the quickness that hinted at prior preparation.
Now it was Beckwith who let the silence build into a mocking echo. ‘You were responding to the instructions with which you had been served?’
‘Yes.’ Chapman’s concentration was again on Bartle.
‘Which were?’ persisted Beckwith.
Chapman had both hands gripping the side of the witness stand, as if he physically needed its support and his face was markedly flushed compared to his complexion when he’d first entered it. Formally, his voice fluctuating, he recited, ‘To examine Alfred Appleton and carry out various recognized tests to establish whether Alfred Appleton was suffering a venereal infection, specifically chlamydia. At the time of my examination, he was not. That is what I said in my report.’
‘Your original report,’ qualified Beckwith.
‘My original report,’ agreed the venerealogist.
‘At the time of that original report – during your investigative examination – you found antichlamydia IgG in Alfred Appleton’s blood, did you not?’
‘Yes.’
‘Which proved that he had suffered such an infection and been treated for it?’
‘Yes.’
‘But you chose not to include that finding?’
‘I was following the remit that I had been given. At the time of my examination, Alfred Appleton did not have a venereal infection.’ The man continued staring fixedly at the table at which Appleton and his lawyer sat.
‘Your honour!’ broke in Bartle, groping to his feet. ‘Can I help by confirming what Dr Chapman is telling the court? The remit to which Dr Chapman is referring was mine.’
‘Knowing of its relevance in the case before us, you did not ask Dr Chapman to provide evidence of your client having an infection in the past, only if he suffered it at the time of examination?’ demanded the judge, making no effort to keep the incredulity from his voice.
‘That is so, your honour,’ confirmed Bartle. ‘The fault, the oversight, is mine, not that of Dr Chapman. And I humbly apologize.’
‘I think, Mr Bartle, that this is something about which I have to reflect further.’ Turning to the other side of the court Pullinger said, I think you have established your point, Mr Beckwith.’
‘With respect, your honour, I have a few more questions.’
A frown flickered across the judge’s face. ‘Let’s move along, Mr Beckwith.’
‘Dr Chapman,’ resumed the lawyer. ‘Studying as I have your professional qualifications, I noticed also that you attended Harvard, as did Alfred Appleton? You were contemporaries, in fact?’
‘Yes.’ There was a fresh tightening to Chapman’s face.
‘Did you know Mr Appleton at Harvard?’
‘We were acquainted.’
‘How were you acquainted?’
‘We shared a mutual interest.’
‘In sailing?’ queried Beckwith.
‘Which I’m sure you already knew,’ flared the other man, giving way at last to anger.
‘I did indeed, Dr Chapman. But the court didn’t until now. Have you continued to sail with Mr Appleton?’
‘Yes.’
‘So how would you describe yourself? As an acquaintance or as a friend?’
There was yet another pause before the man said, ‘As a friend, I suppose.’ The voice was quieter, controlled again.
‘Did you attend your friend’s marriage, to Alyce Bellamy?’
‘Yes.’
‘How would you describe Alyce Appleton, nee Bellamy, as an acquaintance or as a friend?’
‘Your honour!’ protested Bartle.
‘I agree,’ said Pullinger. ‘I think you have extended this examination sufficiently, Mr Beckwith. Is it your intention to call Dr Lewell?’
‘It most definitely is, your honour.’
‘I shall permit it, on the grounds of fairness, but not with the same latitude as I have with this witness. Is that clear?’
‘Very clear,’ said Beckwith.
‘Then I don’t expect the need to remind you.’
Dr Jane Lewell’s qualifications were not as extensive as those of either George Abrahams or Mark Chapman, but did include those of microbiology and gynaecology. She was a tall, thin woman, her face dominated by heavy, thick-rimmed spectacles. There appeared little attempt at make-up, nor to colour the greyness in her hair which she wore very short, cropped to the nape of her neck. Jordan’s immediate impression, when she began responding to his lawyer’s questions in a flat although confident voice, was that she was setting out to be as monosyllabic as the specialist doctor who had preceded her. It was quickly confirmed in a series of staccato, yes or no answers, despite Beckwith adjusting his questions to achieve fuller responses. Pullinger’s mounting impatience came to its head after she agreed that Leanne Jefferies had suffered a chlamydia infection with Peter Wolfson’s interrupting admission that her first, inadequate report had been a strictly accurate diagnosis according to his limited remit.
‘So there we have it!’ insisted Pullinger. ‘Both expert witnesses adhered to the very strictest letter of their legally permissible instructions – instructions that remain very much in the forefront of my mind – that had their evidence been presented in its original form could have seriously misled myself and a subsequent jury, but for the intervention of Mr Beckwith. It is now established for the benefit of subsequent proceedings that both Alfred Appleton and Leanne Jefferies suffered a venereal infection. Is this matter now concluded to your satisfaction, Mr Beckwith? It most certainty is to mine.’
‘With respect, your honour, I have questions to this witness that will occupy no more than five further minutes.’
‘Which I will time to the precise second,’ said the judge.
‘The domicile of Ms Leanne Jefferies is 3200, East 106th Street, apartment 38b, Manhattan, is it not?’
‘Yes.’
‘Are you Ms Leanne Jefferies’ gynaecologist?’
‘No.’
‘Had she been a patient of yours prior to her coming to you for the examination we are discussing today?’
