‘What were those comments?’
As he had in the closed session the man shifted uncomfortably, looking at both other specialists. ‘That they were inadequate.’
‘With what result?’
‘They were reconsidered and resubmitted.’
‘What did those resubmissions prove?’
‘That Alfred Appleton and Leanne Jefferies had in the past suffered from chlamydia.’
‘Which the initial reports did not indicate?’
‘No.’
‘Thank you,’ said Pullinger, nodding for Beckwith to continue.
‘I am going to impose upon your expertize with the continuation of my questioning,’ apologized Beckwith, in advance. ‘You have before you the medical findings upon the late Sharon Borowski, with whom Alfred Appleton has admitted a sexual liaison. I seek your correction, if it is appropriate, in suggesting that the listed injuries in that report – a skull fracture, compression of the left rib cage, burst aorta and spleen – is consistent with injuries sustained in a head-on collision between two vehicles, one of which, according to the report before you, was driven by the late Sharon Borowski?’
‘Consistent also with the deceased not wearing any seat restraint,’ agreed the doctor.
Beckwith nodded his thanks to the qualification. ‘Can we now turn to the other findings, particularly the serological discoveries? Can you explain those to the jury, Dr Abrahams?
‘The blood alcohol level is two and a half times beyond the legal driving limit. There is also a substantial amphetamine reading.’
‘So Sharon Borowski was driving under the influence both of drink and drugs?’ broke in Beckwith.
‘Unquestionably.’
‘Are there any other analyses?’
‘There is reference to unidentified antibodies which were not judged medically relevant to the particular autopsy.’
‘What are antibodies, Dr Abrahams?’
‘A body – a substance – formed within the blood either synthetically or by the immune system of the body to fight a toxin.’
‘A disease or an infection?’
‘Yes. But which is not specified.’
‘What is the recognized treatment for chlamydia?’
‘Treatment by one of a number of antibiotics.’
‘Which would result in antibodies in the blood?’
‘Yes.’
‘Could Sharon Borowski have been suffering from chlamydia?’
‘I have already testified that the antibodies are not specified, by analysis. It could have been one of a number of diseases or infections,’ refuted Abrahams.
‘One of which could have been chlamydia?’ persisted Beckwith.
‘Or not,’ the venerealogist continued to refuse.
‘I think you have pursued the point sufficiently, Mr Beckwith,’ said the judge.
None of the other three lawyers chose to cross-examine Abrahams. Forewarned by the judge’s previous intercession Beckwith did not directly question Dr Chapman about his first attempted medical submission during the closed session, leaving it to Pullinger to extract the admission from the specialist that his first medical assessment had needed substantial correction and clarification. Despite Beckwith’s pressure, when he resumed after the judge – pressure matched by Reid when he took up the questioning – Chapman doggedly refused to go beyond his closed court insistence that his initial failure to disclose chlamydia antibodies in Appleton’s blood had solely been because of his strict adherence to the instructions he’d received from David Bartle. Chapman even more insistently refused to speculate on the presence of unidentified antibodies in the blood of Sharon Borowski.
Jordan expected the same monosyllabic repetition from Dr Jane Lewell when she was called to the stand, his mind more upon what he was going to do outside the court in the coming month, until Pullinger yet again broke into Beckwith’s examination to put the closed court dispute before the jury and into the public record of the case.
‘Your first submission before me had to be substantially corrected, did it not?’ Pullinger asked the identical question he’d put to Chapman.
‘Yes,’ replied the woman. ‘Because I had been pressured to omit the presence of antichlamydia IgG in the blood of Ms Leanne Jefferies, which professionally I should not have done and now deeply regret and for which I now publicly apologize.’
The court resumed after thirty minutes, although without the jury. At Pullinger’s insistence Peter Wolfson remained standing beside Dr Lewell, although in the well of the court, not directly in front of the bench for the exchange to go unheard.
To the lawyer, the judge said, ‘Have you fully advised your client of the constitutional protection against self- incrimination?’
‘I have,’ assured Wolfson, dry-voiced.
‘Have you understood everything you have been told by Mr Wolfson about self-incrimination?’ the judged asked the woman.
‘Yes,’ replied Dr Lewell.
‘Have you fully advised your client of the penalties available to me if perjury is committed?’ Pullinger asked the lawyer.
‘I have, you honour,’ replied Wolfson. ‘Although I would remind your honour that the evidence my client gave under oath during the closed hearing was entirely truthful concerning the chlamydia infection contracted by Ms Leanne Jefferies.’
Pullinger looked unwaveringly at the lawyer for several moments before turning to the venerealogist. ‘Did you fully understand what you were told by Mr Wolfson about lying under oath in a court?’
‘I fully understood,’ said the woman.
‘Then you will return to the witness box and although you are already sworn you will be sworn for a second time to remind you that everything you tell me must be the absolute and complete truth.’
As the jury filed back in Jordan leaned sideways towards his lawyer, but Beckwith raised a forbidding hand, as well as shaking his head. As he withdrew Jordan saw Bartle similarly refuse Appleton’s approach. The commodity trader wrote hurriedly on his own legal pad, pushing it towards his lawyer, who gave no reaction to what was written on it.
‘Dr Lewell,’ began the judge. ‘I want you to explain the remark you made before I adjourned the court.’
‘I apologized for not including in the original venereal report upon Leanne Jefferies the presence of antichlamydia IgG in her blood.’
‘What would the presence of antichlamydia IgG have established?’
‘That she had been treated for a chlamydia infection.’
‘That she had, in fact, suffered such a disease?’
‘Yes.’
‘Did you treat her for a chlamydia infection?’
‘No, I did not.’
‘Do you know who did?’
‘I believe it was her gynaecologist.’
‘Were you aware of the reason for examining Leanne Jefferies?’
‘Yes, I was.’
‘In the report upon Leanne Jefferies that you originally submitted, but which you did not swear to in court, you omitted to record that in Leanne Jefferies blood you found antichlamydia IgG?’
The woman frowned, uncertainly. ‘That’s what I have already told you.’
‘If you had submitted and sworn that original report, what would it have conveyed to the court?’
‘That she was not suffering chlamydia, which medically she no longer was. She had been cured.’
‘If that original report had been accepted, could it not have conveyed or been inferred by a jury that Leanne
