Reid remained on his feet as the rest of the court settled and to Pullinger’s enquiring look said, ‘I wish to inform your honour at this earliest opportunity, and prior to the expert medical evidence for which this court was adjourned yesterday, that I have received this morning, by courier, the requested medical examination report on Sharon Borowski, after her fatal automobile accident. I have had that report duplicated for distribution, with your honour’s permission, before the calling of today’s medical experts, whose interpretation I believe will be necessary.’
‘You are not seeking yet another adjournment, are you, Mr Reid?’ demanded the judge, threateningly.
‘Subject to any representation from other counsel – and of course to your honour’s guidance – I am prepared to ask doctors Abrahams, Chapman and Lewell to respond from the witness stand. If it would further assist the court, there are also present today Dr Walter Harding and Mrs Appleton’s gynaecologist, Dr Brenda Stirling, whose addition to my witnesses list I have already advised.’
Instead of addressing the other lawyers individually, Pullinger looked between the three of them and curtly said, ‘Well?’
Bartle was first on his feet to agree, followed by the other two and while the medical examiner’s report was being circulated Beckwith said, quietly, ‘Shit!’
‘What’s the problem?’ Jordan whispered back.
‘If whatever’s in the report on Sharon Borowski goes against Appleton, there’s room for a mistrial appeal – intervention at least – on the grounds of insufficient consultation.’
‘Why didn’t you object?’
‘It’s better as far as you are concerned to go ahead. You’re the guy I represent, remember?’ said Beckwith, rising as George Abrahams was called to the stand. Because it was the first time the jury were to hear the evidence referring to the chlamydia, the beginning of Beckwith’s examination was a virtual repetition of the previous closed court hearing establishing that Jordan was clear of any such infection.
Beckwith got as far as: ‘Can we now turn…?’ before Pullinger’s interruption.
‘Not yet,’ stopped Pullinger. To Abrahams he said, ‘I require you to answer in the briefest manner possible some questions I wish to put to you, which have to be introduced into the public record. You have already given evidence before me, in the absence of a jury, upon chlamydia, have you not?’
‘Yes,’ confirmed the venerealogist.
‘During the course of that evidence you were asked to comment upon the findings of two other expert witnesses, Drs Chapman and Lewell?’
‘Yes.’
‘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?’