So, Dr Van Ee, from Michigan, USA.
He produced his first report for the defence in October 2014, and a second report almost exactly a year ago in 2015, when the case was originally scheduled for trial.
He was sent a sample of Ellie's bedroom carpet and a piece of the carpet underlay. as well as some autopsy reports and an outline of the prosecution's case.
He said in May 2015 he could not tell much from the autopsy photocopies of photos and asked for better photos but the defence did not send any.
Specifically, he could not see in much detail the fracture at the side of Ellie's head, which is where the 2nd blow is said by the prosecution to have been struck, so he had to report on limited information.
He said Ellie was 48" tall, the stool in her bedroom was 10.6" high, so the distance of a fall would be 50", taking account of the size of her head. Even if she had jumped up, the distance of a fall would only be 52".
He said he could not rule out a fall causing the complex fracture seen at the back of Ellie's head. But he also said (under cross-exam) so much that seemed to weigh against it. He said there is only one case EVER of an impact to the back of the head from a fall causing fractures along the central suture as well as fractures off to the side, that of a 6 week old baby. FitzGerald QC (pros) pointed out to him that in that particular case the baby's head had fractured in almost identical fractures to both sides. He said it wasn't comparable to Ellie's V-shaped second skull fracture on one side, and Van Ee agreed it wasn't. He had to admit that even complex fractures usually take the path of least resistance, meaning they would continue on along the central suture without branching off to the side. He said it was so uncommon for a child to hit their head as the primary site of impact, something like 1 in 1 million or more, because they usually also land on their feet, knees, buttocks and shoulders to try and correct their fall. (In effect Ellie's head must have been the first part that hit the floor). He said that if there was a second impact site (he didn't have the information to say if there was) he could not support a finding of a fall.
FitzGerald then started to ask him if he knew that there was a brain contusion at the site of the second fracture and if that had been given consideration by him but he was stopped by an objection by Peart because it falls outside the scope of his expertise.
Similarly he was stopped from questioning Van Ee about the spinal bleeds.
The two defendants were as usual shouting out while the prosecution were questioning the expert, and their barristers were turning around and shushing them, as well as the security officer in the dock with them.
BB said at the beginning to Peart that he would not allow the expert to give evidence if he was going to be blocked. Peart said to him you've got a choice, you either sit there or go back to your cell.
