Some testimony from earlier in the trial about Arthur's bruises
Good morning. The trial resumes for day 12.
The next expert witness to give evidence is Dr Matt Lyall, a Home Office forensic pathologist.
He will take us through the external injuries to Arthur's body, the court is told.
Graphics shown to jury represent around 30 marks on Arthur's head
Dr Lyall gives an explanation of a bruise to the jury.
He says: "When there is some kind of contact with the skin, a strike to the skin or the skin striking something else, small blood vessels underneath the skin get torn.
"They are like little pipes carrying the blood. The blood leaks into the surrounding tissues and what that creates is what we see as a bruise."
The court is shown graphics representing a child's head which displays the bruising to Arthur. There are around
30 marks to his head listed across the images.
Dr Lyall proceeds to describe each contusion.
'I'm not sure I've ever seen a child who has died at home with this many injuries to the head and face'
Dr Lyall describes mark number 16, in the centre of Arthur's forehead, as 'a prominent bruise, eye-catching in colour and very distinct'. He tells the court it measures 4.5cm x 6cm and extends upwards merging with another bruise on the top of Arthur's head
Dr Lyall states some of the marks should be discounted because he cannot definitively confirm their origin.
Prosecutor Jonas Hankin asks whether
injuries to Arthur's jaw-line are typical of a six-year-old boy.
"Not normally," replies Dr Lyall.
The expert confirms, after discounting medical intervention marks and those with doubts about their origin, there are
25 areas of injury to Arthur's head and neck.
Mr Hankin asks his opinion as to the likely cause.
Dr Lyall: "In my opinion the number of these injuries and the size of some of these injuries should immediately lead to serious concerns about non-accidental injuries."
Mr Hankin: "Is it commonplace to see this many bruises on a child's head and neck at post-mortem?"
Dr Lyall: "Absolutely not.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a child who has died at home with this many injuries to the head and face."
Jury told of belief that injuries are 'excessive'
Dr Lyall moves on to
bruises found on Arthur's chest and abdomen. Mr Hankin points out there are marks on the opposite side of the body.
Dr Lyall gives an analogy about accidental injuries tending to be on one side of the body only.
He says: "Having injuries on both sides is not conclusive but it's not typical of accidental injury."
The expert confirms there are
eight areas of injury to the chest and abdomen and adds: "Again they are not injuries I would immediately attribute to accidental injury."
Next, the marks to Arthur's arms are shown. There are a total of
20 areas of bruising, seven to the right arm and 13 to the left.
Again Dr Lyall caveats that not all can be accounted for.
Mr Hankin asks if the injuries would be typical of 'normal play'.
Dr Lyall: "I think they are excessive. Particularly the bruising to the upper arm, that's not a typical site for accidental injury. There are quite a lot of them. It is quite possible they are caused by gripping."
'Overall pattern' of 'non-accidental injuries', the jury is told
Dr Lyall moves on to the marks on Arthur's legs. He says some of the bruises possibly share 'similar causation to those on the arms'.
The expert tells the court many active six-year-old children would typically have bruises to their knees and shins.
But highlighting a distinctive
mark to the back of Arthur's knee Dr Lyall says: "Typically this is a protected area, not an area associated with accidental injury."
Summarising the marks detailed so far he adds: "Here we have a large number of injuries and they are distributed in various places, normally protected and places more associated with inflicted injury.
"As a picture that has to be the favoured interpretation, they are non-accidental. That's the overall pattern."
More discussion of 'inflicted injuries', this time on Arthur's back
Dr Lyall moves to the final area of the body, Arthur's back.
The biggest mark, number 86, measures 3cm x 3cm and is located in the centre on the spine. Dr Lyall confirms however there was no damage to the spinal column itself.
The expert addresses the
five areas of injury to Arthur's buttocks which he says are 'strongly associated with non-accidental injury'.
The last numbered mark is 93.
Dr Lyall adds: "In my view they give the impression of inflicted injuries to the back."
'All of these areas are worrisome'
Providing his conclusion Dr Lyall says:
The overall impression is of a child that's suffered inflicted injuries.
The overall pattern, and that's the important thing here, these are inflicted-type injuries.
There are individual injuries in almost any location you could engineer a scenario that could cause them, but when you look at the number, there's a concentration of injuries to the head, multiple, some of them large.
There are multiple bruises to the upper arms, the back, the buttocks, injuries to the thigh, including the inner thigh, bruises on the face. All of these areas are worrisome."
Dr Lyall confirms that he concluded the cause of Arthur's death as 'head injury'. Mr Hankin concludes his questions.
Dad accused of murdering son branded a 'short-tempered, wicked man' - updates
