Brian Freemantle - The Namedropper

Jordan was conscious of a movement from Beckwith, close beside him, but there was no whispered conversation.

Pullinger allowed some silence to build up in the court before saying, ‘Mr Beckwith?’

‘My expert witness, Dr Abrahams – at some professional and personal inconvenience – has remained here in Raleigh to assist your court, your honour,’ opened Beckwith, as he stood. ‘I very sincerely hope that he will not be detained beyond today. I equally hope that we will be able, expertly and professionally, to examine these new submissions, by recalling Dr Abrahams to the stand to give this court the benefit of his expertise. I would also respectfully ask, pending whatsoever is to emerge from the statements this court has yet to hear from the attorneys representing Alfred Appleton and Leanne Jefferies, that their respective expert medical witnesses can be called to the stand to be examined on oath upon their resubmitted findings.’

There was immediate and obvious movement between the two now identified venerealogists, culminating with Chapman groping forward to attract Bartle’s attention. The attorney half turned towards the gesture but shrugged it off. Instead he rose to say, ‘Your honour, I hope already to have indicated an apology to your court, for a totally inadvertent misunderstanding which I am quite satisfied I can explain to your honour without any further need to protract what is, after all, a subsidiary matter to the main purpose of this court.’

‘Your honour!’ erupted Beckwith, before Pullinger could respond and by so doing coming close to being over-theatrical. ‘I am going to refrain from making the most obvious comments upon what has just been said to your court. Mr Bartle and Mr Wolfson have their expert witnesses behind them in this court! What earthly reason is there for those expert witnesses not being called to be questioned about their original findings, which could have substantial import upon my application before you today and which I in no way consider subsidiary?’

‘A question I would be interested in having answered for me,’ commented Pullinger. ‘Can you help me, Mr Bartle?’

It was not Appleton’s attorney who responded but that of Leanne Jefferies. To fresh movement behind both opposing lawyers, the bewhiskered Wolfson said, ‘Your honour, I wish to assure this court that my expert witness, Dr Jane Lewell, is at your court’s disposal.’

‘As is mine,’ tightly conceded Bartle.

The skeletal Pullinger let the court subside into foot-shuffling, throat-clearing near silence, his vulture-eyed concentration unbroken upon the right of his court. Eventually he said, ‘Mr Bartle?’

‘Your honour?’ responded Appleton’s attorney, forced to his feet again.

‘I do not consider that you satisfactorily responded to my invitation. I no longer offer that invitation, but it will remain on record and most certainly in my mind and I would like you, Mr Bartle, and you, Mr Wolfson, both to bear that very much in mind as this matter proceeds, to whatever its end. Do you, Mr Bartle, fully understand what I am saying?’

‘I do, your honour,’ said Bartle. ‘And in the light of your honour’s comments I withdraw my request to make a statement to the court.’

‘Mr Wolfson?’

‘I do, your honour. And I also withdraw the suggestion of my making a preliminary statement.’

‘Distribute to the relevant parties the newly provided material,’ the judge ordered his clerk. ‘There will be a recess of fifteen minutes to provide an opportunity to study that material.’

‘Dr Abrahams,’ opened Beckwith. ‘Will you tell this court what is indicated in the medical reports upon Alfred Appleton and Ms Leanne Jefferies that have only this day, less than an hour ago, been submitted?’

The venerealogist shifted on the witness stand. ‘Both Alfred Appleton and Ms Leanne Jefferies have been successfully treated for Chlamydia trachomatis.’

‘What is a chlamydia microimmunofluorescence test?’

‘That which is carried out to establish the presence of chlamydia antibodies following the infection of cervicitis in woman and urethritis in men.’

‘Cervicitis in women and urethritis in men are conditions caused by a chlamydia infection, are they not?’

‘Yes.’

‘Do the medical reports of Drs Chapman and Lewell show that Alfred Appleton suffered urethritis and Ms Lleanne Jefferies suffered cervicitis?’

‘Yes.’

‘What is antichlamydia IgG?’

‘The antibody found in the blood of sexually active adults in response to the infection and which may be detected after successful treatment.’

‘Do the reports of Drs Chapman and Lewell show that Alfred Appleton and Ms Leanne Jefferies had antichlamydia IgG in their blood at the time of their examination by Drs Chapman and Lewell?’

‘Yes.’

‘Could there be the slightest doubt about that?’

‘Not according to what I have been shown today.’

‘Could it have been produced by another complaint or infection?’

‘The microimmunifluoscence test is remarkably sensitive and specific. It is medically recognized to be accurate in ninety-nine percent of woman and between eighty to ninety percent of men.’

‘Your honour!’ protested Bartle, rising. ‘The fact that my client suffered chlamydia is not contested.’

‘Nor is it on behalf of my client,’ said Wolfson, in support.

‘But it was not admitted to this court until an hour ago!’ insisted Beckwith, who had not sat during the interjection. ‘I would ask you to find, your honour, that this court be allowed the fullest opportunity to explore this matter, including how and why it was withheld from this court until this later hour.’

‘It was not withheld!’ refused Bartle.

‘It was most certainly not supplied, which is a requirement of such pre-hearing exchanges,’ came back Beckwith.

‘You will proceed, Mr Beckwith, hopefully without any further interruptions, in the hope of this court discovering the truth of the matter,’ ruled Pullinger.

‘The court has already learned of your outstanding qualifications in your particular profession field, Dr Abrahams,’ picked up Beckwith. ‘As I understand it, there is no formularized presentation for reports such as these we are discussing. Is that right?’

‘That is so.’

‘Did you subject the appropriate samples you took from my client to a microimmunofluorescence test?’

‘Of course.’

‘Which was negative?’

‘As I said in evidence yesterday.’

‘Had that microimmunofluorescene test proved positive and produced antichlamydia IgG antibodies, would you have omitted that finding from the report you submitted to this court?’

There was shuffling from the lawyers’ tables on the right of the court but before either Bartle or Wolfson could rise, Pullinger impatiently made a waving down motion with his hand.

The venerealogist still did not answer and Beckwith said, ‘Dr Abrahams?’

‘As we have already established, there is no formularized style of presentation.’

‘That wasn’t my question, doctor. Please answer it.’

‘No. Of course I would have included it in my report.’

‘Why?’

Abrahams’ irritation at the question came out in a snort, which he tried to turn into a cough, looking directly from the witness stand at Dr Chapman. ‘Because the whole purpose of such reports is to establish whether or not there is – or has been – an infection!’

‘Thank you,’ said Beckwith, abruptly sitting.

And said it again to the judge’s invitation to continue his submission when the court reconvened after the luncheon adjournment that Pullinger ordered at the conclusion of Abrahams’ evidence, with the agreement that the venerealogist should be released to return to New York.