Dr Marnerides was asked to review the case by Cheshire Police in 2017. He is currently taking the court through his review of Child P, who was one of triplets born in June 2016.

Ms Letby is accused of killing the boy the day after allegedly murdering his triplet brother, Child O. The Crown say he was killed by an injection of air into his bloodstream.

Dr Marnerides said in his review of Child P, he could not find anything to 'indicate natural disease for the baby's death'

To assist the jury with his findings in relation to Child P, Dr Marnerides is presenting photographs of the baby boy's liver, taken at post-mortem, to the court. The images show small bruises on the outside of the boy's liver

Dr Marnerides tells the court that the bruising, although a lot smaller, is in the same area that it was found in Child P's brother Child O. The court heard yesterday that Child O suffered a liver injury akin to a road traffic collision.

The medic says the bruising found 'could' be the result of CPR - asked whether it could be another impact injury, he says 'I don’t have enough to say that'

Dr Marnerides says having reviewed all the evidence, it is his opinion that Child P died as a result of 'excessive injection of air into the stomach'

Ms Letby's defence lawyer, Ben Myers KC, is now cross examining Dr Marnerides - he starts by telling the court that there are 'strict rules about the extent to which an expert can give an opinion on matters outside their specialism' - he agrees

The medic accepts he cannot offer a view on day to day care, feeding, breathing support or resuscitation of the babies in this case.

Mr Myers says when there is no specific finings 'one way or another' in the pathology, he works on the basis of the opinions of the clinicians 'unless something directly contradicts that' - Dr Marnerides agrees

Mr Myers is now taking the medic back over the cases he has reviewed, starting with Child A. Mr Myers quotes his review, in which Dr Marnerides said the cause of death was 'unascertained' and that there was no 'convincing indication the death was due to an unnatural cause'

Mr Myers asks the medic if he agrees, he responds: 'Yes, I wrote it'

Cross examination of Dr Marnerides continuing, Mr Myers has taken the medic back over his evidence for Child C, D and now I. The defence lawyer is focusing his questioning on the fact he has had to rely on Dr Dewi Evans and other medics for his review.

Dr Marnerides earlier said to discount the clinical evidence in forming his reports was akin asking someone to explain physics without using mathematics

We're back after lunch and have moved to Child O. Yesterday the court heard that the boy allegedly suffered a liver injury akin to a road traffic collision - Mr Myers has been asking Dr Marnerides about the minimum force needed to cause such an injury

Dr Marnerides says there is 'no way of measuring the force in a baby because we cannot conduct such experiments on babies'. He says from his experience, the minimum force required 'would be of the magnitude of forces generated from a baby jumping on a trampoline and falling'

Mr Myers puts it to the medic whether vigorous CPR could have caused the injuries found in Child O's liver - he says no. Mr Myers asks whether it can be categorically excluded as a possibility

The medic goes a bit leftfield with his response. He says to the court that if a man is found dead in the Sahara desert with a pot next to him, it could be possible that a helicopter flew over and dropped it on his head - but it's not probable

Wrap from today’s evidence 👇🏻 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-...