UPDATE: A defence pathologist in the trial of Daryl Berman, accused of murdering her husband David Berman, has declared that he is “much more in favour” of the incident being an accident. This startling claim comes as the trial unfolds at Minshull Street Crown Court in Prestwich, where the jury is grappling with the details surrounding the tragic death on March 13.
The prosecution alleges that Mrs. Berman, 71, deliberately stabbed her husband, 84, in the chest. However, she maintains her innocence, asserting that his death resulted from an unfortunate accident, claiming he fell onto a knife she was using in the kitchen. This trial, which has captivated public attention, delves into the complexities of marital dynamics, as jurors learn the couple had a seemingly “loving and mutually supportive” marriage of 27 years with no history of domestic violence.
As the trial progressed on day three, pathologist Dr. Richard Shepherd, instructed by the defence, examined the peculiarities of the case. He described the single stab wound as “very odd” and noted it occurred beneath the armpit, suggesting it could have been caused by a “horizontal jabbing motion.” Dr. Shepherd emphasized the significant force that would have been necessary for such an injury, stating,
“Accidental injuries are very rare.”
Despite the prosecution’s assertions of a deliberate act, Dr. Shepherd’s testimony challenges this narrative. He disagreed with the notion that a finger wound was defensive, instead theorizing it might have resulted from broken crockery. He concluded,
“I am much more in favour of this being an accident. We have so many gaps in our knowledge that we cannot know for certain.”
The prosecution, led by counsel Michael Brady KC, interrogated Dr. Shepherd’s hypothesis, pushing for clarity on the circumstances of Mr. Berman’s death. Questions arose regarding whether he could have fallen while holding the knife, leading to the fatal injury. Dr. Shepherd acknowledged the complexities of the situation, stating,
“This is a hypothesis. I accept I favour it was accidental rather than intentional.”
Jurors have already heard from Dr. Philip Lumb, who conducted the post-mortem examination and argued that the combination of the fatal chest wound and the injury to Mr. Berman’s finger indicated a likelihood of foul play, stating it was “inconceivable” that the incident was an accident.
As the trial continues, the stark contrast in expert testimonies underscores the gravity of the situation. The jury faces the daunting task of deciphering the truth behind the events of that fateful day. With emotions running high, the implications of this case extend beyond the courtroom, affecting the lives of all involved.
What’s next? The trial is set to proceed with more expert testimonies and cross-examinations. All eyes remain on the court as the narrative unfolds and the jury seeks to establish the truth surrounding David Berman’s tragic death. Stay tuned for the latest updates on this developing story.
