I don't have any words adequate to comment on this as it is beyond harrowing. Those injuries are absolutely horrific and as some of them were older how did the grandparents not see what was happening. That poor poor child.Day 9
Warning graphic details
Read bottom up…TW medical evidence!!!
3:57pm08/07/26
Case adjourned
The hearing has been adjourned for the evening and Dr Hoggard will conclude his evidence tomorrow morning.
3:51pm08/07/26
Internal examination
The jury hears how the pathologist was able to rule out any natural cause of the toddler's death.
Dr Hoggard says a dense bruise were discovered in Isabelle's intestinal tract measuring 11cm by 8cm on the fatty tissue underneath the intestines.
He says the bruising could be the result of a 'very forceful' punch but can't provide a more accurate measurement than that.
Dealing with the toddler's bruising on her scalp, the doctor says there were three injuries on the right hand side of her head.
He says there was a large area of dense bruising covering almost the entire left side of her scalp.
"It will have been significant force to cause bruising across almost the entire of the left side of the scalp," he says.
The image of Isabelle's head showed a fracture running down the centre of the head and was 5cms long, he says.
He says some of the bruising to the right side of head could be associated with the fracture but the bruising to the left side was not associated with the fracture of the skull.
The final injury was to the left knee joint of the toddler which showed large internal bruising measuring 5cm by 2.5cm.
3:33pm08/07/26
Injuries to limbs
Dr Hoggard says there were a series of bruises on Isabelle's shoulders and arms.
On her left leg, there were a series of bruises near her knee and one on her ankle with a large red abrasion on her foot.
Dealing with Isabelle's right leg there are another series of bruises around her knee and a large bruise below her kneecap with a further bruise on her calf.
3:25pm08/07/26
Rear torso injuries
The hearing has resumed after a short break for the jurors.
Dr Hoggard is now dealing with injuries to Isabelle's rear torso.
He is taking the jury through the ten areas of bruising or scratching across the toddler's back, including a series of circular bruises consistent with gripping.
The jury hears how there were signs of some of the injuries starting to heal with scabs forming on the skin.
The doctor confirms that all of the bruising was 'very obvious' to the eye.
2:50pm08/07/26
Bottom injuries - warning graphic details
Jurors are now looking at a computer generated image of the bruising discovered around Isabelle's bottom.
Dr Hoggard says there were a series of five separate injuries in an around her mole, including a tear in her skin.
He says he conducted further investigations in the same area which will be dealt with later in his evidence.
The jury hears that the tear would have been 'extremely painful'.
2:45pm08/07/26
Torso injuries - warning graphic details
Jurors are now looking at computer generated images of the marks and bruising recorded on Isabelle's torso.
The image shows several large bruises on the front of her chest including nine separate scratches measuring up to 9cm long.
Dealing with injuries on the lower section of Isabelle's torso, Dr Hoggard says there were multiple bruises on the right side of her body around the abdomen area, including circular bruises which are often caused by forceful gripping of the torso.
Dr Hoggard tells the jury that all of the injuries were 'very obvious, immediately'.
On the left side of Isabelle's abdomen were another eight injuries including ones close to the pubic area of her body.
Mr Wright asks the pathologist about the bruising to the abdomen and whether they were caused by a single incident or more than one.
He says each bruise is a singular injury, 'the impression I formed was there was forceful gripping of the abdomen' - he says those type of injuries are always concerning as signs of physical abuse.
He says there is one set of marks which are likely to have been caused by medical intervention.
The pathologist says there were four areas of bruising around the toddler's tina, with haemorrhages in the area, he says they could be a marker of trauma but they are of no significant meaning to them.
He says he believes the bruising is separate but they are almost merging together. "They indicate there has been some blunt force trauma to the pubic area," he says.
2:12pm08/07/26
Facial injuries
Dr Hoggard tells the jury that he records all of the injuries discovered on Isabelle's body.
He says there is no relevance to the numbering of the injuries and jurors are now looking at computer generated images of the toddler's injuries.
Jurors are shown an image of the four injuries recorded on her head, including large bruises on her forehead and a scab on the left side of her scalp.
He says that the positioning of the three bruises indicates there was more than one impact.
Jurors are hearing details about further injuries to her face and neck.
The image shows five separate injuries including a large bruise on the left cheek and jawline which were orange in colour.
When asked about the bruising to Isabelle's ear, he says it is always concerning to a pathologist because it is difficult to injury your ear accidentally and could be a sign of physical abuse.
On the right side of her face, there was more bruising around her nose.
Returning to the left side of her face, the pathologist is describing further bruising and abrasions around her mouth area.
Isabelle also had red and blue bruising with further abrasions - together it could be caused by contact with a rough surface, he says.
In total there were 24 visible injuries on the toddler's head and neck.
When asked what he saw during the facial examinations, he says: "It was covered in bruises and abrasions. They were very obvious."
2:00pm08/07/26
Pathologist report
Dr Hoggard, a Home Office pathologist, carried out the post mortem of Isabelle Welsh on September 16 last year at the Sheffield Children's Hospital.
He says he didn't need to go to the scene in Thornaby but was given a lot of the toddler's medical history in the time leading up to her death.
The court hears how he listened to the police interview of Isabelle's mother, Alexandra Walker.
Mr Wright, prosecuting, is taking the pathologist through his evidence for the jury.
Dr Hoggard recorded all the marks of medical intervention as well the multiple other injuries found on the two-year-old's body.
12:28pm08/07/26
Early lunch
The trial has adjourned for an early lunch after the conclusion of Dr McPartland's evidence.
The next witness to give evidence is pathologist Dr Sam Hoggard.
12:03pm08/07/26
Report conclusion
Dr McPartland says there was no history of accidental trauma which could explain the skull fracture in this case.
She says: "There was no history provided of an accidental fall that could explain the skull fracture in this case.
"In the absence of an underlying medical cause the finding of multiple haemorrhages in both eyes, the severe optic nerve haemorrhages in both eyes and orbital soft tissue haemorrhages.
"In combination with the brain injury, it is indicative of a severe traumatic head injury. In the absence of a history of an accidental head trauma of appropriate severity - it is highly suggestive of an abusive head trauma."
11:50am08/07/26
Injury cause
Dr McPartland tells the jury she has seen the report provided by Dr Daniel Duplessis, a neuropathologist.
She says he identified two head injuries - one around four days old and a significant trauma at the time of Isabelle's death.
The doctor says the damage to Isabelle's eyes was caused during the significant trauma.
She says the injuries could have been caused by shaking but also could involve impact damage.
Dr McPartland says there is a timeframe of within 24 hours of death but cannot give a definitive time the injuries were suffered.
She says there was a tiny area on one eye which could have occurred at the same time as a previous injury.
11:41am08/07/26
Major findings
Dr McPartland says she applied a number of specialist dyes to the eyes to carry out further investigations into healing responses in an attempt to age the injuries.
She says there was no evidence that the injuries were beginning to heal.
In summary, she says Isabelle's eyes appeared to be normal prior to the injuries being suffered.
Dr McPartland concludes that the multiple haemorrhages were linked to abusive head trauma rather than accidental head trauma.
11:25am08/07/26
Microscopic examinations
Closer examination revealed that both eyes suffered multiple haemorrhages.
Dr McPartland says there was damage to her retinas and the haemorrhages were present throughout her eyeballs.
She says: "The presence in both eyes is a pattern that is seen in abusive head injury rather than accidental head injury."
Dealing with the level of force needed to cause the injuries, she says: "A forceful and repetitive movement on the neck and impact."
She confirms that the injuries could have only been caused accidentally by a fall from height, a car crash or having the head crushed.
Mr Wright asks the doctor what the consequences could have been for Isabelle is she had survived the head injury. She says it is difficult to predict unless she regained consciousness.
11:12am08/07/26
Injury details
Dr McPartland says there was evidence of haemorrhaging from the blood vessels in Isabelle's eyes.
The jury hears how the left eye had suffered bleeding to the optic nerve sheath which would not occur in a healthy person.
She says there were numerous haemorrhages in the toddler's eye - too many to count.
The doctor says there was evidence of blood clotting which indicates that there had been a survival period of some hours but it is impossible to give a definitive time period.
Dealing with Isabelle's right eye, the doctor says she found she had suffered bleeding to the optic nerve sheath and multiple retinal haemorrhages - again too numerous to count.
She says the injuries are consistent with infliction rather than accidental.
10:53am08/07/26
Eye damage
Richard Wright KC, prosecuting, is taking the witness through her evidence.
The doctor tells the jury that there are a limited number of eye specialists working in the pathology field and has carried out 150 investigations since she trained almost a decade ago.
She confirms that she has worked alongside all the other medical experts involved in the post mortem of the toddler.
The jury hears how an initial examination is carried out before dissection is carried out and microscopic examination is performed.
Dr McPartland examined both of the toddler's eyes as part her investigations.
10:42am08/07/26
First witness
Dr Jo McPartland is a pathologist who works in the Alder Hey Children’s hospital in Liverpool. She has developed a particular specialism in ophthalmic pathology.
She will be taking the jury through the eye injuries Isabelle Welsh suffered.
10:39am08/07/26
Trial resumes
The jury did not sit yesterday but here is a round up of the evidence they listened to on Monday - Thornaby mother denied murdering her two-year-old daughter
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I don't have any words adequate to comment on this as it is beyond harrowing. Those injuries are absolutely horrific and as some of them were older how did the grandparents not see what was happening. That poor poor child.
I started to read this but couldn't finish it - it's so appalling and upsetting. And that poor baby had to LIVE it.
What sort of person does something like this? What the hell is going on in their minds? They are no use to themselves or society. Utter filth!
Isabelle was quite possibly bleeding from her eyes, and the mother still did nothing to help?
Was she thrown down the stairs, hence being found at the bottom?
Was she thrown down the stairs, hence being found at the bottom?
This article on ITVX news sounds like Isabelle had already died before the mother called an ambulance, and even then, only did that when told to. It's a miracle that the paramedics managed to get her heart restarted
The evidence is absolutely haunting I really have no words
This is the absolute worst 
the talk of the injuries and images being shown to the court are making me think of the images of baby Brianna (please don’t look this up if you’ve never seen it I wish I never had) how does someone inflict that much pain on anyone let alone a tiny defenceless child? Beyond depraved.
Did AW throw her down the stairs to try to make it look as though that’s how she got the injuries? That bit is so confusing how she ended up there. I can’t remember if that’s where she was when the step father arrived?
the talk of the injuries and images being shown to the court are making me think of the images of baby Brianna (please don’t look this up if you’ve never seen it I wish I never had) how does someone inflict that much pain on anyone let alone a tiny defenceless child? Beyond depraved.Did AW throw her down the stairs to try to make it look as though that’s how she got the injuries? That bit is so confusing how she ended up there. I can’t remember if that’s where she was when the step father arrived?
I believe she was at the bottom of the stairs.This is the absolute worst
Did AW throw her down the stairs to try to make it look as though that’s how she got the injuries? That bit is so confusing how she ended up there. I can’t remember if that’s where she was when the step father arrived?
AW rang her stepfather ( why not her own mother )
It’s really tough to read .
AW’s mother did nothing and I struggle to get my head round why she did NOTHING?
But was quick enough to buy her beer ??.
Honestly they both deserve a whole life order. I'm not sure if the jury will have to decide who killed it or if they can decide both did.
I mean even if you HATED children, you still wouldn't do this to one, so it's just unfathomable what they must have felt to be able to do this.
I mean even if you HATED children, you still wouldn't do this to one, so it's just unfathomable what they must have felt to be able to do this.
It’s not been mentioned that AW claimed Isabelle fell down the stairs afaik. Maybe she was going to claim that to her stepdad but it went out the window when he arrived to see her dead. I think AW just carried her down and put her there. It was reported that AW and the stepdad sat in the kitchen chatting and laughing while the paramedics were working, she didn’t even come through to check never mind be close to Isabelle.
I agree - my thoughts are that she/HS may have placed her on the stairs afterwards to make it appear as though she had fallen. IIRC, she went into the room to check on her at around 3pm and there is audio of her saying “you’re scaring me”. I’m not sure on the exact layout of the house or where the CCTV cameras were positioned though.
I hate even writing this, but I do think Isabelle had already suffered the fatal injuries the night before, around the time neighbours reported hearing a loud bang. As there’s no mention of Isabelle being seen/heard from at all the next day. She was left to suffer while AW got drunk.
As awful and evil as they both are, I don’t believe she would have been left at the bottom of the stairs for that entire period. Not because they cared, but because I can’t imagine they would have wanted her left somewhere that was in their way. I think she was placed there just before stepdad arrived.
Poor poor little mite. I’m so sorry Isabelle
Apologies for the double post, but I’m genuinely horrified after hearing the extent of Isabelle’s injuries and the fact that AW’s mum and stepdad failed to act after seeing her in such a state. AW’s mum even went to the hospital about the broken leg too. It’s so difficult to comprehend that nobody intervened or protected Isabelle when she was so clearly and visibly suffering.
That poor baby was failed by the very people who should have kept her safe. I struggle to understand how the grandparents could have seen the bruising and not recognised that something was seriously wrong. Instead, they bought AW a 10 pack of Stella and left her in charge of Isabelle. And stepdad has the audacity to paint himself as the doting grandparent all over Facebook. They need locking up too.
That poor baby was failed by the very people who should have kept her safe. I struggle to understand how the grandparents could have seen the bruising and not recognised that something was seriously wrong. Instead, they bought AW a 10 pack of Stella and left her in charge of Isabelle. And stepdad has the audacity to paint himself as the doting grandparent all over Facebook. They need locking up too.
I just read my own post again and what I had meant to say was had she placed her down the stairs but I think my mind had started going somewhere else while I was writing it and I was thinking maybe she had at some point previously been thrown/pushed/kicked down the stairs. I don’t know the injuries are just so horrific to comprehend
I feel exactly the same, what’s being reported is definitely not the full picture, more of a summary. It’s really challenging to follow, especially with the horrific details of the abuse & injuries unfolding.
AW has deliberately deceived everyone around her including professionals & her own mum to hide any physical abuse, when according to the pathologist, multiple injuries were clearly visible!
Eleven days before Isabelle died, AW claimed the toddler was ready to return to “nursery” but she was instead kept at home. This was a cover story, as the prosecution’s timeline clearly established Isabelle was being kept isolated at her home, she wasn’t even registered for nursery, let alone attending one!
The health visitor who made the “follow up” phone call with AW regarding Isabelle's broken leg (after the frantic discharge from hospital, due to safeguarding) was told by AW that Isabelle “didn't require a cast on her leg and could go back to nursery”. As a result, the health visitor closed the follow up without physically visiting the Thornaby home. AW led the HV to believe Isabelle was ready to reintegrate into nursery, the reality is AW evaded any in person check which could have ultimately saved Isabelle’s life!
When AW’s mother visited her daughter she did notice a bruise on Isabelle’s back & although she questioned it, AW brushed it off, claiming she’d simply bumped her head on a settee and looked unwell because she had “picked up a virus” from the hospital! AW made several calculated attempts to keep Isabelle isolated.
Despite the claim that Isabelle was well enough to attend
nursery, AW used a completely contradictory story with her friends & family to explain why no one could see her! Mobile phone records revealed that AW sent multiple text messages to her friends and family claiming Isabelle “wasn't well” or was “still in bed” all the while telling professionals the child was fine for nursery. AW was clearly lying to all her friends & family claiming Isabelle was too sick to get out of bed
Last edited:
When AW’s mother visited her daughter she did notice a bruise on Isabelle’s back & although she questioned it, AW brushed it off, claiming she’d simply bumped her head on a settee and looked unwell because she had “picked up a virus” from the hospital! AW made several calculated attempts to keep Isabelle isolated.
I noticed this a few days ago :
How does a bump on the head result in a bruise on Isabelle’s back ?
I noticed this a few days ago :
How does a bump on the head result in a bruise on Isabelle’s back ?
I don’t trust AW’s mum one bit, she only reported the bruise she seen on Isabelle’s back to the police after her death. If she seen the bruise on Isabelle’s back, she must also have seen the 10 areas of bruising/scratching, the circular bruises & the visible injuries to her face and neck. The Dr confirmed all the bruising was 'very obvious' to the eye & some of the injuries had already started to heal/scab on her back.
bleeping hell.
I can’t remember the last time I read anything as harrowing as the description of Isabelle’s injuries. Whoever mentioned Baby Brianna upthread isn’t wrong
. I just cannot comprehend beating a baby who is already so badly hurt (obviously I can’t comprehend beating a baby in the first place, but you know what I mean). What the duck is wrong with these people?
I‘m still unsure of the timeline from when HS came on the scene to when Isabelle started being abused. Was AW already doing it before she met him? Was it in fact all her?
As for AW’s parents, I don’t believe for a second they didn’t know what was going on. That child was covered in bruises and there’s no way they didn’t see them.
I can’t remember the last time I read anything as harrowing as the description of Isabelle’s injuries. Whoever mentioned Baby Brianna upthread isn’t wrong
. I just cannot comprehend beating a baby who is already so badly hurt (obviously I can’t comprehend beating a baby in the first place, but you know what I mean). What the duck is wrong with these people?I‘m still unsure of the timeline from when HS came on the scene to when Isabelle started being abused. Was AW already doing it before she met him? Was it in fact all her?
As for AW’s parents, I don’t believe for a second they didn’t know what was going on. That child was covered in bruises and there’s no way they didn’t see them.
Yes, like everyone else I am absolutely shocked at the extent of her injuries - over 100! 9 x 9cm scratches on her chest wtf - what the duck did they do to her that night
Totally seeing the grand parents in a new light, I thought perhaps the abuse was hidden enough from them, that they didn’t known though were suspicious - but I now I think they were both fully aware Isabelle was having the tit beaten out of her & they didn’t give a tit. Having a child taken by “the social” is obviously so terrible in their world, that they preferred a small child to be abused (condoned it even and definitely enabled it) rather than help her escape it.
Totally seeing the grand parents in a new light, I thought perhaps the abuse was hidden enough from them, that they didn’t known though were suspicious - but I now I think they were both fully aware Isabelle was having the tit beaten out of her & they didn’t give a tit. Having a child taken by “the social” is obviously so terrible in their world, that they preferred a small child to be abused (condoned it even and definitely enabled it) rather than help her escape it.
AW initially lied to the police about when she met HS, she told them they had only been together for around a month. However evidence presented by the prosecution established from phone records, they had in fact known each other since late June of 2025. By early July HS was frequently visiting AW at home & moved in, spending a considerable amount of time with Isabelle.