11:43am24/06/26
WARNING GRAPHIC DETAILS
Pathologist reports
Mr Wright says two pathologists carried out examinations of Isabelle's body after she died.
He says: "Dr Hoggard agrees with Dr Du Plessis that the cause of Isabelle’s death was a significant inflicted head injury that occurred close to the time of her terminal collapse.
"He favours a mechanism of injury in which her head was impacted with a hard and unyielding surface such as a wall or a hard floor associated with violent shaking.
"However, that head injury was not an isolated inflicted injury. Over a period of time Isabelle had been subjected to repeated assaults. Her body displayed the signs of no less than 97 soft tissue injuries."
The barrister says many of the bruises were left by someone forcefully gripping the two-year-old to her torso, face and jaw.
He says Dr Hoggard also found injuries consistent with Isabelle having been subjected to sexual assaults prior to her death.
"She had significant injuries to her mole," he says. "There was also evidence of injury to her tina implying blunt force trauma applied externally in that area in the region of 2 to 3 days before she died.
"Isabelle had been subjected to a series of physical and sexual assaults in the days and weeks leading up to her death, culminating in a final head injury that fractured her skull and caused her heart to stop."
11:36am24/06/26
Medical examinations
The jury hears how Dr Jo McPartland, a pathologist who works in the Alder Hey Children’s hospital in Liverpool, examined Isabelle's eyes and interpreted the injuries and other signs.
He says: "Her evidence will show that in the absence of any convincing accidental cause of that severe head trauma the findings support the conclusion that Isabelle had been subjected to abusive head trauma.
"In plain language somebody had deliberately and severely assaulted her causing a massive head injury and the associated bleeding in the eyes is a product of that head injury."
While Dr Daniel Duplessis, a neuropathologist, concluded the cause of Isabelle's death was a non-accidental injury.
He says: "In other words it was inflicted deliberately in an assault. Whatever precise form that assault was in, it involved sufficient force to fracture the heard bones of the skull. But this was not a single blow.
"The totality of the findings supports the proposition that there was not just a single catastrophic blow that fractured the skull but that there was also repetitive shaking or some similar mechanism during which Isabelle’s head and spine were subject to repeated hyperextension or flexion."
The doctor concludes that the massive injury was inflicted in the hours prior to Isabelle's fatal collapse.
11:27am24/06/26
Expert evidence
Mr Wright is now turning his attention to the evidence the jury will hear from medical experts from across a range of specialist disciplines.
He says: "This will involve a number of medical experts explaining to you the examinations that they conducted of Isabelle's body after she had died, and on parts of her body, in particular her bones, her eyes and her brain.
"We understand that all of this is likely to be distressing evidence for you to engage with.
"We are sorry about that, but you will understand that it is extremely important that you understand how and why this little girl died when she did."
The barrister tells the jury that they won't have to look at photographs of the injuries instead they will be looking at computer generated body diagrams.
The jury hears how one expert will be able to age the fractures that toddler suffered towards the end of her life.
He says: "Taking the scans and his examination together it is clear that Isabelle had sustained multiple fractures to her body over a period of time.
"There were fractures to 21 separate bones, including her upper and lower limbs, her spine, and her skull. In terms of aging those fractures they can be broadly grouped together into injuries sustained close to the time of her death, injuries in the days before her death and injuries inflicted weeks before her death."
11:21am24/06/26
Criminal responsibility
Mr Wright says: "This is a case in which Isabelle was subjected to serious and repeated abuse in a household occupied by two adults and no one else.
"Whoever inflicted those injuries—and you may think there are occasions that point strongly to Harrison Simpson—those injuries were not hidden.
"They were obvious, severe, and repeated over time. And so, even if you were not sure that Harrison Simpson inflicted the fatal injury himself, the prosecution case is that he must have been aware of the risk of serious harm to Isabelle and did nothing to protect her."
11:18am24/06/26
Simpson's role
Mr Wright tells the jury that they will hear a good deal of evidence about the role Harrison Simpson in the weeks leading up to Isabelle's death.
He says: "You will see that from late August onwards, there were repeated occasions on which Harrison Simpson was left alone with Isabelle.
"Those were not isolated or fleeting moments. They were regular features of life in that house. And on those occasions, the evidence consistently shows that Isabelle was either already injured, became distressed, or deteriorated.
"On August 20, the first occasion on which he was left alone with her, what followed is evidence suggesting that Isabelle was complaining of pain to her leg—an injury which was later be found to be a fracture."
He continues: "On September10, when Isabelle was left in his sole care, a bang can be heard on the CCTV followed by her crying. Later that day, she remained in distress and complaining of pain.
"On the morning of September 13, the day she suffered the injury from which she died, Harrison Simpson was again in the house and, for a period, was in sole charge of Isabelle.
"He reported that she had gone to sleep. From that point onwards, there is no meaningful sign of her, no clear evidence of her being up, moving or behaving as a well child might.
"The medical evidence, you will hear, indicates that the fatal head injury was inflicted shortly before her collapse. That is an important matter for you to consider alongside the evidence of who had care of Isabelle during that period."
11:14am24/06/26
Critically ill
Mr Wright says: "The evidence will show that Alexandra Walker was in the house while Isabelle was in a visibly poor condition. She was aware that her daughter was unwell.
"She discussed it with others. She observed it directly. And then, when Isabelle became critically ill—when, on any account, she was gravely unwell—Alexandra Walker did not immediately call for help.
"Instead, she searched the internet. She spoke to others. She delayed. It was only when her stepfather arrived and instructed her to do so that a 999 call was finally made."
He adds: "Standing alone, that evidence provides a powerful basis from which you may conclude that Alexandra Walker was directly responsible for at least some of the injuries that Isabelle suffered.
"But again, the prosecution case does not require you to conclude that she acted alone. This is a case in which Isabelle was subjected to sustained and serious abuse in the care of two adults in the same household."
11:11am24/06/26
Background details
Mr Wright is telling the jury that Walker was the primary carer for Isabelle.
He says: "She was present in the house throughout the period in which Isabelle sustained the injuries that we now know she had suffered - injuries that were numerous, serious, and in many cases obvious.
"You will hear that over a period of weeks, Isabelle sustained multiple fractures, extensive bruising, and injuries of a kind that could not have been missed by any attentive or caring parent.
"These were not subtle signs. This was a small child in visible pain, crying, unsettled, and deteriorating over time. And yet, despite that, Alexandra Walker did not seek timely medical assistance.
"When Isabelle sustained the injury to her leg, there was a delay of days before medical help was sought, despite the fact that the child was plainly in pain and unable to walk properly."
He reminds the jury that the prosecution case is that Walker became defensive, aggressive, and resistant to the involvement of medical professionals when Isabelle suffered her broken leg.
10:46am24/06/26
Police interviews
Mr Wright says : "In later interviews Walker turned her attention to Simpson. She said that if the broken leg was caused by anyone it was caused by him. She said that she now realised that he had been abusing Isabelle.
"Having accused him of being responsible she then declined to answer questions in the remainder of the interviews."
Turning to Simpson's police interview, he says: "He was provided his own similar opportunity to answer questions and provide his own account of what happened.
"He did not take it and made no comment throughout the extensive interview process."
Dealing with what happened after the police interview, he says: "They both knew exactly what had happened to Isabelle because in the weeks before her death they had each subjected her to violence culminating in the infliction of that terrible, fatal head injury.
"It would have been, we will invite you to conclude, perfectly obvious to both Walker and Simpson that Isabelle was being seriously assaulted on a regular basis.
"The failure to take her to hospital for five days after her leg had been broken and the significant delay in calling 999 on the 13th is in and of itself evidence of the fact that both were responsible for and aware of a series of violent assaults that they wanted to keep away from medical scrutiny if at all possible."
10:40am24/06/26
Police investigation
Both defendants were arrested and interviewed by the police in the days following Isabelle’s death.
Mr Wright says Walker provided an account of September 13 claiming that Isabelle got up and had breakfast but was then sick.
During the interview, she said: "Simpson looked after her whilst Walker got a shower but she did not believe that he had harmed her.
"Isabelle was her normal self and at 11 or thereabouts she put her to bed for a nap. She checked on her during her nap and saw that she was tossing and turning. Simpson went to visit a friend and at 3 in the afternoon Walker got Isabelle out of bed.
"She claimed that she had noticed some bruises on her back and saw that she had a fresh bruise after Walker had her shower. Isabelle had a bruise on head and Walker denied that any bruises had anything to do with her."
Walker told police that there was nothing on Isabelle’s body to warn her about anything on September13.
Mr Wright says: "But then said that she had noticed bruising on her stomach when she had put her down for her nap. She saw the fingerprints and was in shock.
"She also noticed other bruises to Isabelle’s face and so challenged Simpson but he denied having caused them saying that he loved Isabelle and would never hurt her."
10:32am24/06/26
Fatal injury
Mr Wright says: "Suffice to say at this stage that Walker expressed herself as shocked by the sudden decline in Isabelle’s health and denied being responsible for inflicting any injury upon her.
"She did however again implicate HS as potentially being responsible for the infliction of injury upon her daughter.
"Sadly, despite the very best efforts of the emergency medical teams who treated her, Isabelle was found to have sustained a massive and unsurvivable head injury and died at 2:48 in the morning of September 14."
The barrister adds: "Her body was observed to be covered in bruises, she had bruising to her tina and in the area of her mole and her nappy contained blood, scans of her body undertaken in hospital also revealed multiple fractures to her bones, not just the leg fracture that had been observed in hospital on September 2."
The jury there was a series of messages between Walker and Simpson where she tells him Isabelle has had a heart attack and told him not to come to her home as it was a 'crime scene'.
10:30am24/06/26
Emergency treatment
Paramedics noticed bruising to Isabelle’s abdomen and an obvious bump in the middle of her forehead, her nappy was noted to have blood in it.
Walker told the paramedics that her daughter had not been well since she was in hospital.
He says: "She claimed that when Isabelle was noted to be lethargic and unresponsive she then decided to call 999."
Once at the hospital, Walker said that she had called 999 when Isabelle’s eyes had rolled back in her head and she thought that she was dead.
She said that she didn’t know what had happened but that she thought her partner HS might have done something to her because Isabelle had a lot of unexplained bruises.
She said that her partner was there on Thursdays and had been at the house on the morning of the collapse, but then said she didn’t think that he would do anything.
10:27am24/06/26
Dying child
Mr Wright says it took Walker an hour to call her stepfather but she still failed to call for medical assistance despite her concerns.
He says Walker then took the bong out of her house and placed it next to the bin.
When her stepfather, Dan Ackroyd, arrives at 4.14pm he immediately tells her to call 999. "The shows how gravely unwell Isabelle was," he says.
Walker can be heard repeatedly saying Isabelle as she tries to rouse her when she calls emergency services.
"The child is not breathing, she is clearly not well," he says.
"There was very significant delay in summoning the emergency services. One explanation of course is that Walker knew that this time she would not be able to bluff and bluster her way out of the very difficult questions that she knew she would be asked by paramedics and at hospital.
"On arrival they noticed that the house was tidy and Isabelle was lying on her back at the foot of the stairs.
"She was unresponsive, had no pulse, was cold to the touch. Orange vomit could be seen on her face and on the carpet in the area where she was laying.
"Walker told the paramedics that Isabelle had been sick and described the vomit as being like acid. She added “I put her down for a sleep and when I went to wake her up, she was like this”."
10:19am24/06/26
Seriously ill
Mr Wright says Isabelle is still in bed at around 3pm when Walker pops out to the shop and she says to Simpson that she will wake her daughter up when she returns.
Shortly after 3pm, Simpson leaves the house and Mr Wright says that will be the last time that they see him that day.
"Within ten minutes of Simpson leaving the house, Walker googled ‘why would my toddler be bleeding’. A minute later the CCTV picks up her saying ‘You’re scaring me’.
"She then googles ‘what should I do if my child has blood in his stool’.
"A cartoon can be heard in the background, she can be heard saying ‘come on’ and repeating Isabelle’s name."
She then googles 'lethargic meaning'. He says: "It is absolutely obvious we suggest that by this time Isabelle is gravely ill. She is quite simply dying.
"Despite those searches and the declaration that she is scaring her - Walker does nothing, she is having a cigarette in a kitchen - not calling emergency services."
10:11am24/06/26
Fateful day
Mr Wright says Simpson sends a series of messages to a friend saying that he is up with Isabelle while her mother continues to sleep.
He says there was no sign of the toddler on the CCTV in the house throughout the morning and Simpson tells Walker that he has put her down to go to sleep.
Simpson is smoking his bong as lunchtime approaches while Walker has got out of bed after drinking ten pints of Stella the night before.
"It's clear that Isabelle is not downstairs with them," he says.
Shortly before 1pm, the toddler is still asleep and Simpson and Walker talk about how they expect her to be when she wakes up.
Around 30 minutes later, Walker is on the phone to her stepfather discussing how she is doing.
9:59am24/06/26
Opening continues
Richard Wright KC, prosecuting, will continue with his opening speech this morning but the evidence begins.
The barrister will describing the events on the day Isabelle suffered her fatal head injury on September 13 last year.
He tells the jury that Walker was having a slow start to the day due to her drinking and late night whereas Simpson is up and about early while in sole care of the two-year-old.
Claire Walker sends multiple messages to her daughter but doesn't get any response as she was 'sleeping off' the night before, he says
Where’s the protectiveness that you should have around children- your own children!!?
