detail 33.det.0002 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

As he briefly outlined the case, Henriques dismissed euthanasia or mercy killing on the basis that none of the dead had had a terminal illness.

He claimed Shipman killed the fifteen patients because he enjoyed doing so: "He was exercising the ultimate power of controlling life and death, and repeated the act so often he must have found the drama of taking life to his taste."

His first witness was Angela Woodruff. An accomplished solicitor, she was as striking as her mother had been in life. Fashionably dressed in an expensive gray suit, she found it difficult to retain her usual strong demeanor. Understandably, she appeared on the verge of breaking down throughout her long and arduous time in the witness box.

First, she explained in detail the police photographs of the house where her "mum" had lived so happily. She then told of the harrowing phone call from the Hyde Police to inform her that her mother had died.

Seeking clarification, she later had a conversation with Dr. Shipman: "Exactly what he said was difficult to remember... It's very hazy because I was very, very upset. Dr. Shipman said he had seen (my mother) on the morning of her death. He said he had seen her at home." She couldn't remember why the doctor claimed to have been there.

Speaking of the clumsy attempt made to fake the will leaving everything to Shipman, she told of her mother's meticulous attention to detail, how doing everything neatly was her mother's way.

This would later be apparent to anyone reading her mother's diary, where every detail of importance was meticulously recorded in perfect penmanship. In contrast, Ms. Woodruff said how her mother viewed "...my writing; mine's appalling."

She went on to show how healthy her 81-year-old mother had been. "She was just amazing. We would walk five miles and come in and she would say, 'Where's the ironing?' We used to joke she was fitter than we were."

This portrait of an elderly but extremely fit woman was to be repeated frequently as other victims' families took the witness box.

In the ensuing cross-examination, Ms. Davies seemed intent on emphasizing Ms. Woodruff's wealth. She had analyzed and described the family's finances, and asked, "You are not a family in need, are you?"

Ms. Woodruff concurred — it was common knowledge that she and her husband David had inherited one million pounds from her father in law. She confirmed the couple earned sizeable incomes.

A subsequent attempt by Ms. Davis to show Ms. Woodruff's relationship with her mother had been unharmonious was totally dispelled when the victim's writings — and a host of witnesses — were examined.

Several days later, Dr. John Rutherford — a leading government pathologist — appeared. He was tactful and dignified as he led the court through the gruesome details of the post mortems carried out.

In great detail, he explained how the procedure was performed, focusing on the importance of collecting body tissue for analysis.