FOR ten long weeks he listened to and read complex evidence about whether Shelly Adams could have killed her children.

Mr Justice Baker looked at whether Bradley and Jayden could have died as a result of an infection, a metabolic disorder, a genetic condition or a cardiac problem, as well as the possibility they could have been smothered.

Amongst the most compelling was evidence from a consultant paediatrician who was “extremely concerned”

about how both boys died, particularly in the case of Bradley, who was known to be well less than half an hour before his death.

The child health expert concluded that Bradley had most certainly died “unnaturally” and “smothering was probable”.

He told Mr Justice Baker that Jayden’s admissions to hospital before he died were “concerning” and he had only ever dealt with two cases involving children who had died at that age.

He added that he had never experienced two children from the same family dying in the same circumstances.

It was the words of this expert which played heavy on the mind of Mr Justice Baker who said: “I acknowledge that there is a significant possibility that this mother was responsible for the deaths of the boys and my mind has fluctuated during the course of this hearing and more subsequent deliberations.”

But the judge also heard evidence that there was still “a great deal about death in infancy that remains unknown”, that there was no physical evidence of smothering and that it would be “dangerous” to infer nonaccidental injury.

In reaching his conclusions, Mr Justice Baker said: “In due course there may be other evidence that bears upon this issue, having considered all the evidence put before me I find that the local authority has not proved on a balance of probability that this mother smothered either Jayden or Bradley.”