As the trial of two parents accused of killing their baby daughter continued yesterday the jury heard that before her death she had gone completely blind.

Two eye specialists, Dr. William Green and Dr. Leonard Teye-Botchway, said that A?Maya Tamerry suffered from a variety of degenerative eye conditions ? including ulceration of the eye ? when they examined her on autopsy.

Ten-month-old A?Maya died on March 1, 2001.

Her parents ? Dr. Amenemhat Waset Amen-Ra Tamerry, 48, and his wife Maatkai Hatsheput Tamerry, 36 ? are charged with her unlawful death.

The couple were formerly known as Clark Godwin and Regina Woods but had their names legally changed. Dr. Teye-Botchway said that he examined the child?s eyes externally and found that she suffered from a condition usually only seen in Asia and Africa ? keratomalacia (melting of the cornea).

He said A?Maya?s eyes were sunken and there was an absence of orbital fat. The centre of her cornea had completely melted away and part of the iris had moved forward to plug the hole, he added.

Dr. Teye-Botchway said he believed the ulceration of the eye was caused by Vitamin A deficiency. Vitamin A is found in breast milk and vegetables, he added.

There were ulcers and bacteria in the opaque areas of her eyes, Dr. Green had told the jury earlier.

The condition may have been related to Vitamin A deficiency and protein deficiency.

?The child would have had nil vision,? he said.

On cross-examination, Dr. Green said that keratomalacia can occur within one month. He also said the damage might not be visible to the naked eye.

Dr. Roddy Moore, a physician who treated A?Maya before her death, also completed his testimony yesterday before Chief Justice Richard Ground.

Dr. Moore had testified earlier that he advised the defendants four times to stop feeding the child sea moss.

Yesterday, he said he did this because ?it (sea moss) could replace the goodness of the breast milk? and possibly lead to kidney failure.

He said he did not know how much sea moss ? a mixture which can contain kelp, herbs, spices, ground up fruit, ground nuts, condensed milk, cow?s milk or goat?s milk ? the defendants had been giving the baby but he believed it had not replaced breast milk.

When asked by Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Kulandra Ratneser whether the defendants had followed his advice, Dr. Moore said they did not.

He said it was inappropriate for a child of that age to have either cow?s milk or condensed milk because ?it can be overpowering for the baby?s kidneys?.

The defendants did, however, take his advice to take the baby to a specialist and began seeing Dr. June Hill.

Dr. Moore said he wrote a letter to Dr. Hill suggesting the two could work together to ?defuse a tense situation?. The court heard earlier that Dr. Moore began seeing the baby after her first paediatrician (Dr. Alexander Barron) reported the couple to Child and Family Services (CFS) after they missed appointments with him and refused to allow nurses to weigh the baby despite the fact he had warned them the baby could die if she did not gain weight.

CFS then obtained a court order to take A?Maya from the defendants but in the end both the baby and her parents were Police-escorted to hospital on June 7, 2000.

Dr. Moore saw the baby from June 8, 2000 until he advised that her care be taken over by Dr. Hill, who began seeing the baby on June 23, 2000.

Dr. Moore said he also wrote a letter to CFS saying the parents had become more compliant and that the baby seemed to be thriving. He said he would contact CFS if the situation changed.

He also suggested a supervision order would be more appropriate than a care order.

When the situation changed however ? as A?Maya did not gain any more weight for a period of ten days ? he admitted yesterday, that he did not contact CFS as the baby was now being treated by Dr. Hill.

All three physicians who testified yesterday were shown photographs of the baby taken one month before her death by defence lawyer Mark Pettingill.

?It looks happy and well-nourished but I am not sure the measurement would match that of a nine-month-old,? Dr. Moore said when asked to describe the baby.

The two eye specialists said that the baby?s eyes looked normal in the photos.

The trial continues today.