Startling new evidence casting doubt on the events surrounding the death of six-month-old Cassidy Salahuddin in May 2003, was submitted to the Court of Appeals yesterday.

Cassidy?s father, Karim Shaheed Salahuddin was sentenced to life behind bars in October last year for the murder of his daughter ? according to experts at the trial ? by means of shaken baby syndrome.

Salahuddin is appealing this conviction and yesterday his overseas counsel, John Perry QC and lawyer Elizabeth Christopher submitted an additional appeal for fresh evidence.

Evidence, Mr. Perry said, the defence did not have enough time to secure before the trial started due to late disclosure by the Prosecution.

The evidence comes in the form of reports from renowned paediatric forensic pathologist Dr. Janice Ophoven and Dr. Kirk Thibault, a biomechanical engineering expert who studies the mechanics of bodily injury and the mechanics of paediatric brain injury.

Ms Christopher read extracts from the reports in which both doctors concurred that there was ?no evidence of shaken baby syndrome?.

This evidence, she said, went beyond evidence which was dealt with at the trial by medical experts for the Prosecution.

Ms Christopher said Dr. Ophoven stated in her report that there was no evidence to support the theory that shaking a baby can lead to shaken baby syndrome.

As for the injuries six-month-old Cassidy?s had suffered, Dr. Ophoven reported that there was no medical evidence that the child was shaken.

Ms Christopher said Dr. Thibault stated that there was no evidence of violent shaking and the child?s injuries could have been caused in another way.

Throughout his four-week trial, Salahuddin insisted he had been carrying the child in a pumpkin seat, when he slipped and fell, dropping the seat in the process.

He claimed the seat, with baby Cassidy strapped inside, rolled down the steep asphalt driveway.

Salahuddin later admitted to Police that prior to the fall, he had shaken her to try and stop her crying. He also admitted to slapping the baby.

Ms Christopher added that the hairline fractures to Cassidy?s skull ? found in the autopsy ? were not visible on the CT scan taken when she arrived at the hospital.

Appeals Judge Sir Charles Mantell requested to see the CT scan ? which was never submitted as evidence in the trial last year.

Ms Christopher added that both doctors mentioned the skull fracture, but not when this occurred.

She said both doctors supported Salahuddin?s version of events, justifying why the Appeals Court should take it into consideration.

?They both felt it needed to be investigated further,? she said.

On the application for fresh evidence, Director of Public Prosecutions Vinette Graham-Allen told the judges it should be refused.

Presenting the court with a chronology of events leading from the incident in May 2003 to the trial in October 2004, she said the defence knew right from the start what the Prosecution?s case was, so there was no issue of late disclosure.

She said letters from doctors and pathologists were presented as part of the ?bundle? when Salahuddin appeared in Magistrates? Court in October 2003 ? five months after Cassidy died and almost a year before the case went to trial.

Ms Graham-Allen said this ?controversial medical hypothesis? was tested at the trial.

She added that all the issues mentioned in the two ?new? reports had been canvassed at the trial.

The contesting view ? that Cassidy died of something other than shaken baby syndrome ? she said, was presented to the other two medical experts at the trial, Dr. Valerie Rao and Dr. Randell Alexander.

Both these witnesses for the Prosecution found Shaken Baby Syndrome to be the cause of Cassidy?s injuries.

However, Ms Graham-Allen admitted following questioning by Justice Sir Mantell that this evidence from these two specific doctors was not before the court during the trial, ?for whatever reason? but the subject matter was.

?Is it really fresh?? Ms Graham-Allen asked.

She told the court that the conviction against Salahuddin should be affirmed as evidence against Salahuddin was ?overwhelming?.

?He had a fair trial,? she said, adding that there had been no ?miscarriage of justice?.

A decision on this matter is expected next week.