But Dr Milne said, "if if it was a haemorrhage then it was, in the context of the examination “the most likely cause of death”.
That is a very big "IF" though. It's the key word. And microscopic examination could not say that it was a haemorrhage. Again, I'd just point out that the wording was Nathan Milne being thorough and covering all POSSIBILITIES, as he had to.
The bottom line, you'll recall, is that he could NOT determine a cause of death - not a definite one, not a probable one, and not even a possible one. There were several POSSIBILITIES left open, because they couldn't be excluded.
EDIT: Actually, I've just read through the full autopsy report again, and I can't find Dr Milne saying what was quoted above. Perhaps that was the judge's interpretation of it? What Dr Milne actually says is:
"1. Subdural haemorrhage. If this was a true injury it indicates a blunt force impact to the head, probably of a moderate degree of force. Subdural haemorrhage can occur without a skull fracture. If death was the result of a subdural haemorrhage, it could have taken hours to occur after the time of impact. Impaired consciousness from a subdural haemorrhage could also predispose to drowning. There is no evidence to suggest she had a bleeding tendency."
That is in his conclusions.
Earlier he says:
"On naked eye examination, there was some granular brown material between the left side of the brain and the dura. The appearance raised the possibility
of a subdural haemorrhage, however due to the effects of decomposition this could not be confirmed on naked eye or microscopic examination
. It remains a possibility
that there was a subdural haemorrhage."
BBM - he HAS to leave open the POSSIBILITY to be thorough. He can't 100% exclude it.
And that's all he said, basically.