Accused Doctor Suggests That Travis Ebanks’ Breathing Tube Was Slipped Into Food Pipe By Someone Else

By Alric Lindsay

The manslaughter trial of Dr Paul Anthony Taiganides continued in the Grand Court today, September 18, 2026, culminating in a rigorous final round of cross-examination by Richard Matthews KC and direct clarifying questions from Justice Richards.

Dr Taiganides took the stand to vehemently deny that his medical interventions contributed to the death of gunshot victimTravis Alexander Derron Ebanks. He insisted that the prosecution’s theory defied basic medical realities and firmly stated that the tube was “dislodged after the fact” rather than misplaced by his hands.

During a meticulous review of the medical records, Matthews KC examined why certain electronic entries had been altered. For example, Matthews KC suggested that the original wording from Dr Taiganides referred to a “Complete opacification of the left lung,” which was later altered to state that the left lung had a complete whiteout. Dr Taiganides testified that he made notes, but he suspected that after the medical records team asked him to input the information several times and he did not do so, someone on that team decided to make the entry. Reportedly, he edited it later because he wanted to use language that was easier for investigating police officers to understand the scenario.

When Matthews KC asked about his notes on the capnography, Dr Taiganides said: “I checked the capnography… I simply didn’t record it in my cursory note.”

The core of the prosecution’s case rests on assertions that an endotracheal tube was mistakenly placed into Mr Ebanks’ food pipe instead of his windpipe, effectively depriving him of oxygen. Matthews KC pressed Dr Taiganide on expert findings from Dr Wellings, which showed that post-mortem X-rays indicated the tube remained unchanged in its relative position from earlier scans.

Dr Taiganides firmly rejected the narrative that he placed it there. “I vehemently deny that,” Dr Taiganides stated when accused of causing the death. “He would have been dead in two or three minutes if I had done that. Instead, he lived for 13 minutes after I intubated him. Nobody has been able to explain that to me. I did not contribute to his death.”

Dr Taiganides added that when Ebanks was moved and rolled to perform the X-ray, the tube may have ended up in the food pipe, but that is not where he placed it.

Matthews KC pressed Dr Taiganides, asking him why he performed CPR on Ebanks if he thought Ebanks had already passed away. Matthews KC suggested that, in such a scenario, the act of performing CPR on Ebanks was “theatrical.”

Dr Taiganides replied, indicating that CPR was done so that the medical staff would not think that the team didn’t do everything that could be done to save Mr Ebanks.

The timeline of the patient’s final moments became a primary focus when Justice Richards interjected to question Dr Taiganides directly. Asked to identify the exact period when the patient could be considered deceased, Dr Taiganides testified that a total flatline of electrical heart activity was recorded at around 5:11 am, with the death pronouncement centring around 5:14 am.

When Justice Richards further asked if the patient was already dead at the exact moment the X-ray film was captured, Dr Taiganides replied, “Simultaneously.”

Dr Taiganides directed blame toward what he described as “selective bias” among prosecution experts, explicitly alleging that Professor Deakin had ignored 90 per cent of the patient’s recorded oxygen data to support a predetermined narrative. Dr Taiganides maintained that Mr Ebanks arrived at the hospital in a non-survivable state, having suffered from a severe spinal cord injury, profound blood loss, and critical field hypoxia for over two hours before hospital admission.

Following this testimony and completion of questions by Matthews KC, defence counsel Ben Tonner KC informed the court that he had no further questions for Dr Taiganides. It was revealed that the scheduled defence expert witness was elsewhere today, concluding the day’s evidentiary proceedings earlier than anticipated.

The jury was dismissed ahead of the lunch hour.

The trial is set to resume on Tuesday.