Yesterday the inquest heard evidence from the brother's girlfriend and two doctors.
The girlfriend's evidence was that she doesn't believe the brother actually punched Falaq. She didn't use the word as far as I can see, but she was suggesting that he was catastrophising when he texted her. I would expect the defence to take this line if he was prosecuted on the basis of the text messages. There are cases where we know this has happened - A has collapsed, B thinks they caused the collapse and says they punched or hit A, when hard evidence has been available showing that any contact was minimal. I'm not saying that is what happened in this case, but that is what I would expect the defence to say.
The more interesting evidence in my view came from two doctors. It seems Falaq had an arteriovenous malformation (AVM) in her brain (note that the Daily Mail gets the term wrong and talks about an abnormal venous malformation). An AVM is a tangle of blood vessels with irregular connections between arteries and veins. An AVM in the brain is rare, particularly in females, but Falaq had one in her cerebellum (the bottom of the back of her brain). An AVM puts a lot of pressure on the walls of the arteries and veins affected. This causes the walls to become thin and weak, and may lead to the walls rupturing spontaneously, causing bleeding in the brain. There is anecdotal evidence suggesting that physical trauma (e.g. being hit) can cause an AVM to bleed, but there is no scientifically proven link. If the brother was prosecuted for manslaughter, I would expect any medical experts to say that, whilst it is possible that a punch or slap from him could have caused the bleed, it is at least equally likely that the bleed happened entirely on its own and was not caused by anything the brother did.
The other point of note is that neither of the doctors questioned yesterday appears to have been aware at the time of death that there had been any physical trauma. This strongly suggests that her brother did not cause any physical injury - no bruises or broken skin, far less any broken bones.
On the medical evidence presented yesterday, I am not surprised that the CPS have not charged the brother with causing his sister's death. And I strongly disagree with the previous poster. If it is clear that there is insufficient evidence to support a prosecution, it would be quite wrong of the CPS to keep the brother and the family hanging on until after the inquest before making a charging decision just because some people who haven't seen all the evidence (or don't want to accept the evidence) think they should.
I would not expect the brother to be charged with child abuse based on a single text message exchange as that is unlikely to be sufficient to get a conviction. Even if there was enough evidence to prosecute him for this offence, unless it was more serious than appears from the medical evidence so far, he would be facing a community sentence if convicted.
I would temper all of the above by saying we are only halfway through the inquest. There are still two more days of hearings. It may be that information will emerge that will change things. Indeed, it may be that information will emerge that will lead to the CPS reviewing its decision not to charge the brother. But the evidence so far suggests this was a perfectly normal charging decision by the CPS, not the scandal the Daily Mail clearly wants it to be.