Celine Cawley might not have died had she received prompt medical attention, the Central Criminal Court heard today.
Scratches on Celine Cawley’s face were consistent with it being in contact with the ground while blows were delivered to the back of her head, the deputy state pathologist said based on the belief that she was found face down.
Dr Michael Curtis also told her husband’s murder trial at the Central Criminal Court that she would be unlikely to have died if she received prompt medical attention.
The pathologist was giving evidence on the seventh day of Eamonn Lillis’ trial for allegedly murdering his wife on December 15, 2008.
The 52-year-old TV advert producer has pleaded not guilty to her murdering at their home, Rowan Hill, Windgate Road, Howth while their daughter was at school.
Ms Cawley died in hospital after Mr Lillis said he found an intruder attacking her on their patio. He last week admitted that there was no intruder.
Dr Curtis said the 46-year-old received three blows to her head with a blunt object and that her injuries were consistent with her first being struck a blow to the head, falling face down unconscious, and then receiving further blows.
He gave her principal cause of death as blunt force trauma to the head with haemorrhage and postural asphyxia, and said contributory factors were obesity and enlargement of the heart.
Dr Curtis said he was told that the 5foot, 10.5inch-tall woman had been found face down.
“Such a posture, particularly in an obese woman, would have splinted her diaphragm, dangerously impairing her ability to breathe,” he said.
He said she bled profusely from her skull so her heart would have been seriously deprived of blood flow and oxygen. Her enlarged heart would have increased the demand for both blood an oxygen, he said, explaining that her heart weighed 465g, whereas 300g-350g was normal for a woman her size.
Dr Curtis said Ms Cawley’s head was blood-soaked when he conducted a post-mortem examination on her body the day after she died. He said her scalp wounds included an extensive area of abrasion incorporating a laceration on the right side of her head behind her forehead.
At the back, there was an injury to each the left and right sides. Towards the top of the head on the left, there was a laceration surrounded by bruising. There was a second laceration on the right, but the surrounding bruising was obvious only on internal examination.
She had numerous scrapes on her face as well as some faint bruising on an arm and thigh. She had a bruise on her left shoulder blade, but this could be seen internally only.
Dr Curtis said there was no fracture to the skull or facial bones and no brain damage or other internal head injuries.
“In the absence of brain injury and inter-cranial bleeding, it’s probable her life may have been saved if she’d received prompt medical treatment,” he said.
Mary Ellen Ring SC, prosecuting, asked him what he made of an explanation put forward that Ms Cawley slipped, bounced back up, was pinned against glass, before she and the other person slipped to the ground, with a brick coming between her head and the ground.
“In my opinion that account does not in any way explain satisfactorily the injuries,” he said.
Under cross examination by Brendan Grehan SC, defending, he said that only moderate force would have been needed to cause the injuries to her scalp. He said it might have taken a few minutes for her to die once unable to breathe.
He agreed that a person who wasn’t obese and didn’t have an enlarged heart would have been less likely to have died having received similar injuries.
Dr Curtis agreed that Ms Cawley’s injuries could have been caused by a brick. He visited the scene as part of his work but was never shown a brick.
He said it was more important for the forensic scientists to have the brick for technical examination. He knew what a brick looked like, he said.
Mr Grehan asked if he thought the head wounds might be consistent with a fall.
“I think the one on the right frontal temporal region and the one on the left at the back are at sites not typical of injuries due to a fall,” he said, explaining that they were too high up. “The one the right at the back could be due to a fall.”
However he said he couldn’t categorically say that the injuries didn’t come from a fall.
Mr Grehan asked him the same question regarding the shoulder bruise.
“It was small, only 2cm by 1cm,” he replied. “If there’d been a fall onto the back I’d have expected to see more injury to the back.”
He was asked if this didn’t depend on her head hitting the ground first and breaking the fall.
“I would still expect more bruising,” he said.
Mr Grehan asked him was it really possible for him, as a pathologist, to say that the three head wounds resulted from blows.
“I don’t think she sustained the three wounds from a single fall and I don’t think she fell three times and I think two of the wounds are in a position not typical of scalp wounds caused by falling,” he said. “Certainly it’s much more likely that two were caused by blows rather than a fall.
At this stage Mr Lillis handed a note he’d written to his solicitor, who passed it on to Mr Grehan’s junior counsel.
Mr Grehan quizzed him on the sequence of events he had given Ms Ring.
“I’m saying it’s strongly suggestive. I’m not saying it’s absolutely the case. She was found face down. I was told that,” he said.
“By whom?” asked Mr Grehan.
“Gardai,” he replied, explaining he had asked them again to be sure.
Dr Curtis explained that he used this piece of information along with the injuries to her scalp and face to come up with the sequence.
“Of course it’s not the only interpretation,” he said, agreeing to substitute the word ‘suggest’ for ‘strongly suggest’.
“If she was on her back, does it diminish the strength of your view?” asked Mr Grehan.
“Yes.”
Mr Grehan asked him if there would not be greater injuries to Ms Cawley’s face, perhaps a nose fracture, if the sequence had been as he suggested and she had received blows to her head while face down.
“The brick was wielded with probable moderate force, so not necessarily,” he replied.
Mr Justice Barry White then asked Dr Curtis which way a person would be more likely to fall if hit to the front of the head.
“It depends. If concussed and the knees crumpled one could fall forward,” he said, explaining that the same would be true of a blow to the back. “There are no hard and fast rules.”
Earlier the couple’s daughter said she could forgive her father for the row that led to her mother’s death but not for the lies he told afterwards.
The teenager, who cannot be named because of her age, gave evidence via video-link. She said that in early 2009 her father told her about the row he’d had with Ms Cawley.
“He just told me what had happened between him and Mum. I don’t remember word for word. It had just been the world’s worst Christmas,” she said.
“They had a fight and that was it. It was on the decking. That’s all I know,” she said. “He just said she slipped and they had a bit of a scuffle and that was it.”
Ms Ring asked what he said about telling the gardai that there had been a burglary.
“He said he hid his clothes because he said he didn’t know what to do. He said he panicked,” she said. “He said he did it for me, but I don’t really appreciate that he did it.”
The teenager said he told her he was sorry for what he’d done and asked if she could forgive him.
“I said yes but couldn’t really forgive him for the lie,” she explained.
She laughed when her father’s barrister told her he was under strict instructions to keep her there for as short a time as possible.
Mr Grehan asked her about a number of things she told gardai in March.
She agreed that her father told her that they fought on the deck, her mother slipped and hit her head on a brick.
She agreed that he said her mother then picked up the brick and hit her father with it, they had a scuffle, she slipped again, that she bit his finger and he panicked.
However she could not recall that her parents had rowed about meal worms for their robin.
Mr Grehan asked her about not forgiving her father for telling lies.
“I was always brought up never to lie so I didn’t really appreciate that he lied,” she explained. “But I understand why he panicked to save him.”
The trial continues before Mr Justice Barry White and a jury of six women and six men.