Facial scratches consistent with blows to back of woman's head

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 told her husband’s murder trial at the Central Criminal Court her death would have been unlikely had she received prompt medical attention. He was giving evidence yesterday on the seventh day of Eamonn Lillis’s trial for murdering his wife on December 15th, 2008. The 52-year-old TV advert producer has pleaded not guilty to murdering her 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. The opening of the trial heard he now admitted 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 having been struck a blow to the head, falling unconscious face down, 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 had been told the 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 and 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 postmortem 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, behind her forehead.

At the back, there was an injury to the left and right sides. Towards the top, 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 only be seen internally. 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, prosecuting, asked what he made of an explanation put forward that Ms Cawley slipped, bounced back up and 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, defending, he said 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 was not obese and did not have an enlarged heart would have been less likely to die on sustaining 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 whether 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 [at] the right at the back could be due to a fall.” He said he could not categorically say the injuries were not due to 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 on to the back I’d have expected to see more injury to the back.”

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. Certainly, it’s much more likely that two were caused by blows rather than a fall.”

At this stage Mr Lillis handed a note to his solicitor, who passed it on to Mr Grehan’s junior counsel.

Mr Grehan quizzed Dr Curtis 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.

“Gardaí,” he replied, explaining he had asked them again so he could 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 whether 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 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.”

The trial continues before Mr Justice White and a jury of six women and six men.