The jury in the Eamonn Lillis murder trial will resume its deliberations at the Central Criminal Court tomorrow morning.
The six women and six men began deliberating this afternoon on the 12th day of the trial of the 52-year-old TV advert producer accused of murdering his wife.
Mr Lillis, originally from Terenure in Dublin, has pleaded not guilty to the murder of 46-year-old Celine Cawley on December 15th, 2008, while their teenaged daughter was at school.
He first said he found an intruder attacking her at their home, Rowan Hill, Windgate Road, Howth but has since admitted there was no intruder.
Mr Justice Barry White sent the jury home in the evening after about an hour and a half of deliberations.
They had asked for a number of items, including a tape of the 999 call; the Rip Curl bag and its contents found in the attic; clothing found in Mr Lillis’s upstairs wardrobe; the statements given to the gardaí by both his daughter and Jean Treacy; the post-mortem report and a transcript of Mr Lillis’s evidence.
He told them that they could not have the garda statements but had to act on the evidence they heard in court. They could also not have a transcript of Mr Lillis’s evidence or the post-mortem report but he would either read or play them to them.
Mr Justice White had concluded his charge to them just half an hour earlier after a number of requisitions. He had begun the charge yesterday.
He said he held neither a sword for the prosecution nor a shield for the defence.
“I hope you don’t think otherwise and that my charge was directed toward securing a particular verdict. It was not,” he said after recalling them.
“There are certain matters where I was wrong,” he said.
He explained that instead of saying that Detective Sergeant Brian Cloone had no significant blood on him after giving Ms Cawley CPR, he should have said that he had no blood on him.
He had told them that Dr Haroon Khan hadn’t seen an injury on the defendant’s little finger.
“The evidence was that he had it in his notes and did observe it,” he said, adding that Mr Lillis had not complained to the doctor about it.
He had earlier said that certain haemorrhages found by deputy state pathologist Dr Michael Curtis would not appear to have any significance. In his recharge he reminded the jury that such haemorrhages could be found in cases of postural asphyxia, such as Ms Cawley’s, as well as in other deaths.
“You attach such significance to it as you see fit,” he said.
“I told you Dr Curtis’s evidence was that postural asphyxia could occur when on one’s back or one’s front. I didn’t tell you that it can occur on one’s side,” he said. “I didn’t tell you that Dr Curtis said that death could result rapidly from postural asphyxia.”
He reminded the jury of forensic scientist Dr Stephen Doak’s evidence regarding blood spatters on the reveal of the sitting room window. He said that Dr Doak hadn’t ruled out that an injury might have occurred there.
“It’s been suggested that I didn’t fully put the defence case before you,” he said.
He recalled that the defence said that not only was it unlikely Mr Lillis would decide to kill his wife in the most public part of their property, but that it was unlikely he would have done it when he had arranged to meet Ms Treacy.
The defence said it was also unlikely that he would have decided to kill her in circumstances where only moderate force was used, he said.
“Why would one use only moderate force if there was intent to kill or cause serious injury?” he said the defence had asked.
He said the defence asked him to point out that there ware frailties attached to both Ms Treacy’s and Mr Lillis’s daughter’s accounts of what he told them, because they weren’t committed to writing for some time after the conversations. He said he wasn’t suggesting the jury reject his evidence and accept theirs.
“The issue of credibility of witnesses is for you to decide,” he said.
He said he had earlier drawn their attention to an answer Mr Lillis gave Ms Ring. He said: “I was there,” in response to her question as to whether he was the only person who hurt Ms Cawley.
“At a later stage he agreed he was a major participant in the events that led to his wife’s death,” he reminded them.
The judge had told the jury that the prosecution made the case that the accused was lacking in any credibility. He said that, in so doing, he had not intended to give the impression that he was guilty because he lied.
“People can lie for a myriad of reasons,” he said, reminding them that Mr Lillis had said he was in a total panic, boxed in, and couldn’t tell the Cawleys, in whose home he was staying.
He said that they had to ask themselves if these were the reasons he lied or if it was because he was covering up, as the prosecution suggested.
He reminded them that they could consider the verdict of manslaughter under four headings: lack of intent, provocation, self defence and criminal negligence or recklessness.
He said that although the accused hadn’t made any of the manslaughter cases, the jury was still entitled to consider them.
“His defence is: I didn’t do it. I’m not guilty. The injuries sustained were accidental and not inflicted by me,” he said of Mr Lillis’s case.
“I hope I didn’t give you the impression that I have a particular view of this case because I don’t,” the judge said. “I’m not here to impose my will upon you or subtly hint at you.”
Earlier he quoted the prosecution as saying that Mr Lillis had consistently lied to the gardaí, including naming an individual as a suspected intruder.
“You can’t believe a word of what he said to you here as you couldn’t believe a word he said to gardai,” he said was the prosecution’s case. “You must look to the frame of mind of the man at the time the injuries were inflicted, not the remorse afterwards.”
“Did he intend to kill or cause serious injury?” he asked. “The prosecution says the natural and probable consequences of blunt force trauma to the head is serious injury.”
He said the prosecution argued that the opportunity to kill Ms Cawley presented itself and that Mr Lillis availed of that opportunity, that he methodically went upstairs, changed, washed, gathered items and hid them with a cool, clear head.
The judge also summarised the evidence of the trial, making a number of comments. These included one in which he compared Ms Treacy putting Mr Lillis’s hand on her pulse to the song by Peter Sellers and Sophia Loren, Goodness Gracious Me.
Mr Justice White has told the jury that he will accept only a unanimous verdict, adding that if that is manslaughter, all 12 must be agreed on the reason. He also said that they could disagree.
“The most important thing is that you abide by your consciences,” he concluded.