THE JURY in the trial of Eamonn Lillis for the murder of his wife will resume its deliberations this morning after it was sent home last night by Mr Justice Barry White. Mr Lillis (52), a television advertising director, is charged with murdering Celine Cawley (46) at their home in Howth on December 15th, 2008.
Mr Justice White continued his charge to the jurors yesterday and they retired just after lunch. However, he called them back to clarify certain issues following legal submissions.
“I hope you do not think my charge was directed towards bringing in a particular verdict,” Mr Justice White told them. “It was not. I have been asked to bring a number of matters to your attention.”
Among them was medical evidence that haemorrhage was consistent with postural asphyxia, which was a contributory cause of Ms Cawley’s death. The judge also said that forensic scientist Dr Stephen Doak had not ruled out the possibility of an injury as a result of a fall against the window.
In relation to Mr Lillis’s credibility, he said it had been suggested that he had given the impression that lack of credibility meant he was guilty. This was not so. “People can lie for a myriad of reasons,” he said.
Referring to the option of a manslaughter verdict, he said if the jurors found there was an unlawful killing but no intent to kill or cause serious injury, then a manslaughter verdict was appropriate. Other reasons for a manslaughter verdict were provocation, self-defence or gross negligence
Summarising the evidence in the morning, Mr Justice White said the jury had heard about Jean Treacy, with whom Mr Lillis had an affair, putting her hand on his pulse. “Some of you may be old enough to remember a song with Peter Sellers and Sophia Loren, Goodness, Gracious Me,” he said.
He described the account Mr Lillis gave to Ms Treacy of the events surrounding Ms Cawley’s death and referred to that given in court. “Are there inconsistencies between the two accounts? If so, what inferences should you draw?”
Pointing to the evidence given by the couple’s daughter, he said she had said she was a girl “brought up never to lie”. “Consider the credibility of Mr Lillis’s claim he had agreed with Ms Cawley to tell her a lie about the injury,” he said.
He said the jury should look at what was in his mind at the time the injuries were inflicted. “Did he intend to kill or inflict serious injury? A blunt trauma to the head is a serious injury. The prosecution says he went upstairs and changed his clothes and washed, all with a cool clear head. If there was panic, it only set in at a later stage.
“The defence says the State case is implausible. It was ludicrous that Mr Lillis would kill his wife in full view of anyone who might be passing up or down the laneway. There was a row. No injuries were inflicted on Mr Lillis by his wife. It was all accidental occasioned by a row.”