The Gamal (46 page)

More of Sinéad’s Psychiatrist’s Evidence

—And tell me, were you surprised by this development?

—Ahm . . . a little but not entirely. I just don’t think she was quite ready to accept it.

—Would you say you predicted this?

—No. Nobody could have predicted this.

—Thank you. Yet you say that she made an excellent recovery and became mentally a healthy person. How can you really be certain of this? Given the fact that you were surprised by her previous setback where she became totally delusional, can you really now say that you are certain, absolutely certain that she was in good mental health at the time that she died?

—Of course I couldn’t be certain. Nobody could. All I can provide is my best medical opinion.

—But you are willing to accept that your medical opinion was completely wrong in the past, are you?

—I would have to accept that to be the case, yes.

—So tell me please, Mr Mooney, can you be certain, absolutely one hundred per cent certain that Sinéad was not suicidal at the time she died?

—No. I cannot be sure.

—Thank you, Mr Mooney, for your honesty. That’s all, Your Lordship, thank you.

Dr Quinn said to me today that he’s noticed the last six weeks or two months that I’m the whole time biting my lip. Never noticed except just that they’re red raw and sore. I just said it was the cold weather and he said it was only October. Another time he was on about the skin that joins the bottom of your thumb to your pointing finger. I know its called index but that’s stupid. It’s the bit of skin that can stretch. Bit webbed it is. I rubbed mine so much it bled and went scabby and would rub off the scab again until the skin went all hard like the heel of your foot and it would crack and tear when I stretched out my hand. Dr Quinn said it was a nervous thing. I said I wasn’t nervous. Just realised now this second that I been biting my lip this whole time. Nice when you get a bit of skin between your teeth and when you move your lips the skin comes away and you can keep doing it until it hurts and even then you can keep doing it and you can suck the blood out of your lip and bite it off and suck the blood back to the side of your tongue where you can taste it best all sweet and salty and metal and your eyes watering with the lovely pain.

Teesh in Court

Teesh stood up in court that time in the middle of Snoozie squealing on him.

—You’re fucking dead. You’re fucking dead Snoozie. You’re a fucking dead man.

Tim Buckley’s song ‘Valentine Melody’ goes here. It was a fairly big part of Sinéad’s mind for a while, this song was.

When I took the tablets for an dubh I didn’t like my favourite song any more. That’s why I swore to Dr Quinn that I’d slit my wrists before another one of them pills crossed my lips. We’ve listened to it a trillion thousand times me and Sinéad and James but we still never figured out the words. I think Eddie Vedder might have made up some of the words cos real ones didn’t fit.

I remember Sinéad singing the song. All timid and sweet the first couple of times and then whatever pain and anguish was in her came through the third time and she was crying at the end of it and James went over and held her in his arms. Then after a bit she went over to the tape recorder and went to the bit where it goes,

Tongue twisted thoughts have spin ’round my head

and she must have rewound and played it a hundred times. She couldn’t get over the way Eddie Vedder sang the word, ‘spin’. Said it was the whole spirit of the song condensed into a split second. Said she’d never heard anything like it. Shaking her head she was. Tears in her eyes, nearly. Moisture anyhow. When she got James to play along with her as she practised that line we began to realise what she meant. Disappointment and love and anger and acceptance were never so close than in the way hers and Eddie Vedder’s voice went on that word, ‘spin’. Made different words of it. For different worlds. Human breath became part of the word and the notes somehow. A baby’s cry was in there too. And the roar of an angry god. Fierce and frail. Sinéad was getting very close to it but I’m not sure if her lungs were strong enough yet but she would get it. I was certain of that. Hardest thing is seeing a peak like that, ’tis so far above us. But she knew where it was and she’d get there.

The State Pathologist’s Evidence

—The victim was lying with her back to the ground naked from the waist down under the bridge at Ballyronan.

—Was she under the middle part of the bridge or . . . ?

—At the part nearest the bank on the eastern side of the river. Under the arch closest to the bank.

—I see. Was she under water?

—No. Her head and her upper torso were in a little water, but her waist and legs were quite dry. There was no water running through this part of the bridge as it was summer and the river was low. Just a couple of pools.

—I see. And she was naked from the waist down, is that so?

—Yes. She was wearing a beige blouse and nothing else. No underwear.

—Was there anything else about the scene of note?

—By the time I’d arrived the forensic team had highlighted certain aspects of the scene to me. Extensive photographs were taken. On the river bank the victim’s underwear was found. Her knickers were on the ground and her bra was hanging on the branch of a tree. It appeared to have been thrown there. Her handbag was washed up on the river bank down river and had probably been thrown into the river at the scene of the crime. Also found at the scene was a silver piece of torc neck jewellery belonging to the victim.

—I see. You later carried out the post-mortem examination, Dr Gleeson. Were you able to establish how Sinéad died?

—Yes. The post-mortem showed that she had died from asphyxia due to strangulation. Her larynx had been broken, most likely during strangulation. There was considerable bruising to the front and sides of the victim’s neck. Also the presence of petechiae in the eyes would strongly suggest strangulation.

—Could you explain what that is please, Dr Gleeson?

—Petechiae are broken blood vessels, in this case appearing in the eyes. This is caused by the pressure created within the skull by strangulation.

—I see. Was there other evidence of foul play?

—Yes. There was evidence to suggest foul play. Firstly her body appeared to have been dragged to where it was found. This is seen by scratch marks on the front of her body, which would have been dragged along the river bank to where it was found. Also there was a slight build-up of earth along the left side of her body, particularly her left thigh and left shoulder. This build-up was probably caused by dragging her body to the location where it was found.

—Do you believe then, Doctor, that somebody moved her body after she died?

—I do, yes.

—Was there anything else to suggest foul play?

—Yes. The presence of skin and blood under several of the victim’s fingernails would indicate that she had tried to fight off her attacker. She had broken two of her nails, presumably in this struggle. The presence of two of another person’s pubic hairs on the victim’s vaginal area as well as semen in the vagina would indicate that her killer had raped her, particularly as the DNA of the skin under the victim’s fingernails matched that of the pubic hair and the semen.

—Sorry, Dr Gleeson. Just to get this clear. Could it be argued that the skin found under the victim’s fingernails was there because of a passionate sexual encounter?

—The skin of someone could be scraped by long fingernails during a vigorous sexual encounter. This is certainly true. However, the quantity of skin and blood under the fingernails of Sinéad Halloran . . . would indicate a considerable struggle on her part. The person she presumably attempted to fight off would have had quite severe scratch marks on his person, some of which would have bled.

—Thank you. Finally, Dr Gleeson, were you able to establish a time of death?

—Not very accurately, unfortunately. Because part of the victim’s body was in cold water her temperature would have decreased quicker than usual. This complicates matters because it would have delayed rigor mortis. But judging by the food in the victim’s stomach, which was a handful of french fries apparently eaten at one a.m., from a local mobile chip van, and taking into account an accelerated reduction in body temperature, I was able to estimate the time of death to be within a two-hour time-frame. It was almost certainly between the hours of three a.m. and five a.m. of the morning she was found. I couldn’t establish a time of death more accurately than that, unfortunately.

Forensic Scientist’s Evidence

—DNA doesn’t lie.

—Objection.

—You need only answer the question.

—Well, in fairness, Your Lordship, I think he was answering it.

—In any case you may continue.

—Thank you, Your Lordship. Now, Dr Morlay, as we know, the defendant never came forward. He was arrested after

—Objection.

—Your Lordship, I’m only trying to get to the point a bit quicker.

—Don’t.

—OK, Your Lordship. Dr, Morlay could you tell us please how your laboratories became involved in the case?

—Well, I took a call from Detective Crowley and it was he who asked us at St Anne’s Hospital laboratories if I could accept samples of DNA for forensic analysis with the purpose of looking for a match found with the DNA of the semen . . . which was taken from the body of a suspected murder victim.

—How many samples were you expecting?

—In all we received over a hundred. A hundred and nine in all.

—And who were these samples from?

—They were mostly from men from the area between the ages of eighteen and forty and there were also some samples of men on the sex offenders’ register in the county of Cork.

—And could you tell me whose blood sample the DNA of the semen belonged to?

—Denis Hennebry’s blood was a perfect match for the semen found on the victim.

You know that’s Dinky.

—And could you tell the jury, please, was there any way that Denis Hennebry could have denied that the semen taken from the body of Sinéad Halloran was his? Could he have denied it was his?

—Objection, Your Lordship, Denis never denied the semen was his.

—Your Lordship, I want to establish the situation Denis Hennebry found himself in.

—Very well, carry on.

—Thank you, Your Lordship. Right, Dr Morlay, thank you for your patience.

—Not at all.

—So tell the jury, could Denis Hennebry possibly have made any plausible case that the semen taken from the victim’s body wasn’t his?

—Well, obviously, he could have tried. But quite honestly, it would have been useless. Solid DNA evidence like this has never been successfully contested.

—How is DNA so reliable? How is the evidence it provides so incontrovertible?

—Basically, because the chances of another match being found is in the regions of billions to one.

—Is that why it’s called DNA fingerprinting?

—Yes.

—Now Dr Morlay, could you tell the jury please, do you think most people know about DNA? Do you think it’s common knowledge that DNA is nowadays a very useful and reliable forensic evidence?

—Objection, Your Lordship. Dr Morlay’s area of expertise does not include knowing how much the general public know about DNA evidence.

—Sustained.

—Very well. Thank you, Your Lordship. I’ll say it myself then, and you can decide youselves if you think I’m being reasonable. I think that the general public know that DNA testing is hugely useful as forensic evidence. At least people who read the newspapers or watch television. I think that’s probably most people, to be fair. Now, Dr Morlay, are you aware of any other cases where the defendant changed his story after DNA evidence linked him to the crime?

—Objection. Your Lordship, I must object to this now, this is most unfair. This case is far from closed.

—Your Lordship, I never said for a second that the case is closed. I merely asked if Dr Morlay was aware of any other cases where the defendant had changed his story after DNA evidence linked him to the crime.

—Links him to what crime, Your Lordship?

—Denis Hennebry changed his story, Your Lordship, that is simply a statement of fact. And the jury must know the facts.

—Denis Hennebry did change his story. But he is not guilty of any crime until this court says so. The objection is sustained. I will ask you to be more precise in terms of your language in my court, please.

—Well, of course, Your Lordship. Thank you.

—Proceed.