In a case where James Kilroy is accused of the murder of his wife, Valerie French Kilroy, conflicting reports have been presented by toxicologists at the Central Criminal Court. James has entered a plea of not guilty on grounds of insanity. Prof Harry Kennedy, testifying for the prosecution, stated that Mr. Kilroy was possibly under effects of cannabis, but was not suffering from a mental disorder as defined by the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006. Kennedy clarified that a cannabis-induced psychosis can’t be used in an insanity defence and that Kilroy’s symptoms did not align with schizophrenia-like diseases.
Defence-called Dr Ronan Mullaney, however, contradicted this, commenting on Kilroy possibly suffering from a cannabis-induced psychosis and meeting the insanity verdict requirements, a view that Dr Lisa Wootton, another defence witness, also partially backed.
Toxicologist Dr Johann Grundlingh, gave testimony stating that he believed it was doubtful that Kilroy was under the influence of cannabis during the time of the crime, citing negative THC results from blood and urine tests conducted soon after Kilroy’s detention.
Furthermore, in statements given to the police and psychiatrists, Kilroy said he last used cannabis a week prior to his wife’s murder. With cannabis intoxication typically subsiding in 24h tops, this implies he was not under the influence at the time of the murder, Dr. Grundlingh concluded.
The prosecution summoned Dr Atholl Johnston, a toxicologist, who concurred with the outcome of the analysis performed by Dr Grundlingh. Mr Kilroy, aged 51, has maintained a plea of not guilty on grounds of insanity in response to allegations of murdering his wife at their Westport, Co Mayo residence, in Kilbree Lower, between the 13th and 14th of June, 2019.
As the defence and prosecution trails came to an end, Mr Justice Tony Hunt counselled the jury, comprised of eight females and four males, that the trial holds a complicated nature due to the sophisticated evidence and the necessity of comprehending the interplay of such evidence with the applicable law. He announced his intention to collaborate with the case’s legal counsel to elucidate these facets prior to the jury reconvening on Thursday to hear the final pleas.