According to a psychiatrist’s testimony in the Central Criminal Court, a park warden named James Kilroy, who claimed to be acting under divine orders when he murdered his wife, likely suffered from a psychosis stemming from extended cannabis consumption. Dr Ronan Mullaney stated that the defendant developed odd delusions including believing his wife was conspiring to torment and murder him.
Mr. Kilroy spoke of conversing with owls and interacting with a higher power before his wife’s death. He was found to be in a state of severe psychosis post his arrest, as reported by Dr Mullaney. Following interviews with the accused and reviewing notes from prior psychiatric consultations and interviews, Dr Mullaney concluded that Mr Kilroy was experiencing drug-induced psychosis. He further qualified Mr Kilroy for a not guilty plea by reason of insanity under the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act of 2006.
The 51-year-old Mr Kilroy stands accused of killing his spouse, Valerie French Kilroy, aged 41, between 13 and 14 June, 2019 in their residence in Kilbree Lower, Westport, Co Mayo. The mother of three died due to asphyxia, blunt force impact and a neck wound.
During questioning, Mr Kilroy admitted to using different drugs from a young age, which included cannabis, ecstasy, and LSD. Since the year 2001, however, he acknowledged only consuming cannabis. In 2018, Mr Kilroy claimed to have spent €230 on a strain of cannabis known as AK-47, an especially high THC variant causing the trademark marijuana high, according to Dr Mullaney.
In 2019, Mr Kilroy claimed to have discovered a new strain of cannabis with no THC but high CBD content assumed to possess anti-anxiety properties without the intoxicating side effects. Mr Kilroy admitted to combining both strains and smoking the mixture.
In Dr Mullaney’s assessment, it’s plausible that Mr Kilroy was under intense psychosis during the time of the murder, and it’s very probable that his cannabis use contributed to the onset of his psychosis. Despite these findings, Dr Mullaney felt it was unjust to assume that Mr Kilroy could have foreseen that smoking cannabis would trigger such a severe mental breakdown that it would lead him to murdering his wife.
Dr Mullaney reported that Mr Kilroy likely suffered from significant mental disability, causing him inability to control his emotions. His frantic delusions involved paranoia to the extent of believing he was under surveillance and on the brink of being seized, tortured, and murdered. Additionally, he believed his wife had conspired to be part of the plot to harm and kill him.
An additional symptom was abnormal perception, such as receiving advice from animals and divine contact, which Mr Kilroy failed to recognise as abnormal hallucinations. Dr Mullaney diagnosed Mr Kilroy with drug-induced psychosis, indicating it as something separate from intoxication.
On the day Mr Kilroy was apprehended for his wife’s murder, a blood test was performed, which showed no traces of cannabis or usual metabolites that tend to linger a week post-cannabis usage. This negative result led Dr Mullaney to believe that Mr Kilroy hadn’t consumed cannabis within a week at least, far past when the drug’s mind-altering effects would have subsided.
Dr Mullaney concluded that due to Mr Kilroy’s belief that his wife intended to torture and kill him, he was unaware that murdering her was wrong and couldn’t resist killing her. The doctor asserted that Mr Kilroy qualifies for a ‘insanity’ defence.
In his discussion with prosecuting lawyer Anne-Marie Lawlor, Dr Mullaney stated during patient interviews, he opts to trust the patient is recounting the truth, unless definite proof indicates otherwise. He concurred that he took for granted Mr Kilroy was telling the truth.
Lawlor implied to Dr Mullaney that a person in Mr Kilroy’s status, having killed his spouse, would have an apparent reason to deceive, misconstrue, and to deliberately or inadvertently offer misleading information to safeguard their self-interest.
Dr Mullaney conveyed that individuals can act in their self-interest and while he constantly bears this in mind, he clarified it does not invariably imply a presumption of dishonesty. He rejected the insinuation that Mr Kilroy had downplayed his drug consumption, stating instead that indications were that Mr Kilroy had amplified his actual usage. The cross-examination of Ms Lawlor by Mr Justice Tony Hunt along with a panel comprising of eight females and four males is set to proceed on Thursday.