UK expert says drugs to blame for raid death
Dr Richard Shepherd — a British-based consultant forensic pathologist who specialises in complicated homicide cases — said there was no pathological evidence of excessive or forceful restraint on David O’Mahony’s body.
And he ruled out traumatic asphyxiation as the cause of death.
Mr O’Mahony, 22, of 8 McSwiney Villas, Gurranabraher, Cork, became agitated while gardaí were searching the house on foot of a search warrant on Nov 14, 2007.
Gardaí restrained and handcuffed him with his hands behind his back, and placed him face-down on a couch before he suffered a seizure.
He was rushed to Cork University Hospital where he was pronounced dead.
The Garda Siochána Ombudsman Commission investigated the death and sent a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who directed that no gardaí should face charges arising from the death.
Assistant state pathologist Dr Margot Bolster told Cork City Coroner’s Court on Wednesday that Mr O’Mahony had taken cocaine, heroin, alcohol and probably cannabis in the hours before his death. There was also a lethal dose of lignocaine, a cocaine bulking agent, in his system.
Dr Bolster said while the restraint was a factor in the death, the actual cause of death was cocaine, alcohol and lignocaine toxicity.
Dr Shepherd was asked by city coroner, Dr Myra Cullinane, to review the postmortem case files and he presented his findings yesterday. He agreed with Dr Bolster it was a complex and difficult case.
He said the most likely cause of death was as a result of the interplay of several factors — the restraint, and the interaction between the range of illicit drugs and alcohol.
He said injuries to Mr O’Mahony’s wrists were relatively minimal which suggests that there was no significant force applied to these areas and little struggle after he was handcuffed.
Dr Shepherd said there was no pathological evidence to suggest excessive restraint was applied.
He said the placement of Mr O’Mahony on his stomach after restraint, and the fact that he was obese, would have compromised his breathing to a certain extent, but there was no pathological evidence of significant asphyxiation.
He said he agreed with Dr Bolster’s findings which were arrived at following what he described as a “thorough post mortem”.
The coroner is expected to sum up the evidence for the jury this morning.