'Sometimes the people you trust betray that trust': How the shocking murder of two-year-old Santina Cawley unfolded

The violent death of Santina Cawley shocked a nation. Despite overwhelming evidence, Karen Harrington maintained her innocence. Liam Heylin looks back on the story of the child murderer who faced undeniable evidence but decided to take her chances in court.

Bridget O'Donoghue, mother of Santina Cawley, with her solicitor Donal Daly after the verdict was announced. Picture: Eddie O'Hare

Karen Harrington played roulette at the Gold Rush casino on MacCurtain St, Cork, on the afternoon of July 4, 2019, at a time when Santina Cawley was with her dad, Michael, who was hoovering his Ford Mondeo and doing some bits and pieces elsewhere in town.

It was a day like any other. And in a mundane moment during an early interview at Gurranabraher Garda station when she was suspected of murdering two-year-old Santina Cawley, a detective asked the 38-year-old, how do you play roulette? You just pick a number, she said.

There she was in the hours before the murder of a child in her apartment on Boreenmanna Rd, playing a game of chance at a casino on MacCurtain St.

Michael Cawley was asked at the beginning of the case about Karen liking to play roulette. He said that she did. And then added that she probably liked it a bit too much.

By chance

It was by chance on MacCurtain St in December 2018 that Harrington met Michael Cawley. It was just a random thing. They met on the street. He had separated from his wife about a year before. They got talking. Soon they were in a relationship, not moving in together but staying at each other’s apartments from night to night.

Just pick a number. 49. That was the number of visible injuries Michael’s daughter, aged two years and two months, would sustain some time in the early hours of July 5, 2019, when she was left alone with Karen Harrington. No more than seven months after the accused and the child’s dad met each other.

Pick a number. 4. That was the number of Santina’s internal injuries, including a complex fracture to her skull and fractures to her upper right arm and lower left thigh.

Assistant state pathologist, Margaret Bolster, examined the body of the infant and concluded that the nature and extent of injuries to the child indicated they were inflicted by force rather than as a result of an accident. Dr Bolster said the cause of the child’s death was traumatic brain injury and upper spinal cord injury together with polytrauma and lower limb injury due to blunt force trauma. More likely than being inflicted with a weapon, it was the pathologist’s view that the victim was struck repeatedly against a hard surface.

Pick a number. 9.20. That was the time that Santina was pronounced dead on the morning of July 5 at CUH. There was barely enough time for gardaí to get her mother, Bridget O’Donoghue, to the hospital so that Santina could be cradled by her for the last time: “She was put in my arms. I could not believe the condition of her. She was covered in bruises from head to toe. Her hands were cold and she was so pale.” 

But before the registering of this time in the case, 9.20am, there were other key times that were put before the jury with a forensic attention to detail: When Karen Harrington left Michael Cawley and his daughter Santina in Martina Higgins’s apartment at 30 Elderwood Park after a row between Michael and Karen, when she was insulted as “a whore and a prostitute” as Michael accused her of having affairs with foreign men she was meeting at the casino; The time when Michael turned up at Karen’s apartment with Santina; When he left her there; When he returned.

“At 3.01am, Mr Cawley is leaving Number 30. He does appear to have a buggy. He certainly has Santina. Santina is certainly uninjured at this time. At 3.05am, a figure that can only be Michael Cawley is on the open stairwell. He appears to have a buggy. He approaches Number 26, with a light coming on there at 3.06. Lest there is any doubt, Karen Harrington said he came back.

“He says he put Santina down. Ms Harrington was arguing. He has left by 3.10am. He was there for minutes. There is not a screed or hair’s breadth of evidence that he caused any of those injuries during that time. Santina Cawley is alive, uninjured, and well.

“He does not arrive back until 5.08am. Numerous CCTV cameras capturing his movements throughout Cork City in the intervening two hours,” prosecution senior counsel Sean Gillane said.

Two-year-old Santina Cawley.

In parallel, there is the attention to the precise times between 3am and 5am back at Karen Harrington’s apartment. Vital to proving this case was the work of the Garda Síochána Analysis Service which was also a key part in the prosecution of murderer Graham Dwyer, collating and analysing a large volume of data in his case. Instead of just leaving countless individual pieces of evidence for the jury to figure out in this case, Rhona Campbell of the Garda Síochána Analysis Service put together a colour-coded Powerpoint presentation on where Michael Cawley and Karen Harrington were during those key moments between 3am and 5am. Interestingly, this was one of two pieces of evidence the jury requested to see, just hours before returning their unanimous verdict that Karen Harrington was guilty of murder.

Mr Gillane SC reminded the jury, “What happens at 3.19? You heard Karen Harrington slamming the door, shouting incoherently, culminating in a cri de Coeur — ‘Everybody, wake the f*** up’. For certain sure she is angry… She is slamming the door so much the runner comes off it."

Dylan Olney, a neighbour, hears her shouting, “I’ll show them”. 

The prosecution senior counsel said: “Mr Olney hears almighty thumping… and her banging the door… at 4.31. Mr Olney rings the guards about Number 26. You have heard him tell you why he made the call — he hears a child crying, the child is being taunted. It is making the crying worse. He hears the child being told to shut up.” 

Two basic facts

Mr Gillane said this evidence established two basic facts — that at this time Karen Harrington is awake and Santina is alive. 

He said: “That is undoubted. 4.52am, the guards arrived, they go to that apartment. They can excite no reaction by banging on the door, banging on the window — why is that? Why can the guards not get a reaction? You could hear a pin drop. Mr Olney or the guards had not got the slightest intimation of the horror that happened. That is the time that Santina falls silent.” 

From the moment the investigation of the child’s death began, times were clocked with clinical detail. The prosecution concentrated on all of those numbers and times — most importantly, the time Michael brought Santina to Karen’s apartment, the time he left, the time he returned.

While every digit in the corner of each image of CCTV was thoroughly analysed and presented in the case it was clearly not all about numbers. Forensic as the evidence was, and dispassionate as the judge directed the jury to be, it was impossible for the emotional not to break through in a trial such as this.

One such moment was the post-mortem examination when it appeared from the pathologist’s findings that there was scarcely a part of Santina’s little body that was not bruised, battered, or broken, from her feet to the multiple fractures to her head.

Those present in Courtroom 6 at the Anglesea St courthouse may have tried to steel themselves against what they could anticipate would be extremely hard evidence to hear from the pathologist.

But it would take a heart of stone for the sight of Santina’s little pink top not to stir feelings about the awfulness of why everyone was gathered in Courtroom 6 in the first place. Tears to the shoulders suggested it was torn from the little girl, marks and stains hinted at a brutal end to a child’s life — all of these forensic signs in cruel counterpoint to the glittering, child-pleasing image of a kitten’s face decorating the front of the little garment.

The evidence

The evidence from the first garda to see Santina in Karen Harrington’s room that morning also stopped everyone in their tracks. 

Garda David Tobin testified: “I saw Santina Cawley lying on a quilt. She was pale. From looking at her, she was deceased. There was blood on the quilt. It looked like she was placed on the quilt. The best way I can describe it is that her legs were twisted in like a child’s doll. Her eyes were only slightly open. Her hands were lying by her side and her head was back and she was naked and she had a bruise on her forehead and she was not breathing. I think there was a small bit of blood in her mouth.” 

We heard the child’s dad, how he returned to Karen Harrington’s apartment that morning finding her under a blanket in the blood-stained room. He knelt down beside her and said, “Santina please, Santina, please, say something please”. 

Emotion was stirred in a different manner when we witnessed the visceral intensity of the prosecution's cross-examination of the accused. 

Mr Gillane asked: “Did you hear the child crying as the hair was torn from her head. Did you hear her crying as her lip was split? Crying as her ribs were broken? Did you hear any of that?” 

As she did with a number of questions, Karen Harrington made no response.

Defence lawyers will often take the view that their client has nothing to add to what they have already told gardaí in interviews and so opt not to give evidence. Looking at what she chose to say in the witness box, over and above the content of the interviews, its main purpose looks like an attempt to exonerate herself and cast doubt on Michael Cawley.

Michael Cawley, father of Santina Cawley, after the verdict was announced. Picture:Eddie O'Hare

She was asked repeatedly about what she appeared to be implying. Mr Gillane asked: “Do you accept Michael did not do this to the child?” 

She replied: “I do not know what happened between 3 and 5. I was suddenly woken from my sleep.” 

Mr Gillane said: “You have seen Mr Cawley (on CCTV) walking around town. We can see him on Winthrop St and Oliver Plunkett St. Do you accept he did not do this to his child?” 

She replied: “It is not for me to answer. I am not in a position to answer. I don’t know.” 

Mr Gillane asked if this was her escape hatch; she said she had no escape hatch. The prosecution went to some lengths to clear any doubts about Michael that the accused might have created. 

He said: “There is a boil to be lanced in the case, a cloud to be dispelled, something that just hangs in the case, and it is about Michael Cawley... If someone wanted to say that they should say it directly… But it cannot be said by wink and nudge and hint. It needs to be dispelled as it just hangs there.

“For any father, every day of their lives presents us with different ways to fail. Mr Cawley may wish he has done 101 things differently. He may wish he never went to Number 30 [the apartment where he and Karen argued after drinking]. He may wish he never went to Number 26 [the accused woman’s apartment] but these things happen. The fact that they happen does not make him responsible for this offence.” 

Moments of reflection

With the huge number of details emerging in the course of a reasonably long trial, it is not often that lawyers find time for moments of reflection, not to mention moments when they describe a view they had which changed completely in the course of the trial. But that happened in this trial.

The accused repeatedly said something to gardaí that she went on to say again in her testimony in court, and her friends and family members said the same thing when they testified — that Karen Harrington is a caring person who wouldn’t harm a child.

Mr Gillane said: “It is a refrain, it is a crutch, it is a drumbeat in those interviews. There is evidence that someone trusted her with her own kids. I thought, what has that got to do with anything? But I am wrong. Karen Harrington being trusted with a child actually is the point. Michael Cawley trusted her. He had no reason to believe harm would come to that child. It is one of the first things he said.

“But sometimes people you trust betray that trust.” 

Not alone did witnesses, including Karen Harrington herself, insist she was good with kids, but Michael Cawley acknowledged that she had been good with Santina before July 5, 2019.

As Bridget O’Donoghue said after the trial, “I feel angry at the accused, Karen Harrington, who murdered my baby. I continuously ask myself how someone could be so cruel to a two-year-old, a soft and gentle soul. Just how can you hurt a baby like this? I wonder was she looking for me in those last moments? What was Santina thinking and feeling during her terrible death?” 

It was not for want of trying that gardaí did not get answers from Karen Harrington. Santina’s mother who was present for the trial, as was Michael, got to see for themselves the efforts made to shed light on the darkest time in their lives.

Highly trained specialist interviewer, Sergeant Dave Noonan, implored the accused to tell him what happened in an intense interview at Gurranabraher Garda station — her fifth and final interview, and shown to the jury on DVD. He tried to bring her back to the terrible last moments of Santina Cawley’s short life.

“Try closing your eyes. I want you to think back to that night when you were in the apartment and Michael had left. Keep your eyes closed for a second. I want you to think back on all the objects that were around you. I want you to think about that location at that time and your best memory of what went on in as much detail as possible,” the sergeant said.

The accused replied: “I think I fell asleep. I had an argument with Michael. Santina is crying. I remember she was roasting, taking off her clothes. Laying her down in the blanket and I was just lying down on the sofa.

“I remember Michael is standing in front of me with the child.” 

“What happened Santina?” he asked. 

She replied: “I don’t know. I am sick.” 

“How did the nappy stay inside in the pants, were they ripped off?” he asked. 

She replied: “No.” 

“Was the top ripped off? You describe them as torn. Look at them [picture of torn top],” she was asked, and she replied, “Jesus Christ, I am sick”. 

“How did Santina sustain those injuries that were listed out?” he asked. 

She replied: “I am sick.” 

“The picture you have painted of lying down going to sleep. There are numerous statements. You did say you remember about the roaring and shouting?” he said. 

She replied: “I was roaring and shouting because I had an argument with Michael. I was ranting and raving to myself after he left.” 

The accused said she was not taunting the child. 

The detective said: “We have a statement that says you were taunting the child.” 

She replied: “I had no reason to taunt the child.” 

“You caused the injuries to Santina?” the detective said. 

She replied: “Oh Jesus Christ, it is looking like I did. I would not harm a child. By no means. I am around children all my life.” 

“A two-year-old defenceless child is dead,” Sgt Noonan said. 

Sobbing, she replied: “This is looking like it is me.”

The sergeant said: “We are following the evidence, Karen.” 

And that was what the jury did too. They looked at the numbers, the times, the details. They looked at the forensically gathered material. To be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, they asked again to see the Garda analysis of everything that was known about who was there, when were they there, and what happened.

And they concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that in those times between 3am and 5am on July 5, 2019, there were two people in 26 Elderwood Park on Boreenmanna Rd. One was the woman who lived there. The other was her then boyfriend’s child who had been left with her to mind. More significantly, they concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the brutal injuries sustained by the infant were inflicted by Karen Harrington. And that she murdered Santina Cawley.

Pick a number. Again, the most awful number in the case was 53 — the total number of injuries suffered by this baby girl, 49 separate external injuries and a further four internal injuries.

“This is looking like it is me.” 

Karen Harrington’s tearful comment in Gurranabraher Garda station almost three years ago was the closest she ever came to the confession she would never make.