TEENAGE drama student Amanda Duffy had pieces of wood forced into
parts of her body, a murder jury heard yesterday.
Miss Duffy, 19, died from head and neck injuries and inhaling her own
blood but pathologist Dr Marie Cassidy, 37, told the High Court in
Glasgow that the girl's body had also been mutilated.
Twigs had been forced up her nostrils so violently that one had
fractured her skull, and branches were forced into her mouth and private
parts.
Miss Duffy had a catalogue of horrifying injuries, including a broken
nose, bruises and abrasions consistent with stamping, and her jaw was
broken in two places.
Questioned by Mr Donald Findlay, QC, defending, the pathologist agreed
that it was not normal to see people killed by having wood forced into
parts of their body. She said this was mutilation.
Dr Cassidy was giving evidence at the trial of Mr Francis Auld, 20, of
Douglas Crecent, Eddlewood, Hamilton. He denies that, on May 30, on
waste ground at the town's Miller Street car park, he assaulted Miss
Duffy, of Brackenhill Drive, Hamilton, and murdered her.
It is alleged that he knocked her down, punched and kicked her and
struck her with an unknown object, stamped on her face and neck,
compressed her neck, removed parts of her clothing, and forced pieces of
wood into various parts of her body.
Dr Cassidy told Mr John Morris, prosecuting, that she went to the
scene that night and saw the body lying half naked and with obvious
injuries to the face and neck.
She carried out the post-mortem examination at 1.30am the following
morning, and said the time of death would probably have been about 17
hours earlier.
Dr Cassidy said the girl was five feet four inches tall with long red
hair. Death had been due to head and neck injuries along with inhalation
of blood, and Miss Duffy showed signs of asphyxia.
The pathologist described a pattern of marks on Miss Duffy's neck,
which Dr Cassidy said could have been caused by a necklace she wore
being pressed or pulled against the skin.
There was little sign of defensive injuries, which suggested Miss
Duffy had put up little resistance, and the pathologist thought this
might have been because she was unconscious.
She said one twig had been forced up the girl's nostril with such
force that it broke through the skull and was embedded in the bone.
The branch thrust into her mouth had been forced out again, causing a
wound near her ear, and there were signs that two attempts had been made
to force the branch through the skin.
Dr Cassidy said a bite mark found on the girl's right nipple would, in
her opinion, have been painful and not a love bite. There were signs of
''brute force'' injuries to her head and body.
Cross-examined by Mr Findlay, Dr Cassidy agreed that Miss Duffy had
been drinking before she died.
The counsel asked Dr Cassidy if, at the post-mortem examination, she
found a pattern of injuries which showed extreme violence. Mr Findlay
went on: ''Ritualistic acts that may have a kind of sexual overtone?''
Dr Cassidy agreed.
Mr Findlay: ''If someone was intending to kill the girl, they could
have done it quite adequately without involving themselves in this type
of behaviour? To insert twigs is more a way of abusing and degrading her
in some way?''
Dr Cassidy: ''Yes. It's mutilation of the body.''
She also agreed that the extent of the injuries to Miss Duffy's face
reflected not so much a wish to kill as an attempt to obliterate the
victim's identity by obliterating her face. And that the use of twigs
and sticks had nothing to do with subduing the victim.
The trial before Lord Sutherland continues.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article