Death was a slow process for 35-year-old Liudmyla Nykytiuk, who was found dead in an empty elevator shaft of an apartment where she was living in St Paul’s Bay in November 2009, and the injuries she sustained had been treatable, the jurors heard yesterday.

The trial by jury of 39-year-old Sergii Nykytiuk, who stands charged with his wife’s murder following an argument after which she tried to escape and fell down the shaft, continued yesterday as jurors heard the testimony of pathology experts Marie Therese Camilleri and Ali Salfraz, who carried out the autopsy. The accused also stands charged with allowing the victim to die.

They said that people who sustained similar injuries had recovered when treated, and explained that in all, it had taken her about four hours to die. The case is being heard before Mr Justice Michael Mallia.

The experts said that there were even signs that he had tried to strangle her, and it was certain that the woman had been beaten up before falling in the shaft. Their testimony was corroborated by that of forensic expert Mario Scerri.

Dr Scerri said that she had been subjected to trauma and had begun to bleed from the arteries, and it is possible that she had been pushed into the shaft, calling out in pain. What is certain is that her husband denied her medical assistance which could have saved her.

Dr Camilleri and Dr Salfraz said the woman had suffered fractures and a tear in her liver and her main artery, and also had a broken right hand and a black eye. She also had 94 slight injuries on her whole body, especially on her thighs.

In the afternoon, Dr Scerri testified that there were also signs the woman had been dragged by her jeans, before she fell, as he insisted someone had chased her and pulled her trousers down. She died as a result of internal haemorrhaging.

Court expert Martin Bajada testified that on 8 November, 2009 Liudmyla Nykytiuk had sent two messages to her lover, Vitali, and in one of them claimed her husband was beating her and in the other that she intended to leave him. These messages were evidently sent after a party at the couple’s apartment held that day.

Forensic Professor Hector Galea said that when he examined the accused on 9 November, 2009, he had found bites on various parts of his body, and 18 of these were by his wife.

A number of the bites could be classed as love bites, even if they could have caused pain, and a bite on his finger was self-inflicted. These had been made between 24 and 48 hours before, he said.

Professor Galea examined the victim on 10 November, 2009, and she also had various bite marks and bruises, including two on her chest, but these had been made days before her death. At this stage the prosecution said it had no more witnesses, and the defence started to make its case.

Lawyer Malcolm Mifsud, who is appearing for the accused, said that the fact that his client did not testify did not mean he was guilty, as it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond any reasonable doubt.

The prosecution had not successfully proven that he knew his wife had fallen down the shaft, was injured and would die if he did not help her, and there was certainly no proof that he had pushed her.

Dr Mifsud said the accused was not charged with beating his wife, and it did not hold ground to say that whoever was domestically violent would automatically kill someone. Lawyer Nadine Sant from the Attorney General’s Office is prosecuting.