'I did not kill my wife,’ Bailey told detective

Press, 5 November 1977, Page 2

'I did not kill my wife,’ Bailey told detective

JT Greymouth reporter When Ronald David Bailey was formally charged in March this year with the murder erf his wife, Margaret Joy Bailey, he had replied, •'I did not kill my wife." the officer in charge of the case, Detective Senior-Sergeant R. A Meikle, told a jury in the Supreme Court at GreyMr Meikle was the final witness for the Crown. Evidence for the defence will

The Solicitor-General (Mr R. C. Savage, Q. C.) and Mr D. J. Tucker appear for the Crown, while Bailey, aged 40, an unemployed salesman, is represented by Mr K. N. Hampton and Mr N. R. W. Davidson.

Bailey has pleaded not guilty to a charge of murdering his wife at Kiwi Point, near Stillwater, on Februarv 8, 1976.

Mr Meikle said the inquiries had started on February 12. The body of Mrs Baiiev was exhumed on February' 14. A post-mortem examination was carried out. Later that evening with other police officers, he went to the offices of Avon Psychological Services in Manchester Street, Christchurch, a business run by the accused. Only a cursory examination was made, and the office locked again for a more detailed study. However, he did see a large desk blotter on a desk. The detailed search was started oh February 16, but when he and other officers arrived

they found that the blotter haa been removed.

A pair of slacks similar to those worn by Mrs Bailey hao been made for Constable Susan Walker and with her and others he had gone to make tests at Kiwi Point to assess the effect of the current on the clothing of any person immersed in the river. Times were taken of the movement of a body between various points, and the time needed to pull a person from the river. Constable W’alker was to play the part of a ‘‘female who may not have been a proficient swimmer” and Constable Liddell the part of the rescuer. Witness then described the three tests. He said that when the two constables got into difficulty. Constable De Lury and Superintendent Thomson had gone into the swirl to help Constable Walker support Constable Liddell, but the latter was swept away in a swirl and drowned.

Kiwi Point had changed a lot since February, 1976, after the removal of thousands of yards of river material, said the witness. On November 3, 1976, he and Dectective Chief Superintendent E. G. Perry visited Bailey to ask him about his wife’s death. He was asked about the statement he had made to Detective Cartwright in February. The accused reread part of the statement, but not all of it.

Questioned about his indebtedness, Bailey was asked what other means he had of

obtaining money if he had refused the offer of a loan from a garage proprietor. Bailey had replied that the detectives were surmising that he had killed his wife for financial gain. “I replied. To be perfectly honest, yes’,” said witness.

Bailey had replied: ‘1 think if you asked Mr Hampton anil others, you will find that suggestion is way out.”

Witness asked Bailey why he did not want his wife to know he had been paid $3900 by the C.M.L. Insurance Company for photographic equipment stolen from his home and he had replied, “Where did you get that information from? As a matter of fact, my wife did know, and we had a bit of a to!. about it."

Asked why he had got the office girl to write a letter saying he was getting only sl'ooo, he said that that was the joke. “I said to him, To put it bluntly, you were deceiving her,’ and he replied, ‘No, Margaret (his wife) saw the cheque for the full amount’.’’

Asked about his various debts, Bailey had said. “If you art. inferring we were in financial difficulty, the answer is no.” Bailey h-.d said that the iweek-end trip had been made for his wife’s health. Asked why he had undertaken such a strenuous journey, he said it was a chance to get her out of the house. She was not seriously ill. He did not consider it dangerous to leave the children fishing alone as they were i.i a shallow place, and the eldest boy was sensible. He said that his wife was alive when he got to her in the water because she grabbed his jacket but had said nothing. She had a firm hold, but he did not know if she tore the jacket. His wife could not swim at all. When he pulled her out of the water, her slacks were down.

He was told that tests had showed that undone trousers would come off completely in the water, and it was put to him that he had pulled them down himself.

Bailey had replied, “Do you think I had sex with her after I pulled her out of the water?”

“I replied, “You tell us,’ and the accused said, ‘I don't think I even touched her clothing’.” The accused was shown a photograph of his wife’s body on the riverside. Asked why the cuffs of the slacks were in the normal position, while the top was pulled down, the accused had replied that he did not know. It had been put to the accused that his wife did not know when she went to the West Coast that she was insured for $19,000, said witness. Bailey had replied that that was not true.

In February of this year, in th* presence of Mr Hampton, witness had asked Bailey if insurance had been discussed between him and his wife, and he had replied that it had. Witness had asked if the children had heard the discussions, and Bailey had replied that on legal advice, he declined to say any more. He had given “no comment” as his answer to several other questions.

The accused had said he did not know anyone he met at Kiwi Point. Shown five pages of a letter and a plan he had sent to another man, the accused had looked at them and had passed them to his solicitor, but made no comment.

Asked if he had told a person that he had killed his wife, Bailey had replied, “definitely not." Mr Meikle said that on March 10 last, he again visited Bailey and told him he was being charged with the murder of his wife. He was given the usual warning that he was not obliged to say anything. “I then said, ‘Have you anything to say?’ and the accused replied, ‘I did not kill my wife’.” Cross-examined by Mr Hampton. Mr l.leikle said the inquiries had started the dav after Mrs Bailey’s funeral. The blotting paper which he said was removed was more in the form of a desk memo pad, with a diary for the month printed down one side. A number of other items

including a doctor’s smock and a stethoscope had also been removed between the first and second visits. He agreed that a request for copies of the post-mortem examination and of the statement made originally to Detective Cartwright had been declined, and that the accused’s solicitors had asked on several occasions if inquiries into Mrs Bailey’s death had been completed. Witness had replied that they were not. On November 3, witness and Mr Perry had given Bailey a copy of the statement for the first time. No formal cautions had bee.i given at the November or February interviews as a social worker was present on the first occasion, at the request of the accused, and on the second, Mr Hampton was present. Re-examined by Mr Savage, witness said it was only after the February interview when the whole file was reviewed, that the police decided to charge Bailey with murder, and the formal caution given. A second man whose name was suppressed said that about Christmas, 1975, Bailey had asked him to take letters to another person (whose name was suppressed on Thursday). In all, he handled 10 or 12 letters, he told Mr Tucker. To Mr Hampton, he said he also handled replies. Bailey had shown him a statement he had made to the police about his wife’s death. “Once or twice” he had discussed the death with Bailey, a line consistent with the statement. He did not agree that Mrs Bailey’s death was the main subject of Bailey’s conversation. The witness said he warned Bailey against ->e person to whom he was writing, saying that he could not be trusted. A man, whom it was alleged earlier was intended to be duped into being an independent witness bv Bailey and an associate, also gave evidence.

He said that when talking to Bailey the third man had come into the room, nointed to a picture of Bailey’s wife, and asked about her. Bailey had replied that she had been drowned in the Grey River. The third man had said that he had seen a mishap like that on the Grey River'from the opposite side of the river and described the scene. The witness said he felt that it was a “put-up iob,” and that it “felt unreal.”

Detective Sergeant D. Porteous said that the man whose name was suppressed on Thursday gave him, on December 15, 1976, letters which Bailey had written. Further letters had been given to him on January 6. He had passed them all on to Detective Senior-Sergeant Miekle, as he did with further documents given to him on January 27.