“Wife strangled with chain"

Press, 31 March 1981, Page 9

“Wife strangled with chain"

Ashburton reporter Evidence would show that an Ashburton man murdered his wife by strangling her with a dog chain, the prosecutor (Mr T. M. Gresson) said in the depositions hearing in the District Court'at Ashburton yesterday before Judge Patterson. Keith Lionel Duncan, aged 37. a television technician, was charged with murdering his wife, Nicola Sharon Duncan. aged 23. at Ashburton on December 15.

He was represented by Mr S. G. Erber, with him Mr D. .J. Holderness, while Mr Gresson had with him Mr J. Wallace for the prosecution. The prosecution had a total of 17 witnesses, and 20 exhibits.

There were about a dozen people in the public gallery when the case was called about one hour after the scheduled time. The prisoner had been still in transit from Christchurch.

In his summary, Mr Gresson said the accused parents-in-law became concerned at the safety of their daughter. After talking with Mrs Duncan by telephone at 5 p.m., they were unabe to raise her 90 minutes later.

Visiting the Chalmers Avenue flat, they found shoes and. a purse and police maintained observations throughout the night. At 5 a.m. they found the defendant and a child, aged three, in bed.

The defendant had no idea where his wife was. saying he had been to a counselling service that day. Later he and his wife argued and he took the child to Peel Forest and then Timaru. Bite marks were noticed on his hand and he admitted that he had strangled his wife with a dog chain and taken the body to Zig Zag road, above Rakaia Gorge. He disposed of the chain in an irrigation race.

The first witness was a Christchurch social worker and counsellor, whose name was supressed. She said she spoke to the defendant on December 15. He expressed concern that his marriage was going “downhill.” He was unhappy and depressed and said he had also been depressed at the failure of his first marriage. The depression, however, really only manifested itself late in the interview when she asked about family life. .- He became very upset and cried. He said he felt guilty about the way he left his family in England after his first marriage failed.

He was referred to a minister and doctor in Ashburton. but she was concerned that he was hurting greatly and experiencing much emotional pain. She invited him to call her again should it be needed, and he did so after saying he was still feeling lonelv.

He telephoned at 3 p.m, saying there was no-one athome and he was anxious. He did not know where his wife was and commented that his home looked too tidy. He had found a letter his wife had written to a friend in which his wife said she

wanted a divorce and that he was something like a. bore,’ witness said. The defendant felt that his wife might be with a friend named Carol, but was reluctant to go there because both women had treated him as the butt of jokes and sometimes ridiculed him.

She arranged for the minister to visit the Duncan home, but at 5.05 p.m. the defendant telephoned from Rakaia. It was left to the minister to provide followup. the witness said. To Mr Erber, the witness said the defendant had been depressed and frightened-, at the., possible failure" of his marriage. She did not know that a child from the firstmarriage had died, but the defendant had commented at. one point that he wished that he, rather than his brother, had had a deformed foot so that his father might have taken notice of him. ...

She had not gained .an impression that the .defendant aimed to-harm.his wife, and she did not think, he was indifferent to her (his wife). He would not have" sought help if he was and /jwhen asked what he wanted to say to Mrs Duncan he -had quietly replied, "Hullo sweetheart.” .’. •

Judith Carol Leigh James, married, said Mrs Duncan and her daughter. Janelle, arrived at her home at about 1 p.m. on December 15. They had their Alsation • dog, Baron, with them.

The dog was tied to a tree with a chain which Mrs Duncan put in her handbag when she left for her . home at 4.45 p.m. Mr James drove her home.

As a result of a message witness planned to see Mrs Duncan later that evening. There was no response to her phone call. . At 7.20 p.m. she and her husband went to the Duncan flat. The front door was unlocked and the back door locked.

They went inside and she saw the hand bag. She could not see the dog chain.

She found a note on the table but felt that Nicky (Mrs Duncan) had not written it. It was worded differently to one she was shown in court, and she believed it was written by>.the defendant.

She telephoned a neighbour and Mrs Read, Mrs Duncan's mother. She went back to the flat at 9.30 p.m. after calling unsuccessfully several times by telephone.She. called Mrs Read again.. Witness was by then worried about Mrs Duncan’s safety,

To Mr Erber she said she based her assessment of the Duncan’s-marriage being Unhappy on what she-had seen’ and been told by Mrs Duncan. The latter was concerned at her husband’s bouts of depression. Nancy Mary Read, mother of Mrs Duncan, described her daughter as being a happy, out-going girl.' Keith and Nicola married late in 1977.

Her daughter gave birth to a girl in 1972' ; and defendant s lack of interest in adopting the girl upset Nicola (Mrs

Duncan). After Janelle was born, there was marital discard.

Duncan did not want his wife to go out at all and when asked why, he said that after a Tupperware party, he had sat alone imagining other things going on. At one point of the discord, Duncan tried to pack bags and said; he would take Janelle, then aged 10 months, to England. She felt he was very depressed then and many other times. She had seen bruising on Mrs Duncan’s cheek after the Tupperware party. After another altercation, Duncan sought .psychiatric help early last year.’Then oh February. 6 she (Mrs Read) was called to the flat again. She wanted to know why Duncan had twisted Nicola’s arm-and .why he'had stabbed himself. He was largely incoherent but said fie wanted to sed a doctor.. ■ . Duncan spoke to the .witness -several times ?in days leading -to Depeifiber 15: At--5.15 =-p.m. that “day she advised Nicola' jto call a doctor for-Duncan, but she called back to say she could not get the doctor.'Duncan came into the flat, during another telephone .'conversaton at about p.m., witness said. ' ■ She telephoned again about 6.30 p.m., then went to the flat as she was getting worried. She found the open handbag and a note written by Duncan. She made telephoned inquiries into the possible whereabouts of the family as she was getting worried, Mrs Read said. A neighbour, Vivienne Mary O’Connor, said that at about 5.40 or 5.45 p.m. on December 15, she heard a noise like car gears grating. There was a pause, then the sound of an impact as if a car had hit a concrete wall. She went out and saw the defendant with one hand on .his garage door. The Duncans’ car was backed into the garage and Duncan had said to her, “Sorry about that.” She did not know what he was sorry about, but he looked very, nervous, witness said. In cross-examination. Mrs Read said she felt her daughter could, not cope with Duncan’s bouts of depression. At one -point. Nicola had doubted that the marriage could continue and had sought help. She had an appointment with the Campbell Counselling Centre for the week following December 15. Her husband wanted more immediate action, sought help in Christchurch, and left a note for Nicola on the pad, Mrs Read said. Linda Joanne Peek, a married woman, living on a nearby property, said she heard a man. and woman arguing at .the Duncan flat after 5.30 p.m, and probably nearer 6 p.rm on December 15. After tea, she went outside again and heard a loud scream apparently from a female, which died away to nothing. (Proceeding)