Within days of Amber Haigh going missing, police told Robert and Anne Geeves they were suspects, interrogating the couple in individual recorded interviews on the teenager’s last known movements.
Haigh was 19 when she vanished from the New South Wales Riverina in June 2002, leaving behind her five-month-old son.
Two decades later, the father of Haigh’s child, 64-year-old Robert Geeves, and his wife, Anne Geeves, also 64, are on trial for her alleged murder. Both have pleaded not guilty.
This week, the NSW supreme court has been played recorded police interviews with Anne and Robert Geeves, conducted in the weeks after the young mother was reported missing in 2002.
The Geeves reported Haigh missing on 19 June 2002, a fortnight after they say they last saw Haigh at Campbelltown railway station, where they had driven Haigh to catch a train to visit her dying father in hospital.
The Geeveses conceded in police interviews no one else could corroborate their story of dropping Haigh at the station on the evening of 5 June.
The court heard this week there were no independent, verified sightings – outside the Geeveses’ version of events – of Haigh after 2 June 2002. A neighbour saw Haigh, in the company of Robert Geeves, at a bedsit apartment she rented in Young on that day.
During her second recorded police interview, on 18 July 2002, Anne Geeves could be seen holding Haigh’s six-month-old son for the duration of the interrogation. The infant occasionally interrupted questioning by crying and was placated with a bottle. The video played to court shows Anne Geeves patting the child’s bottom, cuddling and kissing him.
Detectives told Anne Geeves they held “major concerns” for Haigh’s welfare.
“If I was to tell you that you and Robert caused Amber’s disappearance by harming her in a way that she would never be seen again, purely for the sole reason that you could bring up [Amber’s child] as your own, what would you say to that?”
“I’d say no. No,” Anne Geeves replied as the baby cried in her arms. “On the baby’s grave, no.”
Asked if she had “any idea” where Haigh was, Anne Geeves said “the last time I saw her was in Campbelltown”.
“I’m just hoping that she’s still down there somewhere and she’ll come back.”
Robert Geeves was interviewed on the same day, also at Young police station.
Detectives asked: “Mr Geeves, police have grave concerns in relation to Amber’s welfare and suspect that she may have met with foul play. I suspect you may have had some involvement or, at the very least, have some knowledge in relation to her disappearance. What do you say about that?”
“No,” he replied.
“Amber was last seen in your company at the Clarke Street flats [in Young] on the second of June 2002? Have you harmed Amber in any way since that time?
“No I haven’t.”
“Are you aware of Amber being harmed in any way since that time?”
“No I’m not.”
“Have you any knowledge in relation to Amber’s whereabouts at present?”
“No.”
On Wednesday morning, NSW police chief inspector Dave Cockram was cross-examined by Michael King, the defence counsel for Anne Geeves.
King put it to Cockram that once Haigh was reported missing, police moved with “commendable speed” to interview as many people as possible who might have information on her whereabouts.
“And a number of those people had not-so complimentary things to say about Robert Geeves?”
“Yes,” Cockram said.
King put it to Cockram that Robert Geeves’s background and reputation – explored in detail in this trial – was “a flashing red light” to investigators.
Cockram denied that assertion, but said “it was definitely a point of interest for us”.
King asked Cockram whether, “as the focus on the Geeves tightened, police worked to disprove the Geeveses’ version of events” of having driven Haigh to Campbelltown on 5 June.
“Yes,” Cockram replied.
“In the wrap-up, police were not able to disprove that version?”
“Correct.”
Cockram told the court the delay in reporting Haigh missing hampered the police investigation, with the loss of key evidence, in particular CCTV footage, which could have confirmed Haigh’s last movements.
“We were already behind the eight-ball in terms of time,” Cockram said.
Haigh’s unresolved disappearance has been an enduring mystery in NSW’s Riverina. She left behind a five-month-old son who the court has heard she “adored” and “never let out of her sight”.
Haigh’s body has never been found, but a coroner has ruled she died from “homicide or misadventure”.
The prosecution has alleged in court that Haigh was used by Robert and Anne Geeves as a “surrogate mother” because they wanted another baby.
The prosecution alleged that once Haigh’s baby was born, they sought to have her “removed from the equation” by killing her.
The court has previously heard the Geeveses had had one child together – a son the same age as Haigh, who had previously dated her – but the couple wanted more children, having subsequently endured three miscarriages and a stillbirth.
“The crown case theory is that it was always the intention of the Geeveses to assume the custody and care of [the child] from Amber, but they knew that to do that, Amber had to be removed from the equation … so, the crown asserts, they killed her.”
Lawyers for Robert and Anne Geeves have argued the case against the couple – now more than two decades old – was deeply flawed, arguing that “community distaste” at Robert Geeves’ relationship with “a much younger woman with intellectual disabilities” fuelled “gossip and innuendo”.
“Everything they did was viewed through a haze of mistrust and suspicion,” the court has heard.
The judge-alone trial, before justice Julia Lonergan, continues in Wagga Wagga.
