Peter Marshall wrote a letter to investigative journalist Chris Birt concluding the police inquiry into the evidence which showed that Norma Demler fed the baby Rochelle Crewe after the murder of her parents, with, in part this explanation. 'You will appreciate that I have a responsibility to prioritise investigations in terms of Criminal Investigation Branch matters. That is an ongoing obligation and accordingly, after considerable thought, I do not intend to direct further inquiries arising from your submission.'
Of course a complainant to a crime does not make a submission, a submission is made to a Court, for instance, to find favour or establish a set of circumstances that prove, disprove or mitigate some circumstance that is before the Court. A letter or complaint to the police is not a submission to a Court and neither is a police officer a Judge to whom submissions are made.
Included in Chris Birt's 'submission' was the fact that Bruce Roddick saw Norma Demler, or someone that he took for her, with the baby Rochelle, some time after the murders of Jeanette and Harvey. The complaint actually was that Norma Demler was at least an accessory after the fact to the crime(s) of murder. In support of that was confirmation that Norma Demler claimed never to have been in Pukekawa at the time of the murders or up to 2 years later.
In the complaint of Norma Demler's involvement in the murders Chris Birt produced evidence contained on the police file:
An eye witness, Bruce Roddick.
Colin Harvey, a trustee of the murdered couples estate.
Beryl Dick, the sisterinlaw of Norma Demler.
An anonymous farm worker.
And others unknown.
Commissioner Peter Marshall (then Assistant Commissioner) in his letter confirmed that Norma Demler in her interview had denied being the woman seen on the Crewe farm with the orphaned baby.
Derive from this at least the answer to 2 things if you can;
1/Consider how frequent it is that an accused, or suspected offender, denies their involvement in a particular crime, and if under the law a denial is a defence to be decided by the police and not the Court.
2/Look now at a common feature of denial of an offence by an accused or suspected offender - that they were some where else at the time. Most frequently, a claim by an offender to have been somewhere else at the time of crime is pivotal in gaining a conviction where there is proof to the contrary. In the case of Norma Demler there are at least 4 people saying that she was where she claimed not to be - at the time of the murders. At least 4 people none of who, unlike Norma, had an interest in the estate of the murdered couple.
There is something left from this still owed to nzers, owed most particularly to those whose lives remain disrupted, something owed to the public interest.
Ian Wishart addressed all this in his book, coming to the conclusion that it wasn't Demler. He also suggested that the murderer may have been one of the investigating cops, with plausible reasoning, and an alternative suggestion for who fed the baby. If he was right, then there is very good reason for the police not to investigate further. Perhaps they are not enthusiastic about what they might find.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I have to admit that I haven't read Ian's book, someone might forward the explanation that blunts the evidence of those that either identified Norma Demler as feeding the baby or who are able to attest that she was in Pukekawa years before she claimed to be. Chris Birt has pointed out that there is evidence that she was helping out on the Demler farm even before Maisy Demler passed.
ReplyDeleteThat remains as a substantial hurdle.
Also there is something completely odd that a murderer, without feelings or an attachment to the child in some way would bother, or run the rik, of nurturing the child. That person would also have to, in my opinion, be confident of moving about the farm after the murders and I would need to wonder why they had that confidence. Finally, the murders were evident (by the evidence in the farmhouse) and I would need to wonder why therefore the bodies were dumped, with both the risk that entailed and the reality that dumping the bodies didn't remove evidence of the murders - which gives rise to speculation that the offender may have planned a 'disappearance' of the couple but that ultimately the evidence in the crime scene wouldn't allow that to be plausible. I seem to recall there were efforts made by somebody to clean up the scene, again why?
It remains to me therefore, speculation aside, there is compelling evidence that Norma Demler (or formerly Eastman)was on the farm at a time she said she was not, a time narrowed down by at least one witness as being when Jeanette and Harvey were dead and when somebody fed baby Rochelle. Surely, that remains of high public interest, further enabled by the wishes of Rochelle for the case to be investigated.
The more I wade through all manner of 1/2 truths the more I gravitate back to exactly what you say here. Every time I try to propose a certain 'other perpetrator' the more I eventually go yeah-nah. There had to be a king pin in the saga and that surely was Len Demler. The bloodstains in his Mk III Red Cortina were on the passenger side. I would like to see the pics of those as they could well be those of an accomplice or transferred from Jeannette's body somehow?? I find it incredible that early on Norma's car was not tested too. We don't even know what car she drove do we?? I'm still having problems determining who may have been Len Demler's deputy at the time the arson's and burglary occurred? We did not know much about Norma's "relationship" with Len between 1965 and 1970, that is core to the evidence surely??
DeleteThe evidence, that the Police had regarding fresh milk (inside the Crewe house) speaks volumes about them not using evidence that did not support their current lines of enquiries and POI.
Three matters have resulted in not getting a satisfactory case conclusion these are:
1) Inspector Hutton not having decent support early on (he lost his 2IC at the beginning), coupled with the fact that although very respected, he was operating from a very remote investigation base at least 5 days after the couple were murdered.
2) He should have resisted more the pressures he was getting from Commissioner Bob Walton to get a conviction at all cost.
3) The long interview with Len Demler was a "make or break" affair that Hutton was never going to win simply because he hadn't cast his net wide enough from the outset.
The other question I have is, would Demler have been the gunman? I'm pretty sure the answer to that is "of course".. He was not the sort of person to hire a killer and have to pick up other peoples' loose ends. Coupled with that his vain attempts to clean up speak volumes that he really wanted to make this look like a murder suicide. I really do wonder if he naively believed that the NZ Police would not locate the bodies?
The evidence produced by the police with regards to axle and wire did not prove anything. Demler will have had time and opportunity to source these materials without incriminating himself. After all intimidating and life-threatening acts were a pre-cursor to this crime.
So much was made of the murder weapon yet the police never proved beyond reasonable doubt that any other weapon in or out of the district (or those scrutinised) could have fired the fatal bullets. My bet is the weapon was disposed of or hidden never to be associated with the crime.
Thanks for your comment, it caused me to read this post again. It's clear there was enough evidence to charge Len and Heather. Even police appreciated that the baby had been looked after, something which to their eternal shame they blamed on Vivien.
DeleteI don't think I had previously considered Hutton's position in the way you describe, considering it now he was certainly under pressure from the Commissioner's office - not a satisfactory situation. I remember writing that it was the Commissioner who ordered that Norma not be interviewed (re-interviewed?) which was revealed in Chris Birt's article. Have to say "what the hell" on that.
The milk, the care of Rochelle, the will etc. were all things to hammer Len and Norma on and from that experienced police would have got their narrative into evidence without the couple able to explain their positions. The blood in Len's car, which I had either forgotten about or didn't know until now - was also very significant.
To think that a killer not related to the family would worry about the child is bizarre. I think that Len may have "frozen" in those few days after the killings and not known what to do except keep quiet. The killings didn't have to be well planned, the idea that a stranger would need to hide the bodies isn't well posed as there was nothing to gain from it, particularly with the evidence left in the house and the car.
Really Len was the prime suspect in this situation and police holding back from turning his life upside down in an inquiry is perplexing.
There were other considerations as well to infer it was Len Demler rather than Johnson.
ReplyDeleteThe neighbour stated the dogs and most likely the cattle as well had been fed and the only possible person for those acts could be Len the neighbour..
Yes, well no doubt the murderer had a motive - the farm, and looking after it by feeding the dogs or the cattle was consistent with that. As was Norma Demler's presence, without authority, at the Trust meetings for the estate management after the deaths of Harvey and Jeanette.
ReplyDeleteAgain, when a MOJ is formed, no doubt with the 'best' intentions, some details remain glaring as inconsistent and these should never be glossed over in order to get, or sustain a conviction. By the very act of glossing over, changing, or trying to ignore such things a sworn duty is forsaken and a crime committed because it defeats the course of Justice. The murderer would not have tried to clean up had his/her first intention not been to have created the 'disappearance' of the couple. No woman or man would have cared for Rochelle without noticing her parents missing and what was clearly a murder scene - that more than anything is why the Commissioner of Police needs to deal with this in a more satisfactory way. Rochelle and her parents deserve that, so does the public, AAT and the late Vivian.
It does seem illogical to me that the person with the strongest motive should be discounted as a suspect. My understanding at the time was that Demler's mother had bypassed him & left the farm to her granddaughter and her husband, and that Demler had been very upset about that. The deaths of both Jeanette (as the beneficiary) and Harvey Crewe (as her husband & therefore the logical beneficiary of her will), would return the property to Demler. That looks to me like a rather powerful motive for a man holding a grudge. I also recall reading something some years later, that Demler, once freed from police observation, sold up suddenly and departed for Brazil. That does not strike me as the actions of a man who carried feelings of concern for his Daughter or Granddaughter: rather it indicates the actions of a man keen on keeping himself out of the reach of the Law. My understanding was that at that time, at least, there was no extradition treaty with Brazil.
ReplyDeleteThat someone fed & cared for Rochelle, also raises questions. That person could not have been unaware of the blood & carnage inside the house, yet that person calmly nurtured the child without raising the alarm. That could only have been the killer or an intimate accomplice. I think that probably removes the policeman Johnston from the list of suspects. Whether he had any alternative motive or not, he had no reason to look after the child, at the obvious great personal risk to which he or his accomplice would have been exposed. Apart from that, what interest would a rogue cop have in feeding dogs and looking after stock on a property he could have no interest in at all?
Another small point: a stranger coming around would have aroused the farm dogs; someone well known to them could come and go with little fuss at all. How close was the nearest neighbour's house?
Demler would have been aware of the crush Arthur Thomas had had on his teenage daughter: kids do tend to disclose these things one way or another. It would seem also that Thomas' habits around his farm were well enough known, and 13kms is not far around farming communities, particularly where country schools are concerned. I know that we kids knew a lot about our community in country North Canterbury in the 50's & 60's, and who had what on their farm, and that was over distances much greater than 13kms. Almost all farmers had one or more rifles on their properties in those days, and generally the community had a bit of an idea as to who owned what.
What is more, having read the Profile reported in the Herald this morning 1st August 2014, also doesn't exactly rule out Demler. If Harvey Crewe had a habit of upsetting people who dealt with him, Demler would have known that very well, and given his resentment at Crewe effectively inheriting his (Demler's) mother's farm, his resentment could very easily have turned to vicious hatred. I do recall something being reported at the time about his relationship with his daughter and her husband as not being the greatest. And his wife caring enough to look after the child is also not inconsistent with a woman's maternal instincts, even if she was cold enough to cover up her husband's crime.
You need to consider "Norma Eastman"on the 7th of April 1972, less than two years after the murders, Len and Norma were married in a secret ceremony, thereafter known as Norma Demler. Len Demler, sold the farm, and then moved to Auckland with the new wife Norma. It is Norma, who took are of undoubtedly fed and cared for little Rochelle for the crucial five days after the murders.
ReplyDeleteAgree with the above, have a close look at Demler, and a woman at the time known as Norma Eastman [later afte the murders marreies Len Dmelerhave who kept the secret so well was that Norma carried on living in her house in Auckland while Len carried on living at the farm until he sold it, two years later, and moved in with the new Mrs Demler.
ReplyDeleteLets look at the murder scene dynamic itself. Why dispose of the bodies? If it could be linked to the weapon used, you'd simply dispose of the weapon, would you not? Outside of that, would Mickey Eyre or Thomas have had a need, let alone the ability to dispose of the bodies without being seen? No, less than easily, especially with Thomas's nosy car. The efforts to clean up the scene with regards to attempts to clean up bloodstains etc lean towards the theory that an attempt at having them look like they'd simply disappeared or ran off had occurred. How would Eyre or Thomas benefit from that, or anyone without an opportunity to benefit from their permanent disappearance? They wouldn't have. Sharing a bloodline would be a compelling reason to feed & look after Rochelle, so why would Eyre or Thomas do that? Why would Vivian Thomas be involved in that? They wouldn't. Len Demler had ease & cover of access to the property via the gully on the shared boundary, had the motive via the will (both beneficiaries gone), had the bloodline link to protect an innocent child and had the inland ability to reach the Waikato river, as per the sighting of a couple on horses 'disposing of rubbish' that seemingly matched Lens description. If you believe that Len Demler was the murderer and that Heather Sowter was absolutely not in the country in the 5-days before Rochelle was found, then the lady spotted at the house by Roddick, seemingly the same person also sighted at the river could reasonably considered to likely be Norma Eastman? Reasonable conclusions based on the 'likely suspects'. That they never pursued her more strongly at any point, let alone post the Royal commission staggers me to this day. The Police certainly didn't want to admit they got Thomas' conviction completely wrong and therefore continued to deny themselves, Thomas and Rochelle the opportunity of doing the right thing & finding the real killer.
ReplyDeleteThe axle is a total crock too. How dare they keep that as a trophy at the Police Museum. Check the photo of Hutton and the two flanking officers with the axle being held. Those guys look embarrassed!
ReplyDeleteI tried to initially approach this with the notion that Hutton was unwittingly duped by other officers but I think not.
I also wonder whether the NZ Police statement that the Souter’s had an alibi must be questioned even if it is only for the purpose of POI elimination.
I really don’t think any evidence the police have produced is 100% credible.
If no axles were used, which I believe to be the case, heavy bedding and negatively buoyant bodies would give the same result. Floating up only after severe decomposition
I've since read Chris Birt's book in which the Souters' alibi is properly addressed.
ReplyDeleteSo it comes down to why Bob Walton had ordered Norma Eastman not be investigated properly? I see Bob was a Bowler, and so was Len Demler.
The Police to this day still steadfastly refuse to admit AAT was not the perpetrator.
In short, that stinks.
It's high time this whole fiasco was brought to its ultimate conclusion.
I agree. The fact the cartridge case found in the Crewe's garden hadn't been manufactured at the time of the shootings totally exonerates Arthur
DeleteI’ve just finished reading Keith Hunters book “The Missing Bloodstain”. What a great book and coupled with Chris Birt’s The Final Chapter it all but explains this so-called Mystery.
ReplyDeleteI particularly liked the way in which the Demler axle conveniently then became the Thomas axle. How corrupt were they guys
Keith Hunter does pull his punches however wrt Norma Eastman when he states that as Len’s girlfriend she was likely only asked to parade in the front yard so it would look like all was fine and dandy in the weekend. Len miscalculated by not clearing the letterbox of milk and newspapers.
I believe Len used a vehicle to dispose of the bodies. The reason I say this is that 5 miles overland on horseback is senseless.
As it transpires the bloodstain in Len’s car was actually on the rear side of the passenger seat not the front.
Len’s horseback creeping around the police search was I believe an attempt to trick the police into keeping looking on the farm rather than extend the search to the river. This was vital to allow the bodies to drift downstream.
Len became very unsettled in the back of the police car when crossing the Tuakau Bridge, heading towards police HQ. My thoughts here were that his agitation was caused by knowing the bodies and likely the rifle too were in that very river
That blood sample ever tested that you know? Or kept?
ReplyDeleteI haven't reread everything above apart from your recent posts. But I did make the point years ago that when it was discovered the bullet jacket had been found in the garden was not manufactured at the time of the killings police should have attempted to trace the cartridge for the public's peace of mind. I think they implicitly underlined why they didn't do the trace.
Makes sense that the bodies were not moved on horseback. The reason why the bodies were moved at all is interesting as there was no need for a random killer to do that. In fact Len as well if really thought about it as it introduced another element to the crimes.
I doubt anyone prepared to kill Jeanette and Harvey outside the family would have run the risk of feeding Rochelle.
Keith's point that Norma may have been asked to be seen in the yard wouldn't necessarily preclude other involvement. I think it was Chris Birt that was able to point out she lied about when she had moved into the area. In a normal inquiry that lie would have been the end of her and Len.
Unfortunately haven't read Keith's book yet. But Chris Birt's North and South article also pulled the covers off.
Why is rochelles identity being protected who would harm her but other decent law abiding citizens have been and still are threatened if they try to present facts which may help solve some of these hidden issues and their lives and marriages have have been saddened and ruinedbecause ofsuch dishonesty by many.
ReplyDeleteShe is a mature woman who we must assume is making her own decisions as she is entitled to do.
Delete