Why doesn't the current Commissioner of Police order the interview of Norma Demler?

The following was a question forwarded to the blog 'Belated Vindication for Vivian Harrison?'

Does the instruction from Commissioner Walton not to interview Norma Demler still stand after all this time? If Len Demler did murder Jeanette and Harvey Crewe (and lets face it, that has been obvious to everyone for the past 40 years except for perhaps the police and justice department) doesn't that make Norma Demler an accessory to murder seeing as she was identified as the woman seen at the Crewe's after the murder? Why are the powers at be not insisting on her being questioned, if she is still alive. Who knows, after all these years she may now have a conscience. Rochelle Crewe has been carrying this burden for 42 years, she deserves some closure (for want of a better word) and she sure as hell deserves to have this huge weight lifted off her shoulders. Surely it's about time someone stepped up to the post and put right the wrong that was done in 1970.

The matter remains one of high public interest. Rochelle Crewe asked for the inquiry to be re-opened earlier this year from memory and I believe that was refused. The historical nature of the case was quoted as a reason  for the inquiry not to be re-opened. In a time when a fraudster is treated as a victim after being punched by someone he defrauded money from, when McVicar has made something of an occupation of leveraging for political power using as an excuse victims rights - why wouldn't the Commissioner order that an interview took place?

As the writer above points out Rochelle has been carrying this burden for 42 years. Vivian Harrison died with it still on her shoulders, and unfortunately by implication there remains the connection to Arthur. One has to wonder why Rochelle is not treated as a victim. Additionally why, apart from a deliberately flawed investigation that resulted in false imprisonment, there has been no legitimate murder inquiry. An inquiry that resulted in a deliberate miscarriage of Justice defies being labelled as 'legitimate.' I can't really buy the time factor as an excuse, I see that as providing a reason to  protect others and avoid the rekindling of public feeling about the Crewe case. A classic mistake really, the Police should be seen as divorcing themselves from their duties. By their inactivity inferences can be drawn that they simply do not care about Rochelle Crewe or the late Vivian Harrison and would rather preserve the view that the police 'got the right man' and Muldoon let him go.

The issue of Muldoon in this is interesting. I can't help but think that it was part of the times that Vivian was discriminated against firstly because she was a woman and secondly perhaps because she left her marriage with Arthur. That 'paternal' view might have also supposed that as Rochelle had 'only' been a baby at the time that she therefore had less than a daunting future not knowing fully what had happened to her parents. It's difficult to understand how the powers that be at the time, and now, haven't acknowledged Arthur's pardon, or the results of the Royal Commission and returned to the case with energy. No victim of the Crewe murders benefits by the Police self-protection or lethargy. Because the controversy is not one that will retire, common sense would suggest an inquiry should be launched. Or at the very least Norma Demler be interviewed and failing her willingness to be interviewed, as is her right, then an assessment made using the conflicting information written about by Chris Birt in his North and South article this year. In reality there is probably enough information on record to charge Norma Demler at least as an accessory after the fact and let a jury decide. That is evidence including the positive identification, and the conflicting and false information from both herself and Len Demler as to when she arrived in the district - the evidence remains abundant.

I don't think the issue of her age, the 40 or so years that have passed since the murders is sufficient to now not pursue this matter as it should have been during the original inquiry. Age of potential defendants certainly isn't a factor in other historical crimes as we frequently see. From reading Chris Birt's article it is plain to see that a body of the Police involved in the inquiry were unhappy the investigation into both Len and Norma was blunted, despite the clear motive that existed in terms of property. The ongoing inaction leaves an impression of self-protection, or protection of interests in conflict with the course of justice. There is another side to this of course, that it would allow Norma Demler to be exonerated in the public mind. But the bottom line must surely be the interests of Rochelle Crewe as the writer above points out. It wasn't until I received that letter that I realised that I had somehow been mesmerised by the 'adornments' of this case and was unable to see the simple question as one that deserves to be answered and which appears easily able to be done. Ex Commissioner Walton instructed that Norma Demler not be interviewed and later proposed he was confused by that, well I think a good body of nzers are also confused by that - and with the new question and obvious question, must be asking why not now?

To be frank Rochelle deserves this proper exercise of the legislative duty of the police and so does public interest.