Crewe case: Who's laughing and is it time to flick the switch?.

Looking at the single positive first: the police are  again investigating the case and they're going to have a senior lawyer review the investigation. Any semi-independence is welcome and that is positive news. However, then it gets complicated, is the entire file going to be reviewed or just a decision to prosecute or not prosecute, or indeed  review a finding that there is no new evidence from which to widen the inquiries - in other words limiting the scope in order that the police may yet again try to recover from a lost cause. Despite all of us knowing this one won't go away be it by bad will or deceit - 40 years has proved that.

Not just complicated but messy. A reasonable person might consider that the file is being jealously protected by the police, given that the impression with recent requests for information refused on the basis the refusal is required to preserve the maintenance of the Law. Well hello on that preservation, the good administration or execution of the Law in this case is already out the door as the result of the fabricated charges against Arthur Thomas, additionally by the fact  that nobody has been arrested for the murder, or some some satisfactory conclusion reached in the public mind - that situation does not preserve that maintenance. Openness could in fact reinforce the merits of the decision for the police having said, once Arthur was pardoned, that they were not looking for anybody - showing that it had been based on good cause.

I asked in the title who is laughing? I'm suggesting that is the police administration are laughing as the case continues on, subject to books and inquiries by several individuals of experience. The more distractions, the more conflicting views  means less pressure on police to the point the public are left confused when the police should be providing certainty. However, a confused public will ultimately see that tactics: the police holding back from releasing information, while putting a 'new' inquiry together which may meander on forever to a inconclusive result. Then it might be realised truly who should laugh at who by using such machinations. In a week, with ex detective Muerant appearing on TV, admitting that he was told by the  police Commissioner, of the time, to give misleading evidence to the Royal Commission the administration of Justice is in turmoil enough with any more similar tactics - let's have the file.

So how about flicking the switch now, despite  the 'new' inquiry going on, give full and free access of the files to say Bryan Bruce, Keith Hunter, and Chris Birt through a QC or Judge to work with the men and others with something to offer toward a conclusion. These could be people with an approved interest, knowledge and expertise of the case to have access to the file and all reasonable opportunity to have the assistance of police to follow lines of investigation to the satisfaction of the inquirers. 3 or more might make it unwieldy, but they could work together, individually or through that independent person, such as the QC - Judge suggestion who would be tasked with the job by Crown Law or the Government, having been given temporary powers to instruct a team of police available at their disposal.  We would have something open, visible and working in the company of individuals willing to speak out if necessary. Rather than it being seen as any type of concession on any one's part, I suggest it would confirm the operation as in the public interest of a case which has dominated the landscape for around 4 decades. Pay those screened out for the task, bringing their various points, deductions, objections and conclusions together with the view of gaining a conclusive result from wide spread and diverse resources.

There are advantages, fore-mostly for Rochelle Crewe, Vivian Harrison, yet also some suspected of the crimes or playing some part of them, also scores more including the current police. Somewhere along the line the baton has been passed on the Crewe case from one generation of cops to the other. I don't think that's fair, but it certainly is the perception of not a few people which would include a good number of serving and ex police. Then there is the wider benefit, the public appreciating no stone has been left unturned.

Nothing is difficult in the light of commitment, but commitment to finalise something can, and would be, rewarding in this particular case. The case could have a line drawn under it with significant public support for the methods used. If no one  was ultimately charged reasons could be given for that allowing for any privacy considerations that might reasonably apply. A version of all the competing and agreed upon points that moved toward a conclusion could be made public so far as much privacy was afforded. Rochelle herself could be acquainted with all the aspects which bore out the result with access to Judicial review or something similar on particular issues not able to be settled.

I would get to hear if Mrs Demler was indeed on record as having been at Court the day Roddick claimed to identify her. Discover the record of phone calls made by Lem Demler surrounding the time of the murder and a host of other things that are in the mix of the pot. If as a country we are 'big enough' to afford Miscarriages of Justice we must also be 'big enough' to look at common sense resolutions that may be of a slightly unorthodox nature. Who might be hurt, nobody I say. Who might benefit, the whole blinking country.

Chris Birt, Brown, Hunter and others like them are not trouble makers,or untrustworthy. I'm sure they could be accommodated into a code that would accumulate all the unanswered questions and present a measured conclusion to a QC, retired, or still sitting Judge of note in a way seen as the best the country can achieve. We don't need ongoing prevarication, we don't need to be told that information can't be available for reasons of the maintenance of the Law. Give common sense a go.