Look at this:http://www.hunterproductions.co.nz/?page=news
Investigative journalist Keith Hunter has put up a million dollar home to support his honestly held belief that the former Chief Inspector Bruce Hutton is a crook. Not just any crook but one of those instrumental in deliberately framing Arthur Allan Thomas, causing him to spend a decade in prison for a crime he didn't commit, bringing grave harm upon himself, his family and his late wife Vivian Harrison.
As you will read in the link Hunter invites Hutton to sue him in a tone if not of contempt then barely shielded from outright mockery. There would be few in New Zealand acquainted with the Crewe case that don't remain anxious that the case is put to rest by having the crooked cops, that survive, charged. The article reveals more however, the deliberate efforts by modern day police to slow down progress and dull it into inertia that has largely existed for thirty years. I shouldn't be surprised but I was to read that the modern day police are as entrenched in their attitudes about the Crewe case as their disgraced predecessors, including Hutton, were. Of other interest to me is Bryan Bruce, whoever may have read it will have seen I pushed the idea after Bruce's recent tv show on the Crewe case for material to be released to him, Hunter and Birt from the police files, in fact the entire files. My position was deliberate, not because I accepted that Bruce had, could, or would develop the case if he had access to the files, but that however Birt and Hunter surely would.
Until I read the piece above it was apparent to me that Bruce's show seems to have had a benefactor of sorts in being made, was rushed, and probably in response to the recent book by Hunter to which his article above refers. That 'benefactor' in some form was driven by interests of the police to keep the case suppressed as much as possible. Bruce may have made dramatic demands for evidence, as is his style, but the substance of the show was apparently contrary to that, and likely deliberately so. Bryan Bruce comes across as clouding the waters in a way that benefits police but not in a way that benefits the public interest.
Overall there is the uncomfortable feeling that there are too many players advocating having the case re-opened and Bruce is certainly the odd man out. For one thing the Bain case show he did displayed that he can appear as a police apologist and the evidence is that he was essentially doing the same in his expose of the Crewe case. It's not cynical to say that his bread is buttered by the police, he, is an 'inside' man as the Bain documentary, and the more recent Crewe documentary appear to show. (A passing salute to Ash the once Trade Me poster who coined the phrase mockumentary in response to watching the Bain show by Bruce.)
Bruce however is not the point here, he is merely somebody benefiting from the case. Hunter and Birt are in a different situation even though it seems there are some differences between the two, certainly they're honest, forthright investigators of high calibre. But we see the apparently vice like lock on this case from the Commissioner down, there is everything to benefit from this case being re-opened or at least the files made available to Hunter and Birt. The Minister is failing in her duty with this case, absolutely failing.
Will Hutton accept Keith Hunter's challenge, certainly not. It occurs to me that it is very obvious that Hunter has lost book sales as the result of the alleged threat to sue, a provable loss. I think Keith Hunter should consider suing the Herald for pulling the article and include Hutton as a defendant as well. The immediate difficulty that appears for Hunter bringing a case against the Herald is that they exercised a right not to publish, and were not necessarily bound to publish. I think that could be circumvented by arguing that a contract had been formed and they broke it and in doing so knew there was to be anticipated a loss in book sales for Hunter's new book. Hutton situation would be equally clear of even more so in terms of the loss - he said he would sue thereby causing the Herald to reconsider publication. His problem is that he hasn't sued and no doubt never intended to do so, all he intended to do was preserve his 'good' name at a cost to Hunter. I think the Herald would settle in some way, maybe running the article under a heading of that they were threatened not to publish. On the other hand Mr Hunter could possibly push in the Courts for disclosure of the Police files, contacts relating to information past between Bruce, Hutton and present day police hieracy and their agents. In short get the information under Court Order of discovery. Discover if present day police were involved in the shut down of the Herald article in anyway, view all correspondence of letters, phone conversation memos and so forth - in the process finding out exactly what the public have wanted to know for 30 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment