Crewe case; Bryan Bruce, myopic reasoning?

Bryan Bruce on receiving a statement witnessed by Detective Inspector Hutton under the Official Information Act, and made by the  now deceased Bruce Roddick, in which he claims that the woman seen on the Crewe farm in the days after the killings by himself had darker hair and so convinced him she was not Heather Demler, BB now says this is 'new' evidence that shows Heather Demler wasn't the person Roddick saw. As reported Herald Monday 17th September 2012 by Rebecca Quillum.

On the face of it this 'evidence' could be convincing, but to be so it would need the informed to ignore a lot of other evidence. In particular that Heather Demler was known to have been in the district years before the time she admitted to the police. There is not just one statement on this but many, including from workers whom she fed on the Demler farm and from others who saw her in the district, statements with specific detail. Why Bryan Bruce chooses to ignore the other evidence is hard to reason. The reality is that someone considered to have possibly been involved in the murder of Jeanette and Harvey, and who made what appear to be contradictory or false statements, as to her time in the district to relevant to the killings raises just concern. Why lie? Why would others say that she was there if in fact she wasn't. Heather Demler might have had obvious reasons to say that she wasn't in the district at the time, however others would appear to have no reason at all to contradict her other than by reason of telling the truth which they had no stake in.

BB uses this to claim that the police with held this statement to help the  spread misinformation by not releasing this document which he claims 'exonerates' Heather Demler. He is using a single document to usurp various other accounts with a consistent theme that HD was in fact in the district. Of course BB seems not to understand that the release of the document actually assisted the police case rather than spread 'misinformation.' Because, if it wasn't Demler, then it could have been Vivian, Arthur's wife - exactly the contention made by the Crown, and which relied on no proof only assertion. BB is trying to tell the public how a square peg fits in a round hole. He is trying to convince the public that there was some advantage to the Crown case by not proving, or showing evidence, than HD wasn't the person that fed baby Rochelle.

Let's look a little deeper. To verify his 'discovery' BB uses the attendant evidence that it was Inspector Hutton that drove Bruce Ruddick  to the Demler farm in 1972 to see HD after which he (Roddick) was convinced that he in fact had not seen HD but somebody else with darker hair in the days after the murders - presumption again, Vivian. Now if that didn't suit the Crown case nothing did, so why would police hide the fact for years. Possibly because of the reasons why I am sceptical about it now. We shouldn't forget that Bruce Ruddick had an 'unhappy' time with the police. He was stood over and bullied by some accounts and from what I've read there remains dissatisfaction within his family as to how he was treated by the police. Make no mistake the police wanted him to identify Vivian and no one else, when he didn't the relationship apparently soured. One detective had accused him of being gay, something which time didn't heal according to an article I have referenced here before by Chris Birt, North and South Magazine June 2011, which on reading makes many arguments against the claim that it was Vivian that was sighted and not Heather Demler. Many arguments not able to be negated by a single statement, inconsistent with others, which did not directly state that it was Vivian that Bruce Ruddick had seen, even on the face of it and believing that the woman had darker hair than Heather Demler.

Closer again to the inconsistency. Not only did the statement promote the original Crown case but it appears to have come late in the piece and by the direct intervention of DI Hutton after the first trial and before the second. This was the exact time when public unrest was high because Ruddick had never identified Vivian as the woman who may have fed the baby at the deposition's hearing or the trial. He did however say that he saw the woman at one of the hearings,  a fair haired woman he saw at the Otahuhu Court in December 1970 during a preliminary hearing. He reported this to a police officer who said what he had to say was irrelevant. Something else again which underlines the police were only interested in the mystery woman being Vivian and no one else. Consider then that the statement, taken between trials, was done so by the Inquiry Head a man to whom planted evidence was later linked. A person who had a strong interest in making sure that even if Ruddick 'wouldn't' say it was Vivian, then having him say, in whatever circumstances perhaps forced upon him by Hutton that day, that it wasn't Demler either - but a person with darker hair. If nothing else, the hapless, Ruddick had been abused into a position that if he wouldn't lie he could easily be made to look like a liar - exactly what suited the police.

Why BB didn't discuss or consider these relevant issues seems odd, particularly that he took on face value a single statement made in very strange circumstances. To support that, or more importantly ignore it, he suggests that it was malpractice by the police - when in fact a ready observation was that it suited there weak case down to the ground and stitched up an important and critical witness in much the same way Arthur was stitched up. There is no ground breaking in this very odd revelation that I can see, and nothing that undermines the very truth that Vivian Harrison should be apologised to - posthumously as it may be.