The full interview (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11456904) is well worth reading despite that it faces the predictable assumptions that the late Hutton's daughters would hardly likely take a position against their father, nor indeed could it possibly solve the central question of not 'if' but 'who' planted the cartridge shell central to the false conviction of Arthur Thomas. Of course it is apparent that no one has ever suggested that anyone other than police investigating the Crewe murders could have planted the spent case. On the other hand the interview is very revealing about the mind set of Bruce Hutton. In the first paragraph, perhaps to show the kindness of Hutton, it is revealed that BH (Bruch Hutton) took home the Crewe family cat which he 'believed' had been sitting on the lap of Jeanette Crewe when she was shot. His daughters spoke about his engaging with the cat by expressing that he wished the cat could talk - hence revealing what BH went to his grave never knowing for certain, who had killed the Crewes. Fisher says this story bleeds colour into the black and white history of Bruce Hutton. Indeed, I think it does. Even in the 1970s the RSPCA rehomed cats, that a detective would take home the cat and wish aloud that it could talk - does indeed bleed colour. Equally, that BH apparently openly discussed details of a confidential murder inquiry (at that point not solved, and indeed never solved) with his family is a surprise. Erin O'Neil one of BH's 3 daughters says that the details of the cat that it drove their mother up the wall and that she though it to be a bit 'spooky.'
Another daughter Mrs Townsend is quoted as saying that as BH became the villain of the piece after Arthur Thomas pardon a point was reached where 'enough' was 'enough.' Mrs O'Neil reveals that BC warned them not to talk to the press because it didn't work because they didn't stop. An insightful revelation that BH was of a mind that the press were not compliant and talking to them didn't work because they didn't stop. Fair enough, but still overlooking the reason why the press have never stopped reporting on the Crewe murders because what they heard, and indeed were 'told' by BH, 'didn't work' because it was not plausible and it left the public doubts which continue today. Reading that it was hard not to imagine a cross individual telling the press something which may have been difficult to believe, and which certainly did not fill the gaps missing in a narrative - becoming angry because he was not instantly believed, or in some respects never believed.
As the interview deepens so does revelations of the mindset of BC '"As far as Dad was concerned, once it had got to court it was up to them. That was his faith in the justice system." If someone went through the courts and was freed at the end, Mr Hutton told Ms O'Neill: "You just wait for them to come around again," his daughters said. Of course possibly not realising that BC's faith in the justice system was that the system would see that he was right, and if it didn't he would 'wait for them to come around again.' In other words BH could not consider that he was wrong, if an accused was discharged he would take the opportunity 'for them to come around again' to prove, one assumes, once and for all that he was right. In the short quote about faith in the justice system, it shows no faith at all in my mind. In fact it shows somebody that is certain he is right and that there is no alternative, additionally that if the 'system' fails to recognise he is right - that he will wait for the opportunity to show them they are wrong.
There will be those reading this who could willingly accept that police in general do leave things up to the Courts. That is after all their job, to collect evidence and bring charges where evidence is of level that it could be concluded a person is guilty of a crime. However few would accept that it is also the police's job to invest in being right, to lose objectivity and not accept due process. From what BC's daughters have said, BH didn't have objectivity. Despite that he could never prove who killed the Crewes he apparently went to the grave 'knowing' who did taken from this comment in the article where BH tells another detective inquiring recently into the case - "No, I've got my man." Until the day he died, he would say to Ms Townsend: "That's all right. I've got to meet my maker. So does he."
It appeared in later life that BH was still consumed by the case in a manner inconsistent with his own claim of having faith in the justice system, by then however he was relying on the judgement of his 'maker' in a Court which for many in these times doesn't exist. So despite the colour being let into a 'black and white history' as Fisher calls it, a picture that remains black and white is still seen. BH was entirely clear that he was right, it was black and white apparently in his mind. For someone interested in these controversial cases it would not be unusual to anticipate that BH confirmed for many others his utter belief in being wrong. However, taking into account the uncompromising belief in being right would give concern. In reality the facts of the Crewe case are well known, that BH was the chief investigator is also well known, that he put all his evidence (yes, which must include planted evidence to be accurate) but failed to prove that he was right. That is nothing to do with the press, an ex Prime Minister Robert Muldoon pardoning the man BH was confident would also 'meet his maker', a Royal Commission and public opinion it is do with factual evidence and disquiet about the method used to convict Thomas twice using that planted evidence. I've used the term 'noble cause' in the title of this blog, while something of a cliché used to describe a general belief of why some police choose to plant evidence that means they have decided that the accused/suspect guilty, that is, know he or she is guilty and that to assist the 'system' planting evidence is needed to gain a conviction and avoid the possibility of having to wait until the person 'comes around again.'
I should point out here that when BH spoke about the coming 'around again,' Arthur Thomas was a man without any convictions, not a recidivist burglar or robber, but a farmer who for all intents and purposes has led a blameless life. So if BH was one of those police that pursued 'noble cause' thinking he wasn't starting from a position with a known criminal who had convictions but in a 'clean skin' who had once..., yes, given Jeanette Crewe a present years before they were both married.
More is revealed in the article about 'black and white' where a daughter reveals the following: Next door to their home in West Auckland there was an orchard. Other children in the neighbourhood enjoyed its bounty but the Hutton girls knew the fruit belonged to those who grew it. "That's how we were brought up. It was black and white. It was wrong or it was right. If it's not yours, it's not yours to take." BH was very firm in his thinking, there was no colour apparently, things indeed were black and white. He convinced himself that Thomas was guilty and that was the end of the matter, what hasn't ended however is that a Royal Commission, along with a majority of the population are convinced that somewhere during BH's crusade to prove himself right, someone on the inquiry team planted a cartridge case fortunately unaware that the it could later be proven that the cartridge case had not been manufactured at the time of the Crewe murders. That BH made no effort to get to the bottom of that crime, the planting of evidence on his watch, along with never properly investigating 2 suspects, one arguably the killer and the other later claimed to be at least an accomplice after the fact was, to again use the phrase 'black and white' confirmation that in his mind there was only one conclusion, that was his conclusion and those not agreeing with him would meet 'their maker.'
Sadly, the interview touches upon the fact that BH kept a photo of orphaned child of the late Crewes, Rochelle on his wall. His daughters point to this as further proof either that their father was right or to give a view of his compassion. What the public know about Rochelle is that she had sought the most recent inquiry into the investigation of the killing of her parents, an investigation that has resulted in confirmation that Thomas should not have been charged and the cartridge was planted more than likely by police. It was she who could not accept black and white, or tunnel vision, she didn't accept the opinions of others forced upon her but rather to arrive at her own with all the information that should have been investigated and considered under Hutton's watch.
The full article follows......
While living in the Pukekawa house where her parents were later murdered, Rochelle Crewe would have tested Rasty's patience in the way all toddlers do with cats.
As Rochelle slept, Rasty apparently did what cats do on wintery nights. Witnesses told Mr Hutton how he would curl up on Jeannette Crewe's lap as she knitted on the sofa in front of the fire. He was there, Mr Hutton always thought, when Harvey Crewe's brains were blown out on June 17, 1970.
The cat moped around after Mr Hutton at the murder scene until the detective took pity and adopted her. At night, after 18 hour-long days leading the murder investigation, he would sit and consider Rasty.
"By God I wish you could talk," he would say.
"It drove mum up the wall," recalls Erin O'Neill, one of Mr Hutton's three daughters.
It's a story that bleeds colour into the black-and-white portrait that history has created of Mr Hutton.
When he died in March 2013, it was 43 years since he took up leadership of the investigation into the murder of the Crewes. It was a case which would polarise the nation - not least because of the rise of Mr Hutton in the public's eyes as a key suspect in planting evidence on which Arthur Thomas was convicted. Mr Thomas was eventually pardoned but Mr Hutton's stature as the villain of the piece grew.
That's not the man he was, say his daughters Erin O'Neill (58), Christine Watson (63) and Gail Townsend (65).
Ms Townsend: "There comes a point where enough is enough."
Ms O'Neill: "Dad always said to us 'you don't talk to the press'. You know what? It doesn't work because they don't stop."
This might be the first time Mr Hutton's daughters have deliberately gone against his wishes.
Planting evidence?
"Dad wouldn't sell his soul for his job," says Ms O'Neill. "He was a very, very proud man. To cheat? He would not have got any satisfaction with that, when you know the sort of person he was.
"As far as Dad was concerned, once it had got to court it was up to them. That was his faith in the justice system." If someone went through the courts and was freed at the end, Mr Hutton told Ms O'Neill: "You just wait for them to come around again."
Bruce Hutton grew up outside Dargaville in a family with 21 children. His father had fought in the Boer War aged 17 and then been gassed in World War One. Mr Hutton left school aged 12, tried the army then - aged 17 himself - joined the police. He left for a period, then married and joined up again as he and wife Dorothy started raising their family.
Next door to their home in West Auckland there was an orchard. Other children in the neighbourhood enjoyed its bounty but the Hutton girls knew the fruit belonged to those who grew it. "That's how we were brought up. It was black and white. It was wrong or it was right. If it's not yours, it's not yours to take."
Ms Townsend remembers, at age 7, taking a packet of chewing gum from the local dairy. Mr Hutton smelled it on her breath and took her straight back to the store. "I had to work for them for a month without pay."
On a walk to the dairy, aged 9, Ms O'Neill found a handbag in a call box. She took it home and her father returned it to its owner who offered Ms O'Neill a 10 shilling reward. "No," said Mr Hutton. "She doesn't have that. She's only returning what's rightfully yours."
He instilled a regimented approach to life which saw shoes shining, discipline prized and a diligent rigour applied to all endeavours. His vegetable garden had dead-straight, immaculately-weeded rows and Mr Hutton's girls grew a little that way too - protected surrounds, environmentally safe. He made it clear, some boys - like unwelcome weeds - would not be tolerated.
For all apparent rigidity, Mr Hutton loved Christmas and as Father Christmas would sneak about the night before. Mrs Hutton would make Christmas cakes he would take to the prison. Ms Townsend: "Mum would say 'do I have to ice them or decorate them' and Dad would say 'how would you like to sit in a cold grey cell and have Christmas'."
They remember him as a fiercely intelligent man who shaved in the morning, singing loudly in Latin, and once had an ambition to be a surgeon at a time when university required resources far beyond the means of the sprawling family in which he was raised.
Once he left the house, he was a police officer. He worked hard, studied hard and rose through the ranks. He wasn't a talker. "He would listen and observe and when he spoke he would have weighed everything up," said Ms Townsend. "Dad would never arrest unless he was 100 per cent. He would tell me, 'you don't play with people's lives'."
This was the man who went to investigate the double murder at Pukekawa.
The daughters remember clearly the time following the murders. There was the heavy rain one August morning, recalls Ms O'Neill. Mr Hutton, pondering the downpour, said: "When you have rain like this, you never know what it's going to bring up." Jeannette Harvey's body emerged at Devil's Elbow in the Waikato River.
It was the first indication, she says, of a gun having been g used to kill the couple. The bloodshed in the house had sent the detectives down another track. "All they knew was they were looking for a machete," she says. "This is why they weren't looking for a cartridge case."
The daughters recall the genuine, intense concern Mr Hutton had during the time after the inquiry about some of those campaigning to free Thomas. Ms Townsend remembers her father's fear that his family would be targeted, and how she moved, married with two children, back into her parents' police house in Mangere in response to a perceived need for protection.
Mr Hutton came in the front door one night in a flurry, having driven past the family home and seen a blind a few inches above the sill. Inside, stark against the light of the room, were the necklines of family members above the couch nearest the window. To Mr Hutton they looked like targets. He insisted the family kill the lights and go to bed.
Personnel records released to the Herald through the Official Information Act show in 1973, then-Commissioner Sir Angus Sharp describing the Crewe inquiry as "one of the most involved ever undertaken by the police in New Zealand".
Mr Hutton was awarded a Certificate of Merit, with Sir Angus noting that "his devotion to duty over many years is well known and the diligence and zeal he showed in this case deserve special commendation".
"We never envisioned what happened after Dad died"
Along the way, Mr Hutton had found new love with Mary Plumley and he left the family home. He also left the police. A few years later, Mr Thomas was pardoned. From that time, Mr Hutton refused the National Party permission to erect its election billboards on the farm he owned in Mangere.
Life after the police was one of horse breeding and racing. "I think he missed [policing]," says Ms O'Neill. It did remain a significant part of his life. He sponsored a running trophy in Waitemata police district and would present the Hutton Cup annually.
Mary Hutton died of a heart attack on the Coromandel Peninsula and Mr Hutton later married for a third time, to Ivy, who survives him.
In his later years, Rochelle Crewe came forward asking Prime Minister John Key to reopen the case. For years, her photograph had hung on the wall in the Hutton home. Mr Hutton stayed in touch, through her caregivers, for years, and would have been saddened that the victims had taken a back seat to other controversies. "Through all of this, they have been forgotten. That's what dad didn't want," says Ms O'Neill.
Detective Inspector Andrew Lovelock, who led the review into the Crewe murders, visited Mr Hutton. Ms Townsend was told by her father that the questions focused on "regrets" and "if there was anything they could have done differently".
Mr Hutton told Mr Lovelock: "No, I've got my man." Until the day he died, he would say to Ms Townsend: "That's all right. I've got to meet my maker. So does he."
When Mr Hutton did go, in March 2013, the family felt the two-dimensional demonisation of him, which had bubbled along for decades, boiled over. They were exposed to a fierce public debate.
"We never envisioned what happened after Dad died," says Ms O'Neill. The eulogy at the funeral from now-Commissioner Mike Bush created a frenzy. "You couldn't mourn. You found out who your friends are and who you don't want to be bothered with anymore."
And then, in July 2014, came the findings of the review. It didn't support Mr Hutton's determined, 43-year long stance on Mr Thomas though it found significant evidence led back to the Thomas farm. Others should have have been investigated, it said, and the charge against Mr Thomas could not be sustained.
The police also finally conceded the cartridge was probably planted and, if so, by a police officer. Though the review levelled no charges against their former colleague, an independent review from David Jones QC said Mr Hutton should have been charged.
"It's like a knife going in," says Ms O'Neill. "It's like there is always something else.
When Ms O'Neill was told by police the Herald had sought her father's personnel file through the Official Information Act she sat down one evening - having talked to her sisters and mother - and emailed about the tragic "slandering of a man who served his country honestly and who believed in the justice system".
Now, 45 years after the murder of the Crewes, they have had their say. And there may yet be more to say.
"There's not many books written from the other side," says Ms O'Neill. "There will be a book written - it's already been started."
One day, she says, those who accused her father so strongly will die. One day she will be liberated, as others were when Mr Hutton died. "What has happened to Dad can happen to them too. I can say what I like."
Children love their parents, daughters believe their fathers - would you have the perspective to see clearly?
"Yes, because of the way he has raised us. It's injustice. And because justice has been such a part of our upbringing, it's the injustice that eats at you."
So a book from the anti-Thomas camp is going to be written? It is interesting that in all the years when the case was high in the press there never was one. All publications on the case are pro-Thomas and not a single one argues his guilt, much less argue it convincingly. Let's see how this effort measures up with all the pro-Thomas books and if it can rebut them effectively.
ReplyDeleteOver time it is easy to see with these cases a certain mindset can prevail which is unshakeable. Nobody should be afraid of being wrong, there is a certain liberation of overcoming the fear that one is wrong about something, misinterpreted facts or drew the wrong conclusion - because something is learnt from that. Too often alas, people seem frightened to admit they were wrong. But I guess when there is evidence that has been planted the fear is hardened by the prospect of facing imprisonment and it would take a very rare kind of courage to front up to those consequences - but you know, I think people would ultimately applaud that.
ReplyDeleteYou said it!
DeleteI have examined a widely published photograph that shows the position where the cartridge case was found in relation to the position of the louvre window. Well, you don't have to be a forensics expert to realise that even if the murderer had fired from the window, there was no way the cartridge case could have landed in that position. The physics and angles are all completely wrong. Sorry, Erin, but nothing you are going to publish can get past THAT.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point. Mostly with cases like this small things get missed, they can often provide the purpose of building blocks. Though not always to show that the Crown have charged the wrong or right person, but give the details of a case for which they provide, with burdensome detail, no connected narrative, it's a trick they've got.
DeleteOf all the police officers involved in the case there are only two I have any respect, admiration and trust for: Jack Ritchie and Ross Meurant.
ReplyDeleteI can't say I recall details about Jack Ritchie, though I certainly remember details of a great piece written by Ross Meurant delivered like a barrage of punches from Rocky Marciano.
DeleteJack Ritchie was the first to discover the categories of ICI bullets that eventually proved the cartridge case never had a number 8 bullet. It came from a different batch.
DeleteIf Bruce Hutton was so certain he had his man, why all the suppression of evidence that pointed away from Thomas? Why the police van at the second trial set to rebut anything the defence might produce? Why won't the police allow anyone full access to the Crewe case file, not even Rochelle Crewe? Why the disposal of evidence, and the disposal going against regulations? Why did the case against Thomas collapse completely?
DeleteIt is funny that at the Royal Commission a lot of Hutton's evidence contradicted that of even his own associates in the case, including Crown Prosecutor David Morris. For example, Hutton claimed that Morris knew the foreman at the second trial was an old friend of Sergeant Hughes and said it was nothing to worry about (or something like that). In contrast, Morris said he knew nothing about the connection between the foreman and Hughes at the trial. The Royal Commission decided to accept Morris's version.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Hutton was being truthful but there was no way Morris would have admitted that. They, Morris, Hughes and Hutton were busy in every way possible ensuring that Arthur was found guilty - that's the sickening bit, and that there was support from the Commissioner down.
DeletePerhaps in their own minds the ends justified the means - nailing a man they believed to be a killer - or convinced themselves that it was. Ends justify the means seemed to be pretty much Hutton's excuse to David Yallop in "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" for the police caravan at the second trial and he couldn't see why everyone was making a fuss about it (he would). He even said the police should do the same thing in every case because of defence lawyers pulling dirty tricks to get results. Huh, did he seriously think Kevin Ryan was the sort of lawyer to pull dirty tricks? Thank goodness the police haven't gone to that extreme since.
DeleteVery hard to imagine what 'dirty tricks' defence counsel could have gotten up to even had they been inclined. Tells us more about Hutton than he understood about himself. An acutely paranoid individual who seems not to have believed in the idea of the most basic Justice. Arthur was the enemy and anyone helping him was therefore also the enemy can be taken from Hutton's comments, it's frankly amazing that he could have risen in the ranks so readily - unless his personality characteristics and 'dirty tricks' were approved of and in the passing of time one must assume they were.
DeleteI will always find Bruce Hutton abhorrent for the police caravan alone, however well he brought up his daughters. It is ironic that he instilled such a strong sense of justice in his daughters when he didn't seem to have any in regard to the Arthur Allan Thomas case.
DeleteIt was Justice as he saw it, and nothing to do with the general concept of Justice. He essentially had a secret life that he had justified to himself as being right, but never the courage to disclose it.
DeleteI wonder what really lay behind why the police review said the charge against Thomas could not be sustained. Is it because it really could not be sustained, or because they could not charge him again because of the pardon, or because they did not dare accuse him directly in case of lawsuits? In any case, the review went pretty much how I suspected - still point the finger in Thomas' direction and rubbish all claims of police malpractice. They even still held to that stupid idea that someone had somehow managed to fire a shot from the louvre in a southerly storm and said the cartridge case could still be legitimate evidence.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the answer was simple, they could say they were right but were constrained to act by any number of reasons. The result being they didn't have to prove what they had never been able to prove but still attempted to take the higher ground, 'we know, but we can't act.'
DeleteAs I wrote earlier, it is often the simple things that will never budge in in miscarriages of Justice, in this case the cartridge cases, the same in Bain, times of death in Lundy and experimental science, 2 long hairs on a blanket in Watson invisible one minute and not the next.
We need a generation of police leaders to break the shackles, remind police that it is there job to investigate and locate evidence not to invest in a position that becomes important beyond their brief.
The Hutton family say Bruce saw things in black and white. Well, Christian fundamentalists and Islamic extremists are living proof of how dangerous that kind of thinking can be, especially in regard to people whom they perceive as "the other".
DeleteArthur's fellow inmates saw him as being innocent and not belonging in prison. Peter Ellis's fellow inmates saw him the same way and he had none of the treatment prisoners dish out to child molesters. Well, I reckon in both cases they ought to know and it's good enough for me.
If the police were looking for a fall guy in the Crewe case I reckon they should have picked on Mickey Eyre. Eyre fitted the profile of a murderer far more than Arthur did and people would have been more inclined to believe it was him. Arthur just not giving the impression he was the murder type made so many people, including his fellow inmates, believe he was innocent.
Some policemen have been cited as saying they are not happy with the blot the case has left on the name of NZ police and want to do a whole new investigation to show they can do it right. But so far their voices are not strong enough to cut through the mindset that has prevailed since 1970.
DeleteA lot of the evidence has been destroyed
Deleteand a lot of people have passed on both sides of the case anyway. This will make it even more difficult to launch a new investigation, even if anyone does, much less name anyone as the killer.
There was one article about Arthur looking at a defamatory suit against the police report. It could be difficult as the review does not accuse him directly, but if it gets to court, it could force a whole new examination of the case.
DeleteWell it was Det. Johnston who came up with that idea of the louvre window, he didn't join the police team until 18 Sept 1970 as just a Detective.
DeleteFrom the beginning judicial system seemed oddly stacked against Arthur. The magistrate was at constant odds with the defence. The first trial judge had a very particular reputation for siding with the prosecution and took the all but unheard of step of keeping the jury sequestered for the entire trial. His summing up became infamous for its blatant siding with the prosecution. For the second trial they had the judge who was the most hostile towards the defence lawyer, and I don't think it's coincidence. Again they kept the jury sequestered. All three appeal court judges were extremely hostile to Arthur throughout as well. It's as if the whole judicial system geared itself up from the beginning to deliberately railroad Arthur.
ReplyDeleteI think then it was often evident that our Judges and Appeal Courts as in the 1990s and early 2000s struggled to separate themselves from the fray in the way that Mahon, Pritchard and others were able to do. Accordingly it seemed they were willing to stitch over the weak threads in a prosecution case, and generally not take the Crown to task for throwing out evidence or acting improperly in some other way. That many Crown Lawyers became Judges as a matter of course, including Morris, is a clue for the discerning.
DeleteOn the other hand something that certainly stood out was the public support Arthur and his family got. It was unprecedented and something as a nation New Zealand have reason to hold pride over. I can recall a black and white photo of Arthur being driven from the Court after the guilty verdict in either the first or second trial. He was flanked by prison officers, the same men who a decade earlier may have needed to swing on Arthur's legs as he was hanged and if he was slow to die because of a mishap with the rope that happened with John Bolton another farmer, most probably innocent as well, who was hanged in the same prison where Arthur spent his time on remand, twice.
It was a unjust, corrupt, unbelievably so - but Arthur walked free. The system lost, as it continues to do today with the pussyfooting around the Thomas case. The same officer who recently said that Pora was still a suspect in the case for which he wrongfully spent 20 years in prison, only to be corrected by the Commissioner, after a strong public response, is the same myopic that was tasked with a review of Arthur's case - no small wonder he failed to fall over the mountain of truth there as well.
Pity they haven't done the same with Peter Ellis. To the best of my knowledge all people wrongly convicted in the satanic ritual abuse scares have been cleared, and satanic ritual abuse itself is now discredited as mass hysteria and witch hunting. But Ellis' conviction still stands.
DeleteYes most unfortunate. I find it difficult to understand why a good crack at the Royal Prerogative of Mercy has not been undertaken on his behalf. With the most recent recognition that decisions under the RPOM/executive decisions are reviewable as set out in S3 (from memory) I think the Courts would quash his conviction.
DeleteSo Hutton wouldn't have arrested Arthur unless he was 100% certain he had his man? Well, history is filled with people who were 100% certain but were still completely wrong.
ReplyDeleteHe needed to certain in his own mind, or otherwise he would have had to recognise what a good part of the country do, that he was fitting up Arthur like an assassin coming from behind in the dark.
DeleteWell, from what Bruce's family say about him, it is even more mind blowing that he ended up the most maligned policeman in New Zealand history and his name a byword for police corruption. You have to wonder where he - or what - went so wrong.
ReplyDeleteI think what went wrong has before and since the Thomas case, it's just in this instance many people could not reconcile that Arthur was guilty and kept digging and digging. There has never been more scrutiny in living memory than there was on the cartridge case, it something everybody could easily understand, along with the exhibits thrown into the Whitford Tip. What police may have been able to get away with in the past suddenly changed, the shame is Arthur lost a good part of his life and probably has never gotten over it, Vivian was badly treated as well - possibly worse than we may ever know. The country was smaller then and fixated on the case with all its hallmark moves by the police, the discovery of the cartridge case, the axle etc all designed to determine Arthur's guilt in the public mind long before he went to trial.
DeleteI have always felt an affinity for Rochelle because I am about the same age as her. I was a baby myself when it happened, about eight months younger than Rochelle.
ReplyDeleteI naturally wondered who you were because of your knowledge of the case. Thank you for your mentioning Rochelle.
ReplyDeleteI first heard about the case when Arthur was pardoned. But I really got fascinated with it ever since I picked up the Reader's Digest account of it years ago. You know the one?
DeleteNo, I don't recall reading the Reader's Digest account. If by chance there is a link to it I would appreciate if you could send it along.
DeleteNo link as far as I know. It was called "Who Killed the Crewes?"
DeleteThe fact remains that there were a lot of things about Bruce Hutton's conduct and statements in the case that do not convey the impression he was honest or honourable. One was trying to browbeat the Melbourne ICI manager into signing an false affidavit detrimental to the cartridge case theory. The manager refused and later reported the matter to the defence team. He handed over the unsigned false affidavit and signed an honest one with it. Hutton's excuse (if he didn't deny it) would be that he was trying to make the manager sign something he believed was truthful, whatever it took. Another was his attacks on Graeme Hewson, Ella McGuire, Mr and Mrs Priest, and Bruce Roddick when they put forward key evidence that was detrimental to the Crown case.
ReplyDeleteThe attempt to have a witness to sign a false affidavit could have been used to bring a charge against Hutton for Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice probably in support of alleging that he planted the cartridge case. At the time however, everything would have been done to defeat any charges against Hutton though some counsel as formidable as the late Peter Williams would have had a good chance of success. Even his claim that he was trying to make the manager sign something that he, Hutton, thought was truthful would have been helpful evidence. The world as observed through Hutton's vision was quite absurd at times it seems, but the idea that Hutton knew what was truthful about a situation he wasn't involved in, whereas the person directly involved knew it wasn't true, must have made the stomachs of the conveners of The Royal Commission turn.
DeleteI recall Bruce Roddick and the shameful way he was treated for wanting to tell the truth, but the others you mention escape my memory at the moment?
Ella MaGuire was branded a nasty woman, Graeme Hewson a dog thief and the Priests old and confused. All because they put forward key evidence detrimental to the Crown and the police.
DeleteBruce Roddick was treated badly by the police from the word go, well long BEFORE they fixed on Arthur and Vivian and kept trying to have Roddick say she was the mystery woman. They kept treating Roddick as if he a suspect in the murder case instead of a useful witness and really hounded him. And there was no apparent reason for their conduct towards Roddick at all. It's all documented in the Yallop book.
DeleteThey took great liberties in a small community that respected police. With cops like Hughes on board they had an element of being able to standover and bully witnesses when necessary.
DeleteAdditional info:
ReplyDelete'Graeme Hewson said he helped police search the flower bed and they found nothing, yet the cartridge case was found later; Bruce Hutton called him a dog thief. Ella MacGuire's evidence was detrimental to that of Eggleton the jeweller over the watch evidence; Hutton called her a nasty woman. The Priests had key evidence over the police firing secret shots at the Crewe farm; Hutton said they were old and confused.'
Hutton certainly reacted well to people who didn't agree with him or who offered evidence contrary to his 'case.' The situation with the events above tells its own story, not a nice one. Certainly not a narrative of good policing. Hutton appears to have felt threatened by people telling the truth if it didn't fit in with his opinions and suspect evidence.
I've come to think that Miscarriages of Justice, unless put together by the exceptionally clever, always have highly visible flaws. So it is with attacks on good folk living in a small rural community who tell the truth and get a kick in the teeth for it, that's bad management of a MOJ. Rather than simply saying something along the lines of - that it did confirm what police believed, Hutton attacks them personally. There can be little stronger evidence against him than that, not by trial of course because he has passed away - but the way the case continues to be analysed. Everyone in variation with his theory was attacked, no investigation made into what they said, just outright slapped down. And it looks like the Courts went along with that, Arthur was shackled with lies but the Judiciary turned away.
If you consider how the police had constant contact with Vivien before the trial it indicates that even after Arthur was arrested no demarcation lines were drawn between the sides as is required in an legal event of this kind. It would be safe money that police tried as best they could to poison her against Arthur at the same time they played with his mind by taking her to visit him in prison. She was treated terribly as Arthur has said himself in recent years.
The cartridge case plant was clearly not conducted by the exceptionally clever. It was so clumsy, amateurish and so blatantly obvious that you get the impression that the miscreant had no talent for crime. If they had had more brains with the planting they might have got away with it more.
DeleteWhy fire the rifle on the farm. They only needed the cartridge case, not the noise of rifle fire in an already tense community.
DeleteMaybe rifle fire was not all that unusual in a rural community. But yes, it does seem to be gilding the lily to fire the gun at the farm. And they certainly goofed in thinking that it was safe to plant the cartridge case in the flower bed because they thought it hadn't been searched. Obviously they forgot it had been until Graeme Hewson reminded them.
DeleteIf Bruce was so 100% sure he had his man, he sure was scraping the bottom of the barrel when it came to motive. He didn't have the slightest bit of conclusive evidence that Arthur's past fancy for Jeanette turned into a murderous obsession. Even people on the Crown side thought it was ridiculous. And I don't know what Beverly Batkin was talking about when she said she saw Arthur pestering Jeanette with a purple passion at a dance years before. Nobody corroborated what she said, and a small community like that should have noticed it. And it is totally at odds at what others have said about Arthur. I can only conclude that Batkin was either confused, or speaking from a false memory, or lying.
ReplyDeleteArthur wasn't the pestering type from what I know. Still, what could a dance years before represent to a happily married man. It was a motive made from desperation, often another sure sign of someone being framed - the emphasis gets laid on too thick with no subtlety. It's almost like college kids writing a play, overcooking the plot, every shadow is a demon and every inch of the villain dripping stealth and menace. Observing miscarriages of Justice provides it's own interest, beside the tragedy is the somewhat horror that pervades consciousness, men and women making lies up about other men or women, planting evidence and watching them going to gaol not knowing that they may eventually hate themselves or realise there is no way back to find the truth about themselves.
DeletePolice say that where there's money there's usually a motive. Hutton followed that maxim at first, in regard to Len Demler. But he could not find enough evidence, especially with Demler's gun missing. I think Harvey's was too. However, Demler was never cleared as a suspect, not by the police or anyone else.
DeleteThe missing gun was evidence, so too Bruce Roddick's sighting and confirmations of the person seen on the farm after the killings and before the alarm was raised. As well as the discrepancy by Demler's new wife Norma as to when she moved into the area, the trust meetings (I think it is) written about in the very good North and South piece by Chris Birt. The generosity of a vengeful killer who ensured Rochelle lived is also evidence against the man with the missing gun, a lying wife, the man in fact who didn't search for his dead daughter and son in law - could there be a more overt display as to his lack of concern, about Rochelle and where her life would go without the parents he did not search for. It's a case against Demler that didn't need to be manufactured.
DeleteBut they were not 100% certain they would get a conviction, especially with Demler's gun not available for testing.
DeleteThat's true, but it was the only arguable case that wasn't corrupted with lies or evidence planting. Demler might well have been found not guilty and police would have used the standard line that they were not looking for anybody else and that the inquiry remained open. The narrative of not searching for the missing couple, Rochelle being fed by a random stranger who had killed Jeanette and Harvey, the conveniently missing rifle etc would have been as close to the truth as the case ever reached.
ReplyDeleteChris Birt has argued the theory that Bruce Hutton planted the axle when he found Harvey's body, but he meant to plant it on Demler. Then, before Hutton searched Demler's property and maybe plant more evidence, a phone call sent him off in a different direction.
DeleteBruce Roddick was adamant his mystery woman was not Vivienne Thomas, and the description did not match her either. If Bruce Hutton had been the cop his family say he was, he would have acknowledged it and tried to find a woman who did match the description. And in particular, look for a woman answering the description who had a connection to Len Demler - which I don't think he ever did.
DeleteVerbatim from Chris Birt in N&S 'Only in 2005 did Detective Len Johnson's March 1973 work-diary entry came to light that..."that Roddick was going to identify the woman he saw as Mrs Demler' also the detective's revealing margin note, "Confirms our suspicions re-identification.'
DeleteThat along with a sighting at the depositions hearing at the Otahuhu Court by Roddick and of course Commissioner Walton's signature in a letter where he direction the Auckland District Police Commander Wilkinson, who had wanted to interview Norma Demler, not to do so.
The Commissioner later would ask Birt to inquire of Wilkinson why he, Walton, have given the written instruction. No reason except to give Arthur in prison and to ensure that Len would not be charged - along with Norma.
But they were under pressure to solve the case because there were too many unsolved murders on the books such as Jennifer Beard. They were not going to charge Demler while they were not 100% certain of charges sticking in court. And they were not going to risk an acquittal and having to put out the standard line of inquiries staying open. But for all intents and purposes they ended up with another unsolved case in the end.
DeleteWhen I gave an earlier prospect of what the circumstantial case against Demler would have looked like I mistakenly omitted mentioning Norma Demler, and her alleged sighting by Roddick on the farm. Getting to the essence of a case that formerly relied on Arthur being a kind hearted murderer with nothing to gain having his wife feed the baby, compare that with Len and Norma, who had something to gain, and in Len's case a reason to ensure his grandchild survived. I know which at its heart is more convincing to me.
DeleteI have heard of Roddick re-sighting the mystery woman at Arthur's court hearings and the police not following up on it (wonder why?). Len Demler was never cleared as a suspect; they just felt they did not have enough evidence to make charges stick. If they had pursued Roddick's mystery woman the right way and tried to find a woman linked to Demler who did match the description, I reckon they would have found stronger evidence. And did anyone search Demler's property?
DeleteI don't recall if Demler's farm was searched, it would be a reasonable presumption that it was, but with this case who knows. However, consider why District Commander Wilkinson actually asked the Commissioner in writing for 'permission' to interview a suspect and was denied. That tells us a lot about the strings that were being pulled in Wellington and on the other hand that there were those such as Wilkinson concentrating on solving the crime having obstructions put in his way by none other than the Commissioner of Police.
DeleteThe notes in Johnson's diary are unequivocal - Roddick was going to identify none other than Norma Demler as the woman he saw on the Crewe farm. The circumstantial case against Demler was substantial even without hard questioning or digging for more evidence to prosecute Len and Norma Demler.
Anonymous and Nostalgia-NZ
ReplyDeleteIt really is interesting to read the lead article and your debate.
I have some memories, arriving in Auckland to live in 1970, age 15, and watching the case unfold. I asked my father, a laconic man a few years in if A Thomas did it, and he said yes. He was fine friends with an Auckland law professor who did jail visits, who I recall recounting visiting Arthur. I can tell, he said, and Arthur is as guilty a man as I have met. The encouraging part of this is to learn, only the evidence, only the hard data speaks to mortals.
I have Chris Birt's book The Final Chapter at hand. On page 171 is the most extraordinary graphic I have seen pertaining to a NZ criminal case, absolute proof in five lines that Len Demmler forged his wife's will. Jennifer had just discovered this, and a man who had free access to the Crewe household must be the killer. Harvey was shot accurately in the back of the head. Jeanette was bludgeoned and shot in the head as she lay dying from a shattered skull.
Len had motive and opportunity. Chris Birt located the gun with intensive research.
Len broke in the land, he may not be the worst man to do a crime of this nature.
Funny, all others who knew Arthur in prison got the firm impression that he could not have done it. The Paremoremo inmates said that Arthur didn't belong there and signed the petition to free him, and I reckon they should know. Greg Newbold recounts his prison friendship with Arthur in "The Big Huey". He said that Arthur was a quiet guy who hardly said boo to anyone and didn't think he would have it in him to commit the crime. So where on earth this law professor is coming from I don't know.
DeletePossibly an early opinion, perhaps only a personal one, and if evidence based much sooner, than it was later discovered - that the cartridge case was planted.
DeleteIronically the professor in question mentored Greg Newbold on release. Greg is an ordinary man who has hoodwinked the system into suggesting he has special knowledge about crime. He does not, his public statements are bizarre on Mark Lundy, and his applauding the illegal police sting operation recently where the guy got 3 years for shaking a baby too hard. However, the professor was wrong and Greg right on this one.
DeleteIt is commonplace for people to believe that the police will not lie and would not pursue the wrong guys, yet they are doing it to this day, most recently in the Ewen MacDonqald case. The police will offend again until the crimes like the Swedish tourists, the Lundy murders and the Scott Guy killing are investigated with the aim of finding the people that did actually do these crimes. No luck thus far, the killers roam free.
It could be this law professor was another member of the legal system who swelled the ranks against Arthur because he saw him as a threat to the system. People like Sir Richard Wild, a judge whom Peter Williams respected as a fair man who would hear both sides. But when it came to AA Thomas - talk about Jeckyll and Hyde! Sir Richard Wild turned into a monster, expressing outright hatred against Arthur's supporters and defence team.
DeleteSome people do believe Arthur is guilty, but I reckon they are in the minority compared to those who believe otherwise. And I very much doubt anything the Hutton family publishes is going to change that or prove Arthur guilty and the cartridge case and other evidence were not plants.
DeleteThe Law professor in question in no way was an authority man. I just checked and as at 2013 he was still an associate professor. That last step can be elusive at Auckland University. It is perfectly appropriate for people to assume that the polis have got the right man. Hell, the alternative to that belief is too awful to imagine, but there we are. My research is simple, read everything you can find, books and online. The NZ catalogue becomes straight forward. I will not mention Bain or Watson right now, but Walter James Bolton, Arthur Thomas, David Tamihere, Teina Pora, Mark Lundy, and Ewen MacDonald were all falsely prosecuted. There is not the slightest doubt. When Brown (yep Bernard Brown)and my father believed Arthur guilty this was not wildly controversial, but Temm's wife Shirley knew exactly what had happened and I now learn that the knowledge was reasonably widespread. We must hold a special place in hell for David Morris. Flushed with success prosecuting Thomas he did the identical thing to Tamihere on the way to becoming a judge.
DeleteWhat is notable is that Richard Savage as solicitor General implored Muldoon not to pardon Arthur, invoking the "what damage we will do to the trust of the people in their judiciary" principal. I had assumed he saw this pragmatically and was a Scalia type legal purist, but I now have little doubt he died believing Arthur guilty, and my reasoning is that his son, a lawyer is to this day convinced he is guilty. This I recently heard from a close friend of the son, also a lawyer and also believing Thomas guilty. The simple fact is that few people study cases, and draw conclusions from anything but the scientific evidence, the hard data, the stuff that might even hurt when you drop it on your foot.
Someone had to be able to get close enough to Harvey without being feared, to shoot him accurately in the back of the head, and that man was Len Demler. I have yet to find why Ian Wishart gets Len Johnstone into the frame.
I don't quite buy the Len Johnston theory either. But I loathe David Morris for implying Arthur raped Jeannette before killing her in his closing speech to the second trial jury. When I heard he had become a judge I was worried and thought he should have stayed where he was. Reports on what type of judge he was came as no surprise to me. I also think Len Demler scores the most points for motive, opportunity and method. And how could anyone else have done it and gone back to clean up over five days and feed the animals and the baby without Demler noticing?
DeleteI didn't know of any evidence that indicated rape, I guess it was just free rein that the Court allowed to enable a 2nd conviction and vindication.
DeleteYes Len's wins the score on motive, opportunity and method. Not searching for his daughter and son in law beggars belief and is possibly the strongest circumstantial evidence against him, along with the generous and concerned killer that either looked after Rochelle, or organised some one to do so who wouldn't be frightened beyond reason to be seen on the farm where the couple had been killed, or to leave fingerprints there or something that might lead to their being traced.
There was no evidence of rape on Jeannette! That's why I loathe Morris so much for implying it in his speech.
DeleteReally the sort of thing that should have been stopped by the Judge. It seems everything damaging to Arthur and Vivian that could be said, but of which there was no proof, the bench simply let Morris have his way as though he was citing evidence.
DeleteJudge Henry didn't stop it. And in his infamous summing up he said things to the effect that he thought Viv was the mystery woman too.
DeleteVery few people believe Arthur is guilty in my experience, as you say no book will make a difference to that anonymous.
ReplyDeleteWhat a myopic Richard Savage was, hiding the truth is the job of the devil at work. Muldoon would take on the devil as fast as a lightning flash, and did. He has been criticised for his hands on policy with finance, market protection and so on in what is seen as an old world way now, but he did cross the floor to vote against capital punishment without hesitation and pardon Arthur with the same lack of hesitation, despite those such as Savage who somehow considered a miscarriage of Justice preferable to the public being upset with the truth about their police force and the courts.
If the Hutton family are writing the book themselves, I don't think they will get far in exonerating Bruce or convincing others that Arthur is guilty. They won't be regarded as the most objective of writers for one thing.
DeleteIn some ways the Hutton family have already said in the interview what any book would contain so they may well decide to leave it there.
DeleteI doubt it. I suspect they won't rest until their father's name is cleared. Mind you, he didn't put all that much effort into doing it himself. He did appeal against the findings of the Royal Commission and lost, but not much beyond that. If he really was an honest cop who'd been accused unjustly, you would expect him to fight tooth and nail to get his name cleared.
DeleteAny book the Hutton family brings out will have to be a strong one because Chis Birt, Ian Wishart and Pat Booth will be waiting. If the book is just a whitewash job they will slash it to ribbons.
From the outset the cartridge case had "plant" written all over it and Erin's book is going to have a hard time getting past that. Family loyalty or character references for Bruce will be nowhere near enough. She will need very hard evidence, which needs to be put in an objective, convincing manner and be sturdy enough to withstand criticisms from Chris Birt et al.
DeleteHere is a passage from Wishart that demonstrates the depravity of Hughes and Morris,
ReplyDeleteOne can imagine Detective Inspector John Hughes rolling on the
floor with laughter as he drafted all the main points he wanted his
third secret witness to hit. Virtually every plank of the prosecution
case that needed shoring up had received testimony he could feed
to the jury, along with plenty more doses of lurid sex and violence
to shock the innocent jurors.
It was this testimony above that the Court of Appeal relied on,
and treated as credible, because it supported the Cassidy and Knauf
sighting by saying Tamihere had confessed to nearly “being sprung”
by a couple who saw him with Heidi, who was sitting down.
What was it that trial judge Justice Tompkins had said when
throwing the Cassidy/Knauf identification evidence out?
“The danger of doubtful evidence being used to support and corroborate
doubtful evidence is obvious.
“The importance of this identification evidence is obvious…
If the identification evidence is in any way suspect, but yet was
accepted by the jury, the consequence to the accused would be
highly prejudicial.”89
But of course, the Court of Appeal had allowed it back in, and
Hughes and David Morris must have been doing hi-fives in the
corridor. SWC’s statement had also drawn on another ingredient
from their time together on the Arthur Allan Thomas case – scrap
metal to weigh down the bodies at sea, just as Harvey and Jeannette
Crewe supposedly had been.
It was almost as if the top cop and the top prosecutor had simply
dusted off the stunts that were pulled in the Crewe murders debacle,
and put them all into play again.
As you can read in the book Inside Story:
"It was only later that I discovered some equally dodgy jailhouse
secret witness testimony had been trumped up against Arthur
Allan Thomas as well, as Hughes and the rest of the police team
attempted to fit the farmer up for the Crewe murders. You could
say there was a little bit of a pattern to John’s cases.
Ivan the Insane, a mentally-ill prisoner, was wheeled in by
police at the Thomas Royal Commission hearings with testimony
supposedly proving Thomas had confessed to him while they were
in jail together. The Royal Commission, after hearing from psychiatric
experts, told Crown lawyers the man was clearly barking
mad and they were wasting the Commission’s time. The police
refused to take the hint and kept asking questions of the inmate. "
When the Tamihere case started I thought he was guilty, but as the trial progressed I began to wonder. I forget what made me doubt Tamihere's guilt, but I decided then not to have a strong opinion either way.
ReplyDeleteWishart says in his book on th Crewe case that Johnston was nicknamed "The Fitter" by his fellow policemen because he had a reputation for planting evidence. Pat Booth, Kevin Ryan and Peter Williams all cited examples of suspicious incidents in other cases involving the police officers in the Crewe case that suggested they had a long track record for planting evidence.
The crown manufactured the case, and the trial judge did not like it. Strangely the appeal court had far more to work with, and came with a ruling that is the worst in NZ judicial history in a case like this, by ignoring the new evidence of the body discovery. The trial judge thought Croisbie's clearing was dodgy as hell, but the appeal court said this.
ReplyDeleteAs per their above reasoning, the Court of Appeal were brutal:
“Is the new material so material that a verdict returned without
it might amount to a miscarriage of justice?
“We are quite satisfied that the answer must be no…as was clearly
recognised at the Trial, crucial to the whole case was the sighting
of the man and woman at Crosbie’s, by two trampers. They said
the man looked like Tamihere; he wore a belt with a pouch, and
was using an axe similar to those items found at Tamihere’s house;
he was putting up a tent of an unusual design, and of interest to
them, which both regarded as similar to the tent found at his house.
“The girl was remembered as similar to a photograph of Heidi
with blonde hair and fine features; and she was wearing an unusual
poncho similar again to one found at Tamihere’s house. The discovery
of such a garment and tent at his house would be a most
extraordinary coincidence. In conjunction with other matters just
described, it makes the odds against the couple being other than
Tamihere and Heidi so high as to put that possibility beyond rational
consideration.
“Once that identification is accepted, the rest of the Crown’s
evidence falls into place as convincing circumstantial proof that
the couple were murdered by Tamihere.”
That is the hub of the Court of Appeal’s decision not to order a
retrial of this case."
The point is once again the primary mission of appeal courts in New Zealand is to sanctify a jury decision. I make this statement in the light of the famous denied appeals, particularly Lundy 2002. In this Tamihere case 5 appeal court judges have sanctified a complete impossibility, scientifically and logistically. The trial judge thought Crosbies was crap, as it obviously is, no woman will sit quietly while two men can rescue her from a kidnapped position.
Well, Tamihere WOULD go nick the Swedish couple's gear. That's how he got into that mess, whether he was innocent or not.
DeleteYes, I recall those dodgy prisoners who said Arthur had made jailhouse confessions to them. The Royal Commission dismissed their testimony, and also that of a man who suddenly came forward (after 9 years of apparent silence) and said he had seen Arthur move two bundles in his trailer and was washing it out (or something like that). They concluded that the testimony was a fabrication, motivated by jealousy over Arthur being such a celebrity.
Finally, as with Watson, Tamihere, Pora the police were forced to employ those that they had locked in a deal to give false evidence. Nothing indicates more the failure of a prosecution with the 'getcha' is from a content prisoner lying and being rewarded. Without them the conviction is either achieved or not, with them the chances of a Miscarriage of Justice are too high to risk. I think we will see BORA arguments against such evidence in the future although there is a strong argument it should simply be banned.
DeleteIf there has ever been a good argument for police framing someone for murder, it's Tamihere..
DeleteThe case of Laurie Bembenek suggests that even the police can be framed/railroaded by the police.
DeleteJust read that case on Wikipedia, what an interesting, if tragic, story in itself, By that account she was railroaded and some. Good pick, even 2 blond hairs.
DeleteWould never agree that there could be a good argument for police framing anybody, justifying means justice has truely gone out the window. I have changed my mind on DT recently, I think he's innocent.
DeleteIn Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Hutton told Yallop that if any NZ policeman was suspected of being corrupt, the force would chase him out "like a bloody dog". I never believed Hutton there, and it certainly is not borne out by other reports of how our police handle allegations of corruption and malpractice.
ReplyDeleteThat inquiry seemed to have a thing about dogs. I recall above you saying that Roddick perhaps it was - according to police was said to be a dog thief. I get the sense that Hutton would fix on something he believed to be true and move hell and high water to prove he was right and that was all there was to do with it.
ReplyDeleteThe alleged dog thief was Graeme Hewson, the man who said he had previously helped the police search the flowerbed and found no cartridge case, yet the police found the cartridge case in it later. Hutton tried to discredit Hewson by accusing him of stealing Harvey's dogs. Hewson said it was perfectly all right with Hutton and Mrs Crewe Snr to take them. He had been a friend of Harvey's and they often swapped dogs.
DeleteNo, it was Graeme Hewson who was branded the dog thief.
Deletehutton is as bent as bent cops go he was tolled how it was in 1970 and that person via huttons secound man in charge tolled that person if you mentioned names given to them you will be the next bastard in the waikto river
DeleteIf the family's description of how Hutton raised them and how he looked on life is going to make people think he was an honest cop in the Thomas case, it does not work for me. To me, it makes him look a hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteI wonder when the Hutton family's book comes out? Have you heard anything more?
ReplyDeleteWe won't see a book, the book is in fact the interview and the chance to publicise the family point of view. I'm probably wrong, but I think they will leave things where they are - they're totally loyal to the memory of their dad and the interview was interesting public reading.
DeleteThey won't get far in clearing their dad with just an interview. It did sound like they were planning to publish something.
DeleteI don't think the Hutton family will have much luck in clearing Hutton's name when he didn't put much effort into clearing it himself. Apart from one appeal against the findings of the Royal Commission (which failed), Hutton didn't do much except grumble about the findings and the accusations against him.
ReplyDeleteA lawyer told the Thomas family they had good cause for a lawsuit over the Lovelock police report. Let's hope there is some court action, because it is the only way to really get things moving in this case and get some answers. The police won't act to solve the murders and an independent inquiry looks unlikely. Trouble is, a lawsuit can take months, if not years, to get to court.
ReplyDeleteIn most aspects the battle has been won. Police like Lovelock can't turn back the clock or public opinion, he really only makes himself look like a fool as he has done in this case and in the Rewa case.
ReplyDeleteThe fact remains that the Lovelock report defamed the Thomas family by still pointing the finger at them and accusing them of tampering with evidence. So this is one battle in the case that has not yet been won.
DeleteHe certainly did. Of course we know it wasn't the Thomas family or Arthur that tampered with evidence. Maybe they will go ahead. At the moment they have all the runs on the board and the other team are all out for 10 consecutive ducks.
DeleteI think Len Demler scores the most points for motive, method and opportunity, but I am open to other possibilities. Don't think I buy the murder/suicide theory or the Len Johnston theory though.
ReplyDeleteDuring the trail Demler suddenly remembered that Thomas had pestered Jeannette out of town, so he was knowingly trying to get an innocent man convicted if Jannette was a suicide.
DeleteThe 2014 police review trumpeted that the Crewes' girl found in her cot had not been fed for 5 days. But doctors determined from her first bowel movement that she had not been more than 48 hours without water. Why give her only water? It was someone who didn't want her to die but who had so obvious a motive for caring about her that he didn't dare give her food.
Very dubious about predictions of when someone last ate or drank water.
DeleteArthur did not pester Jeanette out of town. That’s a load of rubbish the Crown trumped up at the second trial, and was later discredited.
DeleteAt first the Crown asserted Rochelle was fed. By the second trial they alleged she had not, just because they could not lump it on Vivien. It’s outrageous how they kept insinuating Vivien was the accomplice and fed the baby, although they didn’t have a shred of evidence to back it up and Bruce Roddick was adamant the woman he saw at the Crewe farm was not her.
Of course Bruce got attacked for saying what he saw, same as Guy Wallace did in the Watson case. I always felt bad about the way Vivian was treated, that how merciless these sick cops were.
DeleteArthur believes the treatment Vivien got contributed to her death, and I agree. Vivien never got an apology from David Morris or any of the police. And I think Arthur’s demands for an apology from the police are in vain too.
DeleteI believe he may ask the Government for an apology.
DeleteI came across an article that said he expected to get an apology without asking. But he must have realised by now that if he wants an apology - which he does - he will have to ask for one. He'd better get a move on because he is 80 and can't have much time left.
DeletePat Booth is the latest veteran in the Thomas case to die; so many of them have now. Arthur himself is still alive, but he’s 80 now.
ReplyDeleteI understand he has asked, recently.
DeleteFrom what I read, he was demanding where the hell his apology was. Not the same as formally asking for one.
DeleteI believe he was formally asking for one.
DeleteMay Bruce Hutton spin in his grave like a centrifuge if Arthur gets an apology from the Government!
DeleteThe government has apologised to Tyson Redman as well as compensate him, so why not Arthur Allan Thomas?
DeleteI thought there was one on the way. I may ring Arthur again in a few weeks.
DeleteRecently I was recollecting the efforts of Pat to investigate the Mr Asia gang. Looking back it seemed to be an incredibly high standard of journalism. He was on a roll that appears to have begun when he figured out there was something in the Thomas case.
ReplyDeleteIt began when he attended the second trial in the hope of Arthur's life story in the event of an acquittal. It does not sound like he had any real opinions either way. However, he began to have misgivings and feelings that something was wrong as he observed the way the trial was being conducted and the venom of Morris's cross-examination of Arthur.
DeleteWhat a sloppy article no dates ... a few years after...along the way..... pick up your game Nostalgia-NZ.
DeleteYou're welcome to correct.
Delete2020 is the 50th anniversary of the Crewe murders. I wonder what they will do for it?
ReplyDeleteThe gun .wire and axle .pretty hard to arrest anyone else .defence would have a field day
ReplyDeleteSo Bruce Hutton wished the cat could talk. If he had gotten his wish, he might have regretted it once the cat started telling him all it knew about the murders...
ReplyDeleteDid anybody notice that the signature of Jeannette Crewe’s injuries to the right side of her head were that of a left- handed assailant??
ReplyDeleteLen Demler was left handed from his ooor handwriting, left hand on the horse reins, right hand on his throat while contemplating a left hand bowling shot
Few people would have noticed that if any. Certainly not police. It seems strange why they let him off the hook.
DeleteThere was no attached axle. This was planted too. No remnant wires, been in the river for 2 months and “it just slipped away” .. no wonder those two guys flanking Hutton looked so terribly embarassed
ReplyDeleteI don't recall much about the details of the axle?
DeleteIf you check with the Solicitors office of Former Prime Minister David Lange,,,, you will find that his office took steps to protect Mary Hutton who advised them that Bruce was intending to kill her.
Delete