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.

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.

The Commissioner of Police responds to Ross Muerant.

In what might be a first Police Commissioner has replied by the way of an open letter to former MP and Police Officer Ross Muerant, taking issue with an article published in North and South in which Ross Muerant commented about police 'culture' as destructive.

Quite quickly in the letter Commissioner Marshall seeks to reject Muerant's call for the Thomas case to be re-opened, he says that Muerant should know that unsolved murders always remain open. Good point, if but self-serving. Marshall has refused to act on a 'submission' by Chris Birt that seeks Norma Demler be questioned and investigated as to her alleged sighting on the Crewe farm after the murders and before the police were called, and additionally on her claims as to when she arrived in the district, later marrying the slain Jeanette Crewe's father Len, and taking a role in the administration of the dead couple estate. Peter Marshall reported to Chris that Norma denied the claims and that he was not going to take it further.

Commissioner Marshall makes some general comments about what Muerant didn't achieve in his police career, which I expect is meant to give greater weight as to what the Commissioner says as compared to the former officer. It might surprise the Commissioner to learn that people judge an argument or information on its merits not by comparing the length of service in the police of two opposing proponents.

He says that little can be gained by 'dancing on the graves' of former senior Police and calls the interest in why a previous Commissioner Bob Walton, ordered his staff not to interview (effectively investigate) Norma Demler despite the sighting of her on the dead couple farms, 'an untimely attack.' Actually, I didn't see it as an attack at all, I see it clearly as in the public interest. I note a common characteristic when people have a miscarriage of justice lumped on them, as the late Vivian Harrison did, and as the Crewe's daughter Rochelle has, those that have failed to act are defended while the victims continue to be ignored.

I'm sure Peter Marshall knows that it is on Police files that Walton ordered that Norma Demler not be investigated. What is untimely is that she remains un-investigated under successive Commissioners, including now, Peter Marshall. It's clear that Marshall doesn't like what Muerant admits, it is also clear that Muerant is factual and his intention is not to dishonour anybody because he has been remarkably candid in admitting what he himself did in the police and which was overlooked or seen as part of the culture. Peter in using time as a 'cure all' neglects to note that the Thomas case is of another time and fails to realise that is one of the disturbing factors by those intimately injured by the events is that time is being used against them. That somewhere the thought is harboured that the sooner they are all dead and silent the case will die from memory - when of course it will not, and part of what is driving that is that is the awareness that time is being used as a weapon against truth.

Peter has within his power the right, the duty, to open this case again, to open the files and present them for anyone who should so apply under the Official Information Act. The fact that Peter refers to his case as historical is good reason that it should be opened for analysis, not continued to be closed down and every word released like a painful tooth extraction. Open the books, what harm can be done more than an innocent man spending a decade in prison, his ex wife going to her grave never being apologised to for being 'accused' as an accomplice after the fact to murder, and for a child, now a woman, who has appealed that the deaths of her parents be properly investigated.

In closing I note, that the Commissioner and others often refer to the amount of time spent on the Crewe case, what they fail to note is that by far the majority of that time was in defence of a corrupt investigation.

The relationship between the Police Commissioner and Norma Demler made clearer...

Peter Marshall wrote a letter to investigative journalist Chris Birt concluding the police inquiry into the evidence which showed that Norma Demler fed the baby Rochelle Crewe after the murder of her parents, with, in part this explanation. 'You will appreciate that I have a responsibility to prioritise investigations in terms of Criminal Investigation Branch matters. That is an ongoing obligation and accordingly, after considerable thought, I do not intend to direct further inquiries arising from your submission.'

Of course a complainant to a crime does not make a submission, a submission is made to a Court, for instance, to find favour or establish a set of circumstances that prove, disprove or mitigate some circumstance that is before the Court. A letter or complaint to the police is not a submission to a Court and neither is a police officer a Judge to whom submissions are made.

Included in Chris Birt's 'submission' was the fact that Bruce Roddick saw Norma Demler, or someone that he took for her, with the baby Rochelle, some time after the murders of Jeanette and Harvey. The complaint actually was that Norma Demler was at least an accessory after the fact to the crime(s) of murder. In support of that was confirmation that Norma Demler claimed never to have been in Pukekawa at the time of the murders or up to 2 years later.

In the complaint of Norma Demler's involvement in the murders Chris Birt produced evidence contained on the police file:
An eye witness, Bruce Roddick.
Colin Harvey, a trustee of the murdered couples estate.
Beryl Dick, the sisterinlaw of Norma Demler.
An anonymous farm worker.
And others unknown.

Commissioner Peter Marshall (then Assistant Commissioner) in his letter confirmed that Norma Demler in her interview had denied being the woman seen on the Crewe farm with the orphaned baby.

Derive from this at least the answer to 2 things if you can;

1/Consider how frequent it is that an accused, or suspected offender, denies their involvement in a particular crime, and if under the law a denial is a defence to be decided by the police and not the Court.

2/Look now at a common feature of denial of an offence by an accused or suspected offender - that they were some where else at the time. Most frequently,  a claim by an offender to have been somewhere else at the time of crime is pivotal in gaining a conviction where there is proof to the contrary. In the case of Norma Demler there are at least 4 people saying that she was where she claimed not to be - at the time of the murders. At least 4 people none of who, unlike Norma, had an interest in the estate of the murdered couple.

There is something left from this still owed to nzers, owed most particularly to those whose lives remain disrupted, something owed to the public interest.

Belated vindication for Vivien Harrison?

Vivien Harrison died April just gone, never having been 'deframed' from the travesty of injustice imposed on her. She was 'identified' by the Prosecutor (later Judge) David Morris as the mystery woman who fed the baby Rochelle Crewe after her parents Jeanette and Harvey had been murdered. David Morris had driven the spectre of this lie into the reputation of, as she was then Vivien Thomas, to ensure that her then husband Arthur would be convicted of the murders. David Morris did this despite information on the case file that another person, later to be the wife of Len Demler father of Jeanette, Norma had been identified as the woman seen on the property in the days before the discovery of the bodies.

Much of this information is contained in a North and South article by Chris Bird and as much as it vindicates the late Vivien and Arthur Thomas it incriminates the complicity of Police in wilfully exercising a Miscarriage of Justice. However, more than that it shows that the strongest circumstantial evidence available to the police to have enabled a conviction was that against Len Demler. He, like his 2nd wife Norma, fudged and prevaricated that Norma was 'on the scene' that is in Pukekawa around the time of the murders. The police had a positive identification from Bruce Roddick who despite immense pressure was unwavering in his evidence that the woman he was on the Crewe's farm in the days after the murder was not Vivien but indeed was Norma Demler, the later information was never put before a jury as was also excluded the note in Detective Len Johnson's work-diary '..that Roddick was going to identify the woman he saw as Mrs Demler,'concluded with the further entry 'confirms our suspicions re identification.'

Of course if the allegation of Morris was negated, and the proof positive revealed that Mr Roddick had identified Norma Demler the case against Arthur was shot, as were the obscene allegations against Vivien. Moreover, a complete case was built against the true perpetrator of the crime Len Demler. I say the true perpetrator because there was no reason for Len Demler to lie about when he met Norma Demler or when she was 'on the scene' cooking for the shearers. All of this is substantiated by various people including even members of the extended Demler family. What becomes revealed is that among the police was evidence and belief that Norma had fed the baby and that therefore her husband to be was implicated in the murders.

Birt's article shows the role Norma Demler soon began to assume in the affairs of the trust which own the various farming properties associated to Len and his family even though Colin Harvey, a trustee said of her involvement 'She had no right to be there (at the meetings of the trust) as she was not a trustee and she did all the talking.'

Even the unshakable recollections of Bruce Roddick as to the identity of the mystery woman would sought to undermined by another Detective Mike Charles who considered that it was important to determine what the sexual inclinations of the late Bruce Roddick were, as though anyone could imagine the relevance of that an issue as the reliability of Bruce's identification of Norma and 'failure' to identify the favourite of Prosecutor Morris - Vivien.

The Crewe case remains a rare, if yet still raw, blight on the landscape of Justice in New Zealand, and rarer still for the now public knowledge that while one man was prosecuted members of the Police believed it was another man 'courted' and cultivated into a role of innocence that some within the Police believed was guilty and who was never thoroughly investigated and became unwatched under the blind eye of Justice that seeks a result no matter the cost and the issues of right or wrong or of basic fairness and Justice.

Chris Birt's article is a must read for those interested in or affected by this case, and reveals other startling information that the the Commissioner of the time, Walton, instructed Auckland Police (at a point after the convictions) to not formally interview Norma Demler. At work from the very top down was activity to lay open shortcomings in the original investigation, Walton told Chris Birt that if he should see the officer involved again to 'ask him what the reason was.' Another startling demonstration of self-protection by a request to ask the officer receiving the order what the reason was for Walton to have made the order.

The Crewe Inquiry - did Simon Power get the decision right?

A spokesman for Mr Power said today the case was a police matter and Government ministers could not get involved.

"Police are the only ones to investigate guilt and innocence," he told NZPA.

A 2009 report into whether Mr Power should have established a commission of inquiry into the Peter Ellis case said it would be unconstitutional for him to do so.

"The constitutional implications of establishing a commission of inquiry... would go beyond the constitutionally recognised function of the executive and encroach directly on the authority and function of the courts."

It said if an inquiry was set up to look at the Ellis case it would be unique and set a precedent for future cases.

Former Christchurch child care worker Peter Ellis was found guilty in June 1993 on 16 counts of sexual offences involving children in his care at a creche and was sentenced to 10 years' jail.

The case was subject to two Court of Appeal hearings and a ministerial inquiry. The convictions have remained despite widespread support for Ellis, who has always maintained his innocence. When Mr Power turned down the call for a commission of inquiry, he said Ellis' outstanding right to seek leave to appeal to the Privy Council meant the request for an inquiry should be declined.

I think from the short piece above Simon Power has got it wrong from the outset and seems to be floundering to grasp even basic policing and constitutional rights. He starts, "Police are the only ones to investigate guilt and innocence," he told NZPA. I may be mistaken but I thought the police investigated and searched for evidence which in turn, if satisfied warrants charges to be laid, they laid informations in the Courts which are accusations of which they believe they have the evidence to prove (on the face of it) an individual to be guilty of a particular crime. That said, the Jury decide guilt and evidence having heard all the admissible evidence - tested in most cases by cross-examination and counter evidence, not the police. By this reasoning from the Minister the role of a Jury has no place in the administration of Justice.

He then goes onto compromise what perhaps may be a pending decision in the Bain case of having a QC re-examine the evidence after a Jury Trial.. "The constitutional implications of establishing a commission of inquiry... would go beyond the constitutionally recognised function of the executive and encroach directly on the authority and function of the courts."He says speaking about the Peter Ellis and case apparently not seeing the significance in the Cabinet 'right' to appoint a QC to investigate guilt on 'the balance of probabilities.' If one is unconstitutional then so is the other.

In another breath he recognises our Highest Court of the time, the Privy Council, pointing out that because Ellis has yet to try (indeed if one could even feel an innocent man, must jump the hurdles of his captor) to take his case before the Privy Council. This while at the same time having presented that the PC isn't (or wasn't at the time our highest court) able to make rulings that might not be subject to executive interference which will be the case if Power does uphold an 'executive' power over a Judicial decision that an 'actual substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred.'

Putting these inconsistencies in context, as well as the Public Interest, Power seems to have made a grave mistake and one at odds with his conflicting statements about judicial independence and the executive power trying to usurp it. I hope Rochelle has the resources and help to consider a Judicial Review of this decision made by the Executive and attended by what appears (at least by news reports) to be conflicting and inconsistent logic.

Salute, Arthur Thomas.

Salute to a man who after all that has happened to him can act with such genuine, humble, honest concern for the Crewe family and for the discovery of truth.
No bitterness from Arthur, no measure of the tragedy in his own life, need for revenge or the construction of hate.
He is the man for all seasons, of the land and all things that make New Zealanders great.