Beyond Reasonable Doubt?, page 16
It had been by any standards an extraordinary performance under oath. We are not talking here about a slip of the tongue, a single error. It went on and on and on. Yet one looks in vain in the press of New Zealand for any comment, then or later, about this aspect. Why bother with the father of the dead woman placing himself, under oath, on the Crewe farm on the day of the murders? ‘Passion’ is presumably what sells papers.
Evidence of the early intensive police searches of the Crewe property was given by Detective Sergeant Murray Jeffries. It had been a very detailed, very careful, meticulous search. Surprisingly, his deposition revealed that not only were members of the investigation team allowed to enter the house while it remained in police control, also at least six of Harvey and Jeannette’s friends and relations were allowed access. I find that extraordinary. A number of those people, if not all of them, would have been suspects, yet they were allowed access to the Crewe farm. This was within the first week of the police investigation.
Evidence was given by Dr Fox that clearly showed he had no doubt that Rochelle had been fed during the five-day period before she was discovered. Professor Elliot and his confirming opinion were suppressed. Dr Caughey and his conflicting opinion were suppressed.
The evidence of Harvey’s mother Mrs Marie Crewe drew a picture of Jeannette the perfect mother, the perfect housewife. If that was an accurate picture, then either Jeannette Crewe had a complete nervous breakdown in the days that preceded her death or her house was subsequently ravaged by an army of sluts.
Evidence was given about the burglary at the Crewe farm in July 1967, the house fire in December 1968 and the barn fire in June 1969. No evidence was given linking any of these occurrences with the accused but it is clear that in an effort to build up a motive for Thomas, the Crown felt it essential to throw in these three events. Eight years later there is still not a single fragment of evidence that links Arthur Thomas with these happenings on the Crewe farm. The events may well have significance. They may well be linked with the deaths of Harvey and Jeannette. They have yet to be linked to the man found guilty of those deaths.
The premise that the Crown was functioning on was now beginning to take shape. Arthur Thomas, harbouring a deep unfulfilled passion for Jeannette, had pestered her at local dances, had pursued her to Maramarua, had written to her and then hoarded her replies, had given her presents. Then after he had married Vivien, and Jeannette had married Harvey, Thomas had brooded on his lost love and gone to the Crewe farm and removed Jeannette’s brush and comb set, obviously hoping she would then use the one he had given her in 1962. He had not been seen going to the farm, he had not been seen leaving. Despite police investigations at the time, he fortunately escaped the net of their inquiries.
Still dissatisfied, still brooding, he waited eighteen months. Again unseen he had crept on to the Crewe farm – presumably he had first followed Harvey to Pukekohe to ensure that Crewe was visiting his wife that night. He had set light to the Crewe farm and again unseen had returned to his own farm nine miles away. Again police inquiries did not touch him. Sitting in his Mercer farm with his young wife Vivien he had hatched yet more venom. Again returning to the Crewe property, again unseen, he had set light to a haybarn in June 1969. Again he got away without being seen.
Still dissatisfied, still consumed with the passion he felt for Jeannette, he had again returned to the Crewe farm, this time on the night of 17 June. He had murdered not only Harvey but the object of his passion, Jeannette. He had then somehow removed the bodies from the farm. Neither his coming nor going were seen. He had taken the bodies and dumped them in the Waikato river. Again this activity was unobserved.
The total of exhibits rapidly mounted as the hearing progressed. Bloodstained material from chairs. Bloodstained pieces of carpet. Saucepans, blankets, wheelbarrow, knitting, ashes from the fireplace, the clothing from the dead couple. The list grew longer and longer. None of these items was connected in any way with the accused. Fingerprints that had been found in the Crewe farm were entered as exhibits. Some belonged to Jeannette, some possibly to her husband, some were unidentified; none belonged to the accused.
The cross-examination of Inspector Gaines by Paul Temm gives a clear illustration of some of the difficulties that the men defending Thomas faced. Gaines, it may be remembered, was in overall control of the land, sea and air search for the missing Crewes; he was also in control of the subsequent search of the Waikato for the murder weapon and weights that may have been fastened to Jeannette’s body. Paul Temm was very aware that the police had brought up a great many items from the riverbed; he attempted a number of times during this Magistrates’ Court hearing to obtain an inventory of these items. One would think it would be something that would have been made readily available to defence counsel.
Temm: Did you make an inventory of the things that were brought up by your searching equipment from the river?
Gaines: Any equipment that we brought up was handed to the members of the CIB.
Temm: That tells me what you did with it, it doesn’t answer my question.
Gaines: I made no inventory.
Temm: Who did?’
Gaines: This is an exhibit list made out by the CIB. I cannot tell you who made it.
(Of course what the inspector was referring to was not a complete inventory of items recovered, merely those items that the police had chosen to put into evidence.)
Temm: You know that the police have had every opportunity of preventing the defence getting information obtained as a result of your search?
Gaines: I don’t know this at all.
Temm: And are you telling us that you don’t know, although you were officer in charge of the search, that you don’t know who was responsible for recording what was found in your search?
Gaines: Perhaps an explanation of the method would elucidate this.
Temms: Are you telling us you don’t know?
Gaines: I’m not saying this at all. If you let me answer the question. When any object was found the person finding the object was despatched with the object to the CIB office; there his version was obtained by whoever was duty officer. And over this period they were numerous.
Temm: That tells me what was done with what was found. Can we go back to my question. Are you telling us that although you were in charge of the search, you don’t know who was responsible for recording what you found?
Gaines: No. I don’t, sir.
Temm: Do you not think that is rather an extraordinary answer?
Gaines: As officer in charge of the search, I was required to direct and control. I directed staff to the point of official recording and everything that was found was recorded.
Temm: So your job apparently was to direct the search but not to record what you found as a result of your search?
Gaines: Personally, no.
Temm: I suggest that you are being evasive. You know perfectly well, do you not, that I am not suggesting you should have had a pencil and paper. You know that, don’t you?
Gaines: I have a complete diary of what we did. But I have no record of the actual objects that were picked up by my staff. This is on the main file.
Temm: The main file is a very elusive document and it never seems to be with the witness giving the evidence.
Gaines: I have in this Court the diary of the day-to-day activities of our search.
Temm: That tells us, Mr Gaines, what you did. What I am asking for is what you found. Do you know where the main file is now?
Gaines: I presume it is in the hands of the Crown Prosecutor.
Temm: Is there, on that file, an inventory of what you found in your search, particularly of the Waikato river?
Gaines: As far as I know, yes. I have not sighted it myself, though.
Temm: Would you recognize it when you saw it?
Gaines: Yes.
Temm: Would you please now produce it so that His Worship and we can see it?
Gaines: I have to have the file produced. I haven’t got the file.
Temm: Well get the file. Who was responsible for making the list? Who was in charge of the section?
Gaines: The CIB personnel were under the command of Detective Inspector Hutton and he delegated that, to whom, I don’t know.
Temm: So does it come to this, then, that although you were responsible for making a search, you weren’t responsible for recording what was found?
Gaines: No, sir, I was not responsible for recording.
Paul Temm asked Magistrate D. MacLean if the witness could be allowed to leave the box and fetch the elusive main file. MacLean rejected the request. Throughout this entire cross-examination the inventory in question was only a few feet from Paul Temm, on the desk of the Crown Prosecutor, David Morris. The above interchange, apart from giving a graphic description of the inefficiency that marked so much of the police investigation in Pukekawa, demonstrates the disturbing degree of commitment displayed by police and prosecution toward obtaining a conviction. Why was Temm not allowed to have a copy of that inventory at that point? His interest in it was far from academic. He had been told that among the items recovered from the area where Jeannette’s body had been found were some that incriminated, not Arthur Thomas, but another resident of Pukekawa. Certainly not a single item was recovered and placed on that mysterious inventory that incriminated Arthur Thomas. In view of the fact that the Crown Prosecutor was fully aware how hard Temm had tried to obtain a copy of that inventory his re-examination of Inspector Gaines left a little to be desired.
Morris: It was put to you in cross-examination that you knew the police have had every opportunity of preventing the defence getting information obtained as part of your search? Have you ever had any request to give this information?
Gaines: Never.
Morris: Have you until today ever been approached?
Gaines: No, sir.
Thus Inspector Gaines left the witness box. Paul Temm was still without a copy of that inventory.
When pathologist Dr Francis Cairns gave evidence on 17 December, he told the Court of the detailed examinations he had carried out on the bodies and of his initial inspection of the bloodstained farmhouse. Apart from his theory that Jeannette was knocked to the floor and then shot, he also discussed an alternative that she had been shot from behind her right shoulder whilst seated. With regard to Harvey’s death, he told the Court that he thought Crewe had been sitting in his armchair with the chair not in the position shown in police photographs but around facing the fire, and he considered ‘he was shot in the back of the head on the left side, from a shot fired from the direction of the door to the kitchen’. Such a theory would of course fit with the police view of a gun through the open kitchen louvre windows. It equally fits with the theory of the shot being fired from inside the house.
Careful study of Dr Cairns’s evidence reveals nothing that eliminates the theory of murder/suicide. He could not tell how long the bodies had been left before removal and clearly when faced with reconstructing exactly how and in what manner they had died he was faced with grave problems. The bodies were discovered not in that lounge, but months later in the Waikato. Evidence, for example, of powder burns on the heads, a clear indication of very close-range shots, would have been destroyed long before Dr Cairns had an opportunity to examine the bodies. Faced with a room in disarray, such as the Crewe lounge, the theories, the possibilities, the explanations are limitless; all anyone can do, even an expert, is make a calculated guess. It has already been demonstrated that the initial calculated guess of Dr Cairns concerning tomahawks and axes was totally inaccurate. It is possible indeed probable that his subsequent theory of exactly how Harvey and Jeannette Crewe died is also inaccurate.
When evidence about the recovery of Harvey Crewe’s body from the Waikato was given by a number of policemen some interesting aspects emerged. The body had been found in just six feet of water. One of the diving team had noticed the wire leading down into the water, yet in a mere six feet of water had not seen, let alone grasped, the axle that had allegedly been attached to the end of that wire. In view of the fact that Inspector Hutton was to testify that while the axle was still attached he had grasped one end of it, clearly the axle was in a horizontal position. Its length is 4ft 6 ins. yet still the divers could not see it in six feet of water. Neither was any wire found tied to the axle. If the wire had snapped rather than unwound, where was the piece that in theory would have been tied to the axle. Leaving these and other anomalies aside the police had, with the production of that axle, put into evidence the first apparently tangible link with the accused. Other depositions established that the axle had at one time been on a trailer owned by Arthur’s father, Allan Thomas.
Details of the various loans that Thomas had received over the years from the State Advances Corporation would have held no surprises for the bulk of the public in the Otahuhu courtroom. It was packed with farmers from Pukekawa and their wives, come to hear the evidence that had been assembled against one of their number.
Nods of recognition passed between a number of them and Thomas. A divided community, drawn together by this macabre case. From now on this cross-section would only meet in courtrooms. The Thomas clan, as they were dubbed early in the proceedings, sat attempting to comprehend what was going on. They sat and listened as Paul Temm and Brian Webb battled with reluctant witnesses and exchanged barbs with David Morris and David Baragwanath.
The gentleman from State Advances was followed into the witness box by Detective Senior Sergeant Hughes. On 11 July he had remarked to Len Demler: ‘We have got you now, you’ve had it.’ Now, on 17 December, he told the Court of the visit he had paid to the Thomas farm nine days before he made that remark to Demler. He had been the first police officer to speak to Thomas about the case. His version of the conversation he allegedly had contained one remark that particularly interested Thomas’s defence counsel:
Hughes: I said to him: ‘I understand that you had some sort of passion for Jeannette Demler some years ago?’ He replied: ‘Well, sort of.’
Having discussed Thomas’s attempts to court Jeannette, the detective sergeant then recalled:
Hughes: He said that he had visited the Crewe farm while working for an agricultural contractor three or four years before. He said that he had met the person whom he believed to be Jeannette’s husband, Harvey Crewe, and said he thought he was a decent sort of bloke. He said that he had morning and afternoon teas in the Crewe house and had never been back since. He was then referring to when he worked for the agricultural contractor. He said he had not seen either Jeannette or Harvey Crewe for at least eight or nine months …
This latter statement from Hughes can only come under one of two categories. It is either genuine error or deliberate perjury. Whichever it is, it succeeded in placing Thomas on the Crewe farm after the Crewe marriage; that is, from 1966 onwards. If it is a genuine error it is a very serious one. The picture of Thomas sitting having morning and afternoon teas with Harvey and Jeannette exists only in the mind of Detective Hughes. Regrettably the defence did not pick up this flagrant inaccuracy. What Temm wanted to know about was the first extract of Hughes’s sworn evidence that I have quoted.
Temm: Did you make a report of your meeting with Thomas on 2 July?
Hughes: Yes, I submitted a job sheet on this interview.
Temm: Where is that report?
Hughes: It would be attached to the main police file.
Temm: You would recognize that job sheet, wouldn’t you?
Hughes: Yes.
Temm: And could you find that job sheet if given the opportunity? If not, why not?
Hughes: I may not be able to but our clerk would.
Temm: I suggest to you that in that job sheet you made no reference to taxing Thomas with having a passion for the girl Demler? Is that suggestion correct?
Hughes: No, this was the reason for the interview initially.
Temm: Did you use the word ‘passion’ on your report on the job sheet?
Hughes: From memory I did; I haven’t seen it for many months.
Temm: Would you please produce the job sheet so that I may inspect it?
Hughes: I have not got it with me. I also made a full entry in my notebook of the discussion between Thomas and myself at that time.
Temm: The job sheet is what interests me. If given time by the Court, would you go and get it?
Hughes: Yes.
At this point Temm broke off his cross-examination to ask the magistrate if the police officer could leave the box and return with his job sheet. Magistrate MacLean said he would consider the request. Clearly the defence was having as much difficulty with the magistrate as they were with certain witnesses. Why should the job sheet not be produced? Temm had not finished with Hughes. The defence counsel remembered what has been described to me by a number of Crown witnesses as ‘Mrs Batkin’s outburst’. He also recalled the headlines that outburst had made. Headlines that this police officer could easily have read.
Temm: On 2 July, Mr Hughes, you had not in any way spoken to Mrs Batkin, had you?
Hughes: I had spoken to a number of people and I do not recall that name. Can you help me?
