Beyond Reasonable Doubt?, page 19
The following morning, Thursday 18 February, he faced the cross-examination of Paul Temm. After discussing with Demler the macabre question of exactly how he had been able to identify the unrecognizable body of Harvey Crewe, Temm turned to the events of 22 June. What follows is the verbatim transcript of the remainder of the cross-examination:
Temm: Let me pass to your discovery that there was nobody in the house but the baby; when you entered the house on 22 June, was the door locked or unlocked?
Demler: It was a Yale lock. I turned the key to get in. The key was in the door.
Temm: The back door?
Demler: Yes.
Temm: You had to turn the key to get in the back door?
Demler: Yes.
Temm: And it was a Yale lock?
Demler: Yes.
Temm: Are you sure?
Demler: The front door has a Yale lock, but the key was in the back door.
Temm: The key was on the outside?
Demler: Yes.
Temm: What is the position?
Demler: I turned the key.
Temm: You unlocked the door before you went in?
Demler: Yes.
Temm: Then I suppose having noticed the disorder in the kitchen the first thing you noticed then was the bloodstains in the lounge?
Demler: Yes, on the way through.
Temm: Did that suggest to you that somebody had been injured in that room?
Demler: I thought there had been an accident.
Temm: Did you notice the bloodstain on the floor referred to as a drag mark?
Demler: As soon as I saw the bloodstain I went to where the baby was.
Temm: You mean you did not notice that when you went in that room the first time?
Demler: Yes, I couldn’t help noticing it.
Temm: Then you went to the baby’s room?
Demler: Yes.
Temm: The very next thing, from the lounge to the baby’s bedroom?
Demler: Yes.
Temm: What did you do after that?
Demler: I had a look at the baby and I decided I would have to find someone to take her so I didn’t look any more round the house but went back home.
Temm: You didn’t then go straight down to your neighbour Mr Priest?
Demler: No, on the way back.
Temm: You go to the house, through the house, from there back to your house and from there to Priest’s house and from there back to the house?
Demler: Yes.
Temm: When you got back to your house did you then ring Mr Wright?
Demler: That is right.
Temm: That was to tell him not to send the sheep or cattle trucks to the farm?
Demler: That is right.
Temm: When did you shift the sheep of which you spoke? While you were there?
Demler: No, after the police were notified and were at the house, I thought I had better do that.
Temm: We understood from Mr Wright you phoned his firm and left a message to ring you back, is that right?
Demler: Yes, he wasn’t there at the time.
Temm: Did he telephone you back before you went to Mr Priest?
Demler: That is right.
Temm: It follows that while you were phoning and waiting for his call in reply, Rochelle was alone in the house?
Demler: Yes, that is right.
Temm: Your farm and the Crewes’ have a common boundary?
Demler: Yes.
Temm: And you and Mr Crewe would be visible to one another from time to time when out around the farm?
Demler: Very seldom as I was sheltered from the bush. When I was down at the back of the farm was the only time we could see one another.
Temm: Between Wednesday 17 June and Monday 22 June, did you never phone your daughter?
Demler: No, I only phoned her once a week as a rule, if I wanted something.
Temm: How fond of Jeannette were you?
Demler: Very fond of Jeannette.
Temm: How fond of Rochelle were you?
Demler: I was very fond of her too actually.
Temm: But in those five days with which we are concerned you never rang once?
Demler: No, we never communicated by phone. After my wife died I went up every day, then after a while it was every two days, and later it was once a week.
Temm: Did you never drive past the farm during those five days?
Demler: No.
Temm: The outside lights were apparently on throughout the whole period?
Demler: That is right.
Temm: Did you never see those outside lights?
Demler: I can’t see those lights, wherever I am. I have the hedge.
Temm: Did you never see those lights during that time?
Demler: No, I did not.
Temm: You told us that you did at one point own a .22 rifle?
Demler: That is right.
Temm: Did the police take possession of a .22 rifle from your farm?
Demler: No, they never took any rifle from my farm.
Temm: Did you give them any particular rifle from any other place?
Demler: No.
Temm: Did you give them any .22 calibre ammunition?
Demler: No, I never had any.
Temm: So you neither owned nor possessed a .22 calibre rifle during the past year?
Demler: That is right.
Temm: When police inquiries were being made into the absence and death of your daughter and her husband, did you make available to them all the information they wanted?
Demler: I did.
Temm: Did the information they wanted include the value of your late wife’s estate?
Demler: Some of it.
Temm: What in fact was the value of this estate?
Demler: About $47,000.
Temm: In terms of her will Jeannette was to receive that but you had the use of the farm?
Demler: That is right, till my death.
Temm: Of course there was some cash in that estate apart from the farm, was there not?
Demler: Yes, some cash.
Temm: How much?
Demler: I wouldn’t have a clue.
Temm: You know that the defence has asked for this information to be made available?
Demler: Yes.
Temm: And they have sought that information from the estate solicitors, do you know that also?
Demler: No.
Temm: And have you refused permission to give this information?
Demler: I didn’t refuse exactly. I didn’t see it had anything to do with the case.
Temm: Did you tell the estate solicitors that you would not agree to the information being disclosed?
Demler: Yes, because it has already been disclosed once.
Temm: So you did refuse permission for it to be disclosed?
Demler: That is right.
Temm: What is the value of Jeannette’s estate?
Demler: That would be hard to say. Roughly $30,000.
Temm: Is that your answer?
Demler: More than that. It is hard to work out.
Temm: Somewhere near $100,000?
Demler: No, it wouldn’t be that.
Temm: The estate solicitors would know the details?
Demler: Yes, they would.
Temm: If I assure you the information is relevant to the case are you now prepared to consider the information being disclosed?
Demler: If you want to know.
Temm: I do want it; do you agree for the defence to know that?
Demler: Yes.
Temm: How much did Jeannette receive when she became of age to do so from the Chennell trust which she and her sister Heather shared equally?
Demler: She got half the farm, but I don’t know how much other money she got. There was some other cash.
Temm: At the time she died had she loaned money out on mortgage to other people through the estate solicitors?
Demler: Yes, she had a bit on mortgage.
Temm: How much do you say was out on mortgage?
Demler: I can’t say off hand.
Temm: You are the estate’s trustee?
Demler: I don’t read it up all the time.
Temm: Are you telling the court you don’t know how much she had out on mortgage?
Demler: That is right.
Temm: Since her death you have enquired of the solicitors as to her financial affairs?
Demler: It is hardly for me to enquire into that. They would let me know if everything was all right.
Temm: Didn’t you have to sign a statement as to her assets and liabilities for the Inland Revenue Department?
Demler: I don’t remember signing one of those yet.
Temm: Have you in fact made a return?
Demler: It has been put through but it has not been made out properly yet. They are waiting on it now I think.
Temm: Do you say the return hasn’t been made out?
Demler: Well, it hasn’t been finalized yet anyway.
Temm: I asked if the return had been made?
Demler: Some returns I think.
Temm: Do you tell us that you know nothing about the contents of it as you left it to the estate solicitors?
Demler: Yes.
Temm: Who was the trustee for your daughters in the Chennell estate?
Demler: Alf Hudson and myself. He is dead now.
Temm: Did he die before or after your daughters came into their inheritance?
Demler: He was still alive at the time.
Temm: After the bodies were found to be missing from the house the police had a wide-scale search?
Demler: Yes, that is right.
Temm: Much of the searching was at first inland?
Demler: That is right.
Temm: A great deal of attention was concentrated for a start on caves and the like in the locality?
Demler: That is right.
Temm: Did you assist in searching those limestone caves?
Demler: No, I didn’t.
Temm: But you knew your daughter was missing and possibly dead?
Demler: That is right.
Temm: You knew your son-in-law was also missing and possibly dead?
Demler: Yes.
Temm: And we know they were found not in the caves but in the river?
Demler: That is right.
Temm: Were you accused by any police officer of being responsible for the deaths of your daughter and son-in-law?
Demler: I was under suspicion at one time.
Temm: Did anybody directly say to you: ‘We have got you now, you’ve had it’ …
Before Paul Temm could finish his question Judge Henry stopped him. He ruled that the question was inadmissible. The duel between defence counsel and Len Demler continued:
Temm: What was it that happened that gave you reason to know you were under suspicion?
Demler: A search round my place, that’s all.
Temm: Nothing more than that?
Demler: I don’t think so.
Temm: Are you telling us that you believed you were under suspicion solely because they searched around your place, is that the whole truth?
Demler: Yes, well, they searched everywhere, I remember them doing it. Then the other point was there was a small bloodstain on the front seat of my car. Jeannette was going to town in my car with the baby and she got a bit of blood on the seat.
Temm: Can we take it that was a bloodstain on the front seat of your car?
Demler: That is right.
Temm: Do we also take it that that bloodstain was from Jeannette’s blood?
Demler: I believe that is right.
Temm: Was there also a bloodstain on the door of the car?
Demler: I don’t think so.
Temm: If a police photographer says he took photos of what appeared to be bloodstains on the left front door and left front seat, were these bloodstains Jeannette’s blood?
Demler: Yes, well, that could be. She carried the baby as she got out of the car.
Temm: Did the police ever question you as to your movements on Wednesday 17 June?
Demler: Yes, they did.
Temm: How long was spent in that questioning altogether?
Demler: Quite a fair period. A couple of hours.
Temm: On how many occasions were you questioned on that general subject of your movements and association?
Demler: Two or three times.
Temm: Was there an occasion when you were questioned for five or six hours at a stretch?
Demler: For four hours.
Temm: At a stretch?
Demler: Yes.
Temm: When you said a moment ago the time spent in questioning was only a couple of hours, that is not right. How many times altogether were you questioned?
Demler: Two or three times.
Temm: How many times altogether were you questioned in a solemn way about the disappearance of your daughter?
Demler: I said two or three times.
Temm: Did you say to anyone between June last year and October last year that the police were shadowing you?
Demler: I didn’t say they were shadowing me. I said they suspected me for a while.
Temm: Did you say to anyone you were being followed by the police and your movements were being observed?
Demler: No, I didn’t say that.
Temm: It is not the kind of observation you would forget, is it?
Demler: No, I don’t remember saying that to anyone anyway.
Temm: But do you agree that the observation isn’t one you would be likely to forget?
Demler: I suppose so.
Temm: Did you have in fact reason to think yourself your movements were being watched?
Demler: No, I didn’t think that.
Temm: Did you have a key yourself that would give you access to the Crewe house?
Demler: No, I had no key.
Those who in the past seven years have been so highly critical of Paul Temm’s defence of Arthur Thomas would do well to study carefully the cross-examination recorded above. Len Demler was not, of course, on trial although that interchange might well give the impression that he was. All Paul Temm had to do during that trial was convince the jury that reasonable doubt existed. By drawing out of the noncommittal Demler the information that he did, Temm was demonstrating, very clearly, there were possibilities other than the one the Crown was urging.
Although the subsequent cross-examination of Len Demler about the financial background that the defence had fought so hard to obtain did not occur until Tuesday, 23 February, I have recorded it here for the sake of continuity. Again it is verbatim from the trial transcript:
Temm: You will remember that I asked you what was the value of your late wife’s estate?
Demler: Yes, I didn’t know it. I said about £47,000.
Temm: How long have you been farming?
Demler: About forty years.
Temm: Have you prospered in your farming business?
Demler: Yes.
Temm: So in the course of that forty years you had considerable business experience?
Demler: No, I had very little.
Temm: Did you take an interest with your solicitors in your late wife’s affairs?
Demler: I went to sign the papers that went through, that’s about all.
Temm: I suggest assets in your late wife’s estate total $78,000?
Demler: That is correct The first time it was valued it was about $60,000. After three days it went up to $70,000, something like that.
Temm: You knew then?
Demler: I couldn’t think at the time. I gave a rough estimate. I said about $47,000 didn’t I?
Temm: Talking about this revaluation you refer to; is the position that at first her share of the farm was taken on Government valuation on 31 March 1966?
Demler: That is right.
Temm: But the duties division said they wanted another valuation as that was out of date?
Demler: That is right.
Temm: When your farm was revalued in 1970 it increased in value by a total of about $30,000?
Demler: Apparently about that figure.
Temm: How much is your farm worth on that valuation today?
Demler: I wouldn’t know for sure myself. I forget the figures. About $180 an acre. I wouldn’t say that was right or wrong.
Temm: Most farmers know the value of their land per acre?
Demler: It doesn’t seem to worry me that much.
Temm: How many acres are there in your farm?
Demler: 465.
Temm: In the Crewe farm next door were there 339?
Demler: Something like that.
Temm: The Crewe farm had been in the Chennell estate?
Demler: Yes, it was.
Temm: That was the estate of your brother-in-law who had died in 1950 in a tractor accident?
Demler: That is right.
Temm: You told us that you were one of the trustees of the estate?
Demler: That is right.
Temm: And it was administered by you and your co-trustee for the benefit of your two daughters Jeannette and Heather?
