Beyond Reasonable Doubt?, page 20
Demler: That is right.
Temm: They were to come into their inheritance on reaching twenty-five years of age?
Demler: That is correct.
Temm: I suggest to you that when Jeannette came to inherit, she received assets totalling just over $20,000?
Demler: Something like that. I am not sure.
Temm: Was it a figure like that?
Demler: I don’t remember the figures.
Temm: Do you challenge that figure as being widely inaccurate?
Demler: No, I wouldn’t challenge it.
Temm: The defence has now been able to talk to the estate solicitors?
Demler: That is right.
Temm: If I suggest to you that Jeannette came into $54,000, what do you say?
Demler: Somewhere around that figure I would think.
Temm: Did that money include not only her share of Chennell farm but also her share of a number of loans paid by the estate on mortgage?
Demler: A few small loans and a bit of cash in the bank, yes.
Temm: About $5,000 on mortgage?
Demler: Roughly something like that.
Temm: And something close to that figure in cash on deposit at the bank?
Demler: Round about that.
Temm: You were also the executor and trustee under Jeannette’s will?
Demler: Yes, I was.
Temm: Preliminary figures for her estate is a figure of nearly $58,000?
Demler: Yes, round about that.
Temm: That is taking the value of the Crewe farm as at 1966?
Demler: Yes, that is right.
Temm: I suggest that when that farm is revalued it will rise in the way corresponding to yours?
Demler: Yes, it will.
Temm: Is there nearly $6,000 out on mortgage?
Demler: Yes, round about that.
Temm: Did she and her husband have a partnership account with the Bank of New Zealand $1,300 in one account in credit?
Demler: I wouldn’t be sure of that. They had an account with roughly that figure I suppose.
Temm: Was there also nearly $6,000 in savings bank account?
Demler: I don’t know for sure.
Temm: You know they had a savings account with about that figure?
Demler: Yes.
Temm: If I say it is contained as an asset in the combined partnership would you accept that?
Demler: Oh yes, a combined partnership.
Temm: As a result of the provisions of your late wife’s will Jeannette’s estate will eventually comprise $78,000 in your wife’s estate?
Demler: That is correct.
Temm: Plus about another $70,000 in her own estate when the farm is revalued?
Demler: Roughly that.
Temm: That would give a total of over $150,000 altogether?
Demler: Yes.
Temm: When you were asked whether her estate would be somewhere near $100,000 didn’t you say no?
Demler: I didn’t think it would be that much.
Temm: Are you telling us that for a farmer of your experience you didn’t know the size of her estate?
Demler: I didn’t add on my wife’s estate as she doesn’t get it till I die.
Temm: Was there an asset in the Chennell estate which was a firearm, a rifle?
Demler: Not to my knowledge. I have never seen it.
Temm: You know a man named Harry Leech?
Demler: Yes.
Temm: Who is he?
Demler: My brother-in-law.
Temm: Did you ever talk about a firearm in the Chennell estate to him?
Demler: No.
Temm: Did you go with him to talk to another man in Pukekohe concerning that firearm?
Demler: No, I did not.
Temm: At about the time of Jeannette’s funeral I suggest to you? Ever seen a man in Pukekohe whom you might have lent a rifle to?
Demler: No, it didn’t belong to anyone, it was out of use. It was never used.
Temm: Where is it now?
Demler: I wouldn’t know.
Temm: If the records of the Chennell estate show they had a firearm in the assets would you say that is not correct?
Demler: I have not seen a firearm.
Temm: If the records show they had a firearm?
Demler: I don’t think that is correct.
Temm: Have you tried to find the firearm of which you have spoken since the deaths?
Demler: No.
Temm: Have you tried to find it?
Demler: No, I have not.
Temm: Is there a rifle in existence?
Demler: A broken-down one, but it wasn’t fit for use.
Len Demler was then briefly re-examined by David Morris:
Morris: You were asked about these estates, who benefits in the long run from Harvey Crewe’s estate?
Demler: Rochelle.
Morris: Who takes Mrs Crewe’s estate?
Demler: Rochelle again.
Morris: The various interests that Jeannette had in her estate, does that also pass to Rochelle on your death?
Demler: That is right.
Apart from taking the heat out of a gun that initially did not exist at all and subsequently was acknowledged to have existed but now to be missing, the Crown, by establishing the long-term beneficiaries, were clearly hoping to remove all suspicion from the man the police had so long regarded as the No. 1 suspect. Noticeably absent were any questions about short-term beneficiaries.
Thus, despite police obstruction, despite the difficulties put in their way by the Crown office, the defence had finally in the most dramatic manner possible obtained at least some of the information they had sought on the financial background not only of the Crewes but also the Demler family.
Cleverly biding his time, Temm had asked for it in the most public of arenas, the No. 1 Court at Auckland, His questions had clearly indicated to the jury that the defence had been obstructed by Demler. The defence counsel carefully walked Demler into a situation where refusal to allow counsel at least some access to the details of the various estates, when clearly he had given total access to the police, would tell heavily against him. Of course the police did not have to ask Demler either publicly or privately for such information; the power of a police search warrant is total. The defence had by no means obtained all the information they had been seeking. The paid cheques of the estate, the wills and other information were denied to them but at least by the time that Paul Temm had finished with the witness who was so full of ‘That is right’ and ‘That is correct’ and many other examples of the technique of minimum answer, some information about the financial background had emerged.
The questions and answers about the missing gun had made a reality of a nightmare that Inspector Bruce Hutton had been living with for many months. The in-depth fieldwork of the defence team plus that first look at details of the Chennell estate had been the basis for those defence questions about a missing gun. Hutton had anticipated just such a situation arising in the course of the trial. He said to me:
‘The fact that Demler had a rifle that he could not find was always worrying me. I knew that if I eventually got someone else for the murder – God, look at the chagrin the defence counsel would have had. It was bound to get out that Demler had a rifle, which was never bloody found, despite the police searches and all that.’
There was of course also the issue of Demler’s own .22 rifle, that was also missing. As the trial progressed, the police redoubled their efforts to find those missing rifles. Meanwhile the puzzles that the jury had to solve grew. The car that Roddick had seen in front of the house on the Friday morning was back in the garage when Owen Priest went to the property with Len Demler. Rochelle’s clothing was not dirty; ‘It was just sort of used,’ he told the Court. Referring to the search that the two men had made outside the house, he referred to the six loaves of bread that he had noticed by the delivery. For good measure there were also a number of bottles of milk and newspapers. Without doubt the farm had been visited a number of times during those five days, yet the daily deliveries had not been moved. This surely would be a fundamental exercise to a killer hiding his or her tracks, unless the risk of being recognized was too great, unless whoever returned did so by means other than the gate by Highway 22.
More and more questions remained unanswered as the trial went on. The Court was told that the clothes-drier was on when the police arrived. They were not told what was in the clothes-drier, or what condition the clothes in the drier were in, or if any attempt had been made by readings of the electric meter to ascertain how long the drier had been on. They learned that the outside light and kitchen lights were on. Again a meter-reading comparison with previous power bills might have indicated just how long these lights had been burning. They were told that only one set of ignition keys had been found, in a cabinet drawer. No-one asked the car dealer who gave evidence if a duplicate set had been supplied with the car.
They were told of the bloodstains that abounded in the house, some of them diluted, of saucepans with traces of blood, clear evidence of someone’s attempts to clear up. They were not told if any fingerprints were found on these utensils. Clearly none belonging to the accused were found anywhere, but what prints existed on those saucepans? They were told that the television set was switched to an ‘on’ position but that a lead running from the set was disconnected from a subsequent lead which was plugged into the mains but switched off. The Crown were to contend that the murders took place after the night’s television programmes had finished. Would either of the Crewes get up out of the lounge, go out to the front passageway, disconnect the leads, then go into the master bedroom and switch the wall plug off? Would they really do all that when the alternative was to reach over to the set itself and switch it off? The jury were told of the dirty nappies in the cot, on the refrigerator, on top of the washing machine. They were not told if there were any clean nappies found. From the evidence of Detective Sergeant Murray Jeffries who compiled a complete inventory of all articles that were in the house it is clear that there were no clean nappies. This, like the dirty nappy in the cot, represents very strong evidence that the house was visited during those five days. It is inconceivable that any mother would allow her supply of clean nappies to be totally exhausted.
The dining-table with its curious arrangement of two place settings but the day’s mail facing a third chair and a virtually untouched flounder in the middle, indicated to Jeffries a meal for two. Why then does the morning mail face a third chair? Would a housewife place a plate with a spare piece of fish directly on the polished wood surface? Surely she would allow it to remain hot and edible in the warming pan on the cooker?
Jeffries told of the tests he had done which would appear to establish that the ashes in the fireplace were the remnants of the burnt hearth mat and a cushion. He told how, when he had burnt identical items in the fireplace there had been very thick smoke before the carpet and cushion burst into flames. I believe that experiment also gives the answer to why the louvre windows were open in the kitchen. They had been opened by whoever cleaned up to allow the smoke to escape rather than choke and distress Rochelle in a nearby room. The fact that they had been left open after the clearing-up operation assumed for the Crown much greater significance. Without open louvre windows, prior to the deaths, their theory of how Harvey died is untenable. One gun was found on the property, a Pinea shotgun located in a canvas bag in the wash-house. Surely not the gun that Beverly Batkin has spoken of as ‘Harvey’s gun, it was quite a good one. Kept in the lounge.’ No mention was made of any ammunition being found.
The jury were told of the initial very careful pattern search that was made of the interior and exterior between 23 and 25 June; of the subsequent sieve-search of the gardens on 18 August, specifically looking for a cartridge case.
The cross-examination of Sergeant Jeffries established an interesting variance with testimony given by the first Crown witness, Brian Sly, the surveyor who had drawn the official police plans. According to Sly, Detective Jeffries moved the couch in the lounge from its original position. According to Detective Jeffries, he did not.
The police theory of a louvre window murder depends totally not only on open windows, but on very precise positions for various pieces of the lounge furniture.
The unofficial trial of Vivien Thomas that was proceeding within the official trial of her husband was cleverly conducted by the Crown. During his opening speech to the jury David Morris had told them that ‘medical opinion indicated that there was a very distinct possibility that the Crewes’ child, Rochelle, had been fed two or three days after her parents were killed. There was evidence to indicate that her nappies were changed at least once between the time of her parents’ deaths and the discovery some five days later that the Crewes were missing.’
Suppressing the evidence of Dr Caughey that ran directly contrary to that view Morris proceeded through a variety of witnesses to build up a case against the woman who was not in the dock. Mrs Barbara Willis, Mrs Crawford and Dr Thomas Fox all gave evidence that strongly supported that opening contention from the Crown. The defence asked no questions of any of these witnesses. This I believe to be one of the most serious errors made by Paul Temm. He clearly saw what the prosecution were doing and instead of meeting the issue head on, adopted a profile that was so low as to make him invisible. Better, far better to have made this aspect the central issue of the trial. It is clear that the police had failed to discover who had fed Rochelle. It is clear that someone had. The police failure to discover any evidence that pointed to Vivien Thomas should have been seized upon by the defence to demonstrate just how inadequate the entire police investigation had been. If Thomas was guilty of the murders, then who but Vivien had assisted him? If she had assisted him then why had she not been jointly charged with murder? Who fed Rochelle? Within the answer to that question was the key to who murdered her parents. It was a key that the defence allowed David Morris to place metaphorically at the Thomas door in this trial by innuendo.
With the evidence of pathologist Dr Francis Cairns the Crown case moved through a mixture of fact and theory. The facts of the bloodstains and the incorrect theory of death by blunt instrument were the first such example of this. The fact that Jeannette died as a result of a bullet wound in her head and the theory of how she had received her other injuries followed. Injuries to the temple and abrasions on the throat were caused, in the opinion of Dr Cairns, after death. Injuries to the eye and nose and one of the other injuries to the temple, were in the opinion of the pathologist caused before death. Of the bruise in the left armpit Dr Cairns told the jury he was unable to identify the cause. He considered the injuries to the face could have been caused by the butt end of Thomas’s rifle.
The fact that sixteen-stone, six-feet-two Harvey Crewe had died of a bullet wound to the head was established. It was followed with the pathologist’s theory of how:
‘I think that he was sitting in the chair which is indicated as belonging to him, and that he was hit by a bullet which was fired from the direction of the door of the kitchen. I think that this would cause him to slump forward into the right-hand side of the chair and this would explain the bloodstains seen in photo 2. Blood had also seeped down between the arm and the seat. In photo 20 you can see it just appearing above the rear castor on that side.’
Morris: Any idea of where direction of shot would come from?
Cairns: I think it came from the direction of the door to kitchen.
Morris: Having seen this house would the wound be consistent with a shot being fired from a .22 rifle from open windows in kitchen?
Cairns: Yes, that was in the same line of fire.
Thus the Crown proposition of exactly how Harvey Crewe was shot had gained the acceptance of Dr Cairns. This theory had clearly not occurred to the doctor when he performed the post-mortem on the body on 16 September 1970. If it had, Detectives Charles and Parkes would have found themselves sieving a flowerbed the following day instead of on 27 October.
The Crown proposition that the injuries to Jeannette’s face were caused by the butt of Thomas’s rifle took rather a knock during Paul Temm’s cross-examination of Dr Cairns.
Temm: And I turn my attention to your description of injury to the right eye and bridge of nose; you were asked whether that could be caused by a rifle blow, and your reply was it could be caused by one blow, do I understand that correctly?
Cairns: That is correct.
Temm: Were you being guarded because there is nobody who could tell now if it was a rifle blow that caused that injury?
Cairns: That is correct.
Temm: Would it be correct to draw the conclusion that the eye and nose were injured similarly by one blow from a blunt instrument?
Cairns: Yes.
Temm: A blunt instrument of course is a term that can cover many things when it is used as a contrast to a sharp instrument. Give us the kind of things you considered. You mentioned a piece of wood?
Cairns: Yes, a hard substance without a sharp surface.
Temm: I suppose if an All Black came out of the forwards with a black eye it could be considered he was struck with a blunt instrument?
Cairns: Yes.
Temm: When it comes to a question of the injuries on the face?
Cairns: There is nothing to indicate the type of weapon used.
The Crown theory concerning the louvre shooting of Harvey Crewe could have been just as effectively demolished but the defence counsel made no attempt to do so. Harvey Crewe could have been shot while standing in a totally different part of the lounge, indeed he could have been shot in a totally different part of the house and his body placed in the armchair shortly after death. That at least is the view several pathologists have given to me.
There can be no doubt that the body of Harvey Crewe was in that armchair for a considerable period of time after death but it does not follow that he was in the chair at the moment he was shot. For the theory of the louvre shooting to have any tenability the Crown had to have Harvey sitting in that chair; consequently the factual pathological evidence of Dr Cairns was extended to a fanciful reconstruction. It should have been demolished by the defence; it wasn’t.
