Beyond Reasonable Doubt?, page 42
During my interviews with Arthur Thomas I tried hard to obtain from him a confession. The arguments I used were varied, including the fact that a penitent, self-confessed murderer was more likely to get paroled than a man defiantly still protesting his innocence. I talked to him of the damage the continuing fight to establish his innocence was having on the public’s confidence in the police, the body politic, the legal system. I believe I tried harder than Bruce Hutton had tried to get that confession. I certainly tried for a longer period. He never broke. Never even wavered. I could quote many pages of his response. Perhaps the following few lines will suffice:
‘Justice. The system. The judges. The police. They are all important. But above all of those is truth. Surely the whole of our society is based on that? If a person commits a crime then he must go through the courts and be punished. If a person is innocent and is found guilty then surely he has the right to appeal, to protest, to make moves, to put right what is wrong. That is the guts of our case now. It is not so much me. I’m stuffed. I’ve lost everything. The fight is to get this justice system put right. At the moment it has gone wrong. Very wrong. An innocent man is in prison. We have got to fight now. To make sure that it does not happen again. I’m thinking of the kids who are growing up. The kids of prison officers in here for example. This justice system is for them, isn’t it?’
This man who still speaks today of his marriage as if it had a future has been permanently damaged by the past. We can never undo the wrong that has been done to him. The least we can do is acknowledge that wrong.
There is no doubt in my mind that a miscarriage of justice has occurred in the case of The Queen v. Arthur Allan Thomas. I believe that an innocent man is at present serving a life sentence for crimes he did not commit. New Zealand has a ten-million dollar man in Arthur Thomas, for that is the minimum it has cost to get him convicted and keep him convicted. It was a poor investment because while Thomas languishes in prison the guilty ones walk freely among you.
8
An Open Letter To The Prime Minister of New Zealand
Dear Mr Muldoon,
Early in May 1977, you made several public statements about the Thomas case. When asked if you were satisfied about the outcome of the trials you are reported as saying:
‘I don’t think anyone who has studied this case closely, as I have, can be in any way satisfied because the verdict was based on circumstantial evidence.’
Many lawyers and judges would doubtless take issue with you on that remark and would extol the virtues of circumstantial evidence in general, while perhaps deploring the quality of circumstantial evidence brought against Arthur Thomas.
I believe that with regard to the case of The Queen v. Arthur Allan Thomas you were absolutely right to express dissatisfaction about the circumstantial evidence. The quality of the Crown’s evidence was such that every essential ingredient of their case can be applied to another man. It is not my contention that this other man is in fact responsible for the deaths of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe but I believe the following illustration might usefully serve to demonstrate the possibility that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.
Based on sworn testimony and information that I have acquired, I believe the following case against Peter Thomas would convince any jury:
At the time Harvey and Jeannette Crewe died, 17 June 1970, Peter Thomas, a cousin, had been living with Arthur and Vivien Thomas on their Pukekawa farm for at least six months. He was employed by the Roose Shipping Company situated in nearby Mercer. His custom was to stay with Arthur and Vivien throughout the week and return to his family home some five miles away at weekends.
Access to Murder Weapon: The rifle that the Crown contended fired the fatal shots was kept in the bedroom of Peter Thomas. The ammunition was freely accessible whether from the kitchen or the garage.
Ability to use Murder Weapon: Peter Thomas confirmed to me when I interviewed him that prior to the deaths of the Crewes he was experienced at using a .22 rifle.
Access to Axle and Wire: The Crown contended that the wire found on the bodies of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe matched wire that the police removed from the Thomas farm. They further contended that an axle found on the bed of the Waikato river had been used to weight the body of Harvey Crewe and that this axle which had once been part of a trailer belonging to Arthur’s father had been removed from the Thomas farm for the purpose of weighting one of the bodies. To support this contention they produced the stub axles that the police had allegedly found on the Thomas farm tip. The stub axles fitted the main axle. The Crown made much of the fact that this farm tip was hidden away at the bottom of a field and that even a close friend of Arthur Thomas’s did not know of its existence. The premise behind that contention was that only Thomas could have removed the axle from his own farm and used it as a weight. Peter Thomas knew of the existence of the tip and admitted that on at least one occasion he had dumped rubbish there. He denied seeing the axle on the tip. If the axle came either from the tip or any other part of the farm, clearly Peter Thomas had free access to it.
Knowledge of Local Area: Peter Thomas has lived in the area throughout his life. At the time of the Crewe deaths he was nearly eighteen years of age.
Knowledge of Crewe Farm: At the Lower Court hearing Peter Thomas said he did not know the Crewes but had been on their farm some years before when it had been managed by Mr Handcock. During the second trial he testified that he did know the Crewes and again stated he had visited the farm when Handcock was manager.
Transport: Peter Thomas had at the time of the Crewe deaths a blue Peugeot 403 car. If needed he also had access to the trailer belonging to Arthur Thomas. Testimony was given on behalf of Arthur Thomas that his car had a very distinctive whine and a neighbour whose farm Thomas would have had to pass to get to the Crewe farm did not hear the Arthur Thomas car that night. The blue Peugeot owned by Peter Thomas did not have any such markedly characteristic noises. During the first week of the police investigation they were advised that on the morning of 18 June, the morning after the murders were allegedly committed, a blue car had been seen. It was backed up to the Waikato river and a man was washing it out. The area where this sighting took place is only a few miles from where the bodies were subsequently found. It is equally only a few miles from where Peter Thomas worked. The sighting was at 10.30 a.m.
Alibi: Peter Thomas slept alone and by his own admission could easily get to the back door from his room. The Crown without actually specifying a time have always contended the Crewes were killed very late in the evening after television closedown at 11 p.m. Arthur’s evidence that he never left the bed after retiring at between 9 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. is supported by Vivien Thomas. If Peter Thomas were to contend that he never left his bedroom there is no-one to support that contention.
Conflicting Statements from Suspect: The contradiction of not knowing the Crewes at the Lower Court hearing and then stating he knew them when testifying during the second trial has already been noted. Also at the Lower Court hearing he swore that he went to bed some thirty minutes after Arthur and Vivien then contradicted this during the second trial by saying that all three of them went to bed at the same time. At the Lower Court hearing Peter Thomas said: ‘I was sleeping in the house on the night of 17 June in the same room as the gun was.’ During cross-examination in the second trial he said when asked if the last time he could recall seeing the rifle it was in his room: ‘Yeah, it was usually behind the door but I had moved to another room which was right in front of the house. I moved before 17 June.’
Motive: Neither trial judge accepted that the Crown had established a motive for Arthur Thomas. I know of no possible motive for Peter Thomas. Motive is not of course an essential element in a murder trial. It is not necessary for the Crown to prove motive before an accused can be convicted.
I have above outlined merely minimum details. If the police and the Crown had pursued Peter Thomas as ruthlessly as his cousin was pursued then assuredly more damaging circumstantial evidence could be and would be adduced against Peter Thomas.
As I said at the beginning of this illustration of the dangerous ambiguity of the case brought against Arthur Thomas, it is not my contention that his cousin Peter was responsible for the deaths of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe; but with a situation like the one I have just outlined how can anyone least of all you, Prime Minister, be sure that justice has been done in the case of The Queen v. Arthur Allan Thomas?
* * *
Peter Thomas, Mickey Eyre, Len Demler are just three of the people that a prima facie case could be established against. There are others. One of these others is the woman who fed Rochelle Crewe who is guilty of being an accessory after the fact of murder at the very least. I have sent you under separate cover information which identifies that woman together with certain recommendations. To ensure that those recommendations can be effected I have refrained from publicly naming the woman at this present time. I am confident that you will agree with me that now the identity of this woman has finally been established it is clear that in the case of The Queen v. Arthur Thomas an appalling miscarriage of justice has taken place and that Arthur Thomas should be freed from prison immediately and granted a free pardon. I ask you, Prime Minister, to directly intervene and order the immediate release of this innocent man and recommend to the Governor General that Arthur Thomas be granted a free pardon. Your advisers may argue that such steps are unprecedented in your country’s history. They are not. I would refer your advisers to the Meikle Acquittal Bill of 1907. In the case of Arthur Thomas I do not ask lightly for these steps to be taken. Neither is the request made because I have discovered the identity of the woman who fed and tended Rochelle Crewe. Indeed if that facet is totally ignored, the argument for granting Arthur Thomas a free pardon is still totally overwhelming. I would ask you to consider the following facts which must surely lead you to the conclusion that a great wrong has been done to Arthur Thomas.
Suppressed Evidence: I have already within the body of this book cited various instances where evidence was suppressed during the trials and appeals and referrals. There is more evidence that has never been laid before a jury. Evidence of a crucial nature.
As mentioned earlier in this letter the Crown have always contended that Harvey and Jeannette Crewe were murdered during the late evening of 17 June 1970. David Morris during his final speech on behalf of the Crown at the close of the second trial remarked: ‘He (Harvey Crewe) was no doubt tired and relaxed when sitting with his wife in the lounge after their evening meal. The baby was bedded. Television was switched off.’ Inspector Bruce Hutton was even more explicit during his testimony and talked of the murders having been committed after television closedown. The only so-called evidence to support this theory is the fact that five days later when the bloodstained farm was discovered the television set was unplugged! It was nonsensical ‘evidence’ of this nature that obtained a conviction. A later double murder was vital for the Crown’s case. Arthur Thomas, Vivien Thomas and Peter Thomas all swore on oath that all three of them were on the Thomas farm that evening. That none of them went out. That after the evening meal and some television watching all three went to bed between 9 and 9.30 p.m. To weaken such a powerful alibi the police and the Crown contended that Arthur Thomas committed the murders after 11 p.m. Clearly, creating a picture of Thomas slipping from the marital bed and leaving the farm without disturbing his sleeping wife or cousin was a more credible proposition than asserting that all three were lying on oath and that consequently Vivien and Peter Thomas were at least accessories to murder. If the Crown had advanced this latter proposition they would have undoubtedly been torn to shreds by defence counsel asking: ‘Why then have neither Vivien nor Peter Thomas been charged?’ It may be argued that without any direct evidence it was perfectly proper for the police and the prosecution to play games and theorize about the actual time the murders were committed. If that argument is advanced, Prime Minister, it should be known that there is direct evidence as to the actual time Harvey and Jeannette Crewe died. Evidence that was made available to Inspector Hutton in August 1970. Evidence that was suppressed. Evidence that has never been heard by a jury.
The gate of the Crewe farm is, according to trial evidence, about a quarter of a mile from the gate to a farm owned by Owen Priest. On the night of 17 June 1970, Mrs Julie Priest retired to bed early, at about 8 p.m. The bedroom at the front of the house is in a direct diagonal line with the Crewe farmhouse. Between 8.15 p.m. and 8.45 p.m. Mrs Priest heard two shots. She was sure at the time and is sure today that those shots came from the Crewe farm. ‘I would go into any courtroom and swear to this,’ she told me. Tragically she was not asked to go into No. 1 Court in Auckland’s Supreme Court during either of the trials and give this testimony. It should be noted that Mrs Priest is not and never has been part of the pro-Thomas faction that exists in Pukekawa. Her husband was a Crown witness and with regard to the Thomas case both are very pro-police and very anti-Thomas. In an odd way evidence that is favourable to Thomas from such a quarter carries a particular strength. As already recorded in this book no thought was given by the police or their pathologist to the possibility that the Crewes had been shot until Jeannette Crewe’s body was recovered from the Waikato river on 16 August 1970. When Mrs Priest was advised of the discovery and of how Jeannette had died she immediately informed the police of the shots she had heard and the time she heard them. Inspector Hutton subsequently carried out a test. While he stood at the gate to the Priest farm one of his officers on the Crewe farm fired off a number of shots. Hutton was unable to hear them and assumed that Julie Priest was mistaken. This particular ballistic test has never been revealed before. What gun was used? What bullets fired? Where exactly were they fired from? Undoubtedly a .22 rifle was used; it would be pointless to use any other calibre. Which .22 rifle? This was not the only ballistic test to occur on the Crewe farm and remain secret. With regard to the test described above, Inspector Hutton advised Mrs Priest what had occurred. With regard to the second secret test he had no need to advise anyone. Owen Priest said to me:
‘On this particular day I was standing over in much the same place where Julie had previously heard the shots on the evening of 17 June. I was in the garden over by the fowlhouse which is near the bedroom that Julie had been in that night. The fowls were kicking up quite a noise. Suddenly I heard these two shots. A short while later Bruce Hutton and Mike Charles came down the road from the direction of the Crewe farm. I stopped them and said: “You just fired two shots up at the Crewes’.” Bruce Hutton was very startled. “How do you know that?” he asked. Quick as a flash I said: “I heard them.” And I did. He said: “We never fired two shots.” I said: “Yes, you did. They were from a .22 rifle, probably long range.” ’
Why, Prime Minister, did Inspector Hutton deny the firing? It should be noted that the cartridge case that Detective Charles subsequently found was .22 long range.
Even this is not an end to police firing tests that have remained secret until now. Mrs Priest told me of a third test. On this particular occasion she was aware that it was going to take place. ‘I went into our bedroom and I heard them firing up at the Crewe farm. This was during the daytime.’
It should be noted that the police louvre firing reconstruction took place after dark on the night of 13 October 1970. It should also be noted that Detective Charles was not present during that test. Clearly there were at least three other occasions when the police were firing a .22 rifle on the Crewe property. Is it not possible that the cartridge case found by Detective Charles on 27 October 1970 in a flowerbed on the Crewe property had been fired during one of these tests? Massive controversy has raged around that cartridge case. As will shortly become clear many people consider that it was deliberately planted to incriminate Arthur Thomas. It is possible that the explanation for its presence in that flowerbed is not police conspiracy but police stupidity, that the Charles case is a remnant from one of these secret tests. Such maladroit police behaviour would be in keeping with the entire investigation. To date there have been only two possible explanations. My investigations have established a third.
There are two curious postscripts to the two shots that Mrs Julie Priest heard between 8.15 p.m. and 8.45 p.m.
During my interview with Bruce Hutton he observed: ‘It could have been more than two shots. There could have been more than one shot at Harvey.’
During my interview with David Morris he stated his belief that Harvey and Jeannette Crewe did not die ‘after television had finished’ but earlier in the evening. The timing he put on it was ‘between 8.30 p.m. and 8.45 p.m.’
Clearly the man who led the police investigation and the man who led the prosecution of Arthur Thomas both believed Mrs Priest. If this evidence had been put before either jury and they had shared that belief the verdict would inevitably have been ‘not guilty’ in view of the fact that Thomas stood alone in the dock.
One more example of suppressed evidence out of the many that abound in this case will suffice. On Friday, 19 June, two days after the Crewes were last seen alive, Pukekawa farmer Ross Fleming was driving past the Crewe farm with his eight-year-old son Robert. At 7.30 p.m. the young boy saw sparks coming from the chimney on the Crewe farm. There can be little doubt that what the boy saw were fragments of partially burnt kapok from a cushion that was burning in the lounge fireplace. Someone had returned and was attempting to clean up the lounge and kitchen and also, if one accepts the opinions of Professor Elliot and Dr Fox, feed Rochelle Crewe. This sighting was only ten hours after Bruce Roddick had seen a tall fair-haired woman by the Crewe farmhouse, and eighteen hours prior to Queenie McConachie seeing a young child toddling about on the Crewe property.
At 7.30 p.m. on Friday, 19 June, Arthur and Vivien Thomas were attending a 21st birthday party at Pukekohe; they remained there until approximately 11.30 p.m.
