Beyond Reasonable Doubt?, page 47
Apart from that, was Harvey Crewe shot from inside or from outside the house? If he did not commit suicide then, of course, he was shot from one place or the other, and that is quite common sense, is it not? It may be that both were possible. The Crown says that the fact that there was no sign of defence by Harvey Crewe, the proper inference for you to draw is that there was no entry to the house. Of course you will remember Mr Morris covered quite a number of other things, and you will consider those.
The defence has put demonstrations or reconstructions to you, which it claims would show – sometimes it seems to be impossible and other times you may think very difficult for this shot to go through Harvey Crewe’s head if he were sitting in that chair in the exact position in which it was found on the 22nd June, and of course it means that he could not even do that much (demonstrates) if he suddenly got a start. Well, it is for you to decide those things. What do you think? What is the common sense of it? Where was the shot fired – was it from inside? What was the stance of the marksman if he were outside? We just don’t know. We know, according to Dr Nelson, that he says that he could place himself in a position where he could execute the shot having the chair in the position in which it was found on the 22nd. I think Inspector Hutton said something about that too. On the other hand, of course, you have Mr MacKenzie, you have the other expert, in which they found grave difficulties in doing just that, and they, by drawing exact lines, suggested to you that Harvey Crewe could not have been shot from the louvre window. Well, you will weigh all these matters. It has been suggested to you by Mr Temm that the chair might have been around near the fire, in which case, of course, we get more complications than ever. Those are matters for you. That is where the chair was found on the 22nd. That is where, you may think, it was proved the blood had seeped, but is there any basis for ruling out that the shot was fired from the outside? It is a matter for you. Does common sense dictate that? If it does, on the facts as you find them, you can draw that inference. It is a matter for you. On the other hand you may think that the shot must have been fired from inside. Those are matters for you. See what conclusion you come to, but I do suggest to you that this is not a matter of fine reason because we have not got the set-up. We do not know exactly where Harvey Crewe was. We do not know exactly where the chair was, except for the fact that it was in a certain position when the blood dripped from it, and we do not know the stance of the marksman. We do not know a lot of things, but that is not to deter you if you think on a total consideration of this case the factors are relevant to it, that the shots were fired from outside, and in that, of course, you can take into account the finding of the bullet. Again, of course, it will require very careful consideration by you. You may agree with Mr Temm, I do not know, it is a matter for you, that the shot was not fired from there. So, having made that comment on it, I leave you to it.
Now I just want to deal very briefly with the night of June 17th. If there be no murder and suicide – which, of course, would involve I suppose, Harvey Crewe who shot his wife, the intervention of a third person to do the wrapping up and disposal of the bodies – then you have a double shooting some time during that night. Time is unknown. We have had evidence of the state of the meal. We have had evidence of the state of the table. We have had evidence of the situation found on the 22nd. There had been somebody in that house in the meantime even if it is murder and suicide. We have the situation of the state of this television set. We have the habits, the general habits of the Crewes as to the lateness of the meal and just how they usually acted on an ordinary night. Those are all matters that you can consider and it is by no means, you may think, right to say that the shooting must have taken place before the meeting of the farmers. The evidence would seem to suggest the contrary, but those are all matters for you. The time of the shooting, you may think, is in relation to the meal and what was found there, but that is as far as it can be taken, and therefore at some time during that night, if there be no murder and suicide, there was double shooting after the meal had reached that stage which you find about, and after this other evidence about the situation of the various chairs, the knitting, and things like that, and that, so it seems to me, is as far as you have that. It might be any time during that night but certainly before, of course, Mrs Crewe stirred herself to do the dishes, to do those things, but, so it seems to me, there is a fairly wide area of time there and one cannot say 7.30, 8.30 or anything else. I think there was some suggestion that they sometimes sat till 9 o’clock, something like that, before she moved to do the dishes. Well, there it is. It is a matter for you.
Now when that shooting took place, or before it, then someone got to that place, someone left that place and somebody took those bodies from that place wrapped in material got from that place. That all seems clear. Somebody did that. Now whoever did that was able to do it without detection because, despite the wide inquiries here, no-one has been found, no-one at all who can come forward and say that he saw any unusual movement of anything, any person, any car, or anything else that night, and so you then have the night of the 17th June. That, so it seems to me, is as far as that takes the matter. The next thing we know is the 19th June. Mr Roddick between 8.30 and 9.30 saw a lady in slacks. He said she had light brown hair, and you will remember the car he mentioned. That was a view 75 to 100 yards, so he estimated it. There was nothing then to excite his suspicion about anybody being there. He could not recognize Mrs Thomas at the police parade. She has darker hair than he said. You saw it. She denies, of course, that she was ever there. She says that was a normal day for her on the farm. Well, it is for you to weigh what you think of that view. You heard this man Roddick. He saw her at the time and there was no suspicion, and he is called upon later to give the description as best he can. It is some distance away. He seemed to have no particular reason to take notice. He does not tell us the colour of the slacks or anything else about the other clothing at all, but in his judgment for what it is worth, a man’s judgement, she gave the appearance of having light brown hair. Well, you will weigh that. It is not for me to say any more than that about it. As I told you, Mrs Thomas, although she cannot give any detailed account – and there is nothing very remarkable about that – of what she did that day, she says she was not there.
On Saturday, June 20th, Mrs McConachie saw the child outside about 1.40 p.m. That was a day Mrs Thomas was in Auckland, but she had returned home before that time. She again said that she was not there quite positively, and she says that so far as her movements after returning home are concerned, which was well before 1.40 p.m., that it was the usual day on the farm. Now someone fed Rochelle. There seems to be no doubt about that, and according to the medical evidence the feeding might have been as far back as Friday, the 19th June, which was the day Roddick saw the woman, or he said 48 hours, which I think takes it back to the 20th June which was when Mrs McConachie said she saw the child. Well, that is as much as the police have been able to unearth about that, and I pass from it.
I pass to the evidence which the Crown claims points to the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as it must to the reasonable exclusion of anyone else as the killer, so that his denials of being in the area are false. As I told you, this evidence must be weighed against the evidence which the defence has called and in the light of the defence criticism of this evidence. Now according to accused he thought it was the night of 23rd June that he had discussions with his wife concerning his movements on the night of the 17th June, and Inspector Hutton’s evidence about that I will just shortly read to you:
‘I said to him, “How can you remember that particular night in preference to others?” He said, “Well, about a week later when the fact the Crewes were missing was known, Vivien and I discussed what we had been doing that night.” I said to him, “What else did you do on the 17th June?” He said, “I think we both went to our dentist.” ’
He mentions a sick cow in the implement shed, and he was asked how he remembered that particular night and he said Vivien and he discussed what they had been doing that night.
That, of course, does not fix a date, but the accused was pressed on it here and he said he thought it was the night of the 23rd and a paper was produced to give a foundation for that. That is the night, according to the records, when the No. 4 cow was shot, and that was a time, as you will recollect from his evidence in answer to Mr Morris, that he had no difficulty in locating his rifle for that purpose. You may find that fact important, if you conclude that the rifle fired the fatal shots just six days earlier. It is a matter for you. It is natural for people to discuss a reported murder or disappearance of people from a bloodied house and the abandoned baby when those facts make headlines, but why at this stage, you may ask yourselves, should either the accused or his wife’s movements be the subject of conversation? This is the 23rd. No-one has pointed a finger at them, and indeed you may think that then the matter was a complete mystery – the paper report no doubt shows that. Nevertheless, at this early stage, the day after the news broke according to the accused, and he fixed it as being that day, he is discussing with his wife the very essence of what is now put forward by the defence in this case, the answer on his trial. It is a matter for you. I am not suggesting it is of any particular importance at all, but it is a circumstance and all the circumstances are important here, I will suggest to you in a moment. Mrs Thomas puts the first discussion as perhaps a week after the first broadcast and the discussion, of course, was concerning her and his movements. So she differs from him. He has come right forward, although being a little bit uncertain, but you may think he has come right forward to the 23rd immediately after the news broke, when he is on oath here and he has had time to think about it. So you have here, according to himself, a discussion as to his whereabouts on that occasion as early as that. She says it was about a week later. Well, so be it. Then we have Peter Thomas, the cousin, and he deposes to a discussion and he says that discussion resulted from inquiries they heard the police were making. Now of course you will see at once that that probably makes sense and it is understandable. According to him – it is a question of what faith you have in him – he said that Mrs Thomas said she wondered what they were doing that night. Now if Mrs Thomas was wondering at that stage – it is a matter for you and not for me at all – then of course this discussion on the night of the 23rd could not have solved anything, because there would be no wondering left, would there? They had the records of the cow, they had everything there. That is what he says. What value you place on it is purely a matter for you, but if that is what she said, that she was wondering what they were doing that night, that, you may think, may throw some light on this case. It is a matter for you and not for me. Anyhow, from these discussions, according to him, they went on about the sick cow in the shed. He is quite uncertain about the dates. Attempts were made to fix it and he fixed it with reference to when he was seen and when he was not seen, and I cannot make head or tail of that. But there you are, if you think that that conversation appears to be so much later than the two others deposed to by Mr and Mrs Thomas, if you have any faith in this cousin at all, then according to him they were wondering, and she wondered what they were doing that night. I simply mention these things. They only have the weight that you give them, but their circumstances are to be weighted and combined with and discussed, I suggest to you, with the other and more important things.
Now the next discussion given in evidence you may find of importance but that is a matter for you. Detective Johnston spoke to accused on the 13th October on a number of matters. The brush and comb set had then been found in an unwrapped state. The evidence on that is this:
‘I asked the accused whether he knew Jeannette had used the brush and comb set that he had given her. He said he didn’t know, it could still be wrapped up for all he knew.’
This was a gift made years ago and, according to him, never mentioned again, and it was in fact, you may consider, still wrapped up. Mrs Crewe senior said that the blanket recovered near her son’s body was usually kept in the same room where the police say they found this unwrapped set. Now from that it is a matter that you can infer, if you wish, it is a matter for you, that the killer went into that room to get that blanket. It is a matter of inference, you may think it is worthless, but was that remark – and the accused did not really deny it – pure coincidence or does it point to the accused’s probable knowledge of this unusual, you might think, keeping of an unwrapped gift? It is only a circumstance, but it is one which I am going to invite you to consider, as I think you must, in the totality of the circumstances.
Now the only other evidence of this nature that I wish to discuss with you is that of Detective Keith. He says:
‘I could observe them through the cracks in the garage wall. Mrs Thomas said something to the accused. I could not hear what she said. He then replied “If they think I am guilty I am, and that’s that.”
And you will appreciate it was put to him in cross-examination that he said on a previous occasion or agreed on a previous occasion that something more was added to that. Well, you will weigh it. This statement is under no circumstances to be treated by you as a possible confession. First of all, do you accept – and it is a matter for you – that it was said. Detective Keith – you heard him criticized – swears that it was, swears that he took a note of it. It is denied by the accused and his wife, although the accused does add what you might think a rather strange thing, it is a matter for you, because he says this:
‘ “Do you say no such conversation took place?” “I say that.”
‘ “So that that detective is mistaken in that, you say?” “He only heard [part] of the sentence if he heard that sentence.”
‘ “So he got it wrong?” “That is if I said that.”
‘ “Did you say anything like that?” “Nothing like that at all.”
‘ “Then he has got it entirely wrong then?” “Yes.” ’
Now if you do accept Detective Keith – and that is a matter for you – we do not know what the whole context of that discussion was, and without the context its true purport cannot be known, and that is why I warn you that under no circumstances are you to treat that as in any way being a confession or tending to a confession of guilt, but if they were talking like that, and if Mrs Thomas knew her husband’s every movement on that night, and they had each satisfied the other that the accused could have no possible connection with the death of the Crewes, why should a discussion of that type take place? It is a matter for you. Why should they be talking in any context about that if, as he says, as early as the 23rd June they had worked out what they were doing? She knew what she was doing, and she knew up to a point what her husband was doing. You may consider that if you think that was said. You may consider that in the generality of the evidence. What its value is – it may be nothing at all – is for you.
I want now to turn to the really important items in the Crown case. Whilst you consider each separately to see what has been proved, in the end it is a matter of assessing the weight or value of all the circumstances proved and in the light of all the evidence. It is the combined weight of circumstances, their totality that in the end must be weighed by you against the claims of the defence.
Now when Harvey’s body was recovered there was a blanket near it, and, according to Mrs Crewe senior, the bedspread – call it what you may – was usually in the spare bedroom, and I draw your attention back again to what I have already mentioned, that that was in a place in a room where the unwrapped gift was found. Is it possible that the accused has in some unguarded moment given himself away? By itself of course, this would carry little weight, but you ought to bear it in mind. We have a succession of other circumstances in evidence, and each has its importance and weight in conjunction with all others. In Harvey Crewe’s head and in Jeannette Crewe’s head there was lead from a bullet with No. 8 stamped on it. These bullets had been out of production for many years so not everybody would have them. Plenty of people would, there is no doubt about that, and in fact the accused did have them, and that is nothing unusual in itself. It only means that the accused had ammunition similar to that which killed the Crewes, and other people may also have similar ammunition.
