Beyond Reasonable Doubt?, page 50
From this time until the golf club dance between Jeannette’s engagement at Easter 1966 and her marriage in June, there is no evidence of Thomas seeing her, and in the interim he had married Mrs Thomas in November 1964.
Whether this was a happy marriage is not a topic upon which I propose to address you. I would, however, remind you that Thomas obviously had a clear recollection of seeing Harvey and Jeannette together for the first time: you may think a significant recollection for one who had lost all interest in her in December 1962.
On his own admission his was not the normal attitude of a married man seeing an old girlfriend interested in someone else: in cross-examination he agreed that ‘no-one in Pukekawa had more reason than me to be jealous of Harvey Crewe’.
That you may think was a very significant piece of evidence. No doubt Harvey Crewe appeared prosperous and had a well-liked wife, and no doubt Thomas was having his troubles financially – along with other farmers in the area who had been hit by the drought.
But to think of Harvey Crewe in terms of such jealousy, particularly in his very cautious answers under cross-examination, is the plainest evidence that Thomas viewed Harvey differently from other apparently prosperous farmers in the neighbourhood.
Now Thomas agreed that he knew of no-one else in the district with a similar attitude towards Jeannette. This, together with his acknowledged jealousy of Harvey, provide you may think, in the case of these two young people, the only kind of motivation there could possibly be for wanton destruction of their property, and the final tragic end to their lives.
No ordinary well-balanced person would behave in such a way.
But Thomas had a special attitude towards Jeannette; he had, he said, reason to be jealous of Harvey, and his own position was poor and with limited prospects.
Had he married Jeannette, as he had hoped to for so long, he would have been the master of the Chennell property, able to buy a new car and stock, and enjoy the fruits of a well-established farm.
Instead, he was the bare tenant of a leasehold interest in a poor farm, and under pressure from his bank and from creditors. He appears to have associated Jeannette with the relief of his money troubles – he said to Detective Johnston that if he needed money, Jeannette would lend him some.
Why should she have done so when she had never encouraged him, and on his own account, they had spoken only casually in the street on rare occasions since 1966?
You may think it highly impossible that she would have made such an offer; but what is significant is that Thomas thought she would.
Thomas is not on trial in respect of the incidents of burglary and arson. You may think, however, that his was the state of mind of a man motivated towards such acts. There is, of course, no direct evidence as to who was responsible for these. It should be remembered, however, that the burglar who left cash behind, took a brush and comb set, obviously being used by Jeannette; Thomas had given her another such set which was at the time no doubt wrapped up, unused, as it was at the time of the murders.
Now at the crucial time, the period up to 17/6/70, Thomas was under particular strain. In that month, he lost nine cows and two heifers; and on the very day of the murders, his wife prepared a reply to a letter of demand – and apparently made part payment.
Thomas and his wife – like Harvey and Jeannette Crewe – must have passed through Tuakau that day. We cannot know whether Thomas spoke to Harvey and asked for a loan which was refused, or whether he saw them in the car he could not afford with the girl he’d always wanted, or what precipitated the events of the evening.
Cow 4 may well have played a part – the prospect of the loss of another beast, and perhaps its calf as well, must certainly have weighed on his mind. He mentioned the sick cow to his dentist that day, and it was also mentioned to Mrs Rosemary Thomas, who rang about the ratepayers’ meeting. The same day he had incurred a bill on his motor car.
It is plain that he was under substantial pressure, on the evening of 17/6/70; he had reason to be jealous of Harvey; he had always aspired to Jeannette.
His is the only evidence of motivation for the killings, and you may think that the only type of motivation for these otherwise inexplicable murders.
Thomas and his wife have both claimed that he was home all that evening of 17 June. When his aunt called on the phone concerning the ratepayers’ meeting at about 7.30. you will remember there was talk only of a sick cow, not of a problem with a calving.
Shortly after the news of the disappearance was made public on 22 or 23 June, they and Peter Thomas say they had a discussion to fix their movements for the nights of the previous week.
You may indeed think it remarkable that innocent people should have such a discussion rather than spontaneously recall ‘that was the night of so and so’.
But more significant, according to both Thomas and his wife, it was in that discussion that they fixed the crucial Wednesday, the 17th, as the night when cow 4 calved.
Much later, in fact in October, Mrs Thomas produced Exhibit 351, in which she herself had written the alleged date of birth of cow 4’s calf as proof of how they were able to remember their movements that evening.
Now, of course, the document proves nothing of the kind. It is only as good as the entries made upon it, and Detective Inspector Hutton was not contradicted in cross-examination by Thomas in evidence when he said that on 27/10/70 Mrs Thomas acknowledged agreeing that of the four shed sheets seen by Detective Sergent Tootill on 25/10/70, only that containing birth of cow 4 had been fully written up as ‘I’ve been too busy’.
Mrs Thomas denied this in evidence, but to admit this would be to lose the whole basis relied upon as supporting her husband’s alibi. The unusual form of the entries in the shed sheet which you have seen you may think also suggests a hurried writing up for the benefit of the police.
Nor is her later conduct consistent with the calf’s having been born on 17/6/70. If shortly after 23/6/70 – the day of the television report and also the day cow 4 was shot – the Thomases really believed that cow 4 had calved six days before, Mrs Thomas could never have told Detective Johnston that the interval between birth and shooting was only two days – as she repeated twice. She must have done too much work in connection with the cow and its calf over the six days to have forgotten it.
And if they had fixed 17/6/70 by the birth of the calf, both Peter Thomas and accused would surely have remembered this – Peter when he gave evidence and accused when he was interviewed by Detective Senior Sergeant Hughes. Peter Thomas, in fact, gave a totally different account. He said that on the Wednesday he and Arthur were at the shed together before dinner and that Mrs Thomas was not present. He made no mention of calving, as one would expect, if it occurred only two days before the shooting on 23/6/70 – that is the Sunday when he was away from the farm.
Mrs Thomas in evidence of the 17th claimed to have fixed the cow in her mind by reference to the trip to the dentist.
This was quite contrary to what she had said in her written statement, and you may think was plainly an afterthought.
In truth, I would submit that whenever the calf was born, it was not the 17th; and the attempt to label it as born on 17th – the day of the notional birth date according to the Herd Improvement Association – has misfired.
Of course, in a way, despite the discussion of this matter at the trial, it is really a complete red herring.
This is because there is no reason at all why Thomas should not have performed the murders on the night of the day when the cow calved and after the calving. The real importance of this evidence is that it, with all the other evidence, shows that Mrs Thomas’s evidence cannot be relied on when she denies that Thomas is the killer.
I have already mentioned the curious discussion in the week after the bodies were discovered. As to the intervening period, we know little except that on the Friday night Mrs Thomas came home early from a function, followed by her husband some time later, her explanation being that she had to attend a cat show next day.
Friday was the day when Mr Roddick, the farm labourer, working for Mr Chitty, claimed to have seen the lady inside the fence enclosure watching him feed out hay. In view of his account that the Crewe car was out of its garage and by the fence, and the woman made no attempt to conceal herself, you may think that Mr Roddick was right when he identified the woman as the bride in the exhibit photo 60 (Mrs Crewe) but he confused the dates.
It is unreal to suggest that from his distance in the glimpse he had, he could later assert that the woman in slacks was or was not a particular individual. It is difficult to visualize anyone driving the Crewe car out of the garage to the position suggested, standing in full public view, returning the keys to where they were later found inside the bloodstained house, and then locking up.
An honest person would have reported it; while an associate of the murderer would never have returned in broad daylight and acted in this way.
It is true that Mrs McConachie said that on the Saturday afternoon she had seen a child running about inside the road gate, and also a light-coloured car. On the Saturday, Mrs Thomas had returned from a cat show before midday; and she had travelled to and from it in her husband’s light-coloured vehicle.
The same comments as to the improbable however apply; unless it was thought that with the whole community at the football, the coast would be clear to return (as Dr Fox considers happened) and do what could be done to alleviate the tragedy.
I wish to repeat, as I said in opening, and make it quite clear that the Crown has laid no charge against Mrs Thomas, and that the question of her involvement or lack of involvement is totally irrelevant, except insofar as it relates to that of her husband.
The Crown does not suggest that Mrs Thomas was in any way responsible for these horrible killings. It may be that she has no more than suspicions of her husband’s involvement; or it may be that she has in some way attempted to act as a loyal wife and perhaps have tried to minimize the tragedy.
If you prefer Dr Fox’s opinion that the baby was fed, you might think that the elaborate double napkin on the child, each folded differently, was the work of a woman rather than a man; and that the presence of soiled napkins in the bed and a dirty milk bottle in the kitchen indicates an agitated stranger rather than a mother.
On the other hand, you may feel that Dr Caughey’s opinion is the preferable; and that any busy mother, through oversight, can leave soiled napkins about by mistake.
The Crown has called evidence on these topics so that you have full information before you.
It is in no way crucial to the Crown case against this accused to determine precisely what occurred over the period: the evidence against Thomas is consistent with either alternative and I do not press for acceptance of either of the doctor’s opinions.
The next stage was, of course, the finding of the bloodstained house and the disappearance of Mr and Mrs Crewe. It is sufficient to observe that Thomas took no part in the search, unlike his near neighbours, Mr Cathcart and Mr Murray, and despite his former interest in Jeannette.
Nor did he take any steps to tell the police that he recognized the old trailer when he saw the photos in the New Zealand Herald.
When Detective Senior Sergeant Hughes interviewed him, his purpose was to ascertain from Thomas the extent of any relationship between the two of them as a result of certain information he had received. This information clearly placed Thomas amongst the prime category of suspects.
You may think that Thomas supplied to the police on this as on subsequent occasions no more information than he knew very well they would be likely already to possess. He gave a qualified answer to the suggestion that he had had some sort of passion for Jeannette replying: ‘Well, sort of …’
Having seen him in the witness box, you may think that Thomas is very far from the guileless farm lad unable to comprehend the questions put to him by police officers. On this occasion he admitted only to telephoning Jeannette on a number of occasions – a statement which he has qualified in his evidence – and writing to her on a number of occasions both while she was here in New Zealand and overseas.
This answer also he has qualified in evidence. At no stage during this interview did he make mention of the visits to Jeannette about which we now know, or the presents he had given her.
Asked to account for his movements on the night of 17 June about which the police were particularly interested, he replied that he had been home every night of the week from 17 to 22 June and that he could not say why, but he would have been home with his wife.
At no stage did he refer to the calving of cow No. 4 as accounting for his movements on the night of 17 June. I need not remind you because it is no doubt still fresh in your minds, that Hughes claims that Thomas told him that whenever he had met Jeannette in either Tuakau or Pukekawa, they would stop merely to pass the time of day and he told Hughes that she showed him no encouragement whatsoever.
Hughes more importantly claims that Thomas told him that while he had been employed by an agricultural contractor some three or four years before the murders, he, Thomas, had actually worked on the Crewe farm and there seen Harvey; that he had had morning and afternoon teas in the house and that he had there met Harvey Crewe whom he described as a ‘decent type of bloke’.
You may think it significant that Thomas now denies telling Hughes these things which would both involve a closer association with Harvey Crewe than he is now prepared to admit and also a continuing relation with both the farm and Jeannette, who was no doubt present on the farm at this particular time.
At this early stage in the inquiry, before the bodies, and so the means of death, were discovered, Hughes clearly had little information other than that received from Thomas, to attribute to him, and you may think it remarkable that Thomas finds it necessary to give the lie to this part of Hughes’ evidence.
Thomas was subsequently seen by Detective Sergeant Parkes when he acknowledged in one way or another when shown a card, that he had written it to Jeannette and given it to her together with a brush and comb set.
He volunteered no further information on that occasion and it was not until the police investigation was well under way and he was seen by Parkes and Detective Sergeant Seaman on 7 September, that he gives them in any detail his true relationship and association with Jeannette.
At this stage, no doubt, this information was already in the hands of the police from other sources but it is particularly noteworthy that even then when being asked about his movements on 17 June, Thomas made no reference to the calving of cow no. 4. The only reference to a sick cow having trouble with calving was made with relation to his activities on the Tuesday night – i.e. 16 June.
Thomas, despite his inability to answer many of the questions put to him in cross-examination, claims to have a clear recollection that in these interviews with Parkes, he was told that the brush and comb set given by him to Jeannette in Christmas 1962 was found by the police still wrapped up.
If this is so, you may think it strange that at a subsequent interview with Detective Johnson, in answer to Johnson’s query as to whether or not he knew whether Jeannette had used this gift, Thomas replied … ‘It still may be wrapped up for all I know …’
If he was already aware of the fact that it was wrapped from information given to him by Parkes, he would have said what he knew about it.
His subsequent interviews really give nothing more away until on 28 October 1970, when interviewed by Detective Inspector Hutton at the stage where he was well aware of the evidence collated following the finding of both bodies, he made the significant remark that: ‘… I know that I am sitting on rocks; I have got to stick to what I have already told you otherwise I am a gonner.’
It was on this same occasion that when asked by the detective inspector why he had not told Detective Sergeant Parkes about the cow no. 4 calving, he replied: ‘They did not mention it so I did not tell them.’
This you may think is indicative of his attitude throughout the whole inquiry.
A pointer you may think to his state of mind was the remark overheard by Detective Sergeant Keith on 21 October 1970 that ‘If they think I am guilty I am and that’s that’.
This remark which, in some contexts, could be innocently explained, assumes significance from both the fact that both Thomas and his wife deny that it was made and it presents another clash between the accused and his wife and another witness who noted the conversation in his notebook at the precise time that he heard it – namely at 11.42 that morning.
One other matter requires mention at this stage and that is the evidence from Mr Eggleton that in the week following the notification of Mr and Mrs Crewe, Thomas brought into his shop a watch covered with blood and mucus which had had its glass front pushed in. It was never suggested that Eggleton did not receive such a watch in that condition but Thomas claimed that he had been confused with his uncle William Gladstone Colin Thomas who had had dealings over a seamaster watch with Eggleton about this time.
You will recall that Eggleton identified Thomas as a result of seeing a photograph in a local magazine showing Thomas wearing a black singlet at a dance. Thomas concedes that, like other farmers, he possesses and wears such singlets but denies that he has ever done so when visiting Tuakau or Pukekohe.
Mrs Batkin who gave plain evidence that he had, in fact, done so on a number of occasions, was not challenged as to this and it must be plain to you that the suggestion that Eggleton has mistaken Arthur Thomas for his uncle is totally without foundation.
We know, having seen William Thomas and heard the evidence of him and his wife, that he had previously dealt with Eggleton over the proposed purchase of an expensive candelabra for the fine new home which you may recall having seen overlooking the new Mercer bridge at the end of Mercer Ferry Road.
