Beyond Reasonable Doubt?, page 52
As a result, however, of urgent inquiries and the leave given to call Mr Shea and to recall Dr Nelson, a very different picture emerged. It is now plain beyond any doubt that Dr Sprott’s 3 and 4 are, in fact, indistinguishable; that the Charles shell and the Keith shell are indistinguishable; and that disregarding all the other evidence in the case, there is no reason whatever why the Charles shell should not have contained the bullet of Harvey or Jeannette.
The axle, like the shell case, although quite independent of it, would by itself justify Thomas’s conviction on the present charges. For the axle which had weighted Harvey’s body to have come from the matching stub axles on the accused’s tip, the existence of which was not known to his best friend and next-door neighbour Cathcart, is of most enormous probative value against Thomas. For this reason, no doubt, strenuous efforts were made to break the link both between the body and the axle and between the axle and Thomas.
Much cross-examination was directed to the police photographer present at the retrieval of Harvey’s body, plainly directed to showing that the axle was not connected to the body at the material time. For this reason, the body photos have been put in evidence and these together with the accounts of Inspector Gaines, Detective Inspector Hutton and the police divers establish beyond any doubt that Harvey’s body had wired to it the axle which broke as a diver exerted pressure on the body cradle and caused Inspector Hutton to lose his grip upon it, following which it was retrieved from directly under the body by a diver and was brought to the surface bearing the rust marks from wires which have been shown to you.
It is altogether inconceivable that that axle should have found its way by coincidence from its company with the stub axles from the Thomas farm to this remote spot, well down stream from the Tuakau Bridge and inaccessible except by boat, to the very place where Harvey’s body happened to end up.
Rejecting this challenge to the connection, I pass to the claims that the axle either never reached the farm or having reached it disappeared from it and by strange coincidence, happened to reach the body containing a bullet consistent with having been fired by Thomas’s rifle. Evidence was called as to the presence of scavengers and vintage car enthusiasts on the Thomas farm who might have taken an axle from it. It was also said by one Lee Martin, that Bruce Richard Eyre (who it is not suggested was a member of the family of Mickey Eyre) had removed some kind of axle from the farm when he took away a car on which he had been working. The true position is, however, that all the other original components of the trailer remained on the tip or farm despite the presence of the searchers and if these remained untouched, one would reasonably expect a similar history for the axle until such time as a heavy portable weight came to be required for the purpose of which we know.
The challenge to Rasmussen’s account that all the replaced components were taken back to the Thomas farm against his wishes can be briefly dismissed. Although it was put forcefully to Rasmussen that his evidence on this topic was wrong, it is now quite plain from the evidence of Mr Thomas snr, taken with Mr Rasmussen’s, that the accused’s brother Richard who was not called by the defence, both brought the trailer to Rasmussen and later returned it with all the components to the farm at the Mercer Ferry Road. The argument that it would have been uneconomic for Rasmussen to have done this work for the price he mentioned, was effectively answered by him and there can be no doubt that the axle with all the other components, found its way back to the Thomas farm and was used by the accused as the body weight for Harvey Crewe.
There can, on the whole of the evidence called, be no reasonable doubt that Arthur Allan Thomas on the 17th day of June 1970 at Pukekawa murdered Harvey and Jeannette Crewe.
APPENDIX 7
Letter from Minister of Police the Hon. A. McCready to the Hon. D. MacIntyre
19th September 1977
The Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. R. D. Muldoon, has referred your letter of 15 July concerning your discussions with Mr A. Thomas Snr, father of Arthur Allan Thomas, to me for reply.
You will recall that, with your letter to the Prime Minister, you enclosed the letter which was addressed to you by Mr Chris Birt of P.O. Box 648, Tauranga, who commented on the evidence given at the Arthur Allan Thomas trial pertaining to the statement of John Fisher of Feilding.
I have discussed the matter with the Deputy Commissioner of Police who advised that, in a statement supplied to Birt, John Fisher of Feilding related how in September or October 1970, when he had been working in the Pukekohe area, he had slaughtered some pigs and in so doing he had damaged his gold watch. Being unable to wash the blood off the watch because of the broken glass he had taken it in to Eggleton’s shop for repairs. Birt’s contention was that Eggleton had confused Fisher with Thomas and had given incorrect evidence.
The fact Fisher had a watch repaired by Eggleton first came to the notice of the police on 2 September 1971, when Fisher spoke to Constable C. W. Bell at Feilding. On 9 November 1971, a detailed statement was obtained from Fisher and his watch taken to a jeweller for examination to determine if there were any jeweller’s repair marks inscribed inside the back. Examination of the watch by G. Brandt, jeweller of Feilding, revealed one mark of significance. This was B10678E over 12/1/71.
This mark was known to be that used by William Eggleton, jeweller of Pukekohe, and the date 12/1/71 was the date of repair. It was then apparent that Fisher’s watch was not of any relevance to the Thomas trial.
Eggleton had given evidence that on Thursday, 24 June 1970, Arthur Allan Thomas had taken a blood-stained gold watch to him for repairs. He first reported this matter to the police on 23 February 1971, during the first trial from 15 February 1971 to 2 March 1971. Although this was eight months after the incident he was certain of the date and the fact that it was Thomas who had brought the watch to him. Fisher’s watch was repaired on 12 January 1971, about six weeks before Eggleton came to the police. He is adamant that he was aware of the significance of the Thomas watch incident a long time before he informed the police and is in no doubt about any confusion arising from the Fisher watch. Eggleton has viewed a photograph of Fisher and verified that he was not the man about whose watch he gave evidence. He was and still is positive about his identification of Thomas.
The police did not call Fisher as a witness in the second trial of Thomas or inform the defence of his claim because it had been clearly established that the repairs to his watch had no relevance to the matter before the Court. Fisher may have made an honest mistake about the date on which his watch was repaired, September/October 1970, whereas it was actually January 1971, but those actively interested in the Thomas re-trial movement have attempted to make capital of a totally irrelevant issue.
Fisher was not informed the result of police inquiries. As you are aware, the Thomas affair has been something of a saga and police members involved in the investigation were kept busy on the case from mid-1971 until some years later because of new trials, appeals and referrals to the Court of Appeal. Apparently the matter of informing Fisher was overlooked. This has now been rectified.
A further aspect of the evidence in relation to wristlet watches raised during the passage of the Thomas case through the judicial system should be brought to your notice. Evidence was given by William Gladstone Colin Thomas, an uncle of Arthur Allan Thomas, that he had had a silver-coloured watch delivered to Eggleton for repair during the early part of 1970. He had called on Eggleton in June of that year to see how the repairs were progressing. As a defence witness his evidence was thoroughly tested and presented to the jury along with that of Eggleton, who had told the Court that he remembered his dealings with William Thomas quite distinctly from those involving Arthur Allan Thomas.
Eggleton is quite certain that his transactions with Arthur Thomas, William Thomas and Fisher were unrelated in time and did not result in any confused state of mind on his part.
The evidence given by Eggleton was included in the police case heard by a jury on two trials and been subject to review by a judge or judges on five other occasions. Despite the critical and frequent testing of the evidence, Thomas remains convicted of the murders of Jeannette and Harvey Crewe.
Bibliography
LEGAL DOCUMENTS
First Trial Transcript: February 1971 to March 1971
Fifty-seven sworn affidavits dated variously 1971 to 1978
Final Speech of Crown Solicitor, David Morris, to second trial jury: April 1973
Five affidavits concerning the removal of an axle from the Thomas farm in 1965: November 1977
Initial statements made by a number of people to the police: Between 22 July 1971 and 26 February 1972
Lower Court Depositions taken in December 1970
Memorandum of Land Transfer from L. W. Demler to M. C. Demler: August 1962
New Zealand Law Reports: 1955, 1956, 1972, 1973
Report of Assistant Commissioner of Police to Commissioner of Police: 27 October 1973
Report of Detective Inspector Bruce Hutton to the Assistant Commissioner of Police plus a number of attached sworn affidavits: 24 October 1973
Second Trial Transcript: March 1973 to April 1973
Transcript of Appeal hearing and Appeal Court’s judgment: June 1971
Transcript of Appeal hearing and Court’s judgment: July 1973
Transcript of Mr Justice (now Sir Trevor) Henry’s summing-up to first trial jury: March 1971
Transcript of Mr Justice (now Sir Clifford) Perry’s summing-up to second trial jury: April 1973
Transcript of referral hearing December 1972 to January 1973, and transcript of Court’s judgment.
Transcript of Sir George McGregor’s report to the Minister of Justice: February 1972
NEWSPAPERS PERIODICALS
New Zealand newspapers and magazines: 1970 to 1978
Los Angeles Examiner: 1969
San Francisco Examiner: 1969
The Nelson Colonist: 1908-1909
The Grey River Argus: 1908-1909
The Press: 1908-1909
Parliamentary Reports for 1908-1909
Inangahua Times: 1908-1909
The Buller Miner: 1908-1909
The Wairarapa Daily Times: 1908-1909
Westport morning and evening newspapers: 1908-1909
Rolling Stone: 10 May 1973
Documentation and technical data from I.C.I. and IMI Australia and CAC Auckland: 1955 to 1975
Technical data from Roeszler & Sons Ltd Melbourne: 1965 to 1975
BOOKS, PERSONAL DIARIES, PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE, SPECIAL REPORTS
BAILEY, Earl. Quash the Verdicts – The Thomas Affair and All In The Public Interest. Auckland, 1976
SWAIN, Evan. The Crewe Murders, Auckland, 1971
SPROTT, Jim and BOOTH, Pat. A.B.C. of Injustice. Wellington, 1976
BOOTH, Pat. Trial by Ambush. Wellington, 1975
KIND, Stuart and OVERMAN, Michael. Science Against Crime. London, 1972
YALLOP, David A. To Encourage the Others. London, 1971
TAYLOR, Judge Pitt. A Treatise on the Law of Evidence. Tenth edition. London, 1906
MATTHEWS, Ella. Yesterdays in Golden Buller. New Zealand, 1957
PEARSON, Hesketh. Conan Doyle, His Life and Art. London
DU CANN, G. G. L. Miscarriages of Justice. London, 1960
KENNEDY, Ludovic. Ten Rillington Place, London, 1961
BELL, Terry. Bitter Hill, Auckland, 1972
Private diaries of Mrs Dorothy Cathcart: 1954 to 1960
Private diaries of Mrs Margaret Smith: 1969 to 1975
Private correspondence of Arthur Thomas, Allan Thomas, Vivien Thomas, Margaret Smith, and many others
CHAPMAN, Guy. The Dreyfus Case. London, 1963 Citizens of Pukekawa. Pukekawa Profile: A Jubilee Book privately published 1970
ELLIOT, Robert, Professor of Paediatrics, School of Medicine, Auckland. Report on Rochelle Crewe: 1970
FOX, Thomas, children’s physician to Auckland Hospital Board. Report on Rochelle Crewe: 1970
Various scientific papers, kindly supplied by their authors Dr Donald Nelson and Rory Shanahan of the DSIR.
DSIR Chemistry Division booklet. New Zealand, 1976
INDEX
Abbreviations: HC = Harvey Crewe; JC = Jeannette Crewe;
AT = Arthur Thomas; VT = Vivien Thomas
Abbot, Detective Graham 33, 288, 343–4
Adams-Smith, R.A., Q.C. 442, 445–6, 447, 451
Air Force, assistance in search by 14, 50, 61
Aitken, Alexander 156, 334, 510
Alexander, Ernie 46, 47–8
Allen, Mr (sheep farmer) 362
Ambler, Diane 38, 137, 164, 314, 316
Anderson, Andrew 433–8
Aplin, Frank 17
appeals:
May 1971, 27, 32, 271–5, 283, 303
February 1973, 292–302, 322
July 1973, 386, 390, 391, 393
December 1975, 396–9, 403–6
Arbuckle, Roscoe xiii
Ardmore Teachers’ College 35
Army, assistance in search by 14, 50, 61
Arnold, Alan (police photographer) 135–6
Arran, Lord xiv
Auckland:
court adjudicates on Crewe/Demler family dispute over Rochelle 55
and curtain order 58
HC and JC marry in 43
VT and AT’s last outing together 109
VT attends cat show in 97, 243
Auckland Bar Association 159
Auckland CIB 9, 77
Auckland Magistrates’ Court 106
Auckland North Shore 66, 76, 129
Auckland Star 28, 139, 309, 377, 389, 390, 392–3, 442, 443
Auckland Supreme Court 114, 299
anger outside (after first trial) 267–8
AT committed for trial at 158
police caravan outside 310–11
second trial attracts huge crowds 313
switching of exhibits 21, 400–402
Auckland Town Hall 20, 390
Auckland University 281, 283, 405
axles:
Bell and 291
Christie and 349, 350, 351
evidence links to AT’s father 152–3
as exhibits 85, 392, 426
Garrett on 76–7
and HC’s body xviii, 75, 76, 90, 148, 214, 250, 256, 413, 449, 491, 511
Sir Trevor Henry on 428, 429, 481–5
Hutton on 218
Johnston and 78, 79, 201, 226, 330
with matching stubs 77, 93
Morris’ attitude towards 421, 429, 511
police attempt to obtain information about 77, 78, 93
and Thomas farm 79, 90, 91, 93, 98, 99, 153, 166, 251, 349, 351, 358, 429, 449, 481
and trailer 76, 78, 79, 90–91, 357, 413, 481, 482
and wires 85, 392, 426, 449
Baragwanath, David 134, 303, 365, 385
and appeal (1971) 271
and appeal (1973) 293
cleverness of 168, 169, 330, 362–3, 364
cross-examines VT 237–44, 252, 357
and Eggleton evidence 221
and ‘guilty’ remark 154, 159, 239
meticulousness of 222
and Nelson’s measurement of Keith and Charles cases 400
refuses to allow Sprott to re-examine cartridge cases 372
and Roddick 168, 169, 330, 362–3, 364
Barr, Mr (of Barr Brothers) 195
Barr Brothers 45, 120, 139, 194–5, 255, 326, 328, 348
Batkin, Mrs Beverly 271
and AT ‘at dances’ 137, 138, 140, 164, 246, 314, 315, 353
AT refutes her evidence 232
on AT’s appearance 137, 164, 314, 315
on AT’s ‘passion’ for JC 138, 139, 151, 164, 316
and Demler girls’ wealth 34–5
and HC’s awareness of opportunity with the farm 44
and HC’s valuable gun 47, 189, 259, 320
on JC 45
lists items not taken in Crewe burglary 47
and pestering accusation 137, 139, 140, 164, 314, 316, 353
sees Crewes’ car in Tuakau on 17 June 11
Bayly, William 127
Bayly murders 10
Beard, Jennifer 17, 57
Beck, Adolf 433
Bell, Constable C.W. 514
Bell, Terry 290–91, 387
Bentley, Derek xiii, xiv, 264, 272, 374
Birt, Chris 514
Bombay (New Zealand) 3, 11
Booth, Derek 153, 203, 465
Booth, Pat 20, 28, 93, 114, 387, 389, 407, 409, 410, 442–3, 445, 446, 447
Booth/Sprott investigations:
and Auckland Star, 392–3
contend that Charles case would not contain a pattern 8 bullet 393, 505, 511
police response to 394–5, 402
results submitted to Martyn Finlay 391
Bourke, Ernest 433–7
Braithwaite, Wilfred 336, 508
Brandt, G. 514
Brant, Percy 250
Brewster, Jack 67, 331
Brooks, Frederick 358–9
Brown, Garth 246, 348, 357
Brown, Lloyd 53, 54, 108
brush and comb set 212, 461
At gives to JC 39, 88, 90, 120, 171, 200, 255, 354, 493, 500
and bedclothes wrappings in same room 475, 484, 488
and burglary, 46, 142, 495
card accompanying 56, 85, 88, 90, 327–8, 352, 500
Sir Trevor Henry on 475, 476
‘it could still be wrapped up’ remark 79, 202, 230, 253–4, 265, 271, 327–8, 475, 479, 484, 485, 501
Johnston and 79, 202, 230, 475
Parkes discovers 56, 200, 265
bullets:
ICI and see ICI (Australia)
individuality of fired 66, 477
and phone tapping 351
bullets (1964/2) 21, 397
bullets (AT’s farm):
AT gives up current stock of .22 ammunition (Exhibit 318) to police 79, 201–2
