My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« New Arthur Allan Thomas book just over a week away | Main | I hate Ian Wishart because... »


Chuck Bird

"Wives are forever protecting husbands!"

Yeah right. What is the likelihood of a wife lying to protect her husband she know he murdered a couple because of feelings he had for a woman years ago that had declined to go out with him?

Combine this with his cousin also providing him an alibi as while as another relation who phoned the house on the night he allegedly slipped out in his noisy car.

Then there is the matter of who fed the baby and helped get rid of the bodies. I remember the case at the time. I could not beleive how he was found guilty.


The difficulty at the time was finding someone with a motive .. or indeed enough motive to perform such a horrendous crime. Its not as if this thing was drugs related.

Also, obviously, a problem with witnesses.

In summary, there was insufficient evidence to convict anybody, and that surely is the whole point. There is still insufficient evidence to convict anybody!

Chuck Bird

"In summary, there was insufficient evidence to convict anybody, and that surely is the whole point."

I agree. Can you now explain why Johnston planted evidence then? What was Johnston's motive?


Duh .. to create enough "evidence" to convict somebody!

That has been the consensus.


Johnston presumably planted evidence for one of two reasons:

1) The logical reason. To ensure somebody was convicted so the police could look like they solved the crime. As a result, everyone thinks Johnston and co are great detectives.

2) The reason we don't want to believe...Johnston needed to cover up a crime that he committed. There is evidence to suggest there's a good possibility Johnston was responsible, which is the reason why Ian Wishart has written this book. If there wasn't any strong evidence, Wishart wouldn't have wasted his time.

Ian Wishart

One of the pieces of evidence that strongly put Johnston in the frame in my view was the arsons at the Crewe house after he became the investigating detective in 1967.

Arsonists are relatively rare creatures from a particular personality type. Most are addicted to lighting fires, but a smaller subset use them for intimidation, which is exactly how Johnston did it.

It seems beyond coincidence that a threatening fire-lighter should be assigned to the Crewes, and suddenly they are being terrorised by fires.

Chuck Bird

"The logical reason. To ensure somebody was convicted so the police could look like they solved the crime. As a result, everyone thinks Johnston and co are great detectives."

Ben, I do not think many police would plant evidence solely for that reason.

I think the police would genuinely believe they had the right man before they would plant evidence.

In the Watson case I think that would be the case. It would appear that Johnston may have planted the axle on his own to convince the other cops. Once they were sure they had the right man the rest of the police would go along with other things. Probably only a small number knew of panting the cartridge case. after that the rest were sure he was guilty.


I have a couple of questions

Firstly, are Johnstone's nots on the 1967 burglary referring to two separate dressing tables, ie were the untouched cash etc in a different dressing table from the stolen items.

Was the room where the 1968 fire started definielty Rochelle's bedroom?

Also what is the correct link for the pdf index for the book?


"I think the police would genuinely believe they had the right man before they would plant evidence."

I'm not convinced that's accurate in the case. How, at any stage, did they genuinely think AAT was the right man?!

It would be more difficult to do nowadays with the technology now available - but I believe it's not beyond the realms of possibility that police have put someone in handcuffs simply to ensure their reputation as a good detective has been preserved.

Chuck Bird

Ben, that is why I think the is a reasonable chance that Johnston did it.

I cannot accept a group of police would plant evidence to frame an innocent man of murder to clear their books.

See my earlier post. If Johnston planted enough evidence to convince the other police AAT was guilty they would go along with things like rigging the jury,


Chuck, the problem is we don't know EXACTLY what happened. It is all hypothesis and reasonable doubt stuff really.

A bit like the way the Bible was written. Decades later, writers mixing fact and fantasy.

Chuck Bird

Peter, they did not know exactly what happened at the time but that did do stop the police planting evidence to put an innocent man away.

If you stuck to the topic you might have more credibility.


I see Chuck - I misinterpreted your earlier post. I agree - I'm almost finished the book now, and there's a strong case against Johnston.

Peter - you seem eager to debate the Bible - this isn't the thread to do it. However I advise you to download a free copy of Ian's book The Divinity Code.



I do own a copy of "The Divinity Code". It is pretty much out in Fantasyland by Page 10. Submerged cities, Duracell batteries (Page 13)


Almost finished the book & it makes perfect logical sense. These corrupt police got caught out big time.
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we start to deceive ....."
OK ... to be fair let Hutton speak in his own defence.Will he? What of the Police? They are challenged. Front up.
What happens if you or me end up standing where A.A.T. once stood?
We should demand & expect that principles of justice & truth be observed. It is a wake-up call to read of the disgusting & obscene abuse of trust & power and the willingness to go the extra mile in lying, schemeing and perverting.Destroying lives & families along the way.
Well done Ian for prising open the scab. Appreciated the vignette of Sir Robert Muldoon along the way.
(I bet Len Johnston did it too).

Chuck Bird

Is this last post by "Peter" legitimate or is someone using his first name?


Hey Mate, my apologies, hadn't read the above letters written by another "Peter".
Ian, can you ammend my identity above to Peter # 2. Or Realist or something.
Cheers, Peter # 2


Gee - I couldn't believe my eyes when I read that Peter #1 had seen the light and dramatically changed his stance! Too good to be true.

Peter #2 - it would be fantastic if the police fronted up - but Greg O'Connor's comments suggest they've already come to a conclusion before bothering to look at the information objectively (just as they did 40 years ago).

Bruce Howard

I doubt that any of your comments come first hand with the knowledge of Len Johnston as a man. I worked with Len at the Otahuhu C.I.B for several years and will attest that he would have had no part in arranging a crooked raffle let alone a murder as you suggest. This rubbish of Johnston setting up Thomas as the fall guy and having also raped Jeanette is totally absurd if you knew the man. He was devoted to his wife and was a decent man and Ian you have sullied the man without facts to back it up. It is a disgusting bit of journalism.


Bruce - let's take a step back - it's pretty clear police planted evidence to set up Arthur Thomas (or, for some reason, do you still think he's guilty?). Working on the assumption that we all agree evidence was planted to set up Arthur Thomas, which officer do you think it was that planted the evidence?

The comments to this entry are closed.