A response to NZ Herald’s errors on Crewe book

A week might be a long time in politics, but a month is an eternity in publishing. Since last month's editorial the new book Arthur Allan Thomas: The Inside Story has finally hit the streets to a storm of controversy.

After reading the book, Rochelle – the only daughter of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe – has come forward to call for the case to be re-opened, as have many others. Some of my colleagues in the mainstream media have, however, been too dim-witted to accurately report what I wrote, contributing to a degree of misunderstanding and misinformation floating around in regards to what Arthur Allan Thomas: The Inside Story alleges against the late Detective Sergeant Len Johnston in regard to the Crewe murders.

It is true, as Herald journalist Andrew Laxon wrote this month, that I offer a "speculative" hypothesis of exactly how the murders went down. But that "speculation" is built on a solid foundation of circumstantial and in some cases eyewitness evidence that links Johnston to the crime.

When Laxon wrote that "Wishart...claims that Johnston was nicknamed 'The Fitter' and had a reputation for threats and violence [and Wishart] admits he has no evidence to support his theory", he is demonstrably wrong, as thousands of people who have read The Inside Story now realise.

I have two separate and independent eyewitnesses, one a former police colleague of Johnston's, who told me they had each been personally threatened by Johnston – one directly in regard to the Crewe case. This is new evidence, published for the first time in the book in full. It is direct testimony, not hearsay, as to Johnston's character and actions.

It is true I don't have "hard" evidence that puts Johnston at the murder scene when the shots were fired, but Laxon is wrong to rubbish me for that. I have a darn sight more hard evidence that puts Johnston inside the Crewe house leading up to the murders, whereas police had nothing that put Thomas there and they still managed to convince two juries he was guilty.

The reality is, if anyone had the smoking gun, "I saw him standing beside the bodies" kind of evidence, this Crewe murder mystery would have been solved 40 years ago. We are all here debating the case because there is not a shred of forensic evidence linking any particular individual to the crime scene.

The entire case against Arthur Allan Thomas was built on speculation, and fabricated evidence. As I say, there was no evidence to put Thomas at the crime scene and in fact he had an alibi supported by two people showing he was 15 kilometres away. The argument that Len Demler did it was built on speculation, and no evidence either.

Pat Booth's daft claim that Jeannette Crewe did it then killed herself after shooting Harvey is entirely speculation, and in fact goes hard against the evidence – for example, the blow Pat claims was delivered by Harvey was so viciously hard that it knocked six teeth out, smashed her nose and an eye socket, and according to the pathologist cracked her skull right around like a boiled egg. The pathologist also said the injuries were consistent with the butt of a rifle being smashed into her face with extreme force.

Pat's "domestic violence" theory fails to demonstrate how a mere punch from Harvey could have caused such traumatic skull injuries. More to the point, Pat Booth's theory disintegrates on this: Jeannette was so badly wounded the head injuries alone could have killed her the same way that actress Natasha Richardson died on the skifield last year after whacking her head on the snow, and suffering an epidural hematoma – bleeding on the brain. There was no way Jeannette Crewe was bouncing around helping her father move Harvey's body, and romping with Rochelle as the "mystery woman" seen by witnesses. Further, the angle of the shot into Jeannette's head did not lend itself to suicide, without massive and extreme gymnastics on Jeannette's part, involving holding both arms backwards, and bolt upright into the air, while she lay face down on the ground – a very odd stance for a suicide shot.

I honestly can't understand why the media (TVNZ, the Herald, RadioLive, Otago Daily Times, the Dominion Post) still give a shred of credence to Pat Booth, and allow him to keep twisting the knife into Rochelle and her family with his bizarre, impossible and hurtful allegations against her mother.

In contrast, the case against Johnston that I make in The Inside Story is strong enough for a retired detective inspector, Ross Meurant, to call it "disturbingly possible" in the Herald, and Laxon's opinions need to be measured against Meurant's more informed reading of the evidence and the nuances it presents. The submissions detailing the hard evidence that does exist, the possible motive and Johnston's ample opportunity, are far stronger in fact than Crown Prosecutor David Morris was able to rustle up against Thomas. If you doubt me, read the book.

When Andrew Laxon writes "Even Wishart admits that his theory, which has been dismissed by other commentators, is "entirely speculative" and could be wrong", he quotes me out of context. For a start, the "other commentators" had not actually read The Inside Story when they "dismissed" it, and secondly nowhere in the book do I suggest the facts I've uncovered are "wrong" – the claim is an example of the Herald journalist interviewing his typewriter and missing the keyboard entirely.

Laxon is right that I admit my hypothesis of how the crime might have unfolded in the Crewe house with Johnston is "entirely speculative", but the evidence underpinning this speculation is firm, both circumstantial and direct testimony, and in this regard makes my evidence stronger than the evidence that convicted Thomas and stronger than the evidence used to blame Demler.

Ultimately, the test of whether I've made a convincing argument is over to readers of the book to judge for themselves, but I can't let Laxon's misinterpretation of my case against Johnston to go unchallenged, and the Herald refused to correct their errors – ironic when you consider the other glaring factual mistakes in Laxon's piece that I brought to their attention and which they readily corrected.

Example? Well, the Herald writer opened his synopsis of the case against Thomas by saying police had accused Thomas of perching on a window ledge to shoot Jeannette through an open window, then rushing inside to club her in the face with the gun, then shooting her again on the floor, and finally shooting her husband who evidently had snoozed through the mugging and two gunshots and was still in his armchair. Of course, astute readers will know that was never the police case against Thomas, and Jeannette was only shot once, not twice. It is commonly accepted Harvey was shot first.

If that's what passes for fact-checking at the Herald, somebody pass me a laugh-meter next time they take a supercilious crack at yours truly.

Somebody killed the Crewes. We know it wasn't Thomas, we now know it is highly unlikely to have been Len Demler. We are left with a cop who fabricated the entire case against Thomas, who knew where to get objects only the killer could have known about, who according to a former colleague had lit fires to intimidate, and who threatened to kill people who crossed him. This same cop turns out to have known Jeannette Crewe in advance of the murders, and been in her house, prior to a series of intimidatory arsons and then the murder.

Because of this book, New Zealanders now have a much clearer picture of the Crewe murders than they have ever had in the past, and Rochelle Crewe has come forward as a direct result. The public, and Rochelle, are entitled to ask the obvious questions that arise from Johnston's involvement in the investigation: did he do it? Shouldn't someone be held accountable at some level?

There are two inquiries we need to have, really. The first one is easy. In my view Bruce Hutton should be taken in for questioning, read his rights, and charged under the Crimes Act with perverting the course of justice. The evidence is already there, police could do this tomorrow without breaking a sweat, if they were honest. Of course, finding honesty inside Police National Headquarters is like finding gold in a coalmine.

The second inquiry should be held into who killed Harvey and Jeannette. It is unlikely that court action will follow as, in my view at least, the probable culprit is dead. Nonetheless, a finding based on the civil law test of balance of probabilities would give closure to the Crewe, Demler and Thomas families, and for the rest of us provide some valuable answers to a $50 million investigation made vastly more expensive than it should have been as a direct result of Hutton and Johnston's corruption.

Comments

[Peter]

What I read above seems like a game of word play, more reminiscent of "The Divinity Code" than anything else in its style.

It seems absurd that so much speculation can be directed at Len Johnston, simply on the basis that he was a more likely murderer than Arthur Allan Thomas!

Are we merely comparing a probability of 1% and 2% here? What about the probability that it was someone else again - riding at perhaps 93%?

Len Johston was a policemen hired to solve crime, not to perform crime. It is possible to see all his actions as being directed at getting a conviction.

I don't see a murderer being identified 40 years on, by reopening the case. We need new witnesses, material new evidence.

I would prefer to see the police focus on crime today. Yes, New Zealand like all countries has a legacy of unsolved murders. Sometimes criminals get lucky.

Sometimes the innocent get unlucky too. I thought that is why Arthur Allan Thomas got his compensation.

[Pete]

Actually we do need an investigation by an independent party such as a retired judge (preferably Australian). As a Kiwi in his mid 60's I find it very distressing to have witnessed the steep decline of the NZ Police force.
It is only by reviewing such cases that lessons can be learned and organisations improve. Regrettably most NZ'ers don't trust the police to investigate themselves.
You have only to look at the recent high profile stuff ups (Kahui, Louise Nicholas, Scott Watson, Davis Bain etc) to know that there is something seriously wrong with the NZ Police, and the way they go about their duties.
One issue occurs to me. whilst other organisations have matured and become increasingly professional, the NZ Police have stood still. Police recruits are generally, those of lower educational standard, who are inculcated in the Police methodology at Trentham. It is from these ranks that our detectives and Police leaders come. It would greatly concern me to have the police investigate an issue for one of my family. That is if you can get them to attend!
One way to restore public confidence is by total transparency. Get rid of the Police Complaints Authority and put in its place a truly independent body that has some teeth. Also, look at introducing graduate programmes into the police force so that the investigative branch has access to greater professionalism.
Finally, you just can't read this book and not be seriously disturbed. The issues around the Thomas evidence strike at the heart of our justice system. This is larger than the Crews, and Thomas: it strikes at the core of the system every NZ'er should be able to rely on.
Just my two bob's worth!

[Peter]

Well Pete, if there needs to be an inquiry on the Police Force - let us look at the Police Force today and not confuse the issue by reconsidering dead unsolved murder cases!

[Pete]

Actually, it is not the murder case per se that interests me as much as the unprofessional investigative processes that have been evident in quite a few important enquiries. I feel that it is only by examining the methodology of the police in some of these enquiries that we will learn enough to go forward.
Apart from this there is the matter of social justice. Those whose lives have been left in turmoil by sloppy, unprofessional. unethical or illegal practices are at the very least owed an explanation and possibly an apology.
I don't believe that we will ever know who killed the Crewes, but leaving matters as they are is highly unsatisfactory. If there have been illegal acts, and attempts to pervert the course of justice then those responsible need to be held to account. Their is nothing confusing about that.

[Ian Wishart]

Peter...when you say we should confine ourselves only to modern cases, you forget something important.

An unsolved murder is an unsolved murder, and remains as real to its surviving victims whether it happened yesterday or 50 years ago.

You appear to be arguing that bourgeois boredom with an issue should be the determinant of public expenditure, but you forget that we gave up the right as individuals to exact our own retribution for wrongs done against us, only in return for collective security where crimes against the one were deemed to be just as important as crimes against any other, and investigated accordingly.

The Crewe case was overwhelmed by police corruption, for reasons I suggest in the book had a lot to do with the involvement of a police officer in the crime.

The victims still have a right to be heard and the case properly investigated, whether Rochelle's parents died yesterday or in 1970.

[Muffin]

The Hutton family hope Bruce Hutton will be exonerated with the police review (when is that coming out?). I think it unlikely he or the police will ever be exonerated, because, among other things everything points to the cartridge case being a plant. I myself have realised that even if someone had managed to fire a bullet throught the louvre window, the cartridge case would not even have gone in the direction where it was found in the flower bed And it was very unlikely to go in the direction it should have without hitting that fly screen door and bouncing onto the doorstep or something.

I agree that the murder suicide theory can be ruled out because of the injuries Jeannette sustained to her face prior to death.

Even if Demler had a motive and desire, it does not explain all those strange fires and alleged brake tampering over the years. And I find it unlikely that two separate people would have a motive to kill. If the events above are linked to the murders, it points to someone with a grudge against the Crewes. But the question is who, why and how?

So far nobody has ever confessed to the murders. I find it unlikely that the murderer (if he is still alive) will confess, but I wonder about this mystery woman. Will she come forward eventually and tell everything?

[Muffin]

Bruce Hutton is gone now, and the police praised him at his funeral. They retracted what they said after it provoked anger from the Thomas family, but it tells you what their attitude is like.

I am not optimistic about the police review of the case. If it ever comes out, I expect it will be some sort of whitewash or politically cautious thing that does not tell you anything. If it goes as far as to exonerate Hutton and blame Thomas for the murders, it will be slashed to pieces very quickly because it will be so slashable, just as the MacGregor report was.

Curiously, people like Hutton still believe Thomas is guilty, but I have never seen any publication from an anti-Thomas point of view, not even from the people responsible for his convictions. All publications I have ever seen on the case are pro-Thomas.