Police renege on Crewe case promise

STATEMENT BY IAN WISHART

Police National Headquarters has broken a written promise it made 11 years ago, by refusing to re-open the investigation into the Crewe murders.

In 1999, police wrote to the Thomas family, pledging to re-open the murder case if new information on potential suspects came to light.

"Although the case is not currently being investigated," wrote Inspector Lindsay Duncan from Police National Headquarters, "it is still considered unsolved.

"If information came to hand which indicated who the offender/s might have been it would certainly be investigated, that is, the investigation would be re-opened." Download Policeletter

How do we move from a situation where any information that merely "might" indicate a possible offender would trigger a complete re-opening of the case, to this week's deceptive move by Police Commissioner Howard Broad and his morally corrupt sidekick Rob Pope to merely "re-analyse" the Crewe murder file, and not investigate new suspects at all?

The Royal Commission of Inquiry in 1980 heard more evidence than any of the Thomas juries or Appeal judges ever heard. They tested police and other witnesses fully, and ruled there was clear evidence that Detective Inspector Bruce Hutton and his sidekick Len Johnston had fabricated evidence in order to convict Arthur Allan Thomas.

As readers of The Inside Story now know, footnote 105 of that book lays out Crimes that Hutton may have broken punishable by up to 14 years jail:

105 Under the Crimes Act 1961, I believe there is sufficient evidence for Hutton to still be charged and sent to jail for the rest of his days. The police don’t hesitate to prosecute sexual offences dating back to the 1960s so I can’t see why this would be difficult. I don’t have the 1961 version at my fingertips, but I’m sure there was an equivalent provision to the current s115, which reads:

Conspiring to bring false accusation

Everyone who conspires to prosecute any person for any alleged offence, knowing that person to be innocent thereof, is liable...(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years if that person might, on conviction of the alleged offence, be sentenced to preventive detention, or to imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more. I’m sure Hutton’s lawyers might try to argue he didn’t ‘know’ Thomas was innocent when he framed him, but I think a jury can reasonably be left to determine whether a cop who has to fake evidence to push the balance from ‘innocent’ to ‘guilty’ is deemed to know it by definition.

There’s also section 113:

Fabricating evidence.

Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to mislead any tribunal holding any judicial proceeding to which section 108 applies, fabricates evidence by any means other than perjury.

Or section 116:

Conspiring to defeat justice .

Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who conspires to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice in New Zealand or the course of justice in an overseas jurisdiction.

And there’s always that old standby, s109:

Punishment of perjury.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who commits perjury. (2) If perjury is committed in order to procure the conviction of a person for any offence for which the maximum punishment is not less than 3 years’ imprisonment, the punishment may be imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years

Now, Commissioner Howard Broad, if he was sincere, could order an investigation today into Bruce Hutton under any or all of those sections of the Crimes Act, and police are entitled to use testimony taken on oath by a Royal Commission.

In my view, the case against Hutton is a legal slam-dunk or so near to one as to be of no practicable difference. Broad's failure to open an investigation into Hutton, despite this being one of the key questions raised by Rochelle, shows this latest review is probably a cynical stunt by police designed to take the heat out of the issue.

There are, and always have been, two separate issues: prosecution of Hutton for fabricating evidence, and working out who killed the Crewes.

Initially when I heard Broad on Newstalk ZB this afternoon, I was cautiously optimistic. Broad said he was bringing on one of their best analysts to: "grab the file, grab what other people have said about the case, and subject it to some really top line, modern analysis, and come up and help me write a genuine response to Rochelle Crewe."

Yet when Rob Pope was interviewed by media, he told them his man would only be looking at the police file. They would not be looking at new evidence he told Radio New Zealand Checkpoint, because two courts and a Royal Commission had already heard all the evidence:

"Look there are a lot of difficulties with this file...this is one of the most heavily scrutinised cases in NZ history,. It's been through two court cases, a Com of Inquiry and well over 100 OIA requests."

First point: the evidence heard by the two court cases was mostly perjured testimony fabricated by police. But Pope continues:

"The facts are actually there for all to see and there is little that would not be known to those who have taken the time to follow this particular inquiry over four decades."

Hmmm. The police "facts" aren't worth the paper they are written on, and certainly the police file has few "facts" in it. What about the new facts in The Inside Story, including eyewitness testimony about Detective Len Johnston's corruption and arson?

"Police are in the business of assessing facts, we are not going to speculate," said Pope. Given the entire police case against Arthur Thomas was speculative, this turning over of a new leaf is good. But Pope clearly doesn't want to admit that there is new direct evidence in the book.

"We need to look at the facts of the case."

Indeed. Read the book, it's more accurate and honest than the police file. Pope didn't rule out that his man would read the book: "At this point it's too early to pre-empt anything, but what we do need to do is become conversant with the file, understanding it."

He was very condescending towards Rochelle Crewe however, subtly suggesting her questions to police were based on her failure to understand how good the original police investigation was:

"They [the questions] are all related in terms of her understanding of the investigation and its aftermath but not actually being in a position, because of her age, to understand it".

Well, if the police expect us all to believe they will find the truth in their own file, they clearly think the public are idiots.

As I state in The Inside Story, media attention has focused for 40 years on the police file, or what I called "information in the box". But the official fabrication findings against police prove we can't trust what was in that box. Which is why Rob Pope's sly promise to Rochelle to dig back into that box and come up with answers is a crock of pig manure.

The answer is not "in the box", because the prime suspect in the killings was in charge of that box and saw to it that nothing that could incriminate him ever came near that box.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and a smart young police analyst will do more than read the police file, he will also read The Inside Story and realise his bosses are trying to turn him into a patsy.

This police inquiry is a small step, but a dangerous one for both Police and the Government. For Police, if they try and whitewash this yet again, they will face a wave of white hot public anger because people are reading The Inside Story and seeing the evidence for themselves.

For the Government, the longer police take to deliver their initial report, the closer it gets to election year, and this is one timebomb they are not going to want exploding next year.

Comments

[Treetop]

Unless a person from overseas is appointed and the government put the required money into a full inquiry, the public cannot have any confidence in the Commissioner of Police.

Their latest botch up was not being transparent regarding Clint Rickards.

Nothing has changed in 40 years on how deviant and unscrupulous the police are capable of being.

[Peter]

I would much rather they put their resources into crime that is happening today and tomorrow.

I don't know if Thomas or Crewe are being "coached" in generating this publicity, but I think that what the police have offered for a case that is 40 years "cold" - its a great offer.

[Ben]

Peter - there is effectively a criminal who has never been charged in Hutton. Just because it happened decades ago doesn't mean that he should never be punished for it. In my eyes - this is a 'current' crime.

[AcidComments]

"there is effectively a criminal who has never been charged in Hutton. Just because it happened decades ago doesn't mean that he should never be punished for it. In my eyes - this is a 'current' crime.'

Yeah, Ben.

It's the same as a number thieving, embezzling lawyers, etc who got off scott free for their crimes and perjury, etc in the 1970s along with a host of other bent civil servants and police officers.

Same as the head of the M.O.T in Auckland admitting off the record in the 1970s. "They had a policy not to employ 'honest' traffic officers"!

[Puddie]

After Popes effort of stitching up Scott Watson he should be very good at recognising the signs of a frame up.

The Op Tam report on his conduct is a lot more critical of him and his methods is quite different to the snow job the IPCA rushed out to beat the Herald on Sunday's story.
Why is it that the reports on botched up investigations are "not in the public interest" to release. ie Kahui Twins, Op Tam, the report on the new liaison officer to London and his illegal behaviour, seems if you want get to the top practice extreme corruption and to get really high up break a few laws

[Treetop]

This morning on Morning Report Pope gave the excuse that Smith forwarded the White complaint on. Pope also said that Smith was an experienced able officer.

Something not right here. Did Smith follow the Edward Trappitt policing standars of best practise? In 1991 I had an area commander do exactly what Smith has done. The complaint was in regard to a ministerial police inquiry into Colin Moyle.

Three current superintendents have been reiterating Clint Rickards defamatory statement to the last three ministers of police as well as adding other defamation.

The CIB Inspector who bullied me in February 1979 is another Smith as he to recieved an overseas posting.

I also believe the ex boyfriend cop who ruined my life is still a cop.

The full police evidence into Colin Moyle is still in lock up after nearly 24 years.

I have had a guts full of the senior cops (including the police commissioner) I have dealt with from PNHQ.

In 2002 Robinson recieved 30 attachments, my police file in 2006 consisted of two pages.

Unfortunately the public have not heard the last of Clint Rickards or how CORRUPT some NZ cops are.

[Treetop]

I need to correct two things. It was a District (not area) Commander in 1991 who sabotaged the investigation, he contacted the wrong cop. The full police evidence in to Colin Moyle has been in lock up for nearly 34 years. The Attorney General of the day ordered it to be locked away for 25 years.

[Muffin]

I agree that an independent inquiry is required for a fresh investigation; nobody would trust a NZ police inquiry.

And isn't it suspicious that Hutton has never been charged or sued, despite the Royal Commission finding that he and the late Johnston planted evidence, and pulled othe dirty tricks to railroad Thomas.

Mind you, Wishart's theory about Johnston being the killer sounds too far-fetched to me, although I do believe he was a rotten apple.