Mr Hutton told not to be evasive

Press, 17 June 1980, Page 1

Mr Hutton told not to be evasive

PA Auckland Former Chief Inspector Bruce Hutton, the man who headed the Crewe murder investigation, was told yesterday by the head of the Royal Commission inquiring into the convictions of Arthur Allan Thomas not to be evasive.

Mr Justice Taylor, a former New South Wales Chief Judge at Common Law, told Mr Hutton: “If you want me to accept you as a witness of truth, you will not be evasive, otherwise I will be loath to accept you.”

The witness was examined at length by his Honour on exhibit 350 — the shell case found at the Crew property. His Honour said that, during the Crewe murder investigation the then Assistant Commissioner, Mr R. J. Walton, was quoted as saying: “You have got to drive for evidence.” He mentioned that the police already had two unsolved murders on its hands.

“Did you take it that the Police Department was desperately concerned, with the ’ Crewe murders at that' point making four unsolved?” his Honour asked.

Mr Hutton said he understood Mr Walton to be telling him to do his job, but he and his squad had to get the evidence in the proper way. His Honour said that on October 19, 1970, a conference considered that apart from Mr Thomas and Lenard William Demler (Jeanette Crewe’s father) there did not appear to by anybody else involved.

The conference, he said, concluded that an effort must be made to confirm Mr Thomas as a suspect, or exclude him all together.

His Honour: That means if you didn't get more evidence, Thomas was out. Mr Hutton: It doesn’t mean that. It means to find further evidence as to how a prowler came to be at the Crewe farm. Asked why there were no records of any other conferences in later months, Mr Hutton said the Squad then investigating the murders would have been only four or five, and there was just a daily discussion. His Honour said that a theory was put forward by “Detective • Sergeant Johnson that the bullet that killed Harvey Crewe was fired through open louvre windows. Up to that time, Mr Hutton had told the commission, all searches were made on the basis that the shots were fired inside the house.

He asked Mr Hutton if he did not find Detective Sergeant Johnson’s theory startling. The weather on the night had -been described as diabolical. The theory involved accepting that Mr and Mrs Crewe were sitting in front of their fire to keep warm, while their windows, at the back, on a night of wind, rain and sleet, were open. . Mr Hutton agreed that, with the Johnson theory, the louvres had to be open sufficiently to allow a bullet to be fired.

He said he had not

noticed in police photo-' graphs that the louvre, windows were open for something like 60 days. "Nobody noticed it.” he said. His Honour: Yet when Detective Sergeant Johnson put his theory tri you, you had taken pains' beforehand to see nothing in the house was touched or altered. Mr Hutton said that tests in relation to the ejection of shell cases were made in a reconstruction of the theory at the Crewe farmhouse. No photographs were taken of the reconstruction with somebody standing in the position of the theory, with one foot on the windowsill, one on the parapet, with a rifle aimed between the open louvres. His Honour: Why wouldn’t you take photos? This was a completely novel suggestion.

Mr Hutton: It is better to have it described than to have a photo. His Honour: Do you really mean that — describe“d by somebody standing in the dark, and without its being committed to writing? Do you regard .it as likely that a man would run. the risk of standing on a .wet parapet and sill, at 'louvres which he would have to open on your version, when he knew the doors were open? Mr Hutton: That appears to be what he must have done.

Mr Hutton said it was ; also possible that the mur-,' derer fired inside, then], threw the shell out of the [j window. His Honour sug-: gested that was not a reao sonable proposition. | Witness said it was pos- , sible that the louvre windows had been closed, but] not locked. When not locked; they were easy to open. > His Honour: If you are in- , side in this kind of weather, there would be no point in not closing them securely. The whole basis of your test! was that the louvres were’ open. . , I Mr Hutton: The whole; basis was whether they were, open, or could have been, opened. . ! His Honour: Doesn t it ( make nonsense of your reconstruction when you have got to assume the windows weren’t locked and were sufficiently open for the murderer to further open them: from the outside? j Mr Hutton: Of course you: have got to assume the win-i dows were unlocked. • His Honour put it to wit-; ness that if anybody opened; the windows sufficiently for. a rifle, with a 35 m.p.h.j wind blowing in that direct-1 ion, the resultant draught, would have attracted Harvey, Crewe’s attention. Witness. agreed that that was possible. • His Honour suggested that' it would have been much, easier for the'murderer to[ go into the house through I the kitchen door and, if the firing were done inside, ex-; hibit 350 was planted ■ • I He said that, according to, Mr Hutton’s measurements,! the shell landed 15ft lint from the parapet, presum-; ably where it was found. He | asked witness if he agreed [ that, in that position, it would have been visible to a! person looking at the ground, if it landed on top of dirt. | ■ Mr Hutton: In the search-, es it could have been moved, and not seen. His Honour: Who was, searching, blind men? Is that! a serious answer or a des-i iperate'explanation?, ' !He asked ,-J.Mr Hutton: '•Would -you: agree .that. if i vou were to r fire theo rme, through the louvres and; eject 20 slpts, there would, h.

[be some that would fall 111 I to 15 feet, and some at eight ! to 10 feet.” I j “It would depend on the! point of ejection,” witness', said. I { His Honour: Do you think: lit would be of considerable! • benefit to make an exarn-i ;ination of 350 now, to this ; ■commission? t I Mr Hutton: I can’t see why. .1 His Honour: It surely ( (would be of benefit to the • scientific people expressing [opinions to have the shell. (They haven’t got it now. I Mr . Hutton: That is cor- i rect. His Honour: Is it true to (say it was put in a place iwhere it could not be found 'after the termination of the I second trial? • Mr Hutton: It was dis- I posed of in the normal* 'course. | | His Honour:' But it wasn’t' taking much space. ! Mr Hutton: But along with; everything else used. ■ His Honour: You have, still got the axle, you kept!, ithat; why did you destroy; I this bullet? . i[ j Mr Hutton: What was the!' ‘purpose in keeping it? t : His Honour: You knew; ‘suggestions were being; ■made. [ I Mr Hutton: Not at that; (stage. j I Witness said it had been; j his. intention that exhibit 350! |be kept for the police mu-l Iseum. After the second trial IMr Walton told him it was 'useless for that type of pur-j ’pose. ' . Said his Honour, “Toi [ make this, theory of yours! 'fit, you had to have a series of near miracles. “Wasn’t it a near miracle' ithat the 'shell would be I ! deposited where it was} ! found? Was it not remark-] [able that all those police! (officers missed it? Would; }you not regard it as remark-] [able that on the night in! 'question the louvres were: lleft in such a state that they; i could be opened?” ' | Mr. Hutton replied that iti iiust happened that the shell ■ fell where it did; it tvas dis-, [appointing that it was' jmissed in two searches, and' lhe did not find the state of; (the louvres remarkable. j ! His Honour said that in 1970 a top-level police con-1 !ference was held, at Auck-’ .land. “No doubt it was a' < really important conference,". •htsaid. ■' - ’ , - r * ij

I The minutes of the meet- : ■ ing were taken by an Auck- : (land typist, but a copy was jnot forwarded for the- file ‘and it was found -that her ] (notebook had been destroyed. I His Honour asked Mr Hutiton what the conference was; 'about. ! “I would say this was a' '■ conference on where we hadi, got to, what evidence we '. had collected,” witness said. Dr F. J. Cairns, a pathologist, saif he examined the , bodies of Jeanette and Harvey Crewe. He found fragments of .22-calibre bullets. To Mr P. A. Williams, counsel for Mr Thomas, Dr Cairns said the weapon could have been a .22 rifle or pistol. : He said that at the Magis- ! trate’s Court it was his the[ory that the shot which ‘killed Harvey Crewe came • from the direction of the ■kitchen door. ! Jeanette Crewe, he said, ! had injuries to the bridge of I the nose and right, eye,] ‘which he considered were] :caused by a blunt in- ' 'strument. ; i He considered the shot! : she received, she received; ■. while lying on the floor. He; • could not say whether the [ I shot or blow came first. . ‘ ! He agreed she could have ! been shot while sitting in a ! chair and then fallen to the I floor. I, Mr Williams: I suggest that if both Crewes were; iseated,, they were both shot] i within a small space of time; i by somebody in the house. I .Dr Cairns: That is a fair assumption. ■ Witness said he thought [Jeanette Crewe was shot at [close range. I Anna Margaret ! O’Callaghan, a model, of; I Levin, said in 1970 she lived ■in Auckland. She knew DeI tective Charles’s girlfriend, [now his wife, who flatted •with a friend of the witness. I I She said that in July or! (August of that year she was; at the flat when Detective} M. B. Charles arrived. He ■ ■ mentioned something about (planted bullets. ■ She did not know whether he had found it, or was still [looking for it, but she clear-' jly remembered the words: (“planted bullet.” He' wasi ’talking about a flower bed. ‘ . To Mr J. S. Henry Q.C.,| ‘counsel for Jhe polic?, wit,V

ness said she did not remember being interviewed by Detective Charles in 1969. She did not know ai person called Peter Hoffman, j Robyn Elizabeth Middle-' brook, of Palmerston North, said that in 1970 she was a (teacher and she flatted in iAuckland. One of her flat-, .mates was Detective; Charles’s girlfriend. i She remembered an occa- : sion during the winter of that year when Detective, Charles visited. “I can remember Charles saying they couldn’t find where they had put this bullet,” she said. “I can’t remember the words ‘planted: bullet’ but I remember they were looking around and Charles seemed rather amused they couldn’t find where they had put this bullet.” / i Detective Charles, she i said, was positive it was Le- j nard William Dernier (father) of Jeanette Crewe) who hadi committed the murders, andi (that he was “going to get 1 ; 'Dernier.” i To Mr Henry, witness said i she left the flat about September of 1970. She agreed (that in 1979, during an i interview with a senior (police officer, she said she ihad not left until the No-1 vember.