Coat at murder scene caught fire

Press, 20 June 1980, Page 2

Coat at murder scene caught fire

PA Wellington The coat of the person who may have murdered Jeannette and Harvey Crewe burst into flames and burned after police found it at the murder site, the Thomas inquiry was told in Auckland on Wednesday. Only police officers were inside the cordoned area at that time. This is the first time that the police have publicly revealed the presence of the coat.

A police witness was at a loss to say how the old oilskin managed to bum. He said he presumed a cigarette butt fell on to it. Police found the coat next to the wheelbarrow which it is generally assumed was used to carry the . bodies of the Crewes from the house to the vehicle in which they were taken to the Waikato River. The existence of the coat was revealed by the production of an early police photograph of the site and was confirmed in Wednesday’s cross-examination of Inspector B. M. Parkes. This was subsequent to the departure of the’ police lawyers in protest at the way they were being questioned by the commission’s chairman, Mr Justice Taylor. In cross-examination, first

by counsel assisting the commission (Mr H. C. Keyte) and later by others, Mr Parkes revealed that the tattered oilskin coat burned while the police were having lunch. He agreed that at the time there, were no civilians in the cdrdoned-off area round the murder site. The relevant portion of the transcript from the inquiry reads: Mr Keyte: Would you look at photo five and yqu will see alongside the wheel-bar-row what appears to be an old piece of sheeting or tarpaulin, Mr Parkes: It is an old oilskin. May we take it that that was there when the police arrived at the scene and that it was not a police oilskin? — That is right. That was removed before exhibit 22 (another photo) was taken? — It was not removed. It was burnt. While we were having a lunch break it somehow caught fire and we returned to find it was burnt. Was this on June 23? — June 23 or 24. Had it been searched before this occasion? — Not to my knowledge. It may have been. < Did it burn in the site shown on the photo? — Yes.

s How could that have occurred? — I can only sur mise that someone threw a butt or something on to it. Was there any civilian within the enclosure at this particular time? — No civilians walked past through the paddock here. Not within the enclosure. Not that I know of. Were the ashes searched after the fire? — Yes. And the area of ground where the oilskin had been? — Yes. I presume that the fire must have left marks on the ground, did it not? — I presume so. Mr Parkes later faced further cross - examination; as follows: There are some photos. This is five and one showing lying against the wheelbarrow what might be canvas or cloth? — Old oilskin. A tattered oilskin coat. It did not belong to you or your men? — No. Did you look at it? — Yes, when we started the search. Would it have fitted Harvey Crewe or would it have been too small? — I did not see Harvey Crewe in the flesh. This was in the barrow, which was used to transport the bodies? — Yes. Didn't you take possession of this garment as soon as you saw it? — We left it in position arid it was destroyed before we could extract it. But it was burnt? — Yes. In the middle of the day when the police were searching there? — Police were in possession at the time. Then the question is that if I suggested that police burnt it, you won’t be in doubt, but I don’t suggest that. It was burnt when there were still a large number there, three or four? — Yes. While you were there in broad daylight? — We were away having lunch.