Witness tells of shots at farm

Press, 22 July 1980, Page 3

Witness tells of shots at farm

PA Auckland A witness at the' Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Thomas case said yesterday that he heard two shots fired at the Crewe farm — early in October at a guess — and soon after he spoke to Inspector Bruce Hutton, the officer who headed the murder investigation. Julie Merle Priest, of Pukekawa, said that on June 16, 1970, she and her husband attended a ball at Auckland. Later in the week she went to bed -early as they had left the ball at a late hour.

She remembered hearing three shots that could possibly have come from the Crewe farm, which was close to witness’s property. It was, she said, quite common to hear shots from opossum hunters. The sounds she heard were not of a car backfiring. When the Crewes were believed to be missing, she discussed the matter with her husband. He said he did not think they had been shot because of the extent of the' blood. Mrs Priest said she informed the police of the shots she had heard after the discovery of Jeanette Crewe’s body.

She was not aware of a test being carried out on September 22 to see whether the sound of rifle shots would carry from the Crewe property to hers.

She said that some time after September 29 she and her husband were cleaning up an egg room when they heard two shots. They went outside and saw two persons on the back porch of the Crewe' house. She did not recognise either of them and she could not see if either were carrying a .rifle. She and her husband were subsequently walking back home - when a car came along. In it were Inspector Hutton and Detective Sergeant Johnston. Her husband spoke to Mr Hutton. Mrs Priest said that on July 16 of this year she was at home with her husband, two neighbours, and her solicitor when two shots were test-fired from the Crewe property. She heard them “as clear as a bell.” The evening was calm. To .Mr K. Ryan, for Mr Thomas, the witness said her husband had been in hospital she thought from September 18 to September 30. It was after he came out of hospital that they heard the shots while in the egg room. The egg room was

closer to the Crewe farm than their home. Cross-examined by Mr R. L. Fisher, for the police, witness said that as far as the September 22, 1970, testfiring was concerned the weather or the direction of the wind could have made a difference. Owen Priest said that he remembered being outside the egg house and hearing shots from the Crewe property. He could not remember the date but it was early October at a guess. The incident did not see.m to be long after he came out of hospital. He thought he heard the shots before Inspector Michael Charles came to their house and announced he had found a shell case at the Crewe property. After hearing the shots, he spoke to Mr Hutton. “I said to him, ‘You have just fired two shots.’ He said, ‘How do you know.’ I said, ‘We heard two.’

To Mr P. A. Williams, for Mr Arthur Thomas, Mr Priest said Mr. Hutton had not denied the firing of two shots, and there was an aidmission implicit in his answer.

Earlier, under cross-exam-ination by Mr P. A. Williams, Detective Inspector Charles said that unless previous searches were carried out properly, he would not agree that it was somewhat remarkable that, after a period of time, Mr Hutton should designate a relatively small area for search at the Crewe property where the witness found shell case exhibit 350. Mr Williams: It must have least have passed through your mind that you were set up by somebody, you being innocent of the matter, to find a shell case planted for you to find. Witness: Yes, I agree to that. Mr Charles said he did not agree that exhibit 350 was not left by the nturderer in June, 1970. The Thomas rifle was a pump action and 350 could have been ejected from it.

Mr Justice Taylor: Isn’t the question that there is no evidence the shell case was put there by the murderer?

Mr Williams: Yes, sir. Mr Williams said that on October 13 Detective Johnston took a group of .22 cartridges from the Thomas farm. They were brass.

A D.S.I.R. scientist had said he test-fired some of them on October 29. The scientist said Mr Hutton told him the cartridges were from the Thomas farm.

i The scientist said he made comparisons between the . tested cartridges and exhibit , 321 and found they were identical. It meant, said Mr Wil- : liams, that the police were ’ in possession of the car- , tridges at the crucial time. (The witness had previously told the court he found exi hibit 350 on October 27.) On October 20, he said, the police were in possession of the Thomas rifle. Mr Williams: If you accept the scientist was given 14 brass cartridges uplifted by Detective Johnston on October 13, there should be in existence documents that could establish the integrity of continuity of the cartridges. • Mr Charles: There should be something in the file to show their movement. I understand there isn’t. I can’t say where the ammunition cdme from. Mr Charles said that when he went to search the garden at the Crewe property, he believed the likelihood of his finding a case was not good. He said that as he understood it, the Johnston theory was that it was only Harvey Crewe who was shot through the louvre windows, provided he was sitting in a particular chair. Witness said that on finding the shell case, he believed it should be examined by the D.S.I.R. before any significance could be attached to it, although there was _ a distinct possibility that it was significant. After finding it he showed it to Mr Hutton and, he (witness) surmised Mr Hutton immediately' placed significance on it. Mr Williams: Surely the two of you would want to get confirmation from the D.S.I.R. quickly that the case came from either of the suspect rifles, (the Thomas •rifle and the Eyre rifle). . Witness: As soon as possible, yes. I suggest to you there was certain lack of speed in getting the shell case to the D.S.I.R — I had an important job to do at Tuakau. It was my intention to deliver it as soon as possible, but I arrived back in Auckland too late.

Asked by Mr. Williams if another police officer, or Mr Hutton himself, could not have taken the case, Inspector Charles said he had been told to take it to the D.S.I.R. himself by Mr Hutton. It was normal police prac-

tice for an exhibit to change hands as little as possible.