Statements by Mr Thomas ‘not made up by police’

Press, 14 August 1980, Page 3

Statements by Mr Thomas ‘not made up by police’

PA Auckland A senior police officer told the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Thomas case yesterday that he had no idea why Arthur Allan Thomas had supplied information to him that was incorrect

Detective Senior-Sergeant J. R. Hughes said he had certainly not made up a statement given to him by Mr Thomas in June, 1970. Oh entering the witnessbox yesterday, he was referred to one of his job sheets by Mr M. Crew, counsel assisting the commission. It said: “Thomas said he had been to the Crewe home while working for one of the local agricultural contractors. He had met Harvey Crewe, who appeared to be a decent sort of bloke and he had had tea with the Crewes. This was three or four years ago.”

Mr Crew: Would you agree with me that as a matter of fact it is now established that Thomas never went to the Crewe farm while working for an agricultural firm. Witness: That is right. I learned that recently. Mr Justice Taylor: But this was an important piece of evidence putting him in the house with the Crewes. Are you suggesting he told you these things? Witness: Yes.

And you can’t advance any reason why he should tender this information? —• No. I certainly didn’t make it up. He volunteered the information himself.. His wife was with him at the time. . His Honour said the job sheet began by saying that Thomas had said he had in the past telephoned Jeanette Crewe on a number of occasions asking her to go out with him, and he (Thomas) had written letters to her. She had always refused to go out with him, and she had showed him no encouragement although she still spoke to him. Detective Senior-Sergeant Hughes said he could not recall whether he put questions to Mr Thomas to get the information, or whether Mr Thomas told him.

Witness gave the evidence at the first and second trials. His Honour: Did it strike you as curious that you were the vehicle conveying this false information? Witness; It struck me as curious that Thomas told me this. - ,

His Honour: I have no doubt it struck a lot of people as curious. Mr Crew told the commission later thaF-the records of the agricultural contractors showed the last topdressing

work on the Crewe farm to 1 have been done in April, 1 1966. The Crewes were mar- 1 ried in June, 1966. Mr ' Thomas had ceased working i for the firm on May 28, 1965. Mr Kevin Ryan said the Crown had conceded after the second trial that the facts as stated by Detective Senior-Sergeant Hughes were incorrect, but the Crown was not prepared to concede that Mr Thomas had not made the statement to the officer. Mr Hughes said that at the time he interviewed Mr Thomas the latter was not a suspect. He said he gave his job sheet to Inspector Hutton, whose job it was to check the contents. His Honour: But you were the man giving this evidence to the jury as a fact, that Thomas had been in the Crewe house while working for an agricultural firm, most damning evidence. Witness: In the beginning, yes. Always. It was never cor-

rected before the jury, was) it? —I am not sure. j Does this lie easily on | your conscience? —No. But the police had evidence; collected by Inspector Parkes long before Thomas was charged, that he had not been on the Crewe property for seven years. You are saying, despite the fact : he had never been on the , farm while the Crewes were there, never been in the : house while they were there, : the statement Thomas made to you was allowed to go to the jury. Is that the way the police prepared the case? — i I gave evidence of a state- : ment Thomas made to me i regarding the Crewe family. ; For what reason he gave an • incorrect statement only he ; would know. i “You can’t dodge it that easily,” said his Honour. i “You were telling the magis- . trate and the jury that ■ Thomas had been with the [ two Crewes over a period of time after 1967, whereas the h information the police had ’ was that he had not been on . the property for the last t seven years.” - Mr Crew told the commission that, in fairness to the > police, “it should be pointed i out Inspector Parkes gave the evidence that he had col- ; lected. It was preceded by

this witness.” His Honour said he was concerned about the preparation of the case by the police. . Detective Senior-Sergeant Hughes said that at the second trial, he knew a member of the jury Mr Robert Rock, who was the foreman. They

rad, he said, both served in j he Royal .New Zealand i Mavy in the ' middle 1950’5. ’ Ihey met while serving in a ’ truiser, he believed the i Black Prince. He got on very ■ veil with Mr Rock. Mr Crew: Do you think it is fair to say that he could have thought, “If John Hughes makes a statement, I believe it because I knew him in the Navy?” Witness: I can’t comment. Witness said he could not remember if he were present when the jury was empanelled, but he knew Mr Rock was on the jury in the early stages of the trial. He told Inspector Hutton, and he believed Inspector Hutton passed on the information to the Crown prosecutor. Witness felt it was his duty to do that, and it was the last he heard of the matter at that time. Later, there was a police inquirv. ■ ■ ' Witness said that after leaving the Navy he had had no social contact with Mr Rock although he had run into him from time to time. He did not agree that Mr Rock should not have been on the jury. He had known other persons who had been on juries in cases in which he had been involved and where the accused had been acquitted. To Mr Kevin Ryan, for Mr Thomas, witness said he knew a note had been passed from Mr Rock to the trial judge, but he knew no more than that Mr Ryan told the commission that he had since been informed by Mr Rock that he had written a letter to the judge asking to be excused because he knew Mr Hughes. This was never made known to the defence. Mr Ryan said that during the second trial, a juror had had to be excused through illness. If he had known that Mr Rock knew Mr Hughes, he would have asked for the whole jury to be discharged. Detective Graham Abbott raid he was present when Dr T. J. Sprott had examined one of the two crucial shell cases — the witness said he could not remember whether it was exhibit 350, a case found at the Crewe property, or .343, a case found at the Thomas farm. He noted that during his examination Dr Sprott’s hands -were shaking.

He had been instructed by Inspector Hutton to be present to make sure the exhibit was not switched or marked. Burt Walter Harris said that in 1970 he ran a welding business at Te Kauwhata. He was visited by a

police officer — he thought it was Inspector Hutton — who showed him an axle which he said had been attached to the body of Harvey Crewe. The axle he was shown b 5 complete stubs on both ends. It was distinguished by a bright weld between the one stub and the end of the axle. There was only one weld. It was an old axle. He wa; asked if he had done any work on the assembly and he was immediately able to say, no. Mr Crew: We have a police job sheet saying a Detective Johnston visited you on September 29. Would you accept it was Johnston? Witness: It would be hard to say. The visit seemed closer to the finding of the body.

Mr Harris said he saw a picture of a police officer holding up an axle, but it was not the axle he was shown. The axle before the commission looked heavier than the one he was shown, and it was not as rusty. He said he did not realise the significance of the matter until reading David Yallop’s book, “Beyond Reasonable Doubt?"

Dr T. J. Sprott told the commission he had examined two stub axles, and an axle that had been presented as evidence.

Cross-examined by Mr Crew, Dr Sprott agreed that that the stub axles and the axle had. been welded together at j. one time. He had dismantled one of the stub axles and examined the grease inside to see if there was evidence that it had been buried in a tip as alleged. He was looking for debris and particles of earth and found a little dust. What he found was inconsistent with the stub axle’s being buried for a length of time.

Its condition, he said, was not consistent with it being left out in the open for five years. Noting that the bearing on one of the stub axles had collapsed, Mr Crew asked Dr Sprott if a trailer fitted with the axle assembly could be towed? “It could have been dragged along the road with the wheel wobbling all over the place,” replied Dr Sprott The driver of the vehicle towing the trailer would have noticed. . Dr Sprott said he had misplaced the split pin after dismantling the stub axle and was not able to find it. He apologised to the commission for having done so.