Thomas inquiry told of fingerprinting

Press, 14 August 1980, Page 10

Thomas inquiry told of fingerprinting

PA Auckland Evidence of fingerprinting has been given to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Thomas case. Inspector M. G. Charles said in. evidence that in June, 1970, he interviewed Bruce Roddick, then a farm labourer at Pukekawa. Mr Roddick had said he had seen a woman at the Crewe property on June 19, when ail evidence otherwise tended to show that Harvey and Jeanette Crewe had disappeared two days previously. Witness said that Mr Roddick became a possible

suspect—later eliminated — and that he was fingerprinted. Mr Justice Taylor (the commission’s chairman): Is' it not only suspects that get fingerprinted? Witness: Suspects in the loose sense of the term. Asked why Mr Roddick would have approached the police if he were not innocent of the matter, witness replied: “There are occasions when persons

who have committed crimes draw attention to themselves by providing information which might be false.” He agreed that if Mr Roddick had not come forward, there was no other reason he would have been treated as a suspect. He was sorry that Mr Roddick and his family were upset over the matter,

but the police were investigating a possibly serious crime, and he felt this outweighed any indignity anybody might feel. Mr Roddick, witness said, gave his fingerprints willingly. He agreed that Mr Rodrick’s statement was filed with others related to Jeanette Crewe’s movements, and not with the suspect file. Continuing his evidence, Inspector B. Parkes said to Mr K: Ryan, for Arthur Allen Thomas, that he had already spoken to Mr Thomas about a brush and comb set at the Crewe farm before Detective Johnston did so.

Detective Johnston had recorded in a job sheet that he had taken a chequebook of butts and a trailer registration from Mr Thomas senior’s records. Witness said he could possibly have taken other items, but he had no reason to disbelieve the job sheet. Inspector Parkes said he did not see the tip at the Thomas farm until October 20, 1970.

Mr Ryan: Johnston says that you and he visited the tip on October 15. Witness: I certainly had not seen the tip before October 20, so I can assume I was not there on October 15. On October 20, after Detective Johnston had found some stub axles at the Thomas farm tip, they were taken to the Crewe

farm and washed, witness said. He and Detective Johnston had the Thomas rifle with them, which he, witness, subsequently handed to Detective Keith. He did not know that Detective Johnston had a package of .22 brass cartridges with him. Inspector Parkes said he was not aware that Mr Thomas sen. had been asking for the return of some butts for several years. Nothing was referred to him’officially, although he might have read something in the newspapers. To Mr R. L. Fisher, for the police, Inspector Parkes said that from the time the Thomas rifle was uplifed from Mrs Vivien Thomas on October 20, it remaind in his and Detective Johnston’s possession until it was handed to Detective Keith. While with them it was not fired and no shell cases were removed from it. Detective Johnston could not have fired it without the knowledge of witness. Nobody else had access to the rifle. To Mr Crew, counsel assisting the commission, witness said that in the exhibits book the words, “Held Johnston,” were written beside exhibit numbers for the Thomas rifle and a packet of .22 ammunition. Mr Crew: Would ‘ you agree with me that this is consistent with Detective Johnston’s picking up the exhibits, and writing that notation in the exhibits book so the officer in charge of exhibits would know where they were? Inspector Parkes: I don’t know who wrote it in, but it certainly indicates where the exhibits were — with Johnston. He said the . police received various reports of cars near the Crewe property from June 17 to 22, 1970, and extensive inquiries were made. (

Witness said there were two particular sightings. The first was by a Mr Hoeta, who said he saw a two-tone green Valiant parked outside the road gate to the Crewe property on June 20. He was able to give corroborative features. The owner was traced and it was established that he had been at the house several miles away the next day. Witness said he concluded Mr Hoeta was mistaken. He agreed with Mr Crewe that there would have been a number of similar cars in the Auckand area. It was possible, but improbable, that Mr Hoeta had seen a car on June 20 other than the one traced by the police. Mr Hoeta, he said, also mentioned seeing a little red car at the Crewe property on June 22. It was established it was a car belonging to Mr Len Dernier (Jeanette Crewe’s father). To Mr Ryan,, witness said he was in charge of vehicle inquiries. He was not aware of requests by the defence for details of the names and addresses of witnesses who saw cars. Mr Ryan said the defence had been hindered at every turn during the case. Whenever somebody for the defence went to . the Crewe farm there was a policeman there in half an hour telling them to get off. The trustees had been asked to let defence people visit the farm, but the request was refused. To Mr Fisher, Inspector Parkes said Mr Hoeta was more interested in the Valient car, a vehicle' he was keen on, than the significance of the place he thought he had seen it. During the inquiries as a whole, more than 100 vehicles had been checked. Eight could not be positively discarded.