Scientist warned not to state untruths at Thomas inquiry

Press, 23 September 1980, Page 3

Scientist warned not to state untruths at Thomas inquiry

PA Auckland A Department of Scientific and Industrial Research scientist, Dr D. F. Nelson, was warned yesterday by the chairman of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Arthur. Allan Thomas case that he was on oath and could:not state untruths. Dr -'Nelson, who was continuing his evidence, had told the commission that he examined bullet fragments from the body of Harvey Crewe. There was one good land-mark and fragments of two Others. At the depositions hearing he had said that the bullet fragments from Jeanette and . Harvey Crewe were consistent with being fired from the same rifle. The commission’s chairman (Mr Justice Taylor): You were going on one landmark? Witness: Yes. Dr Nelson said he could not say that the bullet fragments from Jeanette Crewe came from the Thomas rifle, but he could not exclude the possibility. His Honour: I want to warn you you are on oath, and you cannot at this commission state untruths. You say you cannot exclude the possibility that fragments from Jeanette Crewe came from the Thomas rifle. That means within your opinion it may have come from the rifle? Dr Nelson: Yes. You do not believe that? — I believe it could have, from my examination. Having found no mark on the Jeanette Crewe frag-

ments characteristic with the test bullet, you still say you cannot exclude the Thomas rifle? — Exclude- it from what? From the possibility that the bullet came from the rifle. His Honour then asked: “Are you prepared to say this bullet from Jeanette was fired by the Thomas rifle and place your professional reputation on it?” Witness replied: “No, and I have never said that.” Dr Nelson will continue to give evidence today. Earlier, in his final submissions to the commission, Mr Kevin Ryan, for Mr Thomas, had told the commission that it had opened a Pandora’s box for those involved in the case. Mr Ryan said that if exhibit 350 had been on the ground during the June or August, 1970, searches, it would have been discovered. “It was not, because it was not there,” he said. “Exhibit 350 was, in my submission, planted. It was planted after October 13, 1970, and before the evening of October 26, 1970.” A further feature -of the case had been the rather haphazard collation.and registration of exhibits, and the grudging compliance with requests from defence counsel, Mr Ryan said. Although the man who headed the Crewe murder investigation, former Detective Inspector Bruce Hutton, stated in an affidavit dated January 25, 1971, that he was aware of the obligation on the Crown to make any

material ' evidence not adduced available to the defence, it was plain this had not been the case. Mr Ryan submitted that the behaviour of Mr Hutton was one matter which must be looked at. “The manner of his treatment of defence witnesses was that of a tyrannosaurus,” he said. Mr Hutton’s attitude seemed to have cowed the Court registrar and his lack of fair play appeared to have warped every decision being made. Mr Ryan said that Mr Hutton’s character assassination of any person who could help the defence was illustrated by his name calling. One was a dog thief, a second a mean, nasty woman, and a third unreliable. Mr Ryan said Mr Hutton had had the formidable support of Dr Nelson, who, said Mr Ryan, “always parrots assertions of being fair and impartial.” “Just how fair and impartial he is has been proven by the admissions grudgingly made by him to this commission,” said Mr

Ryan. “His assertion that hi did not volunteer certaii scientific information be cause he was not asked i shameful.” Mr Ryan submitted it wa; clear that Mr Hutton wa not governed by '“the calm ness of a cool mind, no swayed by sympathy no warped by prejudice, no moved by any kind of in fluence save alone to ai overwhelming passion to d< that which is just.” His evidence .could no stand careful scrutiny. Mr Ryan said that i jurors were to be impartial nobody, neither State no individual, nor faction should be able to affect thi process of selection. He submitted that the Ji> c tice Department and thi Police Department combinec before the second Thoma: trial to be able to affect thi process of jury selection. Mr J. H. Wallace, Q.C. for Mr D. S. Morris, th< Crown prosecutor, said thi question was whether M: Morris failed to perform an} duty he owed to the defence He was obliged to conduc the case fairly but firmly. I was submitted there was ni

ie;iaiiure by Mr Morris in any :n duty he owed to the defence, e • Questioned by his Honour, is Mr Wallace said a Crown prosecutor was not obliged ls to resolve inconsistencies in IS the evidence. The commis1‘ sion, he said, was not en>t; titled to inquire into the )r conduct of the trial. ’ r Mr R. P. Smellie, Q.C., for ’ the Justice Department, said ” there were two allegations of the switching of exhibit t 343, a cartridge found by Detective Keith in an apple if box in Mr Thomas’s shed. Referring to the police )/ having jury lists in advance a, of the defence, Mr Smellie ie said that the police were the only agency that could carry - out the task of vetting the te lists. In due course the Wad nganui computer would ts enable the Justice Departie ment to conduct the whole exercise independently of the police, and this would ,e obviously be more desirable. ie He submitted that lr throughout the history of y the Thomas case the Justice e. Department had shown an :t open willingness to inIt vestigate new matters io raised.