Yallop sets terms for giving name

Press, 25 September 1980, Page 2

Yallop sets terms for giving name

NZPA correspondent London The British author, David Yallop, has asked the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Thomas case to fulfil three conditions before- he names the mystery woman who fed and cared for Rochelle Crewe. . Mr Yallop, who believes he knows the identity of the woman who cared for the child before the discovery of her parents’ disappearance at Pukekawa in June, 1970, has been asked to pass the information on to the commission. But in a statement telephoned to commission lawyers in Auckland, Mr Yallop called on the three-man commission to — Grant normal court immunity to his evidence; — Supply him with a full transcript of the, evidence heard by the commission to date; and . — Read into the formal evidence, in entirety, his book, “Beyond Reasonable Doubt?”

In return, Mr Yallop told the commission lawyers, he would swear an affidavit in London naming the woman whose identity he has so far revealed only to the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) and the head of the Prime Minister’s Department (Mr B. V. Galvin). “I assure the Royal Commission that my affidavit

will give all the information that I have at my disposal on this issue,” he said, in his statement. Mr Yallop again told the commission he could not come to New Zealand to testify, but said he would swear the affidavit if his conditions were met.

Mr Yallop repeated that pressure of business —■ he is working on a book on the Yorkshire Ripper — would prevent him from travelling to Auckland until mid-No-vember.

“I gather Mr Justice Taylor (the commission’s chairman) has remarked, ‘I do not intend to hang around for him until November 15’,” Mr Yallop said in his statement. “In order to ensure the speedy return of Mr Justice Taylor to his own country, I have offered at considerable inconvenience to myself to stop work, assemble the necessary material, and swear an affidavit in London.”

Mr Yallop said he had asked twice previously for a transcript and without it he was being seriously disadvantaged as a witness “merely because I reside on the other side of the world.”

“All and sundry have been able to stroll into the hearings in Auckland and listen to testimony. My interest in the proceedings is less transitory and therefore my need for an accurate’ record of the.

evidence all the greater.” Mr Yallop was gratified that the “vast bulk” of the evidence in his book had been confirmed and vindicated by independent witnesses, but he was aware that police counsel, Mr J. H. Henry, had said that the police had prepared a list of what they claimed were “inaccuracies contained in the book” and that the secretary of the Police Association, Dr R. A. Moodie, had described the book as fictional. “I am anxious to give these gentlemen the opportunity to put up or shut up,” Mr Yallop said. “Clearly if ‘Byond Reasonable Doubt?’ is read into evidence, Mr Henry, Dr Moodie, and the entire New Zealand police will be able to offer contrary ‘factual’ evidence.

“More important, I am anxious that the commission should have entered in evidence all that is salient, pertinent, and relevant. I therefore request that my book, ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt?’ be read into the evidence in its entirety.” As soon as the commission gave an assurance that the three points would be met, he would immediately “swear an affidavit on the one remaining issue I wish to lay before it . . . namely, the identity of the woman who fed Rochelle Crewe,” Mr Yallop said.