The brother-in-law of Arthur Thomas has been described as a "potentially significant witness" by police reviewing the 1970 cold-case murder of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe.
In a statement to the Herald, Detective Superintendent Andy Lovelock said Buster Stuckey "represents a potentially significant witness, since he has never been formally interviewed".
He said Mr Stuckey had been identified by Mr Thomas during a police interview in 1970 as someone who had access to items on the Thomas farm.
Mr Thomas, a Waikato farmer, was twice convicted of double murder on the basis of evidence taken from his farm at Pukekawa - then pardoned after questions arose over the conviction.
Mr Lovelock said: "In October 1970, it was Arthur Thomas who disclosed to Detective Inspector [Bruce] Hutton that Buster Stuckey was a person who had the same access to items on the Thomas farm as he did. Since the status of the murders is 'unsolved', police cannot rule out that one or more of the significant witnesses may have been involved in some way."
Asked if Mr Stuckey was a suspect, Mr Lovelock said he was not but there were "persons of interest" who - as raised in the report - had access to items on the farm who had either not been interviewed thoroughly or in some cases interviewed at all.
Arthur Allan Thomas.
Buster Stuckey, who is married to Margaret Thomas, has strongly rejected any claims by police he has anything of interest to contribute to inquiries, other than theories pushed by the Thomas family which were believed to have been ignored.
The wider Thomas family are angry that after the police review linked the family farm to the killings, Mr Stuckey's name emerged in documents released through the Official Information Act.
In a statement to the Herald, Buster and Margaret Stuckey said they had not spoken to police in the 1970s because interest tailed off.
They had also insisted on a lawyer being present, at the urging of Mr Stuckey's parents. "The police did not pursue the matter any further ... We are both absolutely sure there were no questions left unanswered."
The couple said the Thomas farm had been visited only twice to check on cats during April 1970. The statement, which both signed, said police had attempted to trick them, and misled them on what others had told officers.
Detective Senior Sergeant Gary Lendrum, who worked with Mr Lovelock on the review, had also asked where Mr Stuckey was on the night of the murders - June 17, 1970 - after which Mrs Stuckey "hit the roof", the couple said.
"We had an alibi, but so did Arthur. It got him nowhere.
"Why should we give [the police] one 43 years later?"
In a recent interview, Mr Stuckey said: "They asked where I was on the night of the murder. I said if you come back here again there will be a harassment charge."
He said the police were welcome to speak to him once they agreed to cover the cost of his lawyer.
He provided the Herald with written answers to police questions, sent in May this year, which included the statement: "The Thomas family have bent over backwards to help police, giving vital evidence, but they have chosen to rubbish us."
Mr Stuckey said an independent review was needed to "knock out the fact they brought it back to the Thomas farm". The family's work on the evidence pointed in directions which exonerated the Thomases, he said.
Harvey Crewe and Jeanette Crewe on their wedding day June 18, 1966.
An analysis of evidence, released to the Herald through the Official Information Act, found Mr Stuckey had been singled out on the basis of an interview by Mr Hutton with Arthur Thomas in 1970. Mr Hutton was one of the detectives a royal commission of inquiry found had planted key evidence. The analysis document said an interview with Mr Thomas on October 25, 1970, saw the Pukekawa farmer shown the axle found tied by wire to Harvey Crewe's body and asked how it came to be there.
The axle, the wire used to bind it to Mr Crewe's body, and the bullets found with the bodies, were the three pieces of evidence the police review stated tied the murders to the Thomases' Mercer Ferry Rd farm.
According to the document, Arthur Thomas told Mr Hutton "his brother-in-law Buster Stuckey was one person who he thought could have had access to such articles". The document said Thomas "nominated Stuckey ... as someone who would have had access to the items from the farm used in the murders". It also referred to evidence from Vivien Thomas - Arthur Thomas' wife - claiming that during April and May 1970, Mr Stuckey "would visit their farm about every two or three days to check on their stock".
Mr Thomas was arrested on November 11, 1970.
Six days later, Mr Stuckey was approached by police and told of Mr Thomas' comments. The document stated: "Mr Stuckey was 'quite agreeable' to being interviewed" with his lawyer present but he would not otherwise comment."
The Crewe case
Q: What happened?
A: Harvey and Jeannette Crewe were shot and killed in their Pukekawa home in June 1970. They were discovered missing five days later, and their daughter Rochelle was found abandoned in her cot.
Q: Who is Arthur Allan Thomas?
A: A farmer who lived nearby who was charged with the couple's murder.
He was found guilty in March 1971 but in June the next year, a second trial was ordered after a second successful Court of Appeal bid. Thomas was found guilty of murder again in April 1973. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction in February 1975.
Q: What happened next?
A: In October 1978, a month out from the election, amid concerns over planted evidence, Sir Robert Muldoon ordered an investigation by Robert Adams-Smith, QC. Thomas was pardoned the next year.
A royal commission of inquiry then found that Thomas shouldn't have been prosecuted and inquiry head Detective Inspector Bruce Hutton and Detective Sergeant Len Johnson framed him. Johnson died in 1978. Hutton died last year and the-then deputy commissioner, Mike Bush, praised him at his funeral.
Q: What happened to Rochelle?
A: The only child of the Crewes broke her silence in October 2010 to ask the police to re-investigate the unsolved murders of her parents 40 years ago.