Crewe cold case still burns

New Zealand's most intriguing murder mystery in living memory - the gunshot deaths of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe - is back in the news 40 years after the event and, as has been the case from day one, is proving to be a talking point in pubs and homes throughout the land.
Everyone, it seems, has an opinion on who was responsible for the murders and on Arthur Allan Thomas, the Pukekawa farmer who was twice convicted and later pardoned and compensated for nine years behind bars.
What makes this latest Crewe murder publicity unusual is that it hinges on a plea from the Crewes' surviving child Rochelle - now a woman - who has asked Police Commissioner Howard Broad to re-open the case and find out who killed her Mum and Dad.
Many prominent New Zealanders, including Wairarapa's Sir Brian Lochore, have signed up supporting Rochelle's call and, unless you are one of those who never wants to see an enduring mystery solved, then you must hope they succeed and that Rochelle will one day get to find out the truth.
She was only 18 months old when she was found abandoned in her cot and was taken into the fold of her wider family and protected, being whisked away from the public's gaze during the years of Arthur Thomas's imprisonment and beyond.
Her plea has coincided with the release of a new book on the Crewe/Thomas saga. As a journalist my interest in the so-called Thomas case extends back to the time of the first trial, when Arthur Thomas was convicted on what amounted to circumstantial evidence.
I recall being in the old Featherston Courthouse chatting with the local law fraternity who were discussing his conviction.
Masterton solicitor John Hall - later to become a judge - was incredulous. I remember him exclaiming, "How could they convict him on that evidence? It must be overturned on appeal."
As history shows it wasn't and indeed Thomas had to endure a second trial after a long fight for it by his retrial supporters.
However, he lost again and was sent back to prison, a near broken man, to serve his life sentence.
But they say "truth will out" and in 1979 when I was reporting for the Otago Daily Times in Dunedin we got news Arthur Thomas had been pardoned and was free, amid revelations of police corruption and the planting of fake evidence.
In the years immediately after his release I had shifted to Auckland and got the opportunity to have a first-hand look at the case.
That involved visiting the former Crewe farm, taking a look at the house and lay-out of the section, visiting the Thomas farm and the Waikato River where the bodies of the Crewes were found, meeting and interviewing Arthur Thomas and his new wife, Jenny, and meeting his parents and other family members.
I also covered the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Thomas case, spoke with Thomas' lawyer Kevin Ryan and got to know several of the police who worked the case; not Detective Inspector Bruce Hutton, however.
At one time I worked alongside Pat Vesey (the uncle of Thomas' first wife, Vivien) and Pat Booth, who authored books supporting Arthur Thomas and who had both pressed for his release.
Without trawling back too much about the murders themselves, it struck me how impractical the details of how Arthur Thomas was supposed to have carried out the crime were - such as the window ledge shooting - and even more so the "facts" of how he had concealed it and disposed of the bodies.
The farms were several kilometres apart for one thing, not neighbouring properties as many people wrongly thought.
But mostly my own thoughts on the case were coloured by meeting and talking with Arthur and Jenny Thomas.
I first spoke with Arthur at the Royal Commission hearings but later at his Orini home, the farm he had bought after his compensation pay-out.
He and Jenny were delightful company, a real home-grown Kiwi couple who had just become proud parents of baby Bridgette.
Jenny put the kettle on and brought out the cakes and sandwiches for morning tea.
Arthur had come in from the farm, cleaned himself up and we chatted about all things, mainly his little daughter and even - ironically perhaps - about shooting. Duck shooting, that is.
Thomas showed me paintings and other memorabilia from his time in prison, given to him by other inmates who wished him well in his later life.
It seems to be a commonly held view that Thomas is a "bit slow" in his mental processes. I think that is totally unfair.
Thomas has a quick wit and self-effacing humour. He is no orator and is rather shy but he has an honesty of thought that is disarming.
I couldn't leave the place without putting the question to him. As we stood in the hallway looking at paintings I asked him outright, "Did you do it, Arthur?" and watched his reaction.
Without looking down or sideways - in fact, without losing any composure at all - he replied, "No, I didn't."
But it was his reply to a second question that, for me, spoke volumes.
I asked Arthur who he thought had.
Did he point the finger at the other prime suspect, Len Demler?
No, he didn't.
He gave the answer any innocent man would give.
"I don't know. I haven't a clue."
And why should he?
If it wasn't him, and he wasn't there, why should he have any idea?
That police should now be asked to re-open the case is, in itself, strange. Was it ever closed?
With the pardon of Arthur Thomas I would have thought the Crewe murders would remain on the books and as far as cold cases go, it should be number one priority.
After all, not only Rochelle Crewe wants to know who killed Jeanette and Harvey - every New Zealander does.