Margaret and Buster Stuckey respond to a Herald article, in which it was revealed that Buster, the brother-in-law of Arthur Allan Thomas, was considered by police to be a "potentially significant witness" - but not a suspect - in the cold-case killings of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe.
On August 13 last year, two detectives visited to question us about Arthur Thomas nominating Buster Stuckey as a person who had access to his farm and all the physical evidence associated with the Crewe Murders.
The detectives did not say that Arthur was nominating Buster, they were saying onlythat all physical evidence pointed back to the Thomas farm. We openly told them that we were both on the farm in April/May to check Vivian's cats while Arthur and Vivian were on holiday.
The detectives asked no more questions about the visits to the farm. Had they asked, we would have told them that we saw no gun, axle or loose wire. We did not go into the house or any farm buildings. We were there for about five minutes, three times over a period of 10 days. We could have told them Buster didn't know Arthur owned a gun as we had been married only two months and Buster didn't know Arthur very well.
The rifle: On September 8, 1970, Detective Mike Charles returned Arthur's rifle to Vivian and stated it was not the rifle the police were looking for in connection with the Crewe murders. The 2014 review report has confirmed new ballistic evidence that excludes the Thomas rifle from the Crewe murders.
The axle: The axle left the farm five years before the murders. Affidavits from five people were accepted by the 1980 royal commission of inquiry as being honest and genuine.The detectives for the review were not interested in investigating any further as they did not visit any of the witnesses. The axle was not tied to Harvey Crewe's body, but lying on the river bed beneath him.
The wire: The review team took numerous samples from the Thomas farm and only one sample from another property. Naturally the odds were the wire would have come from the Thomas farm.
Had we both been asked more relevant questions last year, the review report would not have been able to single one person [Buster] as being a person of interest. The evidence mentioned in this article eliminates Buster Stuckey.
