Real Crime/Paranormal/Conspiracy Theories Book III

The Murder of Harvey & Jeanette Crewe

David Harvey Crewe (20 October1941 – c. 17 June 1970) and Jeannette Lenore Crewe (néeDemler; 6 February 1940 – c. 17 June 1970) were a New Zealandfarming couple who were shot to death in their home around 17 June1970. The murders led to the wrongful conviction and subsequentpardoning of another farmer who lived nearby, Arthur Allan Thomas. ARoyal Commission set up to investigate the miscarriage of justicefound that a detective had fabricated evidence and placed it at thescene of the crime. No person was ever charged with planting theevidence, and the murders remain unsolved.

Background

Jeannette Crewe's father, Lenard M.Demler, was fined £10,000 for tax evasion in 1962, and had beenforced to sell a half share in his farm to his wife in order to meetthe liability. Jeanette married her husband, David Harvey Crewe(known as Harvey), in Auckland in 1966.

In 1970, the Crewes and their18-month-old daughter lived on their farm at Pukekawa, Lower Waikato.Jeannette was afraid to be in the house without her husband afterbizarre burglary and arson attacks, including one in which clotheswere set on fire in a bedroom. At the time of her death, Jeannettewas about to receive her mother's half share in the Demler farm,which adjoined the Crewes'. The bequest to Jeannette had come aboutafter Jeannette's sister had been cut from the will of their mother,and Demler had removed Jeannette as a beneficiary of his own will inretaliation even though she had no role in the original matter. Jeannette's mother had then re-written her will to bequeath toJeannette the half share in Demler's farm that he lived on.

Crime

Harvey (28) and Jeannette (30) werefound to be missing from their bloodstained farmhouse on 22 June 1970by Demler (died 4 November 1992), who had been asked to look in onthem by an alarmed neighbour because they had not answered thetelephone for days. The Crewes' 18-month-old daughter Rochelle wasdistraught in her cot. Demler left her alone while he went on a farmerrand. The Crewes had last been seen on 17 June, and milk, breadand newspaper deliveries on the morning of 18 June had not beencollected from the letterbox.

No medical opinion that an infant couldsurvive without fluids for five days is supported by any verifiedcase of such an occurrence. Although Rochelle had tissue loss,suggesting she had eaten little or nothing between 17 and 22 June,the degree to which she retained water during treatment indicatedthat she had not ingested fluids for at most 48 hours before she wasfound. A witness later reported that he had seen a woman unknown tohim on the property on 19 June. Demler was the leading suspect dueto his propinquity and failure to raise the alarm until prompted,apparent guilty knowledge that Rochelle did not require immediatemedical attention, blood of Jeannette's type on his car seat, and ascratch on his neck. Police were also told that Demler probably hadaccess to an unregistered .22 caliber weapon. Demler's behaviorcontinued to raise suspicion; during police searches of thecountryside for the Crewes, he shadowed on horseback without helping,and presciently suggested they would be found in water. However, theevidence against Demler was entirely circumstantial and he stronglydenied any knowledge of what had happened to his daughter and herhusband. He was also said to have an alibi for one of the arsonincidents as he had been attending dinner with the Crewes when a firewas discovered.

Jeannette's body was found on 16August, wrapped in a duvet bound with copper wire, in the WaikatoRiver and her husband's body was retrieved upriver on 16 September. A car axle linked to a neighboring farmer, Arthur Allan Thomas, hadapparently been used to weigh down Harvey's body and was central topolice theories about the case, although it did not justify aprosecution.

Investigation and trials

Both victims had been shot to deathwith a .22 calibre firearm; Jeannette had broken facial bones frombeing struck with a blunt instrument. Demler had been considered themain suspect, but the brutality of the assault on Jeannette, and thelead investigator's belief that she had been raped, led to doubtsthat he was involved. On the basis that the murderer might have useda legitimately held gun, police collected and test fired sixty-fourregistered .22 firearms, 3% of the total recorded as held in thePukekawa area. A forensic report on 19 August stated that, of thesixty-four, neither Thomas' rifle nor one owned by the Eyre familycould be eliminated as the possible murder weapon, but there wasinsufficient evidence pointing to one or the other. Although policesuggested to Thomas during an interview that his rifle was used tokill the Crewes, the gun was returned to him on 8 September. On 27October, the garden at the Crewe house was searched for a third timeand a spent cartridge case was found, apparently still lying wherethe murderer had left it. The case carried marks which showed thatit had been ejected from Thomas' rifle. In November, Thomas wasarrested and charged.

Despite his wife and cousin giving hima strong alibi for 17 June, Thomas was sent for trial on a charge ofmurdering the Crewes. The prosecution suggested Thomas's wife,Vivien, had been the woman seen at the Crewes' house, although shewas not charged. The witness was certain Vivien Thomas, whom he knew,was not the woman who he saw. The prosecution said that the motivefor the murders was that Thomas had been obsessed with Jeannette, anaccusation for which they provided very little evidence. A witnesswho did give testimony supporting the prosecution's contention thatJeannette had been pestered by Thomas was Demler; he was crossexamined about why he had not mentioned such obviously relevantinformation before the court had begun sitting. Thomas was foundguilty of the murders in a 1971 trial, but the conviction wasoverturned on appeal. He was tried again in 1973 and convicted.Supporters of Thomas started a campaign to bring to public attentionthat the key evidence against him had serious anomalies.

Campaign, pardon and RoyalCommission

A campaign, led in part by Pat Booth ofthe Auckland Star, was largely responsible for getting Thomasreleased with a pardon. Campaigners said forensic work by Dr JimSprott had shown that the cartridge case had been planted at thescene and that its method of construction identified it as being froma batch that could not have contained the number 8 bullets recoveredfrom the victims. Following David Yallop's book about the case,Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Thomas was pardoned by Governor-GeneralKeith Holyoake on the recommendation of Prime Minister RobertMuldoon. Thomas was released after serving nine years in prison. Hewas paid NZ$950,000 compensation for his time in jail and loss of theuse of his farm.

A Royal Commission of Inquiry wasordered to review the wrongful conviction of Thomas and reported tothe Governor-General in November 1980. The Commissioners found thatthe spent cartridge case from Thomas' gun, Exhibit 350, had not beenleft by the murderer, but had been created weeks later by policeusing his impounded gun and ammunition, then planted at the Crewefarmhouse. The Commission's report implicated Detective InspectorBruce Hutton and Detective Sergeant Lenrick Johnston in policemisconduct, and found that the prosecution of Thomas for the murdershad been unjustified. Despite the Commission describing the conductof Hutton and Johnston as an "unspeakable outrage",the New Zealand Police never laid charges against any officerinvolved in the investigation and prosecution of Thomas. Johnstondied in 1978. Hutton died in 2013. The case was made into thedocu-drama feature film Beyond Reasonable Doubt in 1980.

Status of the case

In 2014 an official police review ofthe investigation into the homicides, at a cost of $400,000 to NewZealand taxpayers, said that evidence available in the murder of theCrewes was insufficient for any new prosecution. The reviewacknowledged that a key prosecution exhibit in the trials had beenfabricated by detectives, but did not appear to accept that theycould have been on the wrong track; the review implied that theCrewes' daughter had not ingested any fluids between 17 and 22 June,and said a witness had been mistaken in thinking he had seen a womanon the farm during that period. The review did however rule outDemler having been the killer. Rochelle Crewe expressed satisfactionthat a police review of evidence had cleared her deceased grandfatherof involvement in the murders. The case remains unsolved.