Showing posts with label Crime and Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crime and Justice. Show all posts

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Crewe murders: 'Who killed Mum and Dad?' asks daughter. Controversial 40 year old NZ murder still unsolved...



The only child of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe has broken her silence to ask the police to re-investigate the unsolved murders of her parents 40 years ago.



Rochelle Crewe - just 18 months old when found crying in her cot five days after the Crewes were last seen alive - has written to Police Commissioner Howard Broad to request that the case be reopened.



Speaking publicly for the first time since her parents' murders in June 1970, Rochelle told the Herald that speculation had been allowed to "fester" since Arthur Allan Thomas was pardoned after spending nine years in prison.



She was critical of the decision of the Solicitor-General in the 1980s, Paul Neazor, QC, not to lay charges against two detectives after a royal commission of inquiry concluded they had planted evidence to frame Mr Thomas.



Justice Robert Taylor, Australian head of the 1980 commission, said it was "an unspeakable outrage" that Detective Inspector Bruce Hutton and Detective Len Johnston buried a shellcase from Mr Thomas' rifle in the Crewes' garden to link him to the crime.



But in his report to the police the following year, Mr Neazor decided against charging the pair because he believed there was not enough evidence to justify a prosecution.



Rochelle told the Herald that it "concerns me that the Solicitor-General unilaterally usurped the role of the court".



"I would like to know why the police didn't prosecute Hutton and Johnston on the commission's findings that they had planted the cartridge case.



"The commission did have access to live witnesses and direct evidence and reached its conclusion that Hutton and Johnston did plant the cartridge case and fabricate evidence. At the very least, the Solicitor-General should have given a court the opportunity to reach a decision on the same basis.



"Instead, the Government's failure to act allowed speculation to fester and harm our family and others."



Rochelle said she had intended to approach the Police Commissioner for some time but the catalyst was reading Arthur Allan Thomas: The Inside Story.



Ian Wishart's new book presents a different theory from the commonly held belief that if Mr Thomas was innocent, then Jeannette Crewe's father, Len Demler, was the prime suspect.



Wishart claims the evidence points to Mr Johnston. Rochelle said an article in the Weekend Herald by Ross Meurant, a detective on the original murder inquiry, acknowledged this was a possibility.



She said the article highlighted a "pervasive corruption" exposed by the new book.



"This concerns me. Lastly, I just want to know who killed my Mum and Dad."



The unsolved homicide is one of New Zealand's greatest murder mysteries.



"A terrible bloody mess" was what Len Demler found in the Crewes' farmhouse in Pukekawa, south of Auckland, in June 1970.



He also found Rochelle crying in her cot. Doctors who examined her said she could not have been abandoned for five full days since the murders, so someone must have fed her. Witnesses reported seeing a blonde at the house, but she was never identified.



The case gripped the nation for months. Police initially considered it a murder-suicide - a theory later pushed by investigative journalist Pat Booth, who campaigned for Mr Thomas to be freed - but soon switched attention to Mr Demler.



The body of Jeannette, 30, was recovered from the Waikato River in August 1970, her jaw badly broken. Her 28-year-old husband was found in the river a month later, weighed down by an axle. Both had been shot.



After three months, the police were under huge pressure to solve the crime and quickly found two pieces of evidence to implicate Mr Thomas, who lived on a farm 13km from the Crewes.



Axle stubs hidden on his farm tip apparently matched the axle that weighed down Harvey Crewe. Then police found in the Crewes' garden the case of a shell fired from his .22 rifle - despite having found nothing there a few months before.



Mr Thomas was convicted of the murders and spent nearly 10 years in prison. But he was famously pardoned in 1979 after mounting public protest and the personal intervention of Prime Minister Rob Muldoon.



The royal commission set up to investigate the case found Mr Hutton and Mr Johnston had planted the shell case at the Crewe house to frame Mr Thomas.



Mr Johnston was also the detective who found the axle stubs on Mr Thomas' farm. Mr Hutton retired from the police in 1976 and is living in South Auckland. Mr Johnston died in 1978.



The police never restarted their homicide investigation, and Rochelle Crewe said yesterday that, after 40 years, no one had been held accountable for her parents' murders.



"In reopening the case, I am seeking truth and justice as to what happened during the original investigation and what really happened to my parents, Jeannette and Harvey Crewe."



Acknowledgements: NZ Herald/ Jared Savage
 

Monday, September 27, 2010

New book on infamous Crewe murders blames blames investigating police officer...



Arthur Allan Thomas says he backs a new book on the murders of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe that claims the killer was a police officer who investigated the case.



Thomas was originally arrested for the double murder in 1970. He was found guilty by two juries despite a strong alibi. Thomas was then pardoned in 1979 and a Royal Commission of Inquiry found that key evidence had been fabricated by the police.



Author Ian Wishart's new book, Arthur Allan Thomas: The Inside Story, claims that Det Sgt Len Johnston did more than plant evidence. He writes that Johnston was responsible for killing the Crewes and framing Thomas.



Thomas told TV ONE's Breakfast today that he had never before considered Johnston as the killer, believing that the culprit was most likely Len Demler, Jeanette's father.



But Wishart said his investigations brought to light new evidence that led him to focus on Johnston.



"Everywhere we went, Len Johnson kept on turning up in this case... as the person planting all of the key evidence...(fabricating) the case against Arthur Thomas."



Wishart said that Johnston's motive may have stemmed from blackmail over a burglary and insurance fraud.



The Police Association has dismissed the claims. Spokesman Greg O'Connor described Wishart's book as "scurrilous rubbish".



But Thomas is backing Wishart's theory.



"I'm not surprised, the police were corrupt to the highest degree in my case."



Thomas said that even now people struggle to accept his innocence. He said he has been let down by the police, the courts and the justice system.



"I had great faith in the police in the early days... I had nothing to hide. I helped the police where I could and they let me down," he said.



Back in July, Thomas' ex-wife, Vivien, spoke out about the murder mystery. She sent a letter to Justice Minister Simon Power, requesting he re-open the cold case.



Now known as Vivien Harrison, she was accused by police of being involved in the double homicide by feeding the Crewes' baby.



While a statement from a local farmhand led to her being cleared of any involvement, the case did lead to the demise of her marriage and force her from the country.



Vivien filed for divorce after Thomas' guilty verdict remained in place after the second trial. The pair never spoke again, but she remained a staunch supporter of his innocence, maintaining he was home with her at the time of the murders.

http://peter-petterson.blogspot.com/


Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and TreatmentImage via WikipediaKiwi blogger may appeal his conviction for breaching suppression orders...




Kiwi blogger Cameron Slater is likely to appeal his conviction and fines and costs of nearly $8000 for breaching suppression orders.



Slater was convicted of nine of the 10 charges he faced -- eight of breaching non-publication orders for several high-profile offenders and one of naming a victim in a sexual abuse case. The tenth case was thrown out.



Judge David Harvey fined Slater $750 and ordered him top pay court costs of $130 on each of the nine cases after rejecting submissions from his lawyer, Gregory Thwaite, that there was no case to answer.



He told Slater the internet allowed everyone to become a publisher but with that came an obligation to be accountable and responsible.



"The silent majority is no longer silent."



He said Slater had been using the internet to mount a political campaign to change the law regarding suppression orders and had deliberately published names knowing the suppression orders existed.



"You stepped over the line when you chose to publish names that were the subject of non-publication orders."



He said Slater set himself up on his blog site as judge and jury and knowing the non-publication order had been issued, he was willing to flout the law.



"There was no remorse, it was carefully planned and he knew exactly what he was doing."



During the hearing earlier today Judge Harvey and Mr Thwaite had a long legal debate over the validity of suppression orders.



Mr Thwaite said there was no case to answer because the suppression orders were invalid for a number of reasons. These included that Slater had not used the exact names of the accused as they appeared on court documents.



He also submitted Judge Harvey had the right to overturn another judge's suppression orders although the judge rejected that.



"I can't revisit what another judge has done.



"I can't say the order should not have been made -- not guilty".



He said if he did that he would be "bringing the entire system of justice into disrepute."



In his finding Judge Harvey said it was about whether a person breached the law using the internet.



"It is not a case about whether or not the law should allow non-publication orders. That debate must take place in another forum," he said.



Outside court Slater said he had "copped a flogging as best they can with a wet bus ticket."



He said he was not remorseful and had no regrets, but when asked if he would continue to flout the law, replied: "We'll see."



He said he had a few people who would underwrite his fines.



He said he did not qualify for legal aid because he had been charged under the Summary Proceedings Act.



His lawyer had advised him to appeal and he would discuss that with him."
 
 
This not a case of a blogger breaching the law for ethical reasons. Slater has his own agenda, whatever it may be.

Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Cover of Le Petit Journal, May 24, 1908, paint...Image via Wikipedia 
Aussie mother's 'greatest act of betrayal' - killing her two young sons...




MELBOURNE - An Australian mother twice convicted of killing her two young sons was sentenced to 27 years in prison today for what the judge called "the greatest act of betrayal."



Donna Fitchett was first convicted in 2008 of murdering her sons in 2005 and sentenced to 24 years prison. She appealed her conviction and was granted a retrial in May, but a jury again found her guilty after she admitted drugging her sons and then strangling one and smothering the other.



The boys were 11 and 9 years old.



"You were their mother. Your responsibility was to nurture, care for, love and protect them and over the years you did that," Justice Elizabeth Curtain said in sentencing Fitchett. "But in the greatest act of betrayal and in a profound breach of (trust) you robbed each of them of their precious lives ... in an act of unfathomable selfishness."



Fitchett claimed she was not guilty by reason of mental impairment but Curtain called the murder premeditated, citing a letter Fitchett had written before the murders.



No details on the letter were released, and a motive was not given during the trial.



Fitchett's lawyer, Patrick Tehan, told the court that the mother was depressed and suicidal when she killed her children.



She must serve at least 18 years before she is eligible for parole.



The boys' father, David Fitchett, said he had hoped his ex-wife would receive two life sentences.



"Thomas and Matthew deserve justice," David Fitchett told reporters outside court. "Today's sentence has been extended from the first one. Whilst in my mind it is nowhere near enough ... it is better than what it was last time. My boys, I love them and miss them."



Acknowledgements: AP



http://anzacbloggersunite.blog.co.uk


Sunday, June 27, 2010

A former National Party logoImage via Wikipedia
Maori prisoners will be hit most by a bill before NZ Parliament to remove their  right to vote... 







Maori prisoners will be hit most by a bill being introduced to the NZ Parliament to remove the right of prison inmatesto vote.



National MP Paul Quinn, himself a Maori from Ngati Awa, admits his private member's bill aimed at taking the vote away from people in prison will disproportionately affect Maori.



Currently only prisoners serving a three-year sentence or longer are barred from voting.



Mr Quinn's Electoral Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners Bill would remove the right to vote from all inmates on election day.



He told Waatea News the fact that one in two males and almost two-thirds of female prisoners are Maori didn't affect his thinking.



Before offenders get their first prison sentence, Mr Quinn says, statistics show 80% will have been convicted at least 10 times.



The bill is currently before the Law and Order Select Committee.


KR's Opinion:

This could actually create some debate about whether prison inmates should have te right to vote anyway? Should they in my opinion?  Even a social democrat like myself would find it difficult to justify; but what is the real reason behind this decision to remove the right of prison inmates to vote, after the National Party has always supported it? Is ths the thin edge of the philosophical wedge, a secret agenda to undermine democracy in New Zealand? Will they reconsider the right for, say, intellectually, and mentally ill people who are institutionalised  to also lose the right to vote too?



Acknowledgements: © 2010 Radio New Zealand/ Peter Petterson


Enhanced by Zemanta