The PM can not open a Police investigation!
October 25th, 2010 at 11:00 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
Arthur Allan Thomas will petition the Prime Minister to reopen the investigation into the Crewe murders.
“It’s going to the Prime Minister. The police are just cover-uppers and the Prime Minister is the only man who can do something about it.”
No the Prime Minister can not re-open a Police investigation. Only the Police can. If the PM could re-open a Police investigation, then he would have re-opened the one into Labour’s electoral over-spending in 2005.
The PM also can not close down an SFO investigation.
Related posts:
- Who killed the Crewes
- Goff to strengthen leadership further
- Police National HQ and the Brash E-mails
- Police reopen Brash e-mails investigation
October 25th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Move. On. Arthur. It. Happened. 40. Years. Ago.
You. Have. Been. Compensated. You. Are. Innocent.
Move. On.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 11:10 am
“The PM also can not close down an SFO investigation.”
True, hence Klark’s desperation to see the SFO disbanded.
I hope that among the MSM in this country we have one brave enough to write the real story of the Klark years while she is still alive.
Vote:It sickens me to see so many people fawn over her, those same people need to be told just how evil and just how corrupt she and her government were.
October 25th, 2010 at 11:11 am
The PM can reopen a police investigation using inquiry powers but he will not, leaving the police to do their own is laughable unless they are prepared to criticise senior officers who are now deceased.
[DPF: He can launch an inquiry, but that is not a police investigation]
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 11:25 am
There is a time to investigate things that happened 40 years ago where most of the people involved have died and the ones that are alive are really really old. And that time is when all the current crime is investigated and solved and the police are sitting around with nothing to do.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 11:31 am
I bet Helen could get the Police to do her bidding..
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 11:31 am
He could if his name was Helen Clark.
Radman hes not “innocent”, he been pardoned. VERY big difference.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Murray
All the evidence points to Thomas being totally innocent, to suggest otherwise is both unnecessary and unkind.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 11:49 am
No it doesn’t.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 11:50 am
But I do agree with your request for a book about the true Clark years. Now that would be a read well worth it.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
The evidence shows that the police planted evidence to strengthen the case against Thomas. On that basis he should not have been convicted of murder and was subsequently pardoned. I know little about the case and it predates my birth, so whether he did it or not doesn’t interest me.
Of more interest is whether David Bain will get any compensation. I can’t help but feel that Thomas is trying to keep his profile up to help Bain.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
I would like to read the Commission report for myself to see on what direct evidence they found a dead man guilty of planting evidence. Try as I might on Government and Law Commission sites I can’t find alink, there are plenty of references all “no page available.”
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
backster
Graham Hewson is the name you are looking for, he provided the evidence that proved the flower bed where the cartridge case was found (and claimed by the Police at the time to be the one flower bed they ‘forgot” to search had been throughly searched months before the cartridge case was miraculously discovered.
There is NO doubt that the Cartridge case was planted by the police, no doubt at all.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Who knows what the police might re-open if the PM makes them re-open this….
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
BB I wasn’t talking about evidence, I was talking about the legality of the description. He was found guilty twice and he has been pardoned. He has never been found inniocent.
You only had to talk to the guy for five minutes to know he didn’t have it in him to kill anyone.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Christopher Thomson
The problem with a book about the Clark years is that we probably need to wait another 20-30 years for all the truth to dribble out.
Clark is a challenge for technology actually, a book that rewrites itself as new evidence comes to hand such that it always has a happy ending. Imaging reading to about page 373 and suddenly pages 37-150 evaporate as they are retrospectively validated from the book. You recall reading about great success selling a signed art work earlier in the book but the pages are gone when you go back to review it…
Book will never work, needs a wiki page where random people add and subtract stuff to build their own perception.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
A wiki is an EXCELLENT idea
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Could we please just allocate the police resources to current crimes, or those where there is an outside chance of making new progress? The only thing more absurd than this enquiry is David Bain and Joe Karam taking the opportunity to jump on the publicity bandwagon.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
arkhad
Like this one: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Helen_clark
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
the Prime Minister can not re-open a Police investigation.
No, the govt has only seen fit to invest Gerry Brownlee with that level of power – maybe Thomas should write to him.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
DPF, you are right and wrong. PM cannot, as far as I am aware, ‘order’ police to commence an investigation, but he can do as all Governments have done from time to time, nudge and wink. This week’s Clayton’s inquiry announcement was a result of the nudge and wink between the Beehive and PNHQ.
PM can also order an independent Com of Inquiry into the deaths of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe, which he is so far resisting.
Technically, I think you’ll find that’s what Arthur Thomas and the rest of us are pushing for.
Why? Because sometimes the justice system and police need to be held to account in the same way they purport to hold everyone else to account.
There are actually two investigations needed – one into perverting the course of justice, of which the Royal Commission made findings and the Crown refused to prosecute. The legal opinion from Neazor was a crock, and nothing stands in the way of police re-opening that investigation today if they so wish.
The second issue is who killed the Crewes. True, after this length of time you might not get a beyond reasonable doubt ruling, but like a Coroner’s inquest you might get a balance of probabilities ruling quite sufficient to provide closure.
The evidence against Johnston in the book is actually very strong, as most of those who have read the book acknowledge.
There’s something else as well. The killer struck first in 1969, well before Maisie Demler’s will change (ie, before Demler or Jeannette’s sister had any reason to be grumpy:
KILLER TRIED TO MURDER CREWES TWICE
SUB: Jeannette’s Brakes Cut In 1969
By Ian Wishart
The killer of Pukekawa farmers Harvey and Jeannette Crewe tried to murder the couple twice, and only succeeded on the second occasion.
In a dramatic new twist to the 40 year old cold case tonight, two witnesses have come forward to reveal the brake lines on Jeannette’s car were cut “clean through” in early 1969, soon after the first fire at the house that had been ignited using baby Rochelle’s clothes.
It’s the first time this first attempt on the lives of the couple and baby Rochelle – believed to have been a passenger in the car – has ever been made public, and it comes from an elderly Auckland couple.
“My wife was in the [maternity] annex with Jeannette Crewe,” the new witness told TGIF Edition today, “they were in adjoining beds and became good friends.
“Somebody cut the brake lines on Jeannette’s car” he told us, “It was cut clean through, and had to have been done by a professional person.”
“Jeannette complained that the brake line was cut and she’d had to stop the car.”
“She was driving out the drive and the car wouldn’t stop,” remembers his wife. “It wasn’t long after we got home from the annex. She told me she hadn’t been able to get out of the house because the car had to be repaired and it took a couple of weeks. She was definitely quite shaken, I can tell you that.”
The Crewe house driveway opened out onto State Highway 22. Brake failure could have been lethal.
“ The fires and that together, to me they had to have been done by the same people. I’m not sure whether she reported it to police or not,” adds the husband.
In the books, newspaper clippings and police documents released in the Crewe murder inquiry, there appears to be no reference to Jeannette’s brake failure. In fact, there’s no evidence Jeannette reported the brake sabotage to police either, and that in itself raises enormous questions. Was there a reason for her not to involve police?
The couple’s problems appear to have begun with a burglary in 1967, which was attended by police officer Len Johnston – named in the new book “The Inside Story” as being responsible for a 1963 fire at the Otahuhu Police Station that he lit in a bid to incriminate a police colleague.
There’s some evidence the 1967 burglary was an insurance fraud perpetrated by Harvey Crewe in a bid to raise cash to run the farm, and Johnston’s testimony in court indicates he did not believe the burglary was genuine.
The new book alleges Johnston tried to blackmail the wealthy and attractive Jeannette Crewe over the burglary fraud, and that the detective may have been responsible for two subsequent arson attacks – the first in December 1968 while Jeannette was still in the maternity annex, and the second six months later on June 17, 1969, exactly a year to the day before the couple were eventually murdered.
Until tonight, it has never been publicly revealed that the brakes on Jeannette’s car were cut, forcing her to make an emergency stop. This new revelation of an earlier attempt to kill Jeannette is further proof that Pat Booth’s ‘murder-suicide’ theory doesn’t stack up against the evidence.
Equally significantly, the brake sabotage happened months before Jeannette’s mother later changed her will, meaning the killer cannot have been driven by the will but by something else.
TGIF Edition is not making the names of new witnesses in the Crewe murders investigation public, in the expectation that their fresh testimony will be needed for an eventual full Commission of Inquiry.
The couple who’ve come forward should have been the last people to see the Crewes alive – they met up with Jeannette, Harvey and Rochelle at the stock sale the afternoon of the day they died, and Jeannette invited her friends to dinner – “Come and have fish and chips with us”. The witnesses now believe they dodged a bullet.
“We couldn’t do it,” remarks the wife, “and in hindsight we are kind of glad we didn’t. Who knows what might have happened if we had also been there that night.”
(From TGIF Edition)
[DPF: Thanks Ian. I agree the PM could state a private or public preference about what the Police should do, and his views would probably hold considerable sway. For fairly obvious reasons, I don't think that is a good thing.
He certainly can do a commission of inquiry. They can be very good at exposing wrong doing etc. I believe for example the Peter Ellis case should have had one.
I am sceptical that a commission of inquiry could conclude who actually killed the Crewes - and the person is probably dead. But maybe a new coroners inquiry would do the job?
I do agree it is disgraceful no one was charged and convicted for the fake evidence, and if it were not 40 years on, I'd be all for an inquiry into that aspect]
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
I have had dealings with the police for over 35 years regarding their handling of the Moyle inquiry and my cycles of complaints. In order for closure/some justice to occur, at least a barrister needs to be appointed by the government.
The current PM and Minister of Justice have directed me to the IPCA. I do not think that the IPCA (an apple) are rotten to the core, but I do believe that there are rotten bits in the apple (cops who cover for their mates or look the other way). The IPCA is not an option as I no longer want to encounter any rotten bits, (crooked cops).
The government cannot be seen to be breeding police corruption, this is why appointing Det Superintendent Lovelock to review the Crewe 1970 file is insufficient.
Helen Clark appointed a barrister to look into Manukau Police, inparticular Sgt Solomona. Patrick O’ Brien wrote to Chief Justice Elias about two years ago to get her to appoint a barrister as O’ Brien confessed to her that he had perjured himself in court on many occasions due to his role as an undercover agent.
A person is entitled to go to their MP and make a police complaint. The government cannot be seen to run the police, (a police state). The public need to have confidence in the police and in the government.
Independent judical process has to be the arbitrator here. Not the government, not the police/IPCA.
There are too many loose ends regarding the Crewe case, all involved want closure.
May I suggest to the Hon John Key to appoint Sir Jeffery Palmer to head a comprehensive independent inquiry involving all interested parties, (including the police, as they to have the right to seek justice).
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
I found it interesting that David Bain and Karam etc have also jumped on this bandwagon, urging an independent investigation suprisingly enough led by ‘Karam’ himself to find out what actually happened and who was responsible. By that same measure they should also be pushing for an independent investigation into the Bain family murders, given that they are also ‘unsolved’, strange that they don’t seem to be at all keen on that idea….
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
I remember sitting at the dinner table and my parents disscussing the case and seeing black and white reports mingled with snow on our tele. My mum would say isn’t it terrible, how could people do something like this, ah the good old days when murder meant something.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
I’m sure the PM could reopen this case if he thought it expedient to do so….but, it’s not, so…
This is not a winner for the PM, no one will/can be prosecuted (Demler, long gone), the truth will remain a mystery and…Arthur (I don’t think he did it) should be happy with his payout.
The daughter…she’s entitled to answers but she’ll most likely never get any. The cops will cover their arses like they usually do and it’ll be back to square one. Some things never will be resolved.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Michael – “Of more interest is whether David Bain will get any compensation. I can’t help but feel that Thomas is trying to keep his profile up to help Bain.”
Did you read David Bain joins call for Crewe case justice | Stuff.co.nz , 24 Oct 2010 ?
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
So Len Johnson (deceased) is now a serial arsonist and blackmailer .
Fuck off.
Why wouldn’t the names at least be forwarded immediately to the police ?If they had any credibility the enquiry would be underway tomorrow morning. Where is the garuntee that there will be an enquiry
Having some experience with the NZ Police, if he attempted to burn down the Otahuhu Police Station in 1963 he would not have bee there in 1970.
This is sickening , firstly using Kiwiblog as a forum to run and advertisement and secondly writing such crap
I commented the other day wondering who was pushing Rocehlle Crewe to push this matter now. Its obvious its Wishart trying to sell a book
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Pauleastbay, to me you come across as being rather naive regarding the integrity of the police over the Crewe case.
Forwarding names to the police is no assurance that they will endeavour to follow this up. If the police have any credibility they would prosecute Hutton for tampering with the cartrige shell. I think it is important to have Hutton face criminal charges because the police (current or former) cannot be seen to be above the law. Were Hutton to be found guilty he could recieve a suspended sentence.
How do you think that Vivian (Arthur’s ex wife) feels having it on record that she fed Rochelle? Vivian is still alive and as far as I am concerned she has a right to not have people defame her.
I really feel that this is the last oppertunity for the Crewe 1970 file to be sorted out. If this is not done by the judicary, any miscarriage of justice will continue.
I think it is healthy to focus on the testimony of people who are actually alive. I ask from all of those who are alive and have involvement in the Crewe case to be truthful and to not obstruct the law as Jeannette and Harvey Crewe are unable to tell you who murdered them.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
No, the PM can’t and nor should he or she have the power.
That should fall to an independent anti corruption commission. Which we lack.
I don’t agree that investigating now is inappropriatre because some people are dead and some are “very old”. Not unless the police are going to stop digging up allegations of sexual misconduct that are 30 or more years old and using them to prosecute elderly men in their 70s and 80s. One case I researched recetly, the accused was borderline senile. All he could amswer was “I don’t know” to everything. The police used that as “evidence” of his guilt, and a jury (primed by the hysteria du jour peddled by the media) found him guilty.
If there’s aged bent coppers out there, let them spend their last years in a cell, too.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Treetop the last thing is that I am naive about the police.
Much better to run an enquiry via 20/20, which is a bit strange considering how the MSM is held here on Kiwiblog
But this whole thing reeks of book publicity, stinks of it.
Its the old story keep repeating a story long enough and everyone will believe it.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Pauleastbay, I even think that some cops are naive about the cops. An example of this is O’ Brien conning his superiors. Go and look up the letter he wrote to Chief Justice Elias three years ago. History of other under cover cops being traumatised by high ranking cops as well.
The only info I would be interested in analysing is the 1970 police file pertaining to the Crewe murder investigation. If Wishart’s book is a vehicle for the police to finally stop covering for Hutton, this to me is PROGRESS. As well it is important to aline the 1970 file with the 1980 Commission findings.
I am not a “… keep repeating a story long enough and everyone will believe it” person.
If Hutton is impaired intellectually, then it would be inappropriate for him to stand trial, Rex.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Hear hear Rex!
Vote:Gotta pay for your crimes.
October 25th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Police have no qualms about prosecuting people 40 years after the event. I doubt whether Len Hutton would have.
Hutton forged evidence that caused a man to lose ten years of his liberty. If the justice system had not been corrupt, he would have stood trial for that.
If it is not corrupt, he still will.
Further evidence of police corruption is the pathetic way they avoided investigating the Clark cases and the Brash emails.
Now they’re talking about reinvestigating their own corruption. This is a sad joke.
If the police are not corrupt, they will recommend to the Prime Minister that he appoint a respected overseas judge to conduct a truly independent inquiry, in the same way that Dame Silvia Cartwright investigated the Khmer Rouge and Geoffrey Palmer is investigating the Israeli/Gaza incident.
As for Ian Wishart, what a remarkable investigator, writer and publisher he is.
Without Ian’s incredible investigative diligence, so much of the corruption in New Zealand would remain unknown.
Yes, his conclusion that policeman Len Johnston could have been the Crewe murderer certainly sounds bizarre.
But I suggest people suppress their mirth until they’ve read the book. I found his conclusion convincing, as, I note, did Ross Meurant.
Wishart’s crediblility has been built over a period of at least two decades. His book on the Wine Box enquiry was compelling, and his last book, Air Con, was right up there among the finest international efforts that debunked the climate scam.
Now let’s have a truly independent enquiry into the Crewe murders. That should determine the validity of Wishart’s claims, and it’s the least Rochelle Crewe and Arthur Thomas can expect from the country that has let them down so badly for so long.
Vote:October 25th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
oh, c’mon. The DETAIL is that the PM cannot order this. Ian’s “nudge and wink” suggestion is grotesque. No matter what you think of the outcome, point your opinions in the right direction if you actually want something done
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 6:31 am
DPF, Thomas didn’t call for Key to instigate a POLICE investigation, neither in the portion you quoted nor the rest of the Herald article. He says the exact opposite. I’m surprised you let your standards slip in this instance.
Thomas is obviously thinking of the way Rob Muldoon called a halt to police antics in his case, or how Helen Clark – much as she is despised by many on this site – eventually called time on police rape and debauchery culture. (It was instructive to witness how the police prosecution nevertheless did their best to get Shipton and the boys off.) One would like to think John Key has enough integrity to put aside political convenience and do the right thing, but only time will tell.
“backster October 25th, 2010 at 12:12 pm ”
Backster, you can read or download the Royal Commission report from here
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/thomascommission.pdf
Or if you object to Wishart’s website, there is a link to the report on the Arthur Allan Thomas page on Wikipedia.
“Murray (6,408) Says:
October 25th, 2010 at 11:31 am ”
“Radman hes not ‘innocent’, he been pardoned. VERY big difference.”
Too much time watching American legal shows perhaps? In the U.S. a pardon means forgiveness for a crime committed and escape from the consequences. U.S. Presidents for instance are well known for “pardoning” all manner of rogues (and a few innocent people).
In the British system of justice (which we use in N.Z.) a Royal Pardon means you are declared innocent of the crime. The Royal Commission ruled Thomas did not commit the murders.
“big bruv October 25th, 2010 at 11:10 am“
“I hope that among the MSM in this country we have one brave enough to write the real story of the Klark years while she is still alive.”
You’ll be waiting a long time for the MSM. Apparently Ian Wishart isn’t considered MSM, so his book attacking Clark doesn’t count.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 11:15 am
In 1999 a very credible investigation indentified a suspect who was then (in 1999) alive and well. No on( in power) would listen to the investigator…. People in power most often discredit private investigations to enable the campaigners to run out of steam.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 11:27 am
I must add though that some campaigners need to be much more thorough! And not let ego drive them.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
sg what does MSM stand for? I first came across it yesterday from Pauleastbay. Either of you or someone else please educate me on it, thanks.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
MainStream Media
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
See I checked the thread,
Vote: