Arthur Thomas was convicted for the murder of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe, but was pardoned in 1979 after evidence emerged that the police planted evidence to convict him. Numerous theories have continued to bubble away over the years about who really killed the couple. Some people think it was a murder-suicide, some still think Thomas was the murderer, while occasionally other names are thrown into the mix.
The reviews of Wishart's novel indicate he has deployed his great writing strengths, fantasy and science fiction, to masterful effect. In Wishart's book the murderer is Detective Sergeant Len Johnston, one of the two police officers blamed by a Royal Commission for planting a shell casing to implicate Thomas. The evidence pointing to Johnston is desperately thin. It appears to consist of Johnson having a reputation for being a "dirty cop" who (we are told) liked to start fires. Combine this with the (alleged) fact that a few years before the murder Johnston was at the Crewe house investigating a burglary, and that the Crewes apparently reported a couple of suspicious fires in 1968 and 1969.
A writer of serious books would probably find himself up against it if he tried to construct a murder case out of that random set of facts. But Wishart is not a writer solely of facts, being a master weaver of fact and fantasy. For those avid readers of his works who thrilled to imagine a world where evolution was a myth, and where a cabal of scientists planned a global warming conspiracy, this will be a must-read book.
The book is released tomorrow. Keep an eye out for it in the fantasy fiction sections of all good bookstores.
Trying to "construct a murder case out of [a] random set of facts" is a far better idea than constructing one out of deliberately planted evidence, don't you think? If one decides to be a corrupt liar and abuse one's position of trust, one deserves everything leveled at oneself.
ReplyDeleteHow is that better? Isn't the result likely to be the same?
ReplyDelete"one" is dead. It's not a question of what the late Mr Johnston deserves.
I see where you are coming from. But no matter how random they may be, facts are facts. The evidence that put Arthur inside was not based on fact, but on the dirty dealings of Johnston and Hutton. What Wishart has done in constructing a case, however flimsy it may be, is hardly (in my view) as nasty as deliberately condemning a man to incarceration having knowingly planted exhibits. Maybe this whole thing might give Hutton a heart attack, then they'll both be unable to ever commit such terrible acts again.
ReplyDeleteIan Wishart? a reactionary intellectual lightweight journalist who's become a right-wing conservative who's somehow an Anglican yet rejects Evolution. As someone who is related to Micky Eyre, the #3 suspect in the Crewe murders, and whom incidentally Paul Temm and Thomas' brothers had wished to be investigated had their botched appeal succeded; I really wish they'd let this one lie still. It was 40 years ago.
ReplyDeleteAs a relative of Eyre, I'm not surprised you'd rather they let it lie still!
ReplyDeleteAnd why are you not surprised? are you insinuating our Micky did it or something?
ReplyDeleteNot at all. But isn't it challenging when we know for sure that Thomas didn't do it; that it is just as easy, maybe easier to stitch up Mickey for it. I don't like to accuse Mickey, but he'd make a far better suspect than Arthur. Having said that, Johnston would make a far better suspect than either of them. So I can not help but guess it was one of those power crazy cops, who thought they would never be found out. :-)
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about? how do you know for certain the murderer wasn't Arthur Thomas? And how was Mickey an easier stitch than a man well known for harmlessly stalking Jeanette Crewe before she was married? Remember Arthur Thomas was only pardoned due to the obviously fabricated evidence, his conviction wasn't overturned to innocent.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I've never believed Thomas would've been capable of doing such a thing. Len Demler on the other hand...
It was established at the Royal commission and in many other reference materials that Thomas never stalked Jeanette. And as for the Royal Pardon? Perhaps you should research the definition of such. I quote the Crimes Act 1961: "Effect of free pardon: Where any person convicted of any offence is granted a free pardon by Her Majesty, or by the Governor-General in the exercise of any powers vested in him in that behalf, that person shall be deemed never to have committed that offence". Sounds like innocence to me.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure of what the royal commission of enquiry but anyone who was from Pukekawa or the neighbouring counties and was of the same age group knew that Thomas was attracted to Jeanette Demler. He was known to be very shy and unconfident and so he'd "stalk her following her around but never having the courage to chat with her. This flimsy piece of circumstantial evidence was what made him the #1 suspect. What the Royal commission of enquiry (may have) "established" is not necessarily fact.
ReplyDeleteAs for the legal speak the;"that person shall be deemed never to have committed that offence" in a pardon is NOT the same as having a conviction overturned and being found innocent by a jury in a court of law.
But in any case; why drag this up? Demler is long dead, Johnston is dead and Hutton is an old man long ago retired from policing in disgrace. They will never convict whoever did kill the Crewes so Wishart's latest load of rubbish is completely pointless. Maybe this Ian Wishart should experience being the victim of slander and gossip?
Didn't Jeanette do it? Her Dad told Pat Booth she did. Then overcome with remorse, killed herself.
ReplyDeleteFools. The baby did it.
ReplyDeleteIan Wishart has just tweeted this message of love:
ReplyDelete"@ImperatorFish Yorke, for a lawyer you are big time ignorant. Posting a review based on third hand info, and you call ME a fantasist?"
My responses:
"@investigatemag My post was a commentary on your well-known habit of "making shit up". Not a review of your book. I haven't read it"
and
"@investigatemag and in answer to your question, yes"
Like I said on Twitter....if this is the standard of your accuracy Scott, what confidence can readers have in your work for A J Park on patent issues?
ReplyDeleteSloppy is as sloppy does...
There's a typo in a blogpost written in my spare time, and now that means my legal skills are doubtful? Seriously? Is that the best you can do?
ReplyDeleteOkay then. In that case you would surely agree that if I find one, just one, typo in any of your written works (including in any issue of Investigate Magazine ever published) that will mean we can write off your entire journalistic career.
But then I see a pattern. You've used this tactic to deny the existence of man-made climate change too. Find a couple of minor errors in the climate change data and then use that to argue that none of the data can be relied upon.
You also objected on Twitter to my "review" of your book when I haven't read it. As I said on Twitter, I wasn't reviewing your book. I was commenting on other reviews and on your approach generally. Unless someone gives me a free copy I don't intend to read it. Why would I give you money?
Scott says: " if I find one, just one, typo in any of your written works (including in any issue of Investigate Magazine ever published) that will mean we can write off your entire journalistic career"
ReplyDeleteEr, isn't that what you attempt to do from time to time? I mean, you haven't actually read the Thomas book and I strongly suspect you never read Air Con, yet you prance and pose like a Parnell regular relying on third hand dreck as if it was holy writ, as long as it suits you.
What would you know of my "approach generally"? I doubt you've read enough of my work to know.
And yeah, I've decided to start calling out poseurs like yourself because I do think it a little rich to criticise my approach, when at least I read opposing arguments in detail and attempt to address the issues they raise.
"Commenting on other reviews". I'm sorry, you mean this one from Newstalk ZB?:
Arthur Allan Thomas: The Inside Story by Ian Wishart.
Bestselling author Ian Wishart tackles one of the biggest conundrums in New Zealand’s criminal history - who killed Jeannette and Harvey Crewe?
A lot of people - including Arthur Thomas himself - believed Len Demler, Jeannette’s father, was the murderer because he’d been cut out of his wife’s will.
Journalists and authors have perpetuated this theory over the years but now Wishart has a brand new prime suspect and he lays out his case in this fascinating and highly readable book.
Wishart is painstaking in his investigation, and his interviews with the man at the centre of the case, Arthur Thomas, offer a remarkable insight into one of New Zealand‘s most memorable characters.
Whether you concur with Wishart or not, you need to read this book.
Highly recommended.
Oh look, Don Quixote is here.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone is giving out free copies of these books I'd like a box of them - my garden needs mulching.
Ian, I’ve read enough of your work to understand your ability to string together a handful of facts and build an implausible argument. I have read a couple of your earlier books, several of your articles in Investigate, and bits of Air Con. I don’t need to subject myself to more, thanks.
ReplyDeleteI’ve also read a great deal of criticism of your work by people whose judgement I respect and trust.
I’m glad you’ve moved on to “calling out” people who disagree with you, rather than just threatening to sue them. Talking of which, how’s your lawsuit against the Herald going? I haven’t heard anything about that for ages.
I’m not sure where the Parnell reference came from. I’m a Westie. But then you seem to be happy to pigeon-hole me even though you don’t know anything about me. It’s kinda funny, because there you were telling me off for attacking your work without reading it...
Scott, unlike you who pigeon-holes me based on what others say, I read what you write, and consider you akin to a Parnell poseur...nowhere did my my post suggest you originated from Parnell. Get some written comprehension skills, they could come in handy for patent work.
ReplyDeleteMy earlier books, The Paradise Conspiracy, Lawyers, Guns & Money - all factual legal potboilers. Did you have a problem with them?
What books of mine have you, in fact, read?
If you are relying on Renowden or Bradbury's commentaries, then you are writing yourself in as a character in the local version of Dumb and Dumber.
If your generalisations are based on Investigate stories, then tell me where I got my facts wrong in these:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2010/09/i-hate-ian-wishart-because.html
As for lawsuits, I compiled a Statement of Claim I was happy with, but decided to deliver responses in kind. I have however forced settlements from both ACP and Fairfax in the past, so my threats shouldn't be seen as idle.
Air Con went on to become an international bestseller so clearly no-one paid attention to Renowden or the halfwit from the Herald who quoted him.
Scott, unlike you who pigeon-holes me based on what others say, I read what you write, and consider you akin to a Parnell poseur...nowhere did my my post suggest you originated from Parnell. Get some written comprehension skills, they could come in handy for patent work.
ReplyDeleteBut have you read every post on this blogsite? No? In that case, how dare you attack me! (See how stupid that sounds? Oh and there’s a type in your line above. “Sloppy is as sloppy does” and all…)
My earlier books, The Paradise Conspiracy, Lawyers, Guns & Money - all factual legal potboilers. Did you have a problem with them?
To be fair, it’s been years since I read them, but while they were interesting enough reads I do recall at the time thinking that some of the conspiracies you constructed based on the facts identified were a little contrived.
What books of mine have you, in fact, read?
The two I just mentioned. Plus a bit of Air Con, as I said.
If you are relying on Renowden or Bradbury's commentaries, then you are writing yourself in as a character in the local version of Dumb and Dumber.
Renowden has written some good stuff about your work. As has Chris Barton. From recollection the people who do the “Silly Beliefs” site also have some good posts, though I don’t recall who they are and can’t access that site at work. I’m not familiar with what Bradbury (I assume you mean Bomber) has written about you.
And it’s interesting how quickly you descend to gratuitous personal insults when people don’t agree with you.
If your generalisations are based on Investigate stories, then tell me where I got my facts wrong in these
I didn’t say you get your facts wrong (“Get some written comprehension skills,” as you would say). It’s the conclusions you draw from pulling together bits of fact in a creative way that in my opinion make much of your work suspect. One could conclude (as many have previously) that you first decide on the answer and then go looking for the facts to support it.
my threats shouldn't be seen as idle
Although when you post insults all over the blogosphere about people who take issue with your work, suing someone successfully for defamation because they said something unkind about you would set something of a legal precedent.
I’m pleased for you that your books are selling well, because I’ve no doubt you put a lot of time and effort into them. But I’ve never considered book sales numbers to be a good guide to quality.
As for that “I hate Ian Wishart” post of yours, why do you assume that people who disagree with you must therefore hate you? It’s quite possible to disagree strongly with someone or their beliefs and work without hating them. For the record, I don’t hate you. I just don’t hold your work in high regard.
Scott, never attempt to mud wrestle a pig,all that happens is that you get covered in filth and the pig enjoys itself.
ReplyDeleteWishart is a looney , we know that..
Peter, good advice generally, and I'll stop when it gets too crazy. I suspect Ian and I will both just run out of steam and give up soon. (hey but 22 comments - must be a record for this shabby little blog)
ReplyDeleteFWIW, it's this kind of b/s: "To be fair, it’s been years since I read them, but while they were interesting enough reads I do recall at the time thinking that some of the conspiracies you constructed based on the facts identified were a little contrived" that is so easy to put out there but so hard to actually justify.
ReplyDeleteThe Paradise Conspiracy dealt with two key tax haven transactions that were, as I've said elsewhere, legal conspiracies. Nothing contrived about them. The Privy Council and the Court of Appeal agreed with my analysis to a T.
Lawyers Guns & Money dealt with Russell McVeagh's movie and bloodstock investment frauds. Again, all based on documents and eyewitness testimony...the lawfirm eventually got pinged in court, end of story.
You write: suing someone successfully for defamation because they said something unkind about you would set something of a legal precedent.
There are two ways of tackling crap like yours. You are a lawyer so I'll make this simple. Yes, I could sue for defamation and I did in fact come close with Gareth and the Herald, but I have to weigh up how much of my own time I need to waste in court.
Your "makes shit up" comment is one that leaves you liable under the Defamation Act, unless you can actually prove this is something I do. Relying on third hand opinions from another blogger wouldn't save you if it came to a court scrap, because an honest opinion has to be based on true facts to be defensible. Helen Clark paid out $50K for calling a man convicted of manslaughter a "murderer" - a small but crucial distinction of the kind taken seriously by the courts.
Where the Herald got in trouble with me was basing their story on someone else's flawed opinion (in that case Renowden's) and therefore legally the Herald couldn't honestly claim it was its own honest opinion as the journalist had not actually read Air Con.
As Lord Denning put it in Dingle v Associated Newspapers, "The law does not love tale-bearers. If a report is not true, he [the defendant] ought not to have repeated it and added to its circulation. He must answer for it just as if he had stated it himself."
NZ's leading defamation expert, John Burrows, has written extensively for lawyers and journalists on the subject:
"If humourous comments about someone expressly or impliedly suggest that that person has undesirable traits, or has done something disreputable, the element of humour does not save the comment from being defamatory. Indeed it can be defamatory simply to make someone look ridiculous, or a laughing stock."
Elsewhere he writes, "A statement could affect the plaintiff's good relations with others [and] may be defamatory even though it does not make those others think worse of the plaintiff. Thus it is defamatory to say of a person that he or she is insane..." [Peter G, are you reading this?]..."for few things are more calculated to effect a change in the attitude of one's acquaintances".
I could go on for hours quoting various defamation judgements, but I raise these only because you raised the issue in the first place, and you seem to think that me trying to protect my reputation from cheap shots is an overreaction. It's either this, or a lawsuit, which would you prefer?
The irony is that with every story I do, or book I write, I have to meet the defamation tests. Yet yourself, Public Address or Renowden shoot your mouths off with inaccurate and defamatory comments and then accuse me of being a lightweight!
Readers here can make their own minds up now. You called my work science fiction and a fantasy, but admit you haven't read it. The review posted above says my work was "painstaking...a remarkable insight...fascinating and highly readable...highly recommended."
Unlike you, they actually read the book.
For goodness sake guys - are you adults or children? This is ridiculous! I have just finished reading Ian Whishart's book The Inside Story and I think it is very compelling and I believe it is highly probable the cop suggested was responsible for the Crewe murders. The book is NOT based on fantasy and is based on reasonable deductions, fact and studies of human behaviour as well as probability and likelihoods. I have also read AirCon and totally support it and believe the global warming crisis is a hoax.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Eyre family member;
ReplyDeleteAssuming Mr. Wishart will be investing his time as a ground breaking investigative journalist (en sarc) to read this blog I'd like to say this.
The main police investigator in the Crewe murders and the man who made Thomas the suspect was Hutton. In the days before extensive forensic science Hutton and his colleagues attempted to solve the case through the then standard techniques of interviews and statements and summing up the suspects then fitting the scant forensic evidence to the prime suspect. Hutton would've been used to solving murder cases in the city and suburbs of Auckland and he would've been successful. In a rural community like Pukekawa I would think he would suddenly found the locals much harder to relate to and sum-up and understand and find himself suddenly struggling. I think it was because of the locals testimony of the young Arthur Thomas being sweet on Jeanette Demler, eventually buying a neighbouring property some years later and him being a big of a slow and funny bugger that Hutton immediately made him the prime suspect.
While we can all agree on the disgrace of Hutton and his team's initially poor forensic investigation and subsequently fabricating fitting evidence I believe he genuinely thought Thomas was the murderer. I think it's purely down to narrow-mindedness that Hutton framed Thomas, not a conspiracy.
As for Wishart, can't we all see just what sort of man he's showing himself up as with his correspondences? what a petty and insecure little creature. He's very lucky NZ is so off the radar with his absurd book about evolution.
Anon (the Eyre family member)
ReplyDeleteI think you're right on the motivations for Hutton's actions. He decided on Thomas' guilt and then went hunting for the evidence to nail him. When he couldn't find it he contrived it. In his mind he probably feels justified, because he remains convinced Thomas did it. Sad.
As for Wishart... I've probably said enough.
Ian, it is pointless to try to educate the uneducated. There will always be a very small and insignificant portion of NZ's population that are silly enough to think that Arthur did anything more than sleep next to Vivienne that night. These are the same 'wind up dolls' who repeat what their misguided teachers taught them in 5th form about 'origins science'. Let them be ignorant.
ReplyDeleteIan, your last comment was blocked by the spam filter for some reason. I don't know why, but I've now released it. I don't check my spam box regularly.
ReplyDeleteI know something about defamation law and am not especially concerned by the threat of being sued. The irony of your threatening me with defamation is that you've made a number of defamatory remarks towards me in this very comments thread.
The fact that some people in this thread like your work doesn't really change anything (and I note they are all commenting anonymously).
Anon (the last one), you seem to be suggesting a correlation between belief in evolutionary theories and belief in Thomas' guilt. Have you evidence of this, or are you just making stuff up? For the record, I believe in the theory of evolution and Thomas' innocence. How does that sit with your theory?
Scott, I wasn't threatening you with a defamation suit...you missed my point. You raised the issue of legal threats. In the past I whacked both ACP Magazines and Fairfax, purely on the basis of holding them to the same legal standards I hold myself to in investigations.
ReplyDeleteI came close to having a crack at the Herald and Gareth Renowden and finally decided it wasn't worth my effort at that point, as the book had taken off and every waking moment was spent between dealing with inquiries and meeting the magazine deadlines.
Deciding not to sue is not an abdication of my right of reply, however, and the reason I pop up on blogs like this from time to time is to address exactly these issues.
If you wish to slam me as a fantasist based on nothing more than third-hand crap and your own prejudices, then don't be surprised to see me return that flavour in my comments to you.
I only discussed defamation because you asked me questions on that topic.
Ian, point taken. Although I wasn't accusing you of threatening me with a defamation suit.
ReplyDeleteScott as you have not read the book in question the arrogance with which you offer your opinion is incredible. Yet you criticise Ian for stringing a few facts to giver, then what would call your approach? An on the point of 'stringing facts together' what is wrong with that, isn't that generally how we make sense of the world. No sorry in the case of NZ police they just string stuff together, it need not be based on fact. The book is thorough, logical and intelligent and dare I say it convincing, some properties you may find useful Scott.
ReplyDeleteYet you criticise Ian for stringing a few facts to giver, then what would call your approach?
ReplyDeleteMy approach is pretty clear. I look at the track record of the man writing the book. I have acknowledged that I haven't read it, but then when his other books claim global warming is a myth and that evolution is a lie, why should I part with my money?
An on the point of 'stringing facts together' what is wrong with that, isn't that generally how we make sense of the world. No sorry in the case of NZ police they just string stuff together, it need not be based on fact.
Well I've no argument with you about the police case. But I think there's a difference between trying to find a connection between two or three seemingly unrelated things, and objectively assessing a large body of evidence to formulate an argument that stands up to scrutiny.
I've no idea which approach Wishart takes in the latest book, but I know which approach he took in previous ones. So I'm not inclined to pay much attention to his work.
I'm sorry if that pisses some of Wishart's disciples off (actually, no I'm not).
I have not read 'Con Air' or any other of Wishart's books so I guess I approached the Crewes' book with an open mind, save the knowledge that Wishart has a contentious reputation. I am very well read in regard to the murders.
ReplyDeleteCentral for me is motive, opportunity and ability, in this regard Wishart argues a strong case against Johnston, granted there may be a few alleged facts (as you mentioned in your first comment) that are less robust,yet if you discard them, they do not substantially weaken Wishart's theory. They are the sort of things a prosecution would raise to attest to the accused's character and reputation, e.g. Johnston's nick name the 'fitter'.
The book takes you on a journey from discrediting past and current theories, to Johnston being possibly the murderer, to being the likely murderer and ultimately probably the murderer.
Given the fact the police, fabricated, altered, removed and ultimately destroyed most of the evidence there is little chance we will ever satisfy reasonable doubt, but this is the strongest case presented to date, and if it was possible for Thomas to be convicted as he was, then certainly Johnston would have been convicted on the facts presented in Wishart's book.
Where's the dingo?
ReplyDeleteI have just read the arguments by Scott and Ian. (I have a legal background but) I'm not going to comment on their "debate".
ReplyDeleteOver the years I have read the other books on the Crewe murders and I've just finished reading Ian's "The Inside Story".
I was rather disappointed with the latter - the contents simply was not as convincing as I hoped it might be. Just not enough meat on the bone...
Murder scenes aren't easy territories - they often leave very little information for the investigators followed by years and years of public scrutiny...
My opinion is that our detectives simply aren't the best in the world - besides properly combing a scene and interviewing anyone with possible links to the case etc, one needs a few very sharp brains, real, analytical, problem solvers with a lot of experience, "trained eyes and ears" and intuition that result in proper and waterproof cases being prepared (not fabricated). Never easy - not even at times when it all appears to be so "obvious".
The Crewe case is a good example of very poor police work resulting in an unsolved case 40 years on. And everytime a new book is written about the case, a new murderer is "identified" and the confusion grows..
Just read the book , thought it was great. I have a real low opinion of peoples intelligence in general, and the posts here would confirm that observation. People who produce incorrect "facts" and misquotes, and people who will discredit a book without even reading it, are basically mornons who sadly misinform an already moronic public. Is it any wonder I think most people are thick and ignorant? Especially you Scott, and the guy from the Eyre family who seems to have as many brains as his dimwit relative (misinforming the public that Thomas bought his farm to be close to the Crewes when we all know it was the Thomas family farm long before the Crewes were on the scene). Sad sickening feeling reading through all this crap. Good on you John Wishart.
ReplyDeleteAnon (the last one), I don’t normally attack people for their spelling or punctuation errors, but if you are going to call someone a moron, it’s probably best you don’t post something that leaves most readers thinking you’re illiterate. That’s what we in the blogging profession call an own-goal.
ReplyDeleteI’m sure John Wishart will be pleased to know you enjoyed his book. By the way, is he related to the Ian Wishart who also wrote a book about the Crewe murders? You know, the author and journalist who also doubles as a mining expert, and who blasted police for being cowards for not allowing a rescue team to go into the Pike River mine?
Finally, the opinion of an anonymous coward means nothing to me. Perhaps if you were courageous enough to put a name to your vitriol I might take you more seriously. But, then again, maybe not.
It would be nice to one day read, why Micky Eyre was dropped as on of the leading suspects. That his rifle was eliminated is really not enough, as he had access to several other rifles (as did eveyone else in the case; - police only collected a very few to check over)
ReplyDeleteHis mother may have fitted the profile of "who fed Rochelle" and Who did Len Demler marry sfterwards? Adjoining farms with quite hidden access to the Waikato river?
If you bloggers want to read the real scandal of the Crewe case, get June's North and South before it disappears from the bookshelves. It surely answers the issue of who fed Rochelle Crewe and if you find the who to that answre, you may see the connection with the original prime suspect. Chris Birt's (2001) book The Final Chapter, although discredited by Wishart, has never been challenged by the Police as he got all the info from their own files.
ReplyDelete