GUEST BLOG: Ross Meurant – The real story behind the Crewe Murders

34
407

I looked at the stuff recently produced about Cold Cases and by among others, two for whom I have respect as journalists:  Carol Hirschfeld and Paula Penfeld. But when it got to the Crewe homicide, I tossed the article aside.

What the hell’s the point of trawling over ‘Who done it,’ when the real unsolved aspect of that homicide is: Why have the police or the solicitor general, failed initiated prosecutions against two detectives whom the Royal Commission into that classic case, determined had fabricated the evidence against Arthur Allan Thomas?

Short answer today is; the culprits for this unsanctioned crime against the nation, former detective inspector O/C of the case Bruce Hutton and detective Les Johnston, are dead.

Problem solved.  Or is it? Is this the standard of justice New Zealanders are prepared to accept? Are Kiwis so afraid of facing reality that they walk away when the problems are difficult and dangerous?

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

What I reproduce below, I first produced as part of 3000 words in North & South magazine, which actually had the balls to run what is below plus several others cases I raised.

And before I go on, the significance of me mentioning here “several other cases” is that immediately after the article WHEN GOOD COPS GO BAD, the commissioner of the day and the police union chief came out of the bush like wounded bulls, bellowing among other things that what I say below about the Crewe case, either never happened or has never happened since!

Which brings me back to “several other cases” which I also traversed in the article but which my critics conveniently avoided when they launched their injudicious excessively passionate defence of the police.   Because in traversing; the Ngamu case; the Tamihere; the Tuhoe raids; the Dot Com saga and the Red Devils case, I conclusively demonstrated that the penchant for police to fabricate evidence did not stop in Pukekawa.

You can read about these here.

But, back to the theme of this epistle: What is the outstanding unsolved crime which still lurks in the mists of Pukekawa?

My writing reproduced thanks to North & South magazine:

“The classic case of a big-ticket item (which the police failed to prosecute) is the failure of Commissioner Robert Walton to press charges against Detective Inspector Bruce Hutton and Detective Len Johnston for fabricating evidence and perjury following the findings of the Royal Commission inquiring into the convictions of Arthur  Allan Thomas for the murders of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe.

 

Former Prime Minister Rob Muldoon had responded to growing concerns about the conduct of the original investigation, which resulted in Thomas being twice convicted of the double murders, by convening a Royal Commission. In its report, the commission said: “We conclude Mr Hutton and Mr Johnston planted the shell case, exhibit 350, in the Crewe garden and that they did so to manufacture evidence that Mr Thomas’  rifle had been used for the killing.”

 

On the basis of what the Royal Commission labelled an “unspeakable outrage”, the Muldoon government pardoned Thomas and paid him almost $1 million in compensation. Yet in the opinion of Commissioner Walton and subsequently Solicitor-General Paul Neazor, the same commission report (produced after the Royal Commission  Subpoenaed both prosecution and defence witnesses, observed their demeanour as  They were questioned, as well as evaluating ballistics and other scientific evidence)  Was not sufficient to establish a case for Hutton and Johnston to answer.

 

Regrettably, this practice of placing the preservation of the police above preservation of the rule of law has been condoned by successive governments. John Key’s refusal to act on the plea of Rochelle Crewe for the case of her parents’ murders to be reopened is instructive. Rochelle Crewe did not expect Key to direct the police to  open a new inquiry. She asked for an independent inquiry into the unsolved double murder of her parents – on the strength of new information; also that a corrupt police inquiry run by Hutton ignored or did not investigate much of the evidence. Which were almost precisely the grounds on which Muldoon took his courageous decision to anoint an independent Royal Commission of Inquiry.

 

In the Crewe homicide the police case rested on spurious and inane circumstantial evidence and ballistics evidence linking a cartridge case found in the Crewe’s garden with a rifle owned by Thomas and the bullet fragments found in the bodies of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe. Eventually, ballistics experts independent of the New Zealand Police and Department of Scientific & Industrial Research (DSIR) established beyond reasonable doubt that the bullet fragments did not come from the cartridge case, which the Royal Commission found had been planted by the police to fabricate evidence.

This was the coup de grace which finally destroyed the police case.

The Royal Commission, comprising former New South Wales chief judge Robert Taylor, former National Party cabinet minister Peter Gordon and the Right Reverend Allan  Johnston, laid the blame for this travesty of justice firmly at the door of Hutton and  Johnston.

 

But in my view, other evidence suggests that these men were not alone.

Author Chris Birt, who has spent 37 years studying the Crewe murders, has recently uncovered evidence which transfers some blame for what happened in the Crewe  inquiry right to the top of the New Zealand Police – to the head of the national  Criminal Investigation Branch, Bob Walton.

 

When the Crewes were murdered in June 1970, Assistant Commissioner Walton was a shoo-in to replace the ageing Gus Sharp as police commissioner. Standing in his way, however, was a number of unsolved homicides. Evidence subsequently prised from the police reveals Walton was unhappy about this situation and his discontent manifested  itself in harsh edicts to the homicide squads under his command.

 

Birt discloses that in July 1970 Walton called on the homicide headquarters

in Rotorua from which the Olive Walker murder inquiry was being run. Walton made it clear to senior officers on that case that he wanted an arrest without delay.

The second in command of that case resisted pressure from Walton to arrest a

known criminal who was close to Walker’s family. There was good evidence that this “suspect” was not the offender, but Walton left Rotorua after telling that officer his career in the CIB was over. The next morning, this hard-working and dedicated police officer – at that time on his way up in the CIB – was handed a letter  advising he was being transferred back to the uniform branch. The Walker case,  unsolved to this day, was to be his last as a detective.

 

That same day Walton went to Auckland, to a homicide conference, and told the  Officer in charge of the Crewe investigation, Bruce Hutton, in no uncertain terms that  he also expected an arrest in that double murder– and sooner rather than later. When  Birt interviewed Walton about these incidents, just before Walton’s death in 2009, the  Retired commissioner justified his instructions by saying he was “merely seeking to  motivate”.

 

Walton’s “motivation” would have left little room for misinterpretation in the mind of a subordinate as to what the boss wanted. Walton would have placed Hutton under pressure but may have also infused him with the confidence that any “solution” would be accepted. Hutton, of course, delivered an arrest and remained in the Criminal Investigation Branch, later taking the plum job of officer in charge of the Drug Squad, by which time I was a detective in that unit.

 

Years later, the actions Walton took to pressure me to change the evidence I was about to give before the Royal Commission from that evidence I’d given on oath in  previous hearings was far more direct.

I’d been a member of the “scene detectives” on the Crewe homicide. Our job was to record every aspect of the crime scene in the Pukekawa house where Harvey and Jeanette were murdered while their toddler daughter Rochelle slept in her cot in an  Adjacent bedroom. I was allocated the mundane task of searching a strip of garden  Near the house, but which turned out to be critical.

 

I failed to find a cartridge case, even though I’d been meticulous, but another officer, Detective Sergeant Mike Charles, later a superintendent, did find a .22 cartridge case in a search of the same plot four months later. That cartridge case formed the basis of the ballistics evidence that the police claimed locked in Arthur Allan Thomas as the murderer.

 

When I was asked in court sequels about my time as a scene detective on the case and if I’d been careful and methodical in my duties when searching the grounds of the Crewe property, I could say “Yes” because it was true. Imagine then my shock when  Nine years later, while serving as a senior sergeant in Auckland’s control room,  Commissioner Walton and my area CIB boss, Detective Superintendent Brian Wilkinson,  took me aside one morning and asked what I was going to say in my evidence when I  attended the Royal Commission later that day. Of course, he already knew what I was  going to say as my brief of evidence had been prepared well in advance and repeated  what I’d said on oath in previous court sessions.

 

In response to Walton’s probing, I said that I would confirm I had been thorough and methodical, on my hands and knees at times, and that I used a sieve on occasions when searching the strips of ground that included the specific spot where Mike Charles subsequently found a cartridge case.

Walton shook his head.

In the presence of the other executive officer, who at the time was hoping to be

promoted to detective chief superintendent and dependent on the commissioner for  his promotion, Walton said: “Come on! Senior detectives don’t get down on their  hands and knees and sift through dirt.”

Effectively, the Commissioner of Police was telling me to lie on oath to a Royal

Commission.

 

I was stunned – not least by the fact that the attempt by Walton to encourage, entice or intimidate me to change my evidence is an indictable crime punishable by 14 years’ imprisonment. Needless to say, I did not alter my evidence and in fact emerged from  the hearing as one of the very few police witnesses who was not castigated by the  Royal Commission.

 

It is significant that when I was part-way through my evidence, the  commission accepted a report from Australia which categorically discredited the ballistics evidence of the police and the New Zealand DSIR that the bullet fragments in the bodies of the Crewes had come from the cartridge case “found” by Charles.

Until that time, Walton stood firmly behind Hutton’s case against Thomas, built as it  Was on a cartridge case planted, according to the Royal Commission, by Hutton and  Johnston.

 

That Walton wanted me to vary my evidence to create the impression I’d been Careless and missed the cartridge case during my search of the garden in June 1970,  Causes me now to conclude the Commissioner knew of Hutton’s fabrication of  Evidence and was doing all he could to protect the police from the truth being made  known.

 

The extent to which Walton was prepared to go to preserve the police reputation at the expense of the rule of law was, and remains to this day, astonishing. It culminated in him trying to intimidate me, by his manner, his rank and my vulnerability at a  critical stage of my career – promotion to commissioned rank imminent – to change my evidence. As it transpired, although I was one of only five per cent of the officer corps with tertiary qualifications, I was not commissioned until after Walton retired – shades of the treatment handed out to the officer second in command of the Olive Walker homicide who refused to buckle.”

Article extract ends.

 

Fortunately, today, the sort of crap I endured would be at the top of the list of corporate

bullying.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that too many Kiwis lack the courage to challenge blatant

abuse of process, such as this case demonstrates and which till this day, the NZ police –

refute.

As Edmund Burke once said: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good

men to do nothing.

And I say to fellow Kiwis: Courage is not confined to smashing someone on a rugby pitch.

 

Ross Meurant: 

After 21 years as a cop, Meurant resigned with the commissioned rank of inspector O/C Criminal Intelligence Section & V.I.P. Security; a nationwide profile role as a Red Squad riot group commander and an earlier reputation as a ruthless detective with a tendency to enforce the rule of police.

During 9 years as a Member of Parliament and the Executive as Under Secretary, he was accused of being an arms trader; was fired from the Executive by Jim Bolger for having a perceived conflict of interests (becoming a director of a Russian bank) and started the first political party to be registered under MMP.

After 4 years in the wilderness teaching kids to ride horse and property developing, he returned to Wellington as parliamentary adviser to Rt Hon Winston Peters where allegations of conflicted interests with roles he had with three major fishing companies and a race horse baron and later in false allegations of corruption culminating in the Scampi Enquiry.  

From 2005 Ross lived abroad pursuing commercial options in Zimbabwe, the Balkans, Czech Rep, Syria, Russia, Morocco, UAE, Iran & North Korea.  

Today in New Zealand he is trustee and managing director of NZ forestry and property assets owned by absentee Russians & Honorary Consul for Morocco.

Ross has a B.A. in politics; a Master’s in economics and law and COPs in law.       He speaks Russian, rides horses and water-skis.

He is the author of:

Two biographies:  The Red Squad Story & Beat to the Beehive.

Two novels: The Syrian Connection & Sex, Power and politics.

34 COMMENTS

  1. I was scathing on Ross’ recent Springbok tour piece on TDB, seeing it as self serving, and unrepentant, and while this article likely comes from a similar place, he is due some credit for giving a behind the scenes look at Bob Walton’s behaviour, who Muldoon and the Rugby heads never forgave for calling off the Hamilton game

    the Crewe murders were the first awakening for many New Zealanders to bent cops, and much of the culture is still bent unfortunately

    the Crewe murders will only be solved when someone in Pukekawa coughs, “The District” as referenced in the above graphic is a messy listen, but also gives a few insights into the case

  2. One might ask why the cops involved in Teina Pora’s case have never been charged and in the Peter Plumley Walker case where they tried to coerce the woman who was the dominatrix to sign documents amongst other things.

    Who makes the decision to ignore all of this – I expect some of them are still around, I do know that one of them is in prison for other misdeeds.

    Decisions around all of this needs to be taken out of police hands but NOT given to the IPCA which is pathetic.

    The place needs a shake up all cops will know of stuff tht has gone on that shouldn’t but if you want to rise in the ranks you all close ranks!

    • Yes Michal – so true. If the cops now admit that Teina Pora is innocent then that means they admit they got it wrong. The cops that interviewed Teina coerced him (read bullied) into making an admission which was palpably false yet they carried on. I read the book and the articles and watched television coverage of it and he could not even point out the house where the rape and murder took place….that is until the detective pointed it out to him. Doing that must be so against the rules of fairness – just like planting the cartridge case in the Crewe investigation and it is quite clear that Walton was a typical bully who was only out to look after himself and walk over others to get what he wanted even to the point of demanding a result in a murder investigation even if that person did not commit the crime – just despicable and deplorable behaviour but still no-one has been held to account for the injustices he and others since him have presided over.

      The people who make the decisions to ignore all of this are the cops themselves because there is no independent body to review these cases. Certainly not the IPCA as you rightly point out. There is no independence in the IPCA because it is made up of retired senior police officers who send the complaints they receive back to the cops to investigate and accept without question what the cops say.

  3. Yes our NZ police have a lot to answer for they are the biggest gang in NZ and like thomspon and clarke spying on people they ( the police ) are also known for abusing their power

  4. I wasn’t born when any of this happened but I have followed it but only in the media reports. The recent Police review of the investigation seems to have continued the cover-up. The cop that did that review should be investigated too. What arrogance on his part to smugly say the investigation was ok. What an insult to the Crewes and Rochelle and what an insult to the collective intelligence of society.

    Ross you certainly have had a controversial career and copped a fair bit of flak because of it but your comments make sense. But I suppose the question is, what will come of this? Nothing, because our government agencies including the police refuse to acknowledge wrong. Look at the latest Thompson and Clark fiasco and no meaningful action from the government agencies involved except for a token resignation.

    How many times do we hear the cops say when an accused person has been found not guilty in a high profile case – “We are not looking for anyone else and we are not re-opening the investigation”. In other words, “you can take it from us that the person who has been found not guilty really is guilty.”

    The only time the Police finally accepted that an accused person was innocent was Teina Pora and only then begrudingly after the huge outcry after Tim McKinnel blew the case open, which gets back to the injustice of Crewe murder investigation. Obviously the police can’t prosecute the officers who have died but my point is that they won’t re-open the investigation either. It seems they have defaulted to their standard line – “we are not looking for anyone else” – yet the review of the investigation, although it tried to cover up the wrong-doings, certainly highlighted much that was wrong with the investigation.

  5. Cops do, use dodgy evidence as long as the police themselves obtained it legally

    Like say if a thief stole corporate records in an act of corperate espionage, the police could then use those records as long as they were seized under a valid warrant.

    I know it isn’t what people want to hear. But bullying done comes with a stick AND a carrot.

    • Yes – and when the cops obtain evidence illegally and unreasonably the courts can and still do let it come in as evidence against an accused person under a section in the Evidence Act. In other words, forget the rules; forget fairness; forget justice; forget what is right; let’s just get as much evidence even if it is illegally obtained to show the accused person is guilty.

      This leads into another conversation about evidence gathered by the cops which shows the accused person is innocent but is not produced in court so it never comes out because the cops develop the mindset that the person must be guilty so he/she is guilty. This sort of corruption goes on too but perhaps this conversation is best left for another time.

  6. Over the yrs I have been exposed to threats since divorced from nz police force I’ll treated and told only last yr not to file an affidavit to protect myself nor mention in public or elsewhere any mention of Crewe murder matters.am ex nurse and legal secty.I have never met family concerned but my former husband has exposed me to this behaviour and I had perjury in my custody case without our legal presence there and our evidence in my favournot being presented with same lawyer my former husband engaged as the one who was supposedly defending Arthur alam thomas

    • Hi, have you listened to the District by Eugene Bingham and team? I’m in it and found out about a gun not handed to the Police after the Crewe murders…these old people are devious and dangerous and enough is enough…Can I contact you? Regards, Lynette Stevens

      • Sorry, I didn’t intend this reply to go under Lynette Stevens letter, it was for B.Petrie. I would have loved to have spoken to you about something you said.

  7. Meurant has an ego the size of an elephant….there is no way he would ever concede he missed the cartridge case, or any other cock up for that matter

    • And what about the ego of Andrew Lovelock? Withholding information from the public Crewe review? What do you call that? Is that ok? Ross Muerant spoke to me a few years ago and advised me to get Des Thomas, Margaret and Buster Stuckey to organize ‘crowd funding’ for a defamation case…he would manage the funds. He and other Police made the life of Graham Hewson hell! His daughter has told my husband and I this…he also died under a cloud of suspicion as far as Janey was concerned

  8. You are absolutely right, The District Podcasts was not intended to be a ‘Who done it,’ series. It was intended to expose the lies incorporated in the Detective Lovelock review on the Crewe murders. The podcast was ruined when Lynette Stevens voiced her opinion on ‘Who done it,’ She based her views on malicious gossip that was circulating several years ago. We told Eugene Bingham where the gossip had come from, and how it had been snapped on the head, but here is Lynette still gossiping about it. It ruined the series as far as the Thomas case was concerned, because vital information was lost through loosing the focus on what it was intended in the first place. Lynette Stevens story should have been kept out of it.

    • Is this the Margaret in the Podcast? If so, I am absolutely shocked and disgusted you would accuse me of gossiping…I seem to recall your email address and I find this interesting considering you don’t want to meet face to face…why not? I will ask Des if he thinks I am a gossip ok? Do you think me finding out about the GUN Andrew Lovelock retrieved, gossip Margaret? Why would you say that? The information I told Eugene and team is factual…I repeated what I had heard from the many people I have phoned in the district…so you don’t like the FACT I exposed the lies of Andrew Lovelock, and Mrs McNamara, Judith COllins, Don Brash etc all covering up for the Chittys giving the gun to the Mackens? What part of that do you find gossip? Honestly…take it up with Eugene, Paula and team if you don’t like the podcast…misinformation is a ‘tool’ of the EUOF…I will most certainly take this up with your brother…I feel absolutely insulted and shocked at your venom

  9. So my comment gets removed but Margaret can publicly insult me ‘Daily Blog’…that seems very unfair to us. I do NOT gossip…I tell it like it is and obviously someone doesn’t like the ‘truth’ being told about Andrew Lovelock withholding a gun from his review? That seems very suspicious to us..the plot thickens alright!

    • Lynette Stevens: you are saying you aren’t a gossip? You have just said that you ‘repeated what I heard from many people I had phoned in the district’ – this is the DEFINITION of GOSSIP. Do you not understand this? You are passing around things that you have heard, in other words continuing a chain that someone has started. THIS IS GOSSIP.

      • GOSSIP? OK I will own that…if it makes people come out of the woodwork and solve the Crewe murders once and for all, bring out those GOSSIPS…I’ve spoken to so many who said ‘Arthur is innocent but sat on the fence’…GUTLESS people who LIE under oath like our brother’s killer KARL LOBB who has told many of us..including Des Thomas, “he knows who killed the Crewes but better to let sleeping dogs lie but it wasn’t Arthur”…why can’t YOU be transparent ANON? Hiding behind an anonymous profile is cowardly and you must know more too

      • Says you who is ANON!! Any person or
        Persons who talk or ‘gossip’ about anything to do with an UNSOLVED brutal double murder has the DUTY to reveal
        That information to Police. The thing is ANON (only those who have something to hide, would post with this / are you Police?), the NZ public PAID for a review which has omitted vital info about jewellery and guns from their whitewashed review), so if we can’t truat the police to be transparent and seek justice, what
        Should we, the NZ public do? Well, we should be the kiwis who are supposed to be NO 1 in the world for least corrupt and for transparency. Our brother was KILLED by the
        Corrupt crown witness, Lobb – the one and the same man who
        Perjured himself in a RCOI no less
        alongside Hutton and co. Perjured documents were given in our brothers court case POLICE VS Lobb so
        Lobb was not held responsible for that workplace death. Margaret hasn’t lost a brother. Yes, poor Arthur did time for a crime he didn’t commit. But he wasn’t killed. Rochelle’s parents were. Natalie Walker immured to tell Rochelle vital info about some guns. Margaret and Buster have personally used Natalie Walker years later to fight in court – where they won. Natalie Walker involves herself in our bro’s death investigation where Lobb got off – even though perjured docs were handed to the bench. Lobb did not say he had been before the courts before even though he was the secret crown witness in a closed court hearing in a Royal Commission of Inquiry where it was Police AND Lobb. Margaret, Buster And you mr/Miss Anon, are colliding with those who think
        its ok to let sleeping dogs lie, if you call all new info or those who
        talk about an UNSOLVED murder, as gossipers. It’s UNSOLVED? What don’t you get about that? What have you to hide? You
        Ant be a kiwi because that is not the kiwi way. ALL new info, is good info if it one day solves NZ’s most brutal double unsolved murder. Do not condone corruption EVER by
        thinking That Police whitewashed review which was done instead of reopening the case as Rochelle wanted, was
        acceptable in our supposed democratic country and that the case is now. It isn’t. Well done Lynette. About time all those in Pukekawa started opening their mouths to truths because you mark my words, just like Lobb, there are many who know more and we should be asking why the Police are NOT the ones asking these questions. It’s abhorrent in this country and
        any good kiwi should understand that.

        Workplace
        so for Margaret to

        It

  10. Lynette, you were gossiping about Buster Stuckey being involved in the murder, the information you were getting from other people, namely Mort Morrison was gossip, the gossip was a direct copycat from him and two others over another suspect that Des Thomas thinks did the murder. They were being malicious trying to imitate what Des Thomas had said about this man, they directly accused Buster Stuckey and Richard Thomas using exactly the same words, as in impersonation mimic. You have got yourself into gossip that you know nothing about. This has nothing to do with any gun. It’s about ‘Who done it?, which you got yourself involved in, which ruined the podcast completely.

    • Wow, you Margaret and ‘Anon’ seem to know a lot about the Crewe murders don’t you? You both seem to forget about Roz Macken admitting the gun was taken from Ruakaka by Andrew Lovelock in 2010 when the Crewe review was initiated…so is this gossip? This is exactly why I poke around and GOSSIP…to drag out those who know more like you guys obviously do…and for your information Margaret…Mort Morrison LIED about Karl Lobb killing his brother Colin…but he NEVER said a bad thing about Buster…he defended him to the hilt…even at the mere suggestion of asking if Des could go into his shop to talk about what he held under his counter was enough for him to go through the roof! he categorically stated “I will only talk to my friend Buster”…he defended Buster when Nick Preece tried to get him to sign an affidavit saying Buster was part of the Crewe murders…so how do you work that out? Gossip you say ANON? OK gossip it is then…you guys win…but I’ve told Des all about it last night…he is ok and doesn’t think what I’ve found out about is gossip…and Arthur, your brother has told me to find out what ever I can about KARL LOBB…my question to you Margaret…what involvement do you have with Natalie Walker…the woman who poked her nose into our brother’s workplace death case…with Gary Lendrum…the woman who MISLED Rochelle W (Crewe) and the NZ public with their whitewashed Crewe review

    • I’m sharing all this with Eugene and Paula for your information…very interesting because I have NEVER said to them the Crewes were killed by Buster and RIchard…NEVER…what about you saying it was a man who fed the baby in the podcast? That sounded very odd…that is surmising is it? I am not happy about organizing Jeremy Bioletti free of charge for you and Buster being negative about justice..the only thing that really gets me and why I rang Buster in the first instance (when my sister found out about Lobb being a lying Crown witness in the RCOI 1980) was because we googled stories galore about the Crewe murders…he didn’t want to talk about Lobb the first time and was offhand, but he rang me again because he didn’t want to speak in front of you and was much more friendly…I don’t get it. Des advised to not say any more but I will not tolerate anything but the facts…to which we have an abundance of thanks to Des..he has been wonderful to my sister and I

    • Margaret – you have a problem with transparency. For too many years people like you and your husband have been complicit in concealing ALL information which should be known to the public. You confuse gossip with transparency. Thank goodness for people like Lynette who do not condone secrecy. To condone secrecy is to be complicit with those who are happy for new information to come out. It’s been how
      many years Margaret where this ‘secrecy’ has caused this evil underbelly in Pukekawa to exist and we simply can’t and shouldn’t accept that any more. Your brother, Des seems to be the only one who recognises Lynette’s efforts in obtaining that new info about a gun
      that Lovelock went up to retrieve and didn’t mention that in the Crewe Review. What on earth is your problem because you sure have an attitude which is not the kiwi way. To suggest Lynette ruined the
      Podcast is so disengenious of you, it’s astounding. There wouldn’t have been a podcast without Lynette’s input. She also was the
      one who referred you to the lawyer (and you know whom I’m talking about) where Buster kept saying it was too late and a waste of time. Why on earth would you keep saying it’s not a ‘who done it’ also?
      Everything that comes out about the
      UNSOLVED murder of the Crewes should be about tying to solve this botched and corrupt investigation by the Police. The
      Face that the police did a Review at all and didn’t receive-open the investigation is bad enough. We need everyone talking about this injustice. I simply cannot abide this secrecy you seem to think is ok. Where is your Official Info request to the police asking them for the ballistics report of these guns? If you think Buster and Richard have
      been unfairly treated, then start being transparent about the relationship they have/had with Karl Lobb who was PROVEN to have perjured himself and still intimates in the Podcast that he knows
      more. He admits Arthur didn’t kill the Crewes and to let sleeping dogs lie. You and Buster are complicit in letting sleeping dogs lie as well cannot exposing Lobb and getting him to speak out. I’m so furious with you and Buster for your absolute disrespect to your brother Des as well who has shown nothing but respect to Lynette and our family. It’s very telling how you lack any type of empathy really. And you also have a connection with Natalie Walker!!! OMG. The hypocrisy and conflict of interest with that woman beggars belief. A lawyer who has involved herself with all three families. Concealing new info about these guns to Rochelle when she was supposed to
      Be her lawyer – doing ‘special’ work for your son, and then involving herself in our brothers workplace DEATH when he was killed (stop saying accident – he was KILLED by Busters’ mate Lobb). And then she met with her police mate Lovelock every week as well! Talk about conflict of interest!. It’s abhorrent and against everything No is supposed to be about – No 1 in the world for least corrupt and for transparency). Start speaking to Lobb now. Stop colluding with those who think it’s better to let sleeping dogs lie!!! To have that attitude , is to condone corruption. And I repeat – our brother did not have an accident – he was KILLED by Lobb. You owe our family the apology. I’m disgusted with you trying to belittle Lynette on the podcast. I can see right through you Margaret – I don’t need to meet you to know your agenda. It’s not the Christian way is it Margaret to be
      Nasty and cruel.

      Abou

      Who

      • I correct my statement about Natalie Walker – it was her friend her friend Lendrum (Counties Manukau)whom she met every week – the same policeman who immersed himself in Murray’s case after finding out the ‘connection’ with Lobb.

  11. Just to let people know..we have our evidence copied as far as the UK…I’ve emailed NATALIE WALKER because as far as we are concerned she has ruined lives…young people’s lives. My niece included in that! The daughter of my dead brother who’s death was covered up by so many…my niece who is friends with your granddaughter Margaret. We have already had threats by bullies…it is UNACCEPTABLE…got that? I have a terminally ill son (brain tumors because he was misdiagnosed) …if anyone thinks I don’t fight back at corruption, think again! But we have ourselves a good insurance believe me! B Petrie…please speak out and don’t be bullied by those who have intimidated you before…trust me, we have stood up to the Police and Judiciary..Brian Henry, Robert Fisher, David Jones QC, Natalie Walker, Mike Bush, Judith Collins, Don Brash etc…all need to come clean now

    • Lynette, this matter is closed as far as we are concerned, we are not reading your letters and are satisfied that you have involved yourself in malicious gossip. The Stuckey family are not changing their minds, we will not be opening this page again, we have made our point and are not into arguing. For us, End of Story

      • What do you mean opening this page again Margaret? I think you need to contact the Lions club Tuakau also…it’s them you should target about gossip..You’re obviously not aware of who is hiding secrets from you Margaret…how very sad. Good luck blaming me…I assure you I’m not the enemy

      • Margaret, what on earth do you mean ‘the case is closed’…are you saying the Crewe murders are solved? End of story? My husband, and many others are wondering what on earth you mean? Malicious gossip? Are you saying finding out about Lovelock withholding information about the gun the CHITTYS gave their farm workers 1970, is malicious gossip? Didn’t you hear Roz Macken admit Lovelock went to get that gun? Do you remember reading about it in the Crewe review? You are leaving us all very perplexed actually…by trying to bully me into silence only makes you look bad..think smart please

  12. For those of you having a little ‘nose’ on here to see what’s coming next…I’ll spell it out for you. Margaret Stuckey is Arthur Thomas’s sister.. her husband is Buster Stuckey and his brother Colin Stuckey works at Ray White Pukekohe…with Bill Massey who has said some interesting things…the couple who worked for the Chittys at the time of the brutal Crewe murders are the Mackens…they were given a rifle by Ron and Geoff Chitty and told it belonged to Len Demler’s aunt and to take it out of the district. Mrs McNamara in Pukekohe knows all about this gun…interestingly Mrs Macken works/ed for Ray White in Ruakaka and she and others said there are those in a branch of Ray WHite in Franklin who know who killed the Crewes…GOSSIP? Who cares if it sheds light on those keeping secrets. We have a letter from Brian Henry, admitting he was assisting his cousin John Henry and the other Police lawyer at the Royal Commission hearings 1980…Margaret’s other brother Des THomas has provided us with the evidence to show the other Police lawyer was ROBERT FISHER…he tried to coerce a Crown witness to lie under oath but that idiot stuffed it up…so they all had to keep it hidden forever…even when that idiot killed our brother 11/11/11…the late Peter WIlliams QC stood by and did nothing when the idiot lied and really should have his title stripped of him after death in my opinion…Winston Peters is being left out of the loop by Brian Henry…and also the PM…but I have spoken to the PM’s aunt in Morrinsville who gave me Ross Ardern’s phone number…but he is unreachable…aunt Lorraine was most disturbed to hear of the cover ups…we also have contact with ex police Tom Lewis, who wrote COVER UPS AND COP OUTS, Brian Walker who said damning things about his colleague Hutton…and also Harold Plumley who told my husband and I, that his brother in law, Hutton was evil and he murdered his sister Mary Plumley…so Margaret, the book Cover UPs and COp outs we borrowed from your other brother Ray Thomas. By slamming me as a gossip, you are playing into the Polices hands…this is exactly what they want. And you need to ask Buster why he is saying Mort told us Buster killed the Crewes because you are way off base there…he defended Buster to the max believe me! Nick Preece is one you should ask Margaret…Oh and Myklejohn in the E-Local office ok? Does this satisfy everyone ANON having a little look see to find out how it’s going with Margaret at the ‘gossip’s’ throat? have a good day

  13. Gary going back to your comment about Ross Meurant – are you saying that the cartridge case wasn’t planted? That’s interesting because the Royal Commission of Enquiry determined that it was. From what I understand it didn’t even match the marks on the bullet or bullet fragments recovered at the crime scene. You must belong to the category of people that believe the system and the cops are always right even when they are wrong – the old white red-neck man completely devoid of intelligence and indeed devoid of any sense of justice. Clearly, you have never been the subject of an injustice or accused of doing something you did not do.

    And how would know anything about Ross Meurant’s ego? His blogs clearly show a man who wants to uncover the corruption that exists in the system, highlighted by the Crewe case and many others, including the recent Teina Pora case. Based on your typically unintelligent and boorish comment, you probably still believe that Teina Pora is guilty. What is your answer to that?

    • Well said YOUNGSUFFRAJET!! We are wondering if that was Gary Lendrum commenting. If it was, does he know why his partner in the Crewe review (Andrew Lovelock) didn’t mention other guns taken by police during the review and afterwards on his tax payer funded review? Great point about Teina also..he is a Facebook friend of mine and even offered to help our family with Justice! I wouldn’t think of letting him be involved after what he went through though. What baffles me is why Arthur Thomas’s sister is warning people like my sister and I off…that does not make sense at all. That is very sad and obviously someone is pulling the strings of many people in the district…cheers for your great comments!

Comments are closed.