Beyond reasonable doubt, p.35
Beyond Reasonable Doubt?, page 35
In fact Dr Nelson had not only known Dr Sprott professionally for many years; they had actually both given evidence for the defence in a previous trial. Despite interruptions from the judge and from David Baragwanath that Ryan could not develop this aspect, Kevin Ryan at least succeeded in getting a fragment of it brought out in front of the jury, obviously to the chagrin of Donald Nelson who remarked of that previous trial: ‘Your behaviour then, as now, is very offensive.’
The last question in re-examination speaks for itself:
Baragwanath: Is it consistent with your evidence that the Harvey and Jeannette bullet has in fact come from Exhibit 350 (the Charles case)?
Nelson: Oh, entirely consistent, sir.
There is no way that the Charles case could be matched to either bullet. Nelson had already said as much in earlier evidence. Why the absence of qualification on this, the last question he was asked?
Harry Todd, the Crown’s wire expert, was recalled so that what the defence’s wire expert would say could be put to him for his reaction and opinion. If the earlier questions and answers of this witness were a trifle obscure then what followed would have meant nothing at all to the listening jury. In essence it transpired that the defence had experts who would disagree with Mr Todd’s conclusions and, with regard to the body wires that he had found similar to wire taken from the Thomas farm, would say they were totally dissimilar.
The final witness for the Crown was the man David Morris considers the ‘best witness I have ever led’ – Inspector Bruce Hutton.
His evidence varied considerably from earlier testimony. In the light of subsequent events one aspect of his examination-in-chief is of particular interest:
Morris: Is it normal practice for police after an appeal has been dismissed to retain exhibits indefinitely?
Hutton: No, for a very good reason. Space is the problem and for this reason always within a short time of the result of the appeal all exhibits are destroyed.
Morris: Some time after the appeal did you receive from the officer in charge of exhibits an instruction to destroy all exhibits involved in the Arthur Allan Thomas case?
Hutton: Yes, I received that on at least two different months following possession by myself.
Morris: Who was that officer?
Hutton: Chief Superintendent Ross; I did not comply with that instruction.
Morris: Why was that?
Hutton: Well, I felt some of the exhibits were of historical value so far as the police were concerned in this particular case. I felt they should be mounted and exhibited in the police museum in Wellington; for this reason the axle stubs and rifle were to be mounted on a more extensive basis than they are now for presentation and in addition to this I intended mounting the various shells and some of the wire also under the same exhibit groups.
Morris: What would your purpose be in forwarding these exhibits to the police museum?
Hutton: The purpose is very clear to my way of thinking. That it demonstrated to trainee detectives at the training college what can be acquired through tenacity and following up leads however remote they may be, and in addition to that necessity to be so vigilant when searching the scene of homicides.
At this point Kevin Ryan, feeling he had heard quite enough of this police commercial, objected. Apart from anything else, these statements of Hutton’s were begging the very issues that were in question in this second trial. The fact that the verdict had been quashed and Thomas sat in that courtroom an innocent man makes the statements of the former inspector all the more astonishing. They were to rebound with a vengeance at a later date. The reason that Morris had drawn them from Hutton during the course of the second trial is abundantly clear; apart from their highly prejudicial value for the Crown they helped to explain why the Charles case had undergone such a dramatic transformation, a transformation that is based on the recollection of Hutton and other Crown witnesses as to its original appearance.
Step by step Hutton went through the investigation that he had controlled. It all sounded so logical, so calm, so correct. It sounded none of these things to the accused Arthur Thomas. When Inspector Hutton started to recount his version of the conversation he had had with the accused on the day he had arrested him, Thomas could take no more. He groaned out ‘No’ and collapsed. After being examined by a doctor the trial was adjourned until the following morning, Tuesday, 10 April 1973.
Continuing the next day Hutton, in answers to questions from Morris, declared that he had verified from two other people Len Demler’s version of how the blood from Jeannette got on to his car seat. Who these two people are he did not say.
One of the additional pieces of information that this jury were privileged to obtain from Bruce Hutton concerned the subject of wrist watches.
It had become obvious to the police and the Crown that the Eggleton rolled-gold wrist watch did not belong to Arthur Thomas. Too many people had sworn on oath that he had never owned such a watch for that proposition to be pursued at the second trial. Consequently in another change of tactics the police and the Crown also changed wrists, they attempted to put the bloodstained mucus-covered watch on the arm of the dead Harvey Crewe, hence:
Morris: Anything missing from the body?
Hutton: Yes, in particular I was interested to look at this body to see if there was a watch on it.
Morris: Was there a watch on it?
Hutton: No, sir.
And later during the same examination:
Morris: You mentioned in your evidence there was no watch on the man’s body, Harvey’s body, when found in the water, was any watch at all found in the Crewe farm?
Hutton: No, there was no gents’ wristlet watch found; there was a farm pocket watch found in the house which appears on page eight in the inventory and also some ladies’ wristlet watches found inside the house.
Evidence, like certain feastdays is movable. This attempt to make Harvey the owner of the mysterious watch that Eggleton had repaired, a watch that has never been produced, would have been immeasurably strengthened if evidence had been laid before the jury that Harvey did in fact own such a watch. If for example his mother Mrs Crewe, his father-in-law Len Demler, his neighbours the Chittys, the Spratts, or the Priests had got into the witness box and sworn that he had owned a rolled-gold wrist watch, it would have strengthened this attempt to put such a watch on the dead man’s wrist. There was only one reason why none of these people gave that testimony. To have done so would have been to commit perjury. Harvey Crewe never owned such a watch. His wrist watch, apparently missing when the police carried out their inventory, was one with a stainless steel exterior. My source of information on this aspect includes not only friends of Harvey but his near neighbour Mrs Spratt. It is inconceivable that Inspector Hutton or members of his large investigating team had not ascertained this fact before the second trial; yet here was the Crown trying to establish something as a fact that elementary research would have instantly disproved.
At twenty minutes past ten Kevin Ryan rose to cross-examine. It was by any standards a crucial moment for both defence and prosecution. These two men, fighting on opposite sides, had been on each other’s backs from the moment that the move to obtain a retrial had begun in the middle of 1971. Now nearly two years later the man who had triumphed in that fight to obtain a retrial was about to question the man who had so vigorously resisted. It was not the first time they had faced each other across a courtroom. For Ryan there had been other clients who had been placed in the dock as a result of Hutton’s investigations. Each held very clear opinions of the other. Hutton on Ryan:
‘The truth is that Kevin is a great orator, that’s where his secret lies. Not a worker. I know from experience that if you upset Kevin Ryan you’ve won and in that second trial I did it purposefully. These are tactics. I baited him and he went berserk in the first minute of cross-examination. Kevin’s a dangerous man when he gets on his feet. I used to train my detectives. I would drill it into them: “Now remember this, Kevin Ryan has not prepared his case, he derives his next question out of your previous answer. Keep the answer to the minimum.” I had a couple of Englishmen who went up against him (police officers) they were beauties: “Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.” Another thing about Kevin is that he cannot remember his questions. He hasn’t got it written down. He will ask it, you take a little time answering, then say: “Would you mind asking that again?” More likely than not he will ask you a totally different question. Of course all the time the trained mind is thinking what answer to give to that first very pertinent question. We beat Kevin and his brother up, just like that.’ At which point Bruce Hutton snapped his fingers.
Ryan on Hutton:
‘Thomas has always maintained that prior to his arrest Hutton said: “I’ve got something up my sleeve which I won’t tell you about now but you’ll find out about it.” Now I believe Hutton did say that to him but having over the years seen Bruce Hutton’s performance in the witness box, his capacity as a prosecution witness, it was pointless to challenge him on this point. Here you are dealing with a very clever, sophisticated police officer.’
So these two men faced each other in a packed courtroom. A courtroom with such a curious atmosphere. Odette Leather, at that time writing a weekly newspaper column, talked to me of that atmosphere:
‘I have been closely involved with the law and legal proceedings for over twenty years. Never before or since have I experienced an atmosphere like that one that existed throughout that entire second trial not only in the courtroom but in the entire building. The antagonism of the court officials, the registrar, even the judge. There were two camps in that courtroom, you were either anti-police or pro-police. The court officials refused to reserve seats for the Thomas family. Even his parents, and his mother was an elderly woman who was very ill, had to queue. I spoke to one court official about this. It seemed so degrading that Mr and Mrs Thomas were merely being taken to the front of the queue and obliged to endure the pushing and shoving, the comments and the stares. I said to this official: “Surely you could reserve seats for Mr and Mrs Thomas?” His reply was: “Piss off.” Kevin Ryan had a particular problem during the course of the trial. I know you are aware what it was. He discussed it with me during one lunch recess. After lunch Detective Abbott engaged me, not very subtly, in conversation. He wanted to know about my friendship with Kevin Ryan, who I was, my views on the case, my views of the innocence of Thomas. If he’d bothered to read the newspaper I was writing for at the time he could probably have worked out the answers to most of his questions.’
What Kevin Ryan’s ‘particular problem’ was will become clear shortly.
In this atmosphere the defence counsel began to cross-examine the prosecution’s chief witness:
Ryan: You have mentioned a brush and comb set. Did that inventory say that brush and comb set was found on the floor of the wardrobe?
Hutton: It does not but it points out what was found on the top of the wardrobe and I clearly remember where it was.
Ryan: One or two witnesses remember it was in the top of the cupboard.
Hutton: On the top shelf?
Ryan: Yes.
Hutton: It wasn’t there. There were a lot of picture frames there.
Ryan: One of your witnesses said that was where it was found.
Hutton: He was mistaken, the inventory tells us exactly where it is.
Ryan: The other matter you mentioned, about how fair you were supplying a list of cars to the defence. When did you supply it?
Hutton: I supplied it as soon as I received a direction from the Crown Solicitor and it took me two and a half days of going through a police file which is some six feet thick.
Ryan: Were there some problems before this was received?
Hutton: Yes I understand there were problems; I received a direction from the Crown Solicitor and as a result of you frequently breaking arrangements with me concerning appointments I referred the matter to the Crown Solicitor.
Ryan: I put it to you that you are a liar.
Hutton: I am not lying.
Hutton had succeeded in some ten questions in provoking Kevin Ryan into the public outburst that the inspector sought. The background of frustration and obstruction at every turn by the police that Paul Temm had suffered had been Kevin Ryan’s pre-trial lot as well. The car list referred to was a schedule of vehicles seen near the Crewe farm between 16 and 22 June 1970. Ryan had battled for weeks before the trial to obtain a copy. He had also battled to get samples of the body wires for his own experts; that took a Court order issued only a few days before the trial began. The frustration that had been welling up within Kevin Ryan was calmly exploited by Inspector Hutton. All great fun and games in this trial where a man faced a life sentence if found guilty. All part of the rich fabric of the legal system admired and praised by so many of us.
The obvious animosity between the two men grew as the examination proceeded. They argued about Hutton’s refusal to allow Dr Sprott to inspect wire samples, they argued about whether Sprott had inspected the Charles case prior to the referral in Wellington. In fact he had but Ryan had to dynamite that admission out of Hutton. During his examination-in-chief Bruce Hutton had for the first time described the appearance of the Charles case on the day it had been found as inky blue. They argued about why he had not previously used that description. This bore on the all-important matter of just how corroded the case had been at the time it had been discovered.
They argued about what Detective Charles had said at the referral and what Hutton himself had said. There was indeed great validity in the questions that Ryan was asking. Charles had been specifically asked at the referral if the cartridge case he had found had a bluish or an inky blue colouring. He had no recollection that it had. Hutton had made no mention of this during his evidence; now during the second trial and for the first time he testified about an inky blue colouring. Here is just part of the interchange between Ryan and Hutton covering that aspect:
Ryan: You didn’t give evidence that the cartridge case was inky blue?
Hutton: I wasn’t asked by Mr Morris or by you, sir.
Ryan: Why didn’t you say so?
Hutton: I wasn’t asked by you.
Ryan: You didn’t say anything about the cartridge case being inky blue at Wellington?
Hutton: I wasn’t asked to give that evidence.
Ryan: You only give evidence as to what you are asked?
Hutton: I give material evidence relating to my transactions, not someone else’s.
Ryan: This cartridge case was of some importance in Wellington was it not?
Hutton: Perhaps to you, sir, it was.
As for giving material evidence relating only to his own transactions his evidence-in-chief at all hearings concerning this case is full of detail and information involving other officers. The slugging match ranged over many subjects. Hutton informed Ryan and the listening jury that after making certain inquiries following the first trial about Bruce Roddick he and the Crown Solicitor David Morris had felt Roddick’s evidence was unreliable and that he should not be called for the second trial. Why then keep him under Crown subpoena until a few days before the commencement of that second trial? Did it really take three years to make ‘certain inquiries’? If indeed Bruce Roddick was an unreliable witness and played such an important part in obtaining the conviction at the first trial would that not indicate that the first trial was a miscarriage of justice?
I talked at great length to Bruce Hutton about Bruce Roddick and his sighting of the mystery woman on that Friday morning. He took the view that what Roddick saw was Jeannette Crewe on a day prior to her death, that Roddick’s personal background and his ‘mental capacity’ made him unreliable. Bruce Hutton talked of his conversation with Roddick’s employer of that day, Ron Chitty, and of Mr Chitty’s view that Roddick was inclined to be vague and unobservant. The former chief inspector said to me: ‘I was convinced prior to the first trial that Roddick had made a mistake. But I felt that the jury are the people to make the decision and that’s why I made the decision to call him in the first trial. The option was not open at the second trial because he was a defence witness.’
A defence witness who until a few days before the trial was under subpoena to appear for the prosecution.
The next person to get the treatment from Bruce Hutton during his cross-examination was Mrs McGuire. He told Ryan that he would not be surprised to hear that Eggleton the jeweller had described her as a nasty woman. He continued:
‘I know she has threatened him; I have had police officers engaged in watching this woman; she had threatened this man in no uncertain terms; this woman has gone out of her way to put this man out of business, she has also subjected his child to the same kind of treatment.’
The next one to get the treatment was Graham Hewson. In front of the three appeal judges at Wellington Hutton had agreed with the defence suggestion that Hewson ‘was a reasonable sort of chap oh yes, typical farmer, liked to talk’. Now during the second trial:
Hutton: At first he was helpful but when he stole Mr Crewe’s dogs that was the end of it as far as I was concerned.
Ryan: When did you find out he stole the Crewes’ dogs?
Hutton: After he left.
There was more on Hewson in similar vein. Hewson ceased being temporary manager of the Crewe farm at the end of July. When he returned on 16 August Bruce Hutton had readily accepted Hewson’s offer to help with the sieve-search of the Crewe gardens.
Questioned about the letters that Thomas had kept, letters written by girlfriends at the time he was according to the Crown passionately courting Jeannette; letters taken by the police and suppressed until after the first trial had finished, Inspector Hutton, the man in charge of the investigation, could not recall any such letters.
Questioned about police investigations of Thomas’s previous employers Hutton answered:
‘Yes, in particular Barr Brothers, everyone was interviewed there.’ As earlier parts of this book establish, everyone was most certainly not interviewed at Barr Brothers and the police never asked for any information regarding the dates that Thomas was employed by the company. Crucial information by any standards if they were to find support for the remarks that Detective Hughes alleged Thomas had made to him.
