First, the prosecution's proposed motive for murder was too far-fetched. Few people will end up murdering their former lovers more than a decade later because of an immature relationship as teenagers. Compared with the time of Janet and David's union in 1966, Thomas was married to Vivien Leigh as early as 1964 and lived happily after marriage. There is no such thing as jealousy. At the same time, while Thomas's recent financial situation is indeed poor, the killing of the Crewe couple has not substantially helped Thomas's financial problems in any way.
Second, there is no evidence of presence. Defense attorneys said Thomas' wife, Vivien Leigh, could provide an alibi for her husband. On the night of June 17, the time of the police determination, Vivien Leigh proved that Thomas had never been out, but the police were reluctant to accept it. (PS: There was also an alibi who was a tenant of Thomas's house at the time, and he was supposed to testify in court.) But no testimony was found... ）
Finally, the police did not fully consider the criminal possibilities of other suspects:
1. Janet's father, Leonard. Denler. Defense counsel noted that Leonard was more motivated than his client and could benefit from the crewe's death. At the same time, the police specifically identified Leonard as the main suspect of the police after the crime in their early investigation reports, and emphasized Leonard's various abnormal behaviors after the crime.
2. Owner of another .22 rifle suspected of being a murder weapon: Ruth Irie. The evidence provided by the police was never able to exclude Ruth. The possibility of Erie's .22 rifle as a murder weapon. The suspected murder weapon is still the only one, not the only one.
The defense counsel thus proposed a new possibility of crime, the third hypothetical theory of the case: Ruth. Ruth Eyre's Murder Theory.
Related Wire Evidence with David. Harvey. Matching of the wires on Crewe's body
Ruth. Ruth Eyre's Murder Theory: Defense Attorneys Noted that Ruth Eyre. Ari's teenage son (whose name was hidden because he was a minor at the time) had always liked to roam the farms carrying the family's .22 rifle. This is well known throughout Pukkava. The boy was introverted, silent, and well aware of the situation on the various farms. It wouldn't be surprising if he intersected with the Crewe couple. It would also be logical if he showed up at Crewe's house on the night of June 17 for some reason.
The Crewe couple most likely entertained the local boy on the evening of the 17th. But after dinner, the relationship between the two sides became tense for some reason. This "certain cause" leads to two possible outcomes:
A. The introverted Ruth Ari's boy was furious and suddenly shot the Crewe and his wife at gun, then ran home to ask his mother for help. Ruth. In order to conceal his son's crimes, Airy disposed of the caring for the carvery of the Crewe couple, during which time he also cared for the 18-month-old Rochelle for a few days, and on the morning of the 19th, roddick was seen by the witness Roddick on the steps of the front yard of the Crewe family.
B. The boy who has been wronged in the Crewe family runs home to complain to his mother. Ruth. Erie loves her son and runs to the theorize with the Crewees. The two sides disagreed, Ruth. Ari loses his mind for a moment and shoots the Crewe couple with the .22 he is carrying on his son's back, then sinks to the body, takes care of Rocchery, and is witnessed.
Both ends of the axle were cut off
Defense attorneys specifically noted that Ruth. The Ery boys roam the local farms throughout the day. He knew the axles in the Thomas family's old warehouse, and in order to help his mother dispose of the body after the bloody case, the possibility of finding the axles and wires of Thomas's house as tools to sink the body could not be ruled out.
Before the crime, the boy took something unobtrusive from other farms without arousing suspicion. It is also logical that he can enter the Crewe family house at night. At the end of the day, it's just that everyone still sees him as a child. And this is exactly what the police have been ignoring before.
Prosecutors immediately accused the defense of being rather ignorant of its theory. Ruth. Ari has been identified by eyewitness Roddick as not the mysterious woman who appeared at Crewe's house on the 19th.
The defence quickly refuted the accusation because, according to the police theory, Vivien Leigh. Thomas should be the mysterious woman. But in the police identification process, the eyewitness Roddick also denied Vivien Leigh. Prosecutors immediately responded because Roddick had known Vivien Leigh before. Thomas (police did not know that the two sides had intersected prior to the October 30 identification). The defense is amused by the prosecution's use of this as a basis for counter-attack.
The defence pointed out to the judge and jury that roddick, the witness, had voluntarily reported the case to the police, providing the clue to the mysterious woman. Prosecutors are now implying roddick because he knew Vivien Leigh. Thomas's questioning of the identification results is absurd. The defense questioned the prosecution if Roddick had testified falsely because he knew Vivien Leigh, then one question was since Roddick knew that the mysterious woman was Vivien Leigh and he was interested in helping Vivien Leigh. Thomas concealed, then why did Roddick report to the police, claiming to have seen a mysterious woman appear on the 19th?
The prosecution asked the defense to pay attention to the fact that just because Roddick vetoed the possibility that Vivien Leigh was a mysterious woman, the prosecution did not jointly prosecute Vivien Leigh for complicity. Thomas. Prosecutors also reminded the defense that it was a game about Arthur. Thomas murdered the Crewe couple at trial, while various police evidence referred to the killer's identity only to the defense party Thomas.
Register of Exhibits in this Case (Partial)
Prosecution evidence includes:
The first is the motive: jealousy. Including defendant Thomas and Janet's past involvement as well as compared to David. The fortune of the Crewe couple, Thomas was now financially embarrassed.
The prosecution then pointed out to the judge and the jury the following facts:
1. Bundled in David. The axle on Crewe's body, which was used to sink the body, was confirmed to have come from Thomas Farm.
2. Wires taken from Thomas Farm, confirmed by inspection with David. The wires tied to Crewe's body matched, but not with any other home sample. In particular, the prosecution noted that this "anyone" included the former first suspect--- wires from Janet's father Leonard's home, as well as Ruth Airy, the owner of another .22.
3. Tests of the rifled marks of the bullets on the heads of the two victims showed that there were 2 .22 rifles that could not be excluded, one of which belonged to Arthur Thomas. And Leonard. Denler did not have a .22 caliber rifle.
4. On October 27, a shell casing --- evidence 350 found at the scene by Detective Parks was verified to be .22 bullet casings. Repeated tests have shown that the shell can only be ejected after being fired by Thomas's .22. This shell is unique and completely excludes Ruth. Ery's .22 rifle.
The prosecution concluded that Arthur. Thomas used this bullet to end the life of a victim. The prosecution's views and evidence are straightforward and much more powerful. The defence is almost overwhelmed in this regard. On March 2, 1971, Arthur. Alan. Thomas was convicted of double murder and sentenced to life in prison.
After going to prison, Thomas always declared his innocence. He immediately appealed to the Court of Appeal, which was rejected on 18 June 1971.
Court of Appeal Judgment of 18 June 1971 (Partial)
Thomas unsuccessfully appealed shortly after his wife Vivien Leigh. Deinler, overwhelmed by constant pressure and harassment from the local population, announced to Arthur. Thomas divorced. The double blow was almost going to take Arthur. Thomas was overwhelmed. But at the crucial moment, his father, A.G. Tomas, remained convinced of his son's innocence. The elder Toma traveled in many directions, persistently continuing to seek opportunities for retrial.
(Editor's note: If you think it's too Too young, too simple that this case is over, look at the progress bar, the best part of this case has just begun!) )
At this time, the appearance of a key person brought a glimmer of life to Thomas's father and son. Pat. Pat Booth is a columnist for the Oakland Star. As a long-time follower of the Pukekawa bloody case, he has always been skeptical about the final verdict. As Thomas Sr. travels, he has been keeping an eye on the latest developments in the appeal. When Thomas's appeal was dismissed, he eventually reached out to Thomas Sr.
Oakland Star columnist and journalist Pat. Booth
Pat. Booth raised funds to form the Private Appeals Board in the Thomas case. They hired P.G. F. Vesey as Arthur. Thomas's new lawyer, led by Visser, was the appellate body that gathered new evidence from multiple parties and filed a new lawsuit with the Court of Appeal.
On June 2, 1972, P.G. F. Vesey) appealed again to the Court of Appeal after having a large amount of new evidence. He claimed to be the subject Arthur. Alan. Thomas was innocent. The police investigation is full of loopholes, deliberately ignoring the doubts of many parties in favor of their own parties.
After a long wait, the belated hearing took place between February 6 and 15, 1973. On 26 February 1973, the Court of Appeal ruled against the outcome of the first instance and the case was remanded to the Auckland High Court for retrial.
Court of Appeal Decision of 26 February 1973 (Partial)
On March 26, 1973, two years after the first instance judgment, Arthur A. Alan. Thomas once again stood in the dock, waiting for his fate to turn around.
As Arthur. Thomas' new defense attorney, P.G. F. Vesey) at the beginning of the second trial, still focused on the motive for the crime. The refutation of the motive for the crime is not much newer than the first instance trial. But the witness, Mr J. Barr, was allowed to testify this time, thanks to the defense's efforts.
Mr J. Barr was not allowed to testify as a witness at the first instance. And one of the reasons is that the police pointed out that Bal was Arthur though. Thomas's employer at BarrBrothers Limited Fertilization Company in 1965, but also his childhood nemesis. Barr's testimony should not be admissible.
So what exactly does Barr's testimony illustrate that the prosecution wants to ask the judge to deny him to testify? Barr's testimony consisted of three main points:
1. Arthur. Thomas resigned after May 28, 1965. His resignation came a year before the Crewees moved into Chennell Estate.
2. Arthur. Thomas's only return to Bar Brothers Limited between 1965 and 1970 was a one-day short-term job. The time was sometime in 1967, but the employer was not the Crewe farm.
3. Barr Brothers Limited was last hired by Crewe Farms in June 1966. He was never hired by the Crewees' Chennell Estate farm.
Barr's testimony comprehensively refuted earlier police claims about --- "Arthur. Thomas's three testimonies about whether he had worked on the Crewe couple's farm were inconsistent, thus proving Arthur. Thomas deliberately concealed that he had seen David before. Crewe, whose familiarity with the crew farm situation "--- this view.
Of course, defense attorney P.G. F. Vesey) needed Barr's testimony for a more important reason than to refute the adverse evidence previously imposed by the police through these three inconsistent testimonies. Because Arthur. If Thomas had been the murderer on the night of the June 17, 1970 crime, he would have known the outdoor terrain and interior layout, as well as being sure that the spare key was under the carpet at the back door. But now the testimony of witness Mr J. Barr has completely ruled out that possibility. And after ruling out these possibilities, there is no evidence to show Arthur. How Thomas managed to become familiar with all the internal and external circumstances of the Crewe family.
But if you think that defense lawyer Viser is just trying to get Thomas out of the "blind sniper theory," you're wrong.
Visser's heart was big enough. What he really wanted to do in court was to prove that the so-called "blind sniper theory" was a childish and inferior reasoning show. This theory, which is close to the product of the literature of the stall, does not hold at all.
Viser pointed out that according to the theory of sniping outside the blinds, the murderer was able to shoot David sitting on an armchair in the living room outside the blinds. Crewe must depend on the following:
1. The upper part of the shutter must be fully open.
2. The upper part of the air window must be fully open.
3. The sliding sliding door between the kitchen and the living room must be fully opened.
4. David. The seat Where Crewe was sitting must be within the same field of view as the sliding door.
So within the scope of reasonable doubt, defence counsel Viser asked prosecutor Mr Morris whether these "musts" really hold up at the same time. Now, let's take a look at what evidence the police are basing these "musts" on.
The answer is photos of the scene. Photos of the scene show the shutters of the kitchen's middle window being fully pulled up, the upper air windows open, sliding sliding doors open and David. Crewe's armchair position. But Visser pointedly pointed out that there was another photo of the scene that was inadvertently taken by the police, but more likely deliberately ignored--- and the screen door of the back door was completely opened towards the outside of the house at the same time. So where is this screen door in the photo?
Open shutters and screen doors
It is clear that the position of the screen window door completely blocks the so-called blind sniping theory in Arthur. Thomas's fixed firing position. In this position, Arthur. How Thomas did what the police deduced was that "the killer stomped on the daughter's wall with his back foot and stepped on the window sill with his front foot." This can support the murderer's upper body, which is enough to clearly observe the situation inside the house. And shoot the barrel of a rifle through an open air window? If all the scene situations are really extrapolated from the photos of the scene, then Arthur. Thomas simply could not have completed the blind sniping.
What if, now, prosecutors are going to start assuming that the location of the back door screen window door is likely to have changed between 18 and 22 days after the crime due to wind or other influences? Then the position of shutters, air windows, and sliding sliding doors in existing photographs should all be reasonably suspected.
Visser even found a witness--- Mr. Dagg, a neighbor near the Crewe couple's home. Dag told the judge and jury that as he passed by crew's backyard on the morning of June 22, 1970, he saw the screen doors of the back door fully open in the direction of a ring of brick daughter walls on the steps outside the door.
Viser then pointed out that he had witnesses to prove that the screen door of the back door was indeed in the position shown in the photo, thus denying the shooting point in the theory of sniping outside the shutter window. Although the witness's witness testimony was on the morning of the 22nd, it was still earlier than the time when the police arrived at the scene on the afternoon of the 22nd. And what evidence do the police have to prove their own "necessary" conditions? Questioning himself, Viser told the jury that the police actually had witnesses. For example, Leonard. Denler.
Evidence shows that one of the deceased, Janet. Crewe's father, Leonard. Deng Le had pointed out at the scene of the crime that there was a lot of blood stains and David. The armchair in which Crewe's brain tissue was fragmented was not in Leonard's mind, where it should have been.
Defence lawyer Viser pointed out that this does not show that the real murderer had set up the scene after the murder of the Crewe couple and deliberately moved the position of the armchair rocking chair? According to Leonard's testimony, the original position of the armchair was not within the firing field assumed by the blind sniper theory. Viser went on to say that the witness's testimony clearly did not conform to the police's "sniping theory outside the blinds", so the police's natural choice was not to see.
Viser then played another, more convincing card. If all the circumstances at the scene were unconditionally established according to the police's inference, would Thomas be able to complete the murder? Visser unquestionably points out that this is still an impossible task. Visser quickly threw out a point. Before the police carried out this incredibly naïve and flawed theory of sniping, they never thought of really considering the weather conditions on the night of the crime.
According to local meteorological records, and even by all local pukegawa residents, the evening of June 17, 1970 was a cold, wet, windy winter night (New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere, June is winter).
First of all, from the victim David. Crewe's perspective. What are the chances of a person fully opening the kitchen air window on a cold, damp and windy winter night, and then sitting in a chair in the living room, blowing the wind at the outlet a few steps away from the window? Shouldn't a more reasonable judgment be biased towards the fact that the air window was closed at the time?
Overlooking Crewe Farm
Then, look at the situation outside the house. The width of the daughter wall is only 4 inches, while the window sill is at least 33 inches away from the daughter wall. In the weather conditions at that time, the daughter wall and window sill must have been extremely slippery. Thomas, who is believed to be the murderer, must be extremely agile if he wants to complete the sniper according to the police theory. It is necessary to rely on two narrow and slippery points of force to maintain the balance of the whole body under the premise of 33 inches of legs being forked back and forth. At the same time, he may also need to open the air window by himself, stick the barrel into the window, and aim and shoot.
Throughout the process, it is also necessary to ignore the noise that may be generated during the preparation for shooting. For example, the sound of climbing on the window sill; the sound of the barrel hitting the window frame when it enters the window; and the body of the gun cannot be hit by the window glass blown by the wind when aiming. It was clear that the unusual noise was bound to make David sitting in an armchair facing the window. Crowe sensed it and got up to look around, leaving the armchair.
It is an obvious fact that it took more than a dozen times for the police to complete the shooting process when simulating the regroupment of the scene on September 23, and the weather conditions on the chosen day were windless and sunny. Thomas, on the other hand, needed to complete the entire shooting process at once under extremely harsh conditions, without any chance of retrying. How much success is this almost impossible task?
A professional from the military testified in court that ordinary people simply could not do under the above conditions. Defence counsel Viser finally presented his views, Arthur. Thomas could not have completed the "theory of sniping outside the blinds", and the theory of sniping outside the blinds itself does not exist. In summing up, Visser asked the jury in court: Can a wrong inference of murder point to the right murderer?
The theory of sniping outside the blinds of the incapacitated window clearly shook the so-called Arthur. The veracity of Thomas's murder theory. In contrast, the defense lawyer, Viser, threw out another new theory in court. This new theory is actually more likely to be for Arthur. Thomas, founder of the Civil Appeals Board, Pat. Pat Booth has always adhered to the theory.
This theory was later used as a central point by the Oakland Star columnist, which he wrote in a new book on the case--- (ABC of Unjustice). As a result, the fourth theory of this case finally appeared in the courtroom of the second instance. This theory is called --- Janet. Liroy. Jeanette Lenore Demler's murder suicide theory. The obvious core point of this theory is: Janet. Crewe murdered her husband on that winter night of June 17, 1970, and then committed suicide.
Pat. One of booth's books on the case
According to the description of the defense lawyer Weiser, the facts should be like this:
Although the marriage of the Crewe couple is happy on the surface, in fact, the relationship between the two is not as harmonious as people think. Janet. Crewe has actually been suffering from her husband David. Crewe's abuse. When Janet couldn't bear it in her husband's violent shadow, the tragedy happened.
On the night of June 17, 1970, Janet, who could no longer bear it, suddenly attacked her living room and shot her husband, David. Later, a panicked Janet calls her father, Leonard, to help her dispose of the body. So, Leonard. Denderler is actually involved. But it is not the murderer, as the police previously suspected, but an accomplice. Leonard helped his daughter Janet dispose of David's body between the 17th and 22nd. During this time, Janet herself is still hiding in her own home to take care of her 18-month-old daughter, Roger.
But maybe it's the fear of killing? guilt? Or maybe it's despair about your future? One day 22 days ago, Janet finally chose to commit suicide by drinking a bullet in her own home. When Leonard returns to his daughter's house after disposing of the body, he finds that his daughter Janet has committed suicide. So in order to cover up the truth of Janet's suicide after murder, the helpless Leonard had to dump the body of his daughter Janet in the Waikato River. Forged into the illusion of two people being murdered at the same time and then destroyed.
Pat. Booth (left) in conversation with Arthur. Alan. Thomas's father, Thomas Sr. (center), communicated