The double murder of Harvey & Jeanette Crewe in June of 1970 mesmerised the New Zealand public as the related events were literally front-page news at the time–usually daily–and for years.
The double murder of Harvey & Jeanette Crewe in June of 1970 mesmerised the New Zealand public as the related events were literally front-page news at the time–usually daily–and for years.
Theories and accusations flowed freely along with claims of bias, corruption, self-interest and greed to the highest levels within New Zealand’s, judiciary, policing and political leadership at the time.
Media and personalities too copped flak from a public who lost faith in those they had previously respected. Could the Police ‘really’ plant evidence then use that to convict an innocent man?
The events spawned serious and long-term media activity with a raft of books, magazine articles, TV documentaries, radio reports and newspaper articles enough to fill a library.
While many questions remained from those heady days of fever-pitch inquiry, trials, and town gossip, the pardon of Allan Arthur Thomas (the man falsely charged with and imprisoned for the crime) really left the key question naked and unanswered . . . “If Thomas didn’t do it, then who did?”
Many consider the identity of a mystery woman (or women) seen at the scene in the days following the murders as a key to unlocking the [now] cold case. If somebody had fed the baby, she must have at least known the identity of the killers, surely? Or a more tantalising thought was, could she even be the killer?
At Whangarei in 1976, John Ingley, a bushman looking for love, stumbled innocently into the centre of this drama by answering a ‘seeking company’ advert around six years after the tragedy. It took him a few years to understand the significance of multiple weird events and chance comments relating to the Crewe murders in his relationship with the woman he had hitched up with, but get there he did, eventually.
This book contains his story, his experiences and his findings in 40 years of unraveling fact from fabrication. Like all successful investigators, he learned to ‘follow the money’ and this brought him into the centre of ‘the murders that refuse to be solved’.
The three key factors in his contribution are the identity of the woman who fed the baby; his identification of the murder weapon and a detailed explanation of the financial motive–all three factors that have supposedly eluded the Police for decades.
TWIST OF FATE
A semi-literate bushman turned private investigator by a twist of fate that one could never have scripted better for incredulity, he received a direct confession from the key individual that would, for him, break open this cold case.
This man possessed the simple free-thinking but logical mind that just asked questions. John also had the will to find ways to eventually get the answers. His training and experience as a bushman and hunter gave him the skills to see the big picture and to find ways to work around and through challenges deliberately designed to distract and confuse others.
If a difficult tree was to fall a certain way it would then be nigh on impossible to drag it to the mill. Therefore he MUST fell it another way. Simple and logical to a bushman; so he’d find a way to fell it where others had passed it by.
If the Crewes had intended to sell and move to another district, they would be likely to build their assets that they would be keeping and not invest into the ones they were leaving–surely? Thus their investment into their stock and not their house.
If a certain family line benefited from a murder and another didn’t then wouldn’t this be a motive? To a bushman this was all logical and explained many of the things others struggled with.
For example, if their family had acted as bankers to many in the community, would they not want to call in their loans in order to buy elsewhere? Would this planned event by the Crewes not add to widespread concerns within the extended family clans and the Pukekawa community who were indebted to them? And if this was a widespread concern among those who had a lot to lose . . . is this not a strong motive–one of the constantly missing components of the puzzle?
John’s simple mind and ingrained training from upbringing to do the honourable thing–to know, respect and understand natural justice–gave him the dogged determination (spoken of previously) needed to push on and on for decades to find the facts.
As he said himself in recalling his investigative years, “I could have stopped at any time, admitting that I was wrong . . . but the evidence kept on showing me that I wasn’t!”
Yes there were times, indeed many times, that in frustration and despair he gave in and left “his book” for relative peace and quiet of operating his noisy sawmill. That ‘peace’ never lasted though and return to the government agencies he would, seeking a copy of yet another Will, Probate or Property Transfer.
At times he would see ‘her’ (or her sister) across the street–in Hamilton, in Auckland, in Te Kuiti or in Whangarei. “Did you see that lady cross the street?” he would ask his youngest daughter who in his latter years was invited (some may say ‘dragged’) in on the hunt with him. “That was her! That was the woman who fed the baby!”
RELENTLESS SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH
Through decades of barriers thrown up to deny him the proof he sought, he undertook a relentless search for the truth.
He pushed aside the pain and struggled against his personal health challenges that eventually got to him. He wrote and wrote and rewrote, despite the dyslexia that had plagued him from childhood and did everything it could to cripple his literary productivity.
He ignored the taunts and mocking of professionals, officialdom and other authors and investigators who had been there years before him and John pushed onwards until he had no more.
John departed us in 2017 and as someone close to him said, “He was a tough old rooster. I’ll never know how he did what he did and stuck to it for so long!”
I found John’s investigation intriguing in that he has established similar facts to others but he achieved this through different channels. He has also brought a unique skill set to the equation–he is neither a policeman, lawyer, newsman, writer nor any professional investigator, yet his investigation has the ring of truth and most likely a comprehensive and highly valuable analysis of the Crewe murders.
PROMISE ON DEATHBED
My name is Dennis. I am a based Private Investigative Blogger. In March 2019, I purchased the business of Ron Cooke, a King Country celebrity and well-known local historian. Following more than half a dozen years of “work” on it, Ron had promised John Ingley on his deathbed that he would ensure that “his book” would be published. I inherited that commitment, but I view this responsibility, as more of an honour.
Ron has completed the donkey work–taking John’s copious but disjointed notes and putting them into a coherent, logical order. Ron is a worthy, accurate and professional historian in that sense. John was lucky to find Ron and wise to entrust his life’s work to him.
As John has left us and Ron prepares to retire, we bring this story to you with the deepest respect for the men upon whose shoulders we stand.
STRENGTH IN JOHN’S ANALYSIS
I have brought legal minds into the equation, tweaked a few little odds and ends and I concur with the thrust of John’s conclusions. In particular, I see strength in his analysis of the systemic adversity that he fought in his research [I put this down to human nature] . . . as well as a deliberate conspiracy of silence within the fluid inter-generational family dynamics of those involved.
I think in that sense, that John had an excellent understanding looking back on the events of the last 40 years.
It speaks volumes that evidence was planted in order to secure a conviction and that an innocent man was incarcerated for so long despite two trials and many futile approaches for reason. This is evidence of a blinkered mindset of those with agendas in more than one sector of the New Zealand community.
Understand that in almost five decades the Police haven’t even a motive, nor a realistic suspect, nor a confirmed murder weapon. Even the 2014 Police Review Team approached the case with the same flawed manner as the initial investigation, essentially ‘covering butts’ and validating existing conduct, although confessing briefly to failures.
His mistrust of other investigators too, gels with me, for in my game I see how money blinds most if ego doesn’t, and the guesswork, self-interest and perhaps to some extent corruption are all understandable to one like me, with skin in the game.
The claims of Ian Wishart (that ‘bad cop’ Ian Johnston did it) are lambasted in the 2014 Review e.g. “. . . what can only be described as an outlandish claim” yet while speculation unsupported by evidence, Wishart most definitely connected some dots correctly, whereas the Police didn’t!
As a relative newbie to researching this cold case (I was a teenager while the main events were unfolding), I must respect his conclusions that there was a team of people working the murders for the gain of more than one. John’s belief of who the key players are surely the most logical of all presented to the public thus far.
John has, after all, done the research that most of us haven’t. John also had, a five-year2 intimate relationship with the woman who fed the baby and then tracked her for decades thereafter–I certainly didn’t although if she had Police Protection, some knew perfectly well who she was!
In regards to the Crewe murders, all signs point to a female led operation from the background with a long-term campaign of intimidation for years prior, generally trending towards the murders activated with relatively short notice but actually the setup was well planned. It is too dramatic to talk of a “war” but this idea of inter-family rivalry and tensions (particularly in relation to land and wills) is critical to understanding the full situation.
NAMES TO REMEMBER
In the final chapters, John fingers Alf Hodgson’s twin stepsons (Geoffrey and Donald Gurney) as the muscle but the substantial end beneficiaries included Alf’s wife Rose Amy, Len Demler’s new wife (Norma), Len’s preferred daughter, Heather Souter (nee Demler) and Len’s solicitor (Colin Sturrock).
He also explains clearly how Len Demler was intimately involved in the planning, assistance, body disposal and misinformation campaign that followed but John believed that he was not present at the time of the murders.
The woman who confessed to feeding the baby, is [Pamela-Anne] Leslee Sinton (nee Howard) now with another surname. She was born on 6 October 1947 at Whangarei. Her younger sister was born in 1949 then another half a dozen siblings at regular intervals thereafter. Her mother is Bernice and her father is Allan. She is therefore one of the clan–one of the families of English extraction that have resided in the Pukekawa region for generations. She is an insider.
There have also been incidents where look-alikes have been identified–sisters and wigs and other deception techniques have been used thus correct identification is not a simple lineal process such as expected in the typical movie-style Police identity lineups. These women deceived John many times.
On 30 March 1980 in a moment of emotional confusion, Leslee confessed to John that she not only fed the baby but that she helped clean up after the murders. If she was perhaps drunk at the time she confessed or there was no further supporting clues one could write this confession off as lunacy. John, and I (having worked through his research) believe her on this though, and for many good reasons.
Emotional confusion can be a psychiatric issue or symptom of PTSD or Mind Control, particularly strong in cases of childhood trauma. John’s repeated noting of unusual events along the lines of those conducting a secret double-life, also indicate Police Protection activities surrounding Leslee and the others associated with her.
Deception is rarely a simple binary matter, especially when this is widespread, long-term and inter-generational.
John’s analysis concludes that Harvey Crewe was shot in the head outside, in or near the East gate, with a .22 pistol [a Ladies Companion with a pearl or ivory inlay that he had personally sighted on 25 September 1976], then dragged in through the front door of the Crewe House.
Jeanette struggled and paid for this with severe injuries prior to death, eventually killed with the same .22 pistol. There were at least two males involved at the time and at least two women involved probably at the time but most certainly shortly thereafter.
Let the story begin. John, over to you . . .
DENNIS A. SMITH
Managing Director, Abundant Past Ltd
Leave a Reply