Questioning the Crewe Murders

dennis.nz/2022/08/questioning-the-crewe-murders/

dennis

This post addresses questions from a 68 old male who has wrestled with the Crewe
murders for more than 50 years. I address them here and hope that they answer them in
a way that helps him make sense of it all. In essence the Crewe murders are promoted by
the Police as unsolved. They are not that for there are elements of the Police who knew,
right back to the first few hours of the investigation! Enjoy your learning here today

Harvey Crewe was shot at the East gate (“X” marks the spot) as he and his killer went to get firewood
in a winter night of June 1970. Top left is the firewood shed (just showing). Arrow points to the missing
cow-cover.

1/9
I received an email recently, one of many but this is worthy of sharing. I asked this guy to
sit down and prepare some actual questions which he graciously did. Now you can
benefit from an increased understanding of what happened way back 50+ years ago in
Pukekawa, South Auckland. The Crewe murders stand alone as the turning point when
New Zealand society as a whole realised that the authorities could indeed be corrupt.
That ‘our’ Police could and did plant evidence to secure a conviction, of an innocent man
too, was a shocking revelation – akin to realising that “Santa’s shopping list was written in
Mum’s handwriting” or that the tooth-fairy didn’t appear when Mum and Dad weren’t
around!

Hello Dennis

I have been following the Crewe murders virtually from time it happened, I am 68
and live in Auckland.

The more I have read the less happy I have been about the entire affair, the Police
and the Judicial system.

Thanks that there are persons like Yallop, Wishart, Booth, Sprott etc in the world.

My Father was a Police Officer in Wellington at that time.

You can believe that where were some very heated debates at the meal table, on
his side blind faith in the Police on mine, I challenge and question everything

My reply:

2/9
 May I ask you please to send me through your top ten questions regarding this
murder?

Should you do this with meaningful questions I propose to answer them with a
public post reply.

The questions I would ask myself on your behalf would start . . . 

1. Whodunnit and why?

2. Who fed the baby?

3. What is your take on the MSM messages?

4. Is it really a mystery?

My answers in brief follow:

1. Len Demler and Jeannette Crewe fought over Maisie’s probate the day before
the murders. Jeannette refused to sign because not everything was kosher and Len
had Jeannette ‘removed’ as a result. His Autism explains his conduct akin to taking
a problematic dog to the back paddock and putting it down. John Ingley (author of I
Fed the Baby) suggests that Alf Hodgson’s older son pulled the trigger but I think
that Bob Souter did the deed. Bob’s alibi comes from the same source that planted
350, and he along with other Americans was actually in NZ at the time. There are
also many other specific factors I can use to support this conclusion.

2. Her true name was Pamela-Anne but she used her relative’s name Leslee Sinton
as a cover from the period of 1970-1980. 

3. AAT was an innocent patsy. The work Pat Booth did was stunning in terms of 350
& ICI etc. Sadly his murder-suicide is nonsense and IMHO devalues his earlier
dogmatism which was proved right. All theorists have their pet theories and
approaches but the core ideas that the Police are and have always been
bamboozled is naive nonsense akin to the idea that all men are murderers or all
women are whores.

4. Yes and no. Many within the Pukekawa community know what happened in full –
but most to some lesser, limited degree or another. Like with the NWO things, many
are waking up and the general trend is towards increased understanding of reality.
This book is probably a little more direct than those within TPTB would prefer but
things are not really a mystery to those of us a little more long in the tooth!

Asking my own questions didn’t put him off and so here they all are:

> I have read a lot about this on & off over the years and never though that AAT murdered
the Crewes.

He didn’t

> let alone his wife Vivien assisting. It just did not make sense.

3/9
Correct.

> Who gained?

In Latin this is called “cui bono?” – who benefits. While not always the case it often is –
sex, money and power are the three largest motivators.

> And who was losing prior to the murders? What change occurred following the
murders?

Again this is not always conclusive but it often revealing to answer the question. Maisie’s
extreme wealth was intended for Jeannette’s side, not Len but this was reversed following
the murders.

>The only change I can see was a transfer of wealth / land denied to Len Demler?

Correct.

> So it had to be Len Demler with his strange behaviour slanting things.

This requires a pause and a slightly longer explanation with clarification. Len had Autism,
a psychiatric condition probably genetic as his father also had “it”. As I have previously
explained in 1970 most psychiatric issues were not properly understood and therefore
diagnosis was less accurate than now. People with Autism were generally accepted into
society if they could engage meaningfully but they were thrown into ‘mental homes’ if their
behaviour became too anti-social.

You need to define “it” because Len did not pull the trigger but he did arrange the killings.

> The bodies not found for some time after the murder did not help the Police.

No, sorry, I do not agree with you here. You make a big mistake by assuming that “the
Police” were both a coherent unit and that they sought the truth because they did not
know it, Some of them did, from the outset. Neither of these assumptions are true or valid
assumptions. Following the Crewe evidence planting three corrupted Police Officers
(including one still alive today) continued with their corrupt activities such as planting
evidence AND MORE but even they approached different issues and different suspects
with different approaches. One would bend the law without limit to “get their man”.
Another was a little lighter to the touch and the third would only act when he truly believed
without a shadow of a doubt that his suspect was guilty. It is naive to think that there is no
tension between two individuals let alone between many thousands of Police Officers
even though they have all sworn to uphold the same law.

> Len clearly did not do this on his own and was almost certainly the organizer.

True

> In the photo of the lounge the armchair was moved. What was the purpose of that?

4/9
Sorry, I do not know. Perhaps the purpose wasn’t sinister? I have not spent a lot of time
on the things that seemed to be important to others like this because the search for
understanding comes from lateral sources rather than that fed to me by obvious liars and
crooks. This will become clearer as I continue.

> Its been said in many books that the Killer(s) cleaned up.

Yes

> They did not do a very good job so why did they bother?

Stop and think for one minute! This is a good question for which the truth is obvious –
when you see it, know it. What do you think?

> What was altered or changed that was so important, and yet many things left like the
long drag marks on the lounge floor , starting from where Harvey’s moved chair and
fading towards the back door?

So let’s visualise the scene with hindsight and knowledge which I have gleaned from a
range of sources. Harvey was shot outside and the shooter ran inside and executed
Jeannette as she was held down. The shooter was a male, most likely left handed who
arrived and was granted entry. We do not know if the Crewes were expecting them but
they certainly accommodated them sufficient that Harvey went with the shooters to the
East gate with the wheelbarrow to get firewood. His two possibly three companions were
females, possibly a second male, I am not sure. The two females were the two who
started to clean up. Neither of them were mothers although one of them may have had a
child out of wedlock. One of them lost her two front teeth in the events, most likely in a life
and death struggle two women on one, or perhaps two women and one man against
Jeannette. Her execution would have happened within seconds of her husband’s murder
as the shooter would have run in to sort her out. No woman on this planet would not jump
up and race out to take on anyone daring to mess with her man just outside and the girls
would have been ready for the commotion, fight or no fight.

Rochelle was not left in the cot uncared for for five days. She was only put back into her
cot on the Sunday and left there until Monday when the balloon went up. Yes, the house
was left empty and untouched because the Demler house is where thy all came and went
to/from. The cleanup was stopped mid-stride so-to-speak due to a lack of interest and
motivation to “hang around”. Imagine that you’ve just helped to take out your cousin and
it’s your job as a woman to clean up and so you get out of there when given the chance.
“Bodies gone . . . we go!” That’s the thinking of the young women at the time anyway.

> After Len Demler found the Crewes he called Heather Demler in California. It is stated
that Heather & Robert Souter travelled to Auckland immediately. What was their entry
date into New Zealand ? seems shrouded in mystery, surely that could be determined?

5/9
Did you miss a call by any chance? You know, the one from the USA that came in on the
Sunday telling Len that Bob was back in the US so the pretense of normality was no
longer required?

You raise a great issue for which I cannot answer in detail but I would say this . . . In 1970
the relationship between the US Military and the NZ authorities was such that even if
records exist, it would take a lot to get something meaningful and even if I could I would
have to question its validity. Somebody will know something I am sure and when they or
their offspring are ready and can trust somebody to speak respectfully about their private
knowledge, they are likely to share something. Until then Bob Souter remains the most
likely shooter – means, motive and much more!

> What is the actual reason for Robert Souters dishonourable discharge from the US
Army?

Sorry I do not know indeed I am only recounting what I have been told by John Ingley’s
scribe. In fact I thought that Robert was a Kiwi so it beats me why he was in the US Army
(I actually cannot remember if it was the army) but what I do know is that Maisie shows
me an excellent capacity to run her family with tact and wisdom. She had an acute mind,
learned how to handle Len and knew what was best, demonstrated in many ways,
hushing up the trouble because she knew it was an internal matter, taking an intense
dislike to Heather’s ‘man’ was natural. It was a lot more than just as explained by shallow
repeated news people I can assure you. Bob was in colloquial terms a ‘nasty piece of
work. Maisie knew this well.

> A single shot to the head behind the ear is very specific for both Jeanette and Harvey.
Who was the shooter, as an ex-military person and a firearms owner, this implies
precision and knowledge?

Also prior knowledge with cunning, a coldness and calculating mind that would have
matched Len’s Autism. One has to ask where the information came from regarding Bob’s
US travel movements too that meant he wasn’t on the suspect list don’t we? Is there a
reason that Heater and Bob never appeared in court by any chance, ever? Did they
benefit in some way? What about custody battle over Rochelle and her continued
silence? Hmmmm!

> What was the actual murder weapon? Pistol makes sense for close quarters?

Indeed. Ian Wishart’s book makes a great point that the early Home Office tests showed
the majority of their tests matched back to a .22 pistol. Is there any reason why a rifle is
always talked about? Misinformation perhaps? I think so! The actual murder weapon was
hidden on 3C4 right opposite. John Ingley believed that it will be held in a museum
somewhere, possibly known or unknown to be the weapon used.

> Was the woolshed submitted to a forensic scene examination?

6/9
I’m not sure but the woolshed was most certainly contaminated by 100s of people
traipsing in and out before they moved it across the road. Remember that not everybody
there wanted the truth to come out! We found the truth through John’s analysis of
Leslee’s words though so it doesn’t matter now.

> After the meeting regarding the will between Len and Jeanette, did Len come for dinner
on the 17th June or were there other visitors linked to Len Demler?

Right, this one is a little harder for me to answer because some things I know, others I
don’t and there is a range of in betweens. I know that Len always ate with Jeannette &
Harvey. This once a week thing was BS fed to us all. Maisie had died only months before.
Apart from those who knew and have spoekn about it this was 1970. Old men never
cooked and it would have been unthinkable for Jeannette to NOT have provided for her
father – dispute the day before or not – hence the uneaten flounder. Len did not show up
because he knew what was going to happen and didn’t want to be there on purpose. I’m
not sure what the other visitors thing means but there were many that came and went on
the Thursday, Friday and the weekend. They did NOT though come into the Crewe’s
home, rather Len’s and the woolshed. Karl Lobb came and drove the bodies to the
Crewe’s run off farm up by the river on the Thursday morning with the International truck.

> Was Harvey shot inside or outside by the woolshed?

Neither. Harvey and his male guest/relative left Jeanette with the female guests and went
to get firewood from the shed to the East gate and then South. He was shot in the head
from a short range from the left-hand side at the gate, probably while he was stopping to
open it and possibly through the cow cover – it was raining. He fell to the left onto the
tendril bush and then rolled forward and to the East breaking the rotten bottom fence rail.
I think there were two shots but damage of only one. I do not know why there were two
shots and cannot even speculate as to the reason for this second shot.

> Who was present at the Crewes on the 17th June at the time of the murders?

The two victims; the woman who fed the baby, birth name “Pamela-Anne” later using her
cousin’s assumed name Leslee Sinton; the shooter Robert Souter, and most likely
another woman (a very close relative) and most likely one other man.

> Why was there a gag order from the Police regarding an interview with Norma Demler
(Nee Eastman)? She would have been questioned routinely surely?

Great questions and I have many more along the same lines . . . I’m sorry but I could
guess at these but I don’t know.

> How many persons were in on the organization and execution of the Plan?

Woah! That’s rather direct! Two to start with but this has grown over the years into
thousands, literally. Let me explain. As Len dealt with his ‘situation’ over Jeannette
refusing to sign his dodgy probate I reckon that Len then spoke to Bob that night. Autism

7/9
makes majors out of minors and Len had a single focus – get Jeannette out of the way.
He had failed for years to muscle Maisie into giving him the farm back. He felt he was
entitled to it, which was right in his mind. His own daughter now stood in his way thus he
could not sleep until he had sorted it all out. “Bob, you gotta do it now!” would be all that
was needed. John Ingley said that it was a phone call to Alf’s sons but I think he was
being a bit cautious, even political here and I’ve found out more about the Americans and
the relationship between the US and NZ than he knew so I reckon it’s much more likely to
have been Bob. The truth is that I don’t actually KNOW but all roads lead there!

So an in person meeting Len and Bob makes two, to start with. At the Crewe house that
night there were three possibly four people plus the two victims and Len. That makes
seven. With Karl the truck driver, a Thomas or two, yes they were involved – not AAT I
might add and the ones across and down the road helping to cover and do various things
to put the inquisitive off the scent, this grew to dozens within the first week or two.

My understanding is that with any major event – a crime or whatever, there is no way to
keep a secret when it is shared but the accuracy and detail is lost the wider it grows and
the longer it goes on. Karl Lobb for example later helped Len and Co dispose of the
bodies into the river but he wasn’t there at the murders. He can identify which of the
Thomas family helped get the bodies from the Crewe’s runoff farm into the river, but
unless he asks and or is told, he wouldn’t know the details of who shot who or why the
couch was moved and so on.

Likewise with others participating in the events. Alf’s offspring held the Ladies Campanion
under their house for a few years so they know that anything to do with Police searching
for a rifle was BS but were they “part of the plan”? I don’t know. Alf’s kids like many in the
Pukekawa region may know a truckload more than they let on but does that make them
“part of the plan”. Likewise lawyers sworn to respect the bar and stand up for their client’s
best interest. If they have to lie in court knowing something is a lie or a cover-up – does
that make them “part of the plan” too?

> Who fed Rochelle?

Rochelle probably slept in her cot for the Wednesday night till the Thursday. For the first
few days Rochelle lived with Len and the girls as they laid low and did the needful. On the
Thursday they had to get the bodies up to the run-off farm and the Friday who knows
what. Saturday they showed their faces in public to pretend that everything was normal
and when the call came in on the Sunday that Bob was safely back in the States Rochelle
was returned back to her cot ready for the balloon to go up in a controlled manner on the
Monday.

The idea that Rochelle was in her cot for five days is patent nonsense and is not
supported by the evidence. Look at the photos of the cot and any parent will tell you that
this state is where a two-year old leaves it after an hour or two, not five days!

8/9
In Pamela’s confession to John Ingley she used the phrase, “I Fed the Baby” as an
identifier (a label), not literally like sneaking in for five days straight to keep the poor girl
alive, although there does appear to be very limited evidence of feeding – most likely on
the Thursday.

BTW the milk in the letterbox was an oversight perfectly understandable when you know
the layout and contours of the land. The back path was used between the Crewe’s house
and both Len Demler’s house and the woolshed, which is mostly not visible from the road,
and the letterbox was away from their daily movements, thus out of sight, out of mind.

There are some things that you have not asked about and perhaps should have:

Maisie’s extreme wealth and where it came from

The switch from Len to Arthur which had a massive impact upon all right thinking people
in NZ

Andy Lovelock’s report and the removal of condemning photos revealing foreknowledge
between Hutton and Demler

The land transaction of October 1970 which preceded the planting of evidence and the
change of focus on to the patsy AAT.

Police misconduct before and after the Hutton/AAT events

The years of self-interest and covering up by crooks in multiple disciplines, right through
to the most recent attacks on AAT by those close to him with an agenda and their
corrupted ones who wield power.

I truly appreciate the opportunity to answer these questions sir, and look forward to more
as it suits you or as that itch to understand this gets too much to bear!

9/9