The One and Only True Suspect

Police only ever had one suspect for the murders of Jeanette and Harvey Crewe – the father of
the dead woman, Lenard William Demler.
Inquiry head Bruce Hutton was to declare, three decades later, that if Demler had killed his
daughter and son-in-law, he would have cracked under interrogation. That he didn’t ‘crack’
showed clearly that he was not responsible, in the eyes of the most discredited police officer in
New Zealand history at least.
Those who knew Demler throughout his life had a different view, concluding that if he had
indeed gunned down his kin in the manner the police originally concluded, he was never going to
admit it, pressure or no pressure from men trained to extract confessions. Some of those
informants described the ‘prime suspect’ as a bit off normal, even in his younger days, and in the
words of Hutton himself, Demler was ‘a psycho’.
Bob Walton [Police Commissioner from 1978 to 1982] ultimately backed ‘his man’, claiming
that there was never any evidence against Demler. That was an assertion he repeated to Crewe
researcher Chris Birt in the last ever interview he ever provided, just before his death in July
2008.
But these statements, by Hutton and Walton, fly in the face of the documentary evidence
extracted from police under the Official Information Act.
Some of that information is contained within Birt’s 2001 book, The Final Chapter. Other
material has come to light in the intervening 12 years.
The Final Chapter was produced, primarily, for the purposes of showing just how much
evidence the police had actually gathered on Len Demler. It also recorded the views the Crewe
inquiry squad had of the one they suspected almost from day one. It is essential reading for
anyone who wants to get a detailed picture of the Crewe murders and Demler’s means, motive
and opportunity – the three ingredients for crimes of this nature.
Since 2001, only Bruce Hutton has challenged the contents of that book, not directly as it was
based entirely on documented evidence which is contained with the Crewe homicide file to this
day. Hutton instead endeavoured, on national television, to denigrate Birt’s research, claiming
that he had access to the Crewe file and therefore had the answers. The truth is that the long-time
researcher had not been given access to the entire file – a position that pertains to this day –
despite his efforts to achieve just that.
The reality is that both Hutton and his national Criminal Investigation Branch boss, Walton, only
rejected the assertion that Demler was their man after evidence was fabricated against Arthur
Thomas in a bid to bring the inquiry to a conclusion, as flawed as it subsequently proved to be.
Having taken the step of relying on fabricated evidence, they then had to diminish the extent of
the case they had built against Demler.
Documents now available reveal clearly that Demler became the prime suspect for the killing of
Jeanette and Harvey Crewe within the first week or so of the inquiry and he maintained that
status until 2 October 1970. That was the day when police bosses held a major conference, the
entire proceedings of which involved consideration of the case they had built against Demler.
That case came unstuck on one main point – that a firearm capable of firing .22 bullets could not
be found in his possession. The police knew, by then, that he had had one, but the advice from
Crown Prosecutor David Morris – that without a physical weapon of that status he could not
make charges stick in Court – was the end of the road for the Hutton-led inquiry team.
In that regard Morris’ thoughts appeared to have progressed since July, because at a conference
on the 15th of that month, he advised that he believed there was enough to establish a prima facie
case against Demler for Harvey Crewe’s murder. [That advice was edited from the conference
notes provided to research Chris Birt by police national headquarters in December 1999].
Leading up to the 2 October conference, there had been a great deal of discussion about Demler
and his role in both the two murders and the disposal of the bodies of the victims in the Waikato
river. This began on 23 June, the day after he reported the disappearance of the Crewes, and
concluded on 19 October, when the last big police conference was held in relation to the
evidence assembled against him, and against Arthur Thomas, who had by then become a suspect.
Conference records however tell the true story of the police case against Demler, and the attitude
the Crewe inquiry team had toward him. From the outset, there was only ever one suspect.
Thomas was brought into the frame, as a last resort in effect only because the police could not
prove their case against Demler. Without his physical possession of a firearm carrying a .22
barrel, their case was doomed.
Initial suspicions were cast in Demler’s direction because of his behaviour upon, and
immediately following, the police arrival at the scene of a particularly heinous double murder.
This is an aspect that not only led to comment from the Crewe investigators themselves, but from
men and women up and down New Zealand, mostly parents who put themselves in the same
position and knew what they would have done in similar circumstances.
The actions of the 60 year old Pukekawa farmer upon ‘discovery’ of this double murder scene
defied belief then, and continue to defy belief. The Crewe investigators themselves spoke at
length, and often, about behaviour from Demler which they considered bizarre.
In the weeks after the murders, while scores of farmers from around the district joined police and
military personnel in a bid to locate the missing couple, Demler did not take part in one search
for his daughter and son-in-law, by then obviously dead. In fact he told Harvey Crewe’s friend,
Graeme Hewson, not to waste time searching for the couple, insisting that ‘there are better things
for you to do’.
In the context of this account of ‘The Suspect’, it is essential that police accounts of Demler are
reproduced, from their own files. It is impossible to reproduce everything, given the hundreds of
pages of conference notes and job sheets released by the police, reluctantly, since 1999. More of
the detail can be found in The Final Chapter.
These documents begin at 7.45pm on 23 June 1970 – the day after police were called to the
scene – and continue until 19 October 1970, the date of the police ‘overview’ conference. On
that date, Demler was let off the hook, the attack having already commenced to create a case
against Thomas.
The first reference to Demler not having a particularly good name among those who knew him
came on 24 June, when Detective John Roberts reported to the evening squad conference:
Roberts: Referring to my visit to the (family name deleted), they know all the family very well.
They did say that Demler was very callous at the time his [first] wife [Maisey] was dying. He
was steaming drunk at times and they detested Demler. They said he was purely and simply
interested in keeping up appearances. They said he was inclined to be very mean, tried to defraud
the Income Tax. They said that Demler contacted the Crewes every day, sometimes on business
over farming and sometimes just in passing. If Demler said he was not there for three or four
days, he was lying. Mrs (name deleted) spoke briefly about the baby [Rochelle] and said that
when she looked after the baby she found that it drank more than any other baby she had ever
looked after. Therefore it would suffer very badly if not given liquid frequently. My opinion is
that Demler killed the two of them.
Hutton: One thing I felt was a slip during the interview. If this man is in any way a suspect, I let
him have a look at a photo. Did he see them etc? At that stage he was off guard and he said he
could not see how she [Jeanette] could have been killed. This is the only time during the
interview he may have known she was dead. At no time did I mention that she was dead. He is
either a good liar or a real psycho type.
Abbott: Referring to the job sheets re Demler, it appears to me that from Monday through to
Friday morning, he only did one positive thing – went to tea [with the Crewes] on Tuesday night.
If he is the offender, everywhere he went he knew people. We can’t check out very much
between Monday and Thursday. Mention was made that Demler’s recollection of events was too
clear and he was on his guard.
Hutton: I find it hard to believe – whether he is involved or not – when he was in the drunken
state he was in on Friday and Saturday night that he did not go to the Crewe’s house.
By the time of the police conference on 26 June, detectives had found human blood in Demler’s
Cortina car, raising suspicion that it had been used to transport the bodies to the river. Demler’s
explanations as to the reasons for that blood, ultimately proved to have been Jeanette’s – she was
the only member of the family with that blood type – attracted considerable discussion later.
Detective Sergeant [John] Hughes: Graeme Hewson said to me he was not happy with Demler’s
attitude toward the missing couple and he said when the police left for the night Demler would
laugh it off and reckon they [the police] were a bunch of bastards. Last night, for instance, he had
Hewson on and said ‘you didn’t give them a bloody cup of tea did you?’ He [Hewson] said in the
mornings Demler looked very nervous and upset when the police arrived. He said Demler was
always running Harvey Crewe down.
At the 27 June conference, Hutton covered the issue of motive, again focusing on Demler.
Hutton: The likely motive appears to be that it is tied up in the will of Mrs May [Maisey]
Constance Demler, now deceased, obviously the [first] wife of Len Demler. Under the terms of
this will, Len Demler and Jeanette Demler [Crewe] were jointly declared the trustees. The
jewellry and silverware and articles of clothing were left to Mrs Jeanette Crewe and under the
joint trusteeship, Len Demler was allowed the use, occupation and income arising from the farm
during his lifetime. Further items of the will was the sum of $400 to the Anglican Church at
Tuakau, the sum of $2000 to the baby Rochelle and the balance of the estate for her daughter,
Jeanette Crewe, for her use absolutely. She [Jeanette] attained her vested interest and actually
signed for this on the 16th [June 1970]. Further to that it must be remembered of course that Len
Demler went over on Monday and gave instructions to Sturrock [the family solicitor] to make
out a new will for him, leaving one third of his assets to Jeanette and two thirds to Heather [his
youngest daughter].
Detective Senior Sergeant [Les] Schultz: He might have thought that not knowing what was in
the old lady’s will that he was getting more as long as he lived but finished up with nothing as a
property interest.
Hutton: There is mention from a witness since the disappearance of Mr and Mrs Crewe that
Demler uttered the words ‘oh, I won’t have to move now’. Taking into account the terms of the
will it appears that although Jeanette received no income from Mrs Demler’s property during the
lifetime of Demler. She nevertheless, as joint trustee, would have had a considerable say in the
running of the farm. Therefore we think the likely motive is that Len Demler became upset over
the terms of his wife’s will and very likely as a result of these terms Jeanette being able to
interfere with this running of the farm and possibly wanting to put a manager on it and therefore
necessitating Demler to leave the farm.
On 30 June, Hutton ordered closer scrutiny of Demler and that a detailed record be kept of every
time he was sighted and anything he said.
Hutton: Starting tomorrow there will be daily sightings of Lenard William Demler on the wall.
These will be kept in Mr Schultz’s room. What we want on this is for every member of the staff
whenever you see Len each day, who is he with, and conversation you have heard, to be entered
on these sheets. Also looking back at any previous sightings of him from the day we first came
here. Enter on these sheets as it could be quite important.
The evening conference of 2 July brought more news on Demler, and a reference to Arthur
Thomas for the first time.
Hughes: I had another talk this morning with Len Demler. There’s nothing further to report. He
still appears to be nervous and he laughs about most things. I think that Heather Souter [Demler]
is getting offside with him over the battle for the baby, and Heather has suggested that (name
deleted) take over this farm and Demler is a bit annoyed about it. I located Arthur Thomas, a
local lad, and he was rather keen on Jeanette after they left school. He rang her a lot and wrote to
her while she was in England. He acknowledged the fact that she would not go out with him and
did not reply to his letters. He is now married and I do not think he is implicated in this matter.
Detective Sergeant [Mike] Charles: With regard to the will made by Mrs Demler, as known
before, Jeanette received statements of accounts and balance sheets on the Tuesday and a couple
of points regarding the Morris 1100 and a mortgage could possibly have caused disagreement.
At the 3 July conference: Detective [John] Payne: I have still got several of Len Demler’s
bowling mates to see. There are 35 in the club and I have seen two or three and they all have the
same opinion of him – he is niggly, and curses and swears when he puts one off the right spot.
On 13 July, the detective known for his long and successful record of extracting confessions
from criminals, John Hughes, reported back on what had been an intense interview with Demler
two days beforehand.
Hughes: I saw Demler at 9.30am on Saturday. I had a good talk with him outside the HQ. He
seemed very weary. I put it to him in no uncertain terms that the case was building up and he
said he was innocent. He would appear to be suffering from a lack of sleep and looked very
drawn. I spoke to him again this afternoon. He appeared very drawn, his eyes were red and I had
heard that he was upset. He thinks that the locals are playing practical jokes on him. Someone
had apparently wired up his gate on the Saturday. He found this when he arrived home about
midnight on Saturday and was very upset about it. Graeme Hewson told me that Demler had
blamed him for the practical joke. [Hewson later said that he had in fact wired up that gate at the
request of Hutton in order to wind Demler up. The police hoped that when the old farmer got
home that evening in a drunken state and found he had been locked out of his property he would
lose his temper and make the admission they had been waiting for].
At this conference, the Crewe squad was advised that Demler had engaged a senior Auckland
barrister to defend him against a possible charge of murder – this event occurred just three weeks
after police moved into the Pukekawa district.
Hutton: Mr Brian Shenkin, solicitor, called this morning and said that himself and Mr Lloyd
Brown QC had been briefed by Mr Demler to act on his behalf. He said that Mr Demler had had
enough. He also requested that no member of the police speak to Mr Demler unless Mr Shenkin
or Mr Brown were present. He was given no such assurance.
On 15 July 1970, police held their biggest conference relating to the Crewe murders. This was a
meeting that involved two Assistant Commissioners, the remainder of the Auckland police
district executive, DSIR scientists and a pathologist, as well as members of the inquiry squad. It
went for four hours at the Auckland central police station and the transcript of discussions
totalled 47 pages. This conference is significant in that it provided what was, in effect, a blow-
by-blow reconstruction of the crimes, and analysis the person the police believed had committed
them.
Inquiry head Bruce Hutton kicked off proceedings, giving a background summary of the Crewes,
then still missing, and the circumstances they were in. He effectively ruled out the murder-
suicide theory – subsequently put forward by some commentators but disproved by medical
evidence – before looking at the reality of what police had determined.
Hutton: The theory that appeals to us most now is that a third person well known to both Mr and
Mrs Crewe visited the household on the evening of Wednesday the 17 June 1970. There is no
sign of a struggle in the house. Others support this reconstruction. The CIB team have been
engaged mainly in local enquiries and in so many cases during this inquiry we have found our
attention being directed back to Mr Demler. Things like the possibility of the baby being fed, the
obvious attempts to clean up the blood spot, which was a large spot, obviously Mr Crewe’s near
the hearth. Further attempts to clean up when the offender has removed a carpet which was in
front of the hearth and also a cushion from Harvey Crewe’s chair and burnt in the open fireplace.
And of course we have the pots in the kitchen with not just pure blood in them but diluted blood
and the many spots of diluted blood over the floor of the kitchen. These too, in our minds, point
back to someone who knew the Crewes very well and who wanted to remove all signs of what
had happened inside the house.
From the commencement of this inquiry Demler has shown little interest. Demler has told us in
interviews that he went into the house, that he noticed the blood stains in the kitchen – which I
might add were hard to see – and then he noticed the blood stains in the lounge. He became
frightened that someone might be lurking in the house and would attack him. He then went into
the main bedroom and then into Rochelle’s bedroom, and noticed that the child was in a stinking
condition and smelt something terrible. He tells us that he left the child in her cot, left the house
– which I might add had a telephone in it – drove past a neighbour’s house, drove past the next
neighbouring house and drove some distance up the road to his own house, set well back off the
roadway, allegedly, he tells us, to ring this truck agent to tell him not to come out to get Mr
Crewe’s sheep that afternoon. He then tells us that after doing this, he then went and picked
Owen Priest up and returned to the [Crewe] house. A search of the house and the surrounding
buildings failed to locate the missing couple. Demler then uplifted Rochelle and went in his own
car to Barbara Willis, some distance away, and he asked Priest to ring the police, which was
done. Demler, after dropping the child off at Willises, then returned to his own farm and he then
went about drafting 250 sheep which he tells us he had previously yarded. He drafted some 46
ewes with eczema out of the 250 prior to coming down to the Crewe household to see if the
police had arrived. Demler turned up for a brief search conducted prior to darkness on the
Monday [22 June]. At no time after that evening did he arrive at search headquarters to offer his
assistance and at no time throughout this inquiry has he called at the CIB or search headquarters
enquiring as to what progress we had made or if he could help. Whenever we have wanted to see
him we had to go and get him. Soon after the search began, Graeme Hewson came up, as a
personal friend of Harvey Crewe, to see if he could help at the farm and we had him staying with
Demler during the early part of the investigation. Hewson, who is to our mind a reliable person,
has told us that Demler did make such remarks about the police as ‘there go the bastards’ and
when he heard us leaving at night ‘they haven’t found the bodies yet’ and he would laugh his
nervous laugh. He also mentioned at one stage we wouldn’t find the bodies now when he read in
the newspapers that we had finished the search of the Crewe farm.
Demler stood up to interviews quite well. He surprised us, a man of his age having turned 61 the
other day, that after a couple of solid interviews he was spot on with times – 9.40pm, 2.35pm etc
– concerning his movements, but this was rather explained at the last interview when we took
possession of an old coat he was wearing and we found in the pocket an envelope on which he
had recorded set movements for the relevant period, Monday to Monday inclusive, that he was
questioned on each time. Mr Gaines will tell you that although Demler has not turned up for
searches he has been seen daily moving about on his horse watching the searchers at work and
not working at all on his farm, apart from occasionally yarding the stock. At this stage of the
inquiry he has, of course, been treated as a suspect concerning the disappearance of the couple,
although all avenues have not been overlooked. Other persons, such as peeping toms, persons
with Gazette references, have all been interviewed and thoroughly checked. At no stage during
the inquiry to date has there been the slightest indication of any other persons being involved or
having a grudge against the Crewes. Apart from his demeanor, which to my mind points to him
being the person who could help with this inquiry, was a blood exhibit that was taken from
Demler’s car. This blood was taken from the front seat of his red Cortina car and the only blood
found in his car. This is A.RH Negative, which of course is the same grouping as Jeanette’s. The
blood was noticed on the seat of Demler’s car at the very start. When Demler was questioned
about this blood he maintained that he had cut his finger one day and that it had bled onto the
seat. I might add that prior to that questioning, a statement was obtained from him the previous
day just tying up the fact that Jeanette had not been in that [his] car for four and a half months
and when he was told it was not his blood grouping, he was obviously alarmed and has since
been saying that he noticed it some months ago. He was obviously taken aback when he was
informed it was not his blood grouping as he obviously did not know it was the blood grouping
of Jeanette. That is as far as we have gone.
Walton: When he was told it was her blood grouping in that car, any explanation?
Hutton: He was told this after he said he had cut his finger and this is how the blood got there,
and he just shrugged.
The conference then returned to the issue of motive, with Hutton reporting that some $12,000 in
shares which Demler had originally paid for had ended up in his late wife’s estate, and thus half
would be transferred to Jeanette.
Hutton: Now he says that he went [to the Crewe’s] for tea on the Tuesday night and we believe
him. At the first interview he maintained that the subject of the will was not mentioned at any
stage that evening, yet at the second and third interviews, when he was pressed on the point, he
eventually admitted that it was briefly mentioned between him and Jeanette about going to the
solicitor’s and signing the balance sheet [of his late wife’s estate] as he went to leave that
[Tuesday] evening.
The conference then turned to the police reconstruction of the crime, which was essentially that
the assailant had shot Harvey Crewe from just inside the kitchenette, and had taken three or four
steps before striking Jeanette in the face with the butt of a firearm. Hutton attested that all local
residents and their vehicles had been examined and there was no suggestion of any blood in any
other local vehicle.
Hutton: No suggestion of any difference with relatives, only one man – Demler. If something
happened and it appeared to be a local thing, I feel it must point towards him.
Walton: Why did he take the bodies?
Hutton: I think his mind worked like this. He would remove the bodies as his one thought would
be to remove possible tracing of evidence, say the .22 and the bullets in the bodies. If he moved
the bodies and the weapon and cleaned the scene up there would be nothing to point to him. You
have heard me consider these other people who may have committed this crime and you cannot
convince me that any of these others would clean up the scene. If you let them commit the crime,
I can’t see them cleaning up the scene, taking pots of water back and forth. Demler – certainly.
He is living on the adjacent farm knowing that the evidence is here and that a third person has
committed this and it can’t have been murder-suicide. This would be the thing, whether a third
person – Demler – came in and gunned both [down] or put the injuries on the bodies, we would
know it was murder. If he removed the bodies to start with we would not know whether Harvey
had done it and Demler is the one who said ‘Harvey’s done her in’. We would not know the
injuries if he got rid of the bodies and made a good job of cleaning up.
[Crown Prosecutor David] Morris: This reconstruction has Demler seated in one chair for a
while. There is a lot of blood there and on your reconstruction he had handled bits of the carpet.
He has then gone through the kitchen and dragged the bodies out – the only spot of blood on him
or articles or vehicles is possibly the one in the car.
Hutton: Definitely one in the car.
Morris: He must surely have had some blood stains oor brain tissue on him, his hands or
clothing.
Hutton: No, we have gone over that. He is a very clean man, washes himself and keeps the house
quite clean, fanatic for washing – and he has had five days.
Walton: Has anyone got any theories as to why the bodies should go, apart from what Bruce has
said?
Detective Chief Inspector [Bill] Cook: Obviously this was done to hide the evidence of the
crimes.
Morris: To hide the method.
Pathologist Dr [Frank] Cairns: Something left on the bodies which would lead to the offender’s
identity.
Hutton: The only reason I can give and can’t go past the angle that he did know them and then he
felt that with bodies in there and them both obviously murdered by a third person, it was going to
point back to Demler.
Walton: He is hiding some identifiable weapon.
Land and river search controller Pat Gaines then reported on Demler’s lack of assistance in
relation to the Crewes, by then missing for more than a month.
Gaines: It was significant that on this day, the fourth day [of the search] we kept coming across
fresh hoof marks and it subsequently turned out that Demler on his horse had been tracking us all
day. We finally caught up with him right down in the valley as we turned to sweep back up to the
house and finish our search. He had been with us all day and in the fog we did not see him. He
never made contact with the search party at all and only when we rose to the top of the ridge did
he actually speak to other farmers.
Gaines then went on to express the view that the bodies had been removed from the Crewe house
and planted below the adjacent bush line. ‘And he [Demler] could have returned to his own
house and at his leisure affected the fairly long and involved process of getting rid of these
people’.
The disposal spot and the means of getting the bodies from the Crewe house to the Waikato river
also came under the spotlight at that conference.
Gaines: Crewe and Demler farms. Just going straight down here into here is a tough climb to
carry anyone. I would say this fellow would be able to carry them.
Detective Sergeant [Jim] Toothill: He has got a crook leg but he is strong enough to man-handle
them,
Gaines: This is the actually Crewe farm here, the Waikato river here, the bridge we spoke of is
down here. Here is the easy way – that is the road he is always seen on going to Hamilton. All
this area in here in places is chest deep in water on both sides and the actual verge would run out
from a couple of feet to 30 feet and suddenly drop away. There is a significant area to get
through the trees and weight them and throw them over.
Ross: He never walks far. Could have used the horse.
Gaines: Way down here, as you can see from the map, has an irrigation channel running through
it and is pretty swampy. Found his boot marks there. Virtually tracked us round the farm. I
neglected to think about it when we were actually searching the bush next to his farm. We used
to put a fellow up and keep a watch on him. We found him sitting here, below the bush line, and
he was able to see east and west, for roughly 20 minutes. The day we put the helicopter up we
found hoof marks down to here. We put somebody in there and he [Demler] turned up at the
outside of the hedge and was watching us from there. He was extremely interested in our
activities in this fork here and this fork here. There is an old bulldozed track just along the ridge
here and another track there. We walked it right out to the river.
Hutton then disputed Demler’s version of events in relation to his alleged initial visit to the
Crewe farm about 1.30pm on Monday 22 June.
Hutton: I might add that our theory is that on the Monday he did not go down to the [Crewe]
house as he stated. He never thought about the baby. We say he didn’t go down to the house at
all. He rang and waited and rang the stock agent later and then went down there and picked up
Priest on the way. His story is that he went back to his own house by car. No-one saw him go up
and down. Priest has a good view.
Drawing that conference to a conclusion, Hutton then advised that the bodies were required if the
inquiry was to make any progress.
Hutton: There is no doubt that this one had given us considerable worry and the break we want is
the bodies. I can’t for the life of me see anyone else in the picture but Demler. We haven’t set a
course against him. We have, in fact, always tried to do the opposite and we find ourselves
coming back to him. We have gone into the early youth and friendship between Harvey and
Jeanette prior to their marriage. From then on, indications are that there is no love lost between
Harvey and Demler. Both perhaps a little bit of a strange type. Harvey wanted to keep to himself
and just wanted to work the farm and bring it up to a good standard, and Demler being a queer
type on his own and not very popular. A man given to violent fits of temper when dealing with
animals. With that the inquiry revolves back to Demler. We have kept up as much pressure as
possible on him. He has been interviewed a number of times and we are endeavouring in any
way possible through thorough and meticulous examination to get more evidence to go with this
blood. We all know that blood is only so good, but in this case it is much better than that, in the
absence of anyone else in that family having that blood, and it becomes to my mind very
significant indeed. My main line of approach is pressure through various means to try to get him
to crack. I am faced with a nasty problem I know. I can only handle it day to day as I see fit and
try to pressure him. Have I got sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case?
Morris: Probably have enough to go for a prima facie on Harvey.
Hutton: We are probably closer that we realise. You link some of the material evidence with
relatives’ blood groups – you are probably getting on the road.
Walton: You are not there yet.
On 16 August 1970, Jeanette Crewe’s body was recovered from the Waikato river, her head
containing the fragments of a .22 bullet. One month to the day, her husband was found, his body
also containing the remains of a bullet from a firearm of the same calibre.
Extensive inquiries during late September ascertained that a combination shotgun-rifle – one
barrel of .22 calibre – had been in the estate of Demler’s wife’s family, the Chennells, until 1950.
After a tractor accident in May of that year when his brother-in-law, Howard Chennells, was
killed on the family farm next door, Demler took that combination firearm to his own home. But
that was not known in 1970 – it only came out in evidence Demler gave to the 1980 Thomas
Royal Commission a decade later, and even then he was not questioned about it.
The key point is that this combination shotgun-rifle, with a .22 barrel on one side, was never
located when the police were desperately seeking to put that exact calibre of firearm in his
possession following the recovery of Jeanette Crewe on 16 August 1970.
On 2 October 1970, without being able to provide the hard and fast evidence Crown Prosecutor
David Morris required to gain a conviction, Demler dropped off the suspect list.
The police visited him for the last time 22 days later, with Johnston and Hutton being the
perpetrators of the discussion on that day. Seven days later a cartridge case from the .22
Browning rifle of Arthur Thomas was found in the garden near the side gate of the Crewe house
enclosure.
On 11 November 1970 the young farmer from the other end of the Pukekawa district was
arrested for murdering Jeanette and Harvey Crewe.
Len Demler died in 1992, having consistently denied any involvement with either the killing of
the Crewes, or the removal of their bodies to the Waikato river. But he remains the only really
suspect the New Zealand Police ever had for the murder of his daughter and her husband. Which
again begs the question, did a team of 20 detectives – including some of the most experienced
police officers the country had at that time - investigating for four months get it so wrong … or
so right?