Getting away with murder - Open letter from the family of Murray Christensen:

 Dear All - (from Murray's sisters - Lynette Stevens and Sandra Heke)

Lynette and I are seeking your help. We've turned to Social Media to get our message out there. I am genuinely worried about our situation and especially for Lynette, who co-incidentally? had her car windscreen broken this week outside her house when they were out on Christmas morning).

We are asking for your help in seeking justice for our brother, Murray who was killed at his workplace 11/11/11. If you could like and share this, it would help us to know as many kiwis as possible know of our situation and what we are trying to do. We all want to feel proud when we talk about 'home' and what it means to be a kiwi. One thing I think is clear about Kiwis is that we all hate 'injustices' and our desire to seek an end to any is strong. So this is why 'Murray's story' needs to be told. If all of us can fight corruption - there will be no corruption. We extra'ordinary' kiwis can only fight corruption and injustices with information so this is Murray's story:-

Murray went to work in Koheroa Road, Mercer, South Auckland on 11/11/11 but never returned home (to his then 9 year old daughter). He worked for the Balle Bros - (there's many of them and previous to working for them, worked for James Chapman). They all own many businesses and entities in South Auckland/Waikato, including Pukekohe, Mercer, Pukekawa etc etc etc). The 'Company' have so many entities, in fact, and their businesses are so complex, that 3 years after Murray's workplace death, the correct entity to be prosecuted for Murray's death has still not been identified, and Worksafe have told our family, it is very unlikely that will ever happen. But I'm digressing because that's another story (still, can you believe that in New Zealand in 2014 that there is such a gap which allows a company to avoid prosecution for a workplace death?).

Lynette has always 'felt' there was something 'very wrong'. You see, she went up to the site on the Monday, (he died on a Friday), after Murray died to get some CD's out of his car for the funeral. The farm managers wife was there and told Lynette she heard yelling and abusing from Murray at the time he died and a 'WHOA WHOA WHOA'. One of the 'bros', (who later in the court case, Police vs Karl Lobb said he was the spotter but wasn't looking at the time of the accident but said Murray must have slipped and fell and was run over by the bulldozer because he had "like a sixth sense, um yeah, a sixth sense"), but that day when Lynette and Roger and another witness went up to the farm, he told Lynette he wasn't there at all. Um? So which one was it? Were you ACTUALLY there or not JB?

It has taken our family a while to start asking questions. It's only now we have the strength to 'fight this'. Those of you who know us, know that Dad died six months after Murray, heartbroken, really. Dad was sick with emphysema but we truly believe his death was precipitated by the stress of Murray's death. Mum had to move from Palmerston North to Auckland to be near, Lynette, Ken and Murray's daughter, (who misses her beloved Daddy so much). Lynette has 'nursed' Roger through cancer and a subsequent heart attack. I've just finished my breast cancer treatment and prior to that was assaulted whilst doing my job as a bus driver. Yes, it's been an horrific period but I'm not being so transparent to seek sympathy - rather to explain its BECAUSE our family have endured so much, it has had the opposite effect - and that is - it has strengthened our resolve. It gives you perspective too. Family is everything and that's why I know you will all understand when I say, "if it was your brother/son/father, what would you do?"

We have in our possession TWO pathology reports by the ONE pathologist, Dr Jane Vuletic, - there are different causes of death on each report. The two reports are dated THREE months apart. Murray was cremated the day of his funeral - only 1 day after the Serious crash Unit Investigator had stated he had not slipped and run over as 'everyone else' including the pathologists' first report was trying to claim. We got hold of the court transcripts of the Police vs Karl Lobb court case and we learn that the Serious Crash Unit investigator told the Patholgist Murray was crushed, not that he had slipped and because the Pathologist then was most likely forced to change to the correct cause of death, she 'disappeared' and was not even available to give evidence by video link. (She disappeared to Newcastle, NSW and we have laid complaints to the relevant authorities to ensure she never practises in either country again). This comprised the prosecution so our family were forced to accept a 'restorative meeting' with *KL*, the bulldozer driver who crushed Murray between his digger and the bulldozer. (With regards to Dr Jane Vuletic, try googling - Kahui twins trial + Dr Jane Vuletic - this medical 'expert' was questioned by Dr Ferris - check what she DIDN'T do which compromised that prosecution).

In our endeavours to seek answers and justice for Murray, witnesses have started to talk. We know the 'brothers' were 'very unhappy when the Pathologist changed the cause of death - so then she is unavailable for the court case? hmmm. And the farm managers wife, KW, (who has just rung us today trying to recant on her statements to us? Why? Someone is *warning her off*?), why she was never even interviewed by the Police in the first instance! Why not Counties Manuaku? Or the neighbour who was a volunteer fireman and turned up with his truck and who Worksafe tell us they have no record of him being there? So what WAS he doing there? But hang on, we rang the Mercer fire station and they said they had a call but it was cancelled and they were told they weren't needed. So Mercer don't have any record of the Company's neighbour/their volunteer? being there either? So it must have been the ambulance called first, right? Well no - So who was first to the site? Oh, that was a daughter of one of the brothers, supposedly as the 'health and safety officer' of the 'Brothers' company. The daughter, (RC), who we now find out, rang the Dept of Labour at 2:45 pm and told them'she was on her way to the accident where there was a possible fatality" when the farm managers wife told Lynette that this same daughter was first on the site. The farm managers wife knew who arrived and in what order because she was there all day and asked another mother to pick up her children from school and keep them away from the site because there had been a bad accident. Maungatawhiri school finishes at 2:30!!! So, back to the Police - Counties Manukau - why weren't these witnesses questioned? Why weren't they called in the pathetically inadequate court case? We've given you their information and still not?

We've also given them some more information because in trying to seek answers about Murray, a connection, or two!, to the CREWE murders in Pukekawa came up. (For those of you, too young, ask someone older and they'll know - one of the most well know unsolved murders in New Zealand.) Check out the Police Crewe Homicide Review finished only this year - go to Page 124 - see the conflicting statements 10 years apart of one 'Karl Lobb'. (One and the same man who crushed Murray!). Turns out most of the 'brothers', Chapman, Lobb, Thomases' Crewes, Stuckey, all have 'quite some history together' in South Auckland and the Policeman from Counties Manukau who was 'supposedly' overseeing Murray's case, well he was 'involved' in the police Crewe Homicide Review as well! He couldn't find anything wrong with Murray's case??!!

And there was, supposedly, nothing new that came out of the Police Homicide Review either. (Just for your info - Note - Lawyer Peter Williams, QC, who represented Arthur Allan Thomas at the Royal Commission, said "the whole case just reeks and reeks of Police corruption" and is disappointed by the findings. Meanwhile, Mr Mike Bush, Police Commissioner says "the review findings add to his regrets about having spoken at the funeral of Mr Hutton - the Policeman who perverted the course of justice by planting evidence implicating Arthur Allan Thomas)", praising him as an officer whose integrity was BEYOND REPROACH.

Now, back to Murray's case.

There were apparently no notes taken by Police when they arrived at the accident?

The first Dept of Labour investigator who arrived at the site later that day on the 11/11/11, was replaced on the 14/11/11 by another. TMcG, wrote her report claiming Murray 'had been run over'. We now have information that the Pathogist agreed to this 'cause of death' without even seeing Murray? (Surely not?), and Murray was cremated the day of his funeral and BEFORE she changed the 'cause of death' THREE months later. We know this TMcG rang a Solicitor at some stage, (why? - Did she begin to realise the implications?) and was told by that Solicitor that there was a 'conflict of interest'? Hmmm, and so rang a Dept of Labour solicitor. She is no longer with MBIE (used to be DOL). She did not appear in the court case, Police vs Kark Lobb. Why not?

The Serious Crash unit weren't invited up there until FOUR days after Murray was killed and only a day before Murray's funeral and cremation.

That Serious Crash Unit Investigator, (who was the ONLY one who stated Murray was crushed and whom we believe acted with integrity by stating to the Pathogist "there was no way he was run over - can't see any tread marks on him"), had to take a year off after Murrays case and moved from Counties Manukau to Taupo! hmmm.

When we relayed information to the Police about the Crewes, (being the transparent kiwis the Hon Amy Adams, Justice Minister, talks about in her latest Media release), the Police Commissioner who had originally sent Murray's file to Hamilton, suddenly detected an 'admin problem', and the file HAS to be sent back to Counties Manukau who are the very people who 'mishandled' Murray's case in the beginning and since. And the Detective who was 'handling' Murrays case and couldn't find anything wrong with it, well, he NEED'S it back. (Hence we are now 'putting 'Murrays story' out there' - we need to know you all know - better to be safe than sorry).

We still don't know who or at what time, if any, an ambulance was called, as Murray lay dying at his workplace. (We've been told he was still alive after the 'crushing'). Do you know how that makes us feel knowing Murrays best interests were not the focus that day as he lay there dying at his workplace?

Murray's upper clothing which lay beside his body (and yes we have had to witness that too in court - can you imagine what that was like for mum?), has 'mysteriously' disappeared after making the police photo and before the court case. The 'brother' who we now know perjured himself in court, tried to sway the court that that clothing would show Murray slipped and that he was run over but oh, he didn't know where they were or who took them.

This company has in effect, paid their way out of being held accountable for a workplace death. Wonder who paid for the best lawyer for KL? (That lawyer was GF - who acted for one of the three DOT COM defendants). Wonder if this lawyer was paid by you, the Taxpayer, or was it the 'Company'? My mum can't get legal aid to find out what happened to her youngest when he died at his workplace - No - it seems Mum doesn't 'fit the criteria' even though she lives in a mobile home in a caravan park, (in amongst all the Company's many farms). Ironic isn't it?!!! but Mum felt the need to be close to her granddaughter who also lives in the area.

Oh and check out one Solvent action of 'Mercer Ferry Properties No 5 Ltd' - all the directors being 'the brothers' who employed Murray - this entity was struck off after Murray's death. (The police homicide review tied the Crewe murders to the Thomas'es 'Mercer Ferry Road farm'. The Thomas farm where police evidence against Thomas had been forged). Maybe the 'brothers' wanted to avoid the possibility of any connection with Lobb in both Murrays case and the very old unsolved Crewe murder case which the Police have only just finished 'reviewing'? But what they didn't reckon on was that there would be two persistent sisters who want our brother to rest in peace. Some of these farmers know 'more' but they reckon it's 'better to let sleeping dogs lie".

That'incident report' - written by the 'daughter' - was reviewed by 'Safewise' owner -the Dept of Labour didn't have any record of her being there that day but they did her husband? At what capacity was he there?

For our whanau - (Love you all so much)!The 'brothers'made special note of the fact they had had the local Kaumatua to bless the site where Murray died. But we've asked and now believe it didn't happen at all? Maybe some of you might know if this happened? Because this Heke family weren't invited, or Murray's mum? Or brother? Or his sister Lynette or Murray's little daughter maybe? And then, these 'brothers' go and name the road where Murray died, "Murray Christensen" road. Maybe they 'felt better' but can you imagine my mother and Lynette's shock when they drove past and they hadn't been notified. I mean how much is this family supposed to take?

Thank you for supporting us in seeking justice for Murray. It was never our intention to do anything but act with transparency and we have, in hindsight, naively thought we would be accorded the same treatment by all Authorities, the Company and MP's etc.  It hasn't been afforded us at all. In fact, our worse fears have been realised and then some, after witmesses have started to talk - there is a cover-up of monumental proportions and indisputable evidence of serious corruption involved in covering up Murray's murder.

There is another person who deserves answers too - Rochelle Crewe.

Please help us all in seeking transparency and justice for Murray. That is all we have ever wanted and that should never be too much to ask especially in a country like NZ where Transparency International voted them No 2 in the world, only behind Denmark, in the least 'perceived' corrupt and for transparency. Well Murrays case is as clear as mud and the murky depths are frightening.  The public are being conned by the media trumpeting about Transparency International and their focus on the PERCEPTION of corruption - the PERCEPTION of the world is carefully controlled by the media and those who fund them.

We had a meeting with Worksafe, they came from Wellington to Auckland, their CEO and their Chief Inspector. They admitted 'failings'. We have contacted all the relevant MP's, the Solicitor-General, Transparency International, the Attorney General and many more.

To finish - maybe the 'Company' felt better after their apology in a letter stating, "we are sorry Murray was hurt that day.

Hurt? Really?

Murray was not just hurt, he was KILLED.  By a man who had repeatedly threatened to kill him, which establishes a case to answer for a charge of premeditated murder.

My poor mum - Her son is killed, her husband dies heartbroken, she moves to another city, away from her family home, to support her granddaughter, the young girl who lost her beloved daddy.  Mum has had to witness a photo of her son lying dead at his workplace, after he went to work on his day off for a co-worker who had cancer, her son-in-law is diagnosed with cancer and has a subsequent heart attack, a daughter gets assaulted at work, and gets breast cancer, her other son has been suicidal after suffering the loss of his brother, (they were SO close)), her daughter gets her car window smashed in, she goes past a road (erected without her knowledge), named after her son at the site where he died and where she was not invited to the blessing - but hey, she got her apology said the Company. ("Sorry Murray was hurt that day") - what more do you want?" - Justice, actually - that's all we've ever wanted.

Sandra Heke and Lynette Stevens

The damning Police report into Bruce Hutton's corruption can be accessed at this link.

The curious case of Lovelock and Lobb - How to get away with murder:

21st February 2015

THE CREWE MURDERS – THOMAS CASE

- STILL FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE AFTER 45 YEARS -

POLICE REPORT

AXLE EVIDENCE

In the Crewe Homicide Investigation Police Review Report dated 2014, Detective Superintendent Andrew. J. Lovelock states:

"The 1928 Nash standard Six, 420 series front axle, located in the Waikato River, was attached to Harvey Crewe’s body to weigh him down."

This axle beam was not attached to Harvey Crewe’s body when it was recovered by the police, but was found on the Waikato River bed.

"The Nash axle was the same one fitted to the trailer made by Charles Shirtcliffe, and in 1959 sold to Allan Thomas."

The fact is this axle was never, ever, on the Charles Shirtcliffe or Thomas trailer.

Evidence given at the Thomas Commission shows the stainless steel welding on the two stub axles and axle beam was not carried out by A.G. Thomas or the previous owners of the trailer. When the tack weld on the left hand stub axle is secured to the axle beam, an all important kingpin cannot be inserted.

This welding conclusively proves that the axle found under Harvey Crewe’s body was never part of the Thomas trailer.

Court Transcripts show that Rod Rasmussen, who carried out the work on the trailer in 1965, could not remember the job he did for Mr. Thomas until Detective Johnston showed him the axle and Detective Johnston came up with the stub axles.

Court Transcripts show that Mr. Rasmussen was again seen on the 15th Oct and

certain facts were put to him. Then he said he recalled a chap Thomas.

From Mr. Rasmussen’s own evidence he stated he had no memory of the work he did

on the Thomas trailer, until he was shown the axle and Detective Johnston came up

with the stub axles.

On the 15th Oct 1970 Mr. Rasmussen has memory of the work he did on the Thomas

trailer. So this conveys to us that he was shown by Detective Johnston the axle and

the two stub axles.

Who supplied what, we are not sure but it fits with the Thomas scenario that Detective Johnston got the two stub axles that fitted the welds on the Harvey Crewe axle, and planted them in the Thomas dump on this day.

Detective Johnston went and saw Arthur at the farm where they both conducted a search of the farm dump. Arthur went to milk the Cows. This gave Detective Johnston the opportune time to plant the stub axles.

This was Detective Johnston’s first farm dump search.

Rod Rasmussen has also stated publicly that when shown the axle by the police on the 12th October 1970, he didn’t recognize it. He also stated he was then seen again by Detective Johnston two to three days later, whereby Detective Johnston had the stub axles and the axle.

This proves that the axle and stub axles were together on the 15th October 1970.

This is five days before the stub axles were found on the Thomas farm dump.

Court Transcripts show that Detective Johnston did not find these stub axles until

his second Thomas farm dump search, on the 20th Oct 1970.

Detective Andrew Lovelock has deliberately omitted this crucial evidence from his

Police Report. This shows more corruption by the NZ Police.

Court Transcripts show Rod Rasmussen had in his possession two stub axle’s exhibits330 and 331.

The Thomas family wants to know how these stub axles off someone else’s trailer got from his workshop and into the Thomas family dump.

During the police review of the Crewe murders the Thomas family requested in writing to Detective Andrew Lovelock that the axle and stub axles and the associated parts be brought up from NZ Archives, Wellington.

The Thomas family requested a meeting with the police with these parts present, to discuss the fabrication and lies told in regard to these exhibits.

Detective Andrew Lovelock was not at all interested.

Andrew Lovelock states in his police report:

Two wheels, exhibit 393 and 394, consistent with coming from the trailer in question were found on the Thomas farm.

These rims were discarded years earlier because they were defective and had spilt.

This is what we wanted to show Detective lovelock if he had produced these parts at our meeting. To this day the wheels and tyres and thirty seven additional parts that Rod Rasmussen took off the Thomas trailer have never been found on the Thomas farm.

No-one had seen these parts or the stub axles on the farm, including vintage enthusiasts who were searching for parts like these.

This proves Rod Rasmussen is mistaken when he stated all the parts he took off the Thomas trailer were sent back to the farm.

RIFLE

Detective Superintendent Andrew. J. Lovelock states:

"In the final analysis of the 33 rifles, with the appropriate barrel characteristics the only one identified as having potentially fired the fatal bullets is Arthur Thomas’s Browning rifle, police exhibit 317."

When Jeanette Crewe’s body was recovered from the Waikato River in August 1970, and found to have been shot with a .22 rifle, the police collected some rifles in the Pukekawa area.

Arthur Thomas’s rifle was test fired and the bullet was microscopically examined under a comparison microscope, alongside the bullets recovered from Jeanette and Harvey Crewe in 1970.

Dr Nelson the ballistics examiner wrote down in his test notebook: - RIFLING CLASS IDENTICAL BUT NO MATCH SEEN.

This means the Thomas rifle never fired the fatal bullets that killed the Crewe’s.

Detective Andrew Lovelock has obtained additional evidence which showed the Thomas rifle produced trough scores, a distinct marking on every bullet it fired.

No such scoring was found on the largely intact bullet removed from Jeanette Crewe’s body.

Andrew Lovelock deliberately omitted this crucial evidence from his Police Report, so has kept this important issue from the public and the Thomas family.

Detective Lovelock also failed to mention in his police report another rifle, exhibit C3B. The test bullets from this rifle were microscopically examined under a comparison microscope alongside the bullets recovered from Jeanette and Harvey Crewe in 1970.

The Ballistic Examiner Dr Nelson wrote down in his test notebook ‘Can’t exclude’.

Testimony to his findings is a test bullet from this rifle, held in Archives NZ Wellington, exhibit 209.

This rifle is more likely to have fired the fatal shots than the Thomas rifle which fired a scored bullet.

A considerable amount of conclusive evidence has been presented to show the frequent user of this rifle is more likely than any other person to be involved in the murders of Jeanette and Harvey Crewe.

He has not been finger printed or checked against the twenty-five unidentified prints left in the Crewe house and car, which are in the Crewe homicide file.

WIRE

Jeanette and Harvey Crewe’s body’s when found in the Waikato River had wire which was used to truss up the bodies. With this knowledge the police collected wire from only nine farms in the Pukekawa area.

They only took one or two samples off these farms, except Arthur Thomas’s farm whereby they took at least thirteen pieces of wire.

This is not a thorough police investigation. This is entrapment.

KARL LOBB

During the Thomas Commission of Inquiry in 1980 Karl Lobb gave evidence that near the Crewe farm gate, at the time of the murders in 1970, he saw Arthur Thomas’s car and trailer. The trailer had in it two covered bundles.

During cross examination evidence was produced which proved Karl Lobb to be wrong.

Karl Lobb accepted he was wrong. In other words he lied.

He lied to make a completely innocent man look guilty of a brutal double murder.

Why hasn’t Karl Lobb been charged with perjury?
 

Now Karl Lobb is involved in a suspicious workplace death of Murray Christensen.

There has been corrupt handling of the Thomas case and now with the Murray Christensen case. Is it because they are connected?

During the Crewe murder review Detective Andrew Lovelock has obtained a lot more new evidence. Most of which he has not recorded in his report. So it has been withheld from the public and the Thomas family.

The NZ Police do not believe in transparency, the truth, or justice.

Detective Andrew Lovelock has written up a police report, ignoring all the major facts that prove beyond doubt that nothing from the Thomas farm points back to the Crewe murders. This is turn is endorsed by the NZ Police.

Detective Andrew Lovelock states at the end of his review report that the review team has identified clear failings on the part of the 1970 police investigation team.

The Thomas family believes now that it is time to rectify these failings.  (They are not alone in that.)

We would be prepared to meet someone with authority, with justice in mind, at Archives NZ Wellington, where the axle, stub axle, trailer parts, and Arthur’s rifle test bullets are held. We could then demonstrate all the factual evidence which proves that none of the Crewe murder evidence points back to Arthur or the Thomas farm.

There is some evidence left in the homicide file that was not destroyed, floor sweepings etc, which may yield DNA. There are also the twenty-five unidentified prints left in the Crewe house and car.

I have personally asked Andrew Lovelock to get this evidence out of the file and compare with suspects for these brutal murders.
 
Police have admitted planting evidence to frame Arthur Allan Thomas.

Politicians tell us they cannot instruct police on operational matters.

The Thomas family are not asking them to do that. What we want now is a full public inquiry.

The Thomas family has been seeking justice now for 45 years.

This report will be updated.

The findings of the 1980 Royal Commission are at this link, and in the even that the Police move the Crewe report as so often happens, to make it less accessible, it can be found at this link.

Joe Karam weighs in here

Arthur Allan Thomas - Police Complaints Authority nothing but blatant cover up:

Arthur Allan Thomas has spoken out about the blatant corruption of the residents of what is commonly known as "Bullshit Castle" - Police National HQ.  Commissioner Peter Marshall adds insult to Arthut Allan Thomas and every New Zealander, to the injury to the reputation of the NZ Police, by endorsing the disgraceful utterances of Deputy Commissioner Mike Bush:




More information at the following links:

Thomas - it's a blatant cover up:

Crewe inquiry worries after eulogy:

Police inquiry a cover up - Thomas

Thomas Angry about eulogy - brother:

Arthur Allan Thomas evidence of the extent of NZ Police corruption:

Speaking to the media this morning Arthur Allan Thomas, 75, said he called the press conference to address police tributes paid to Hutton.

Over the years Hutton remained resolute that Thomas was the killer and that the shell case was genuine evidence, insisting "it was not planted".

Following his death earlier this month, police paid tribute to a dedicated officer who had "integrity beyond reproach".

Today Thomas, who has avoided the limelight since his release from prison, said it was these statements which prompted him to step into the public eye.

"That's why I'm having this meeting, to tell the people of New Zealand what sort of a man he was," he said at the press conference in Pukekawa this morning.

"He criminalised the police, right at the top, that we still have police officers now covering up for the man. He was a corrupt police officer. An innocent man went to prison," he added pointing to himself.

Asked what he thought of Hutton, Thomas said: "I'd better not say it shall I, it wouldn't be very nice."

However, he did describe the former detective as "pretty smooth".

"He got around me alright," Thomas said.

"I had faith in him that he was going to find out who done it, I couldn't believe when it started to come out about the shell case."

He called on the police to set up a fresh investigation into the Crewe murders, of which no-one has been charged since his pardon and release from prison.

"I was pardoned, I'm innocent, but I want to find out who done it. Rochelle Crewe wants that for her mother and father," he said.

"I might be wrong if I mention people's names, all I know is that I didn't do it and where I was when the murders happened. The evidence is there for them to look at."

He also said he would be in favour of police officers who contributed to the planting of evidence, and who colluded in his framing for the murder, being charged with perverting the course of justice.

"We have a system now of officers who don't want to look at who done it, they're protecting their own, covering up for their own. And this is New Zealand, and it's a shame we have this system of cover up," he said.

Thomas said he had found the investigation and time since his pardon "very frustrating", and said it had wider implications for New Zealand and its citizens.

"The problem here is with young police officers joining the ranks today, they read the Crewe murder inquiry and think, 'well Hutton got away with that, the next time I suspect someone I might dirty up some evidence, and if I get caught out, the boss will cover up for me'. This is breeding young officers to do the wrong thing," he said.

Speaking about a fresh police review, due to begin shortly, into the investigation of the Crewe murders, Thomas said it would amount to "a waste of taxpayers' money", and predicted it to be a "whitewash".

"We don't want police looking after police by having their own investigations," he said. "An inquiry has got to be independent, otherwise it's just a coverup."

Asked what would have to happen for him to accept such a review, he said: "They'd have to admit that they fabricated evidence, and I expect them to apologise to me, in writing. But they won't do that, I know that."

Arthur Allan Thomas speaks out:

Arthur Allan Thomas has condemned a soon to be released police inquiry into the Crewe murders as a mockery and a "cover up" following the police's defence of the man who led the original investigation.
At a rare public appearance this morning Mr Thomas, who was twice convicted and then pardoned in the murders of Jeanette and Harvey Crewe in 1970, said police were "protecting their own".

"It's a shame that we have this system of cover up," Mr Thomas told the media and members of the public at Pukekawa Hall.

He was flanked by daughter Bridgette and brothers Ray and Des, who called the press conference in response to comments made by Deputy Commissioner Mike Bush during a eulogy at former Detective Inspector Bruce Hutton's funeral last week.

Mr Bush said Mr Hutton was known as having "integrity beyond reproach" and spoke of the "tragedy" of accusations made against him.

Mr Thomas accused Mr Hutton of criminalising the New Zealand Police force and said the former officer and his colleague Len Johnston were corrupt.

"Bush wants to go back and read the evidence. He should do that and not open his bloody mouth."
The 75-year-old said he wanted police to find the real killer and apologise to him but he did not believe either would happen.

"It's a blatant cover up. They have to admit that they fabricated evidence and apologise to me in writing."
Des Thomas said the court of appeal upheld the finding that Mr Hutton and Mr Johnston planted a gun shell casing to frame his brother and police needed to accept it.

The family want an independent investigation into the murders.