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

Download the original attachment

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

Joe Karam weighs in here

Knock knock, who's there?

Corrupt EX Police Constable David Gallagher can expect a knock on the door any day.

The Crimes Act 1961 is quite clear in regard to bringing false accusations, it says this:

Section 115 - Conspiring to bring false accusation:

    Every one who conspires to prosecute any person for any alleged offence, knowing that person to be innocent thereof, is liable—

        (a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years if that person might, on conviction of the alleged offence, be sentenced to preventive detention, or to imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more:

        (b) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years if that person might, on conviction of the alleged offence, be sentenced to imprisonment for a term less than 3 years.

    Section 115(a): amended, on 26 December 1989, by section 3(4) of the Abolition of the Death Penalty Act 1989 (1989 No 119).

Which is interesting when you take a good long look at some of the false accusations being flung around by local Police prosecutors:

Note how corrupt prosecutor Garry Wilson crossed his own name out and wrote the name of Sgt Jodie Lawrence?  Jodie Lawrence is a friend of mine, and she had more sense than to play any part in this matter, after the last time I won an appeal against her prosecution, after she told Judge Hobbs that we were friends and for that reason she did not wish to proceed.

EX Constable Gallagher couldn't wait to resign from the Police after they lost these two defended hearings after I represented myself - after Police unsuccessfully tried to have me incarcerated in a loony bin and ruled "not fit to represent herself" under the Mental Health Act.  Gallagher is a malicious liar and his resignation is long overdue.  He will be getting his come uppance any day now, when he will be served with a summons for perverting the course of justice - watch this space.

Behold!  Here's the Prosecutor's submission to the Court which accompanied his sudden announcement that Police intended to offer no evidence against me on the charge of perverting the course of justice, and after wasting the time of the Court and me for months, here he is grovelling to the Court to withdraw the charge because there is no evidence - despite the fact that EX Constable Gallagher sat right next to Garry Wilson right through the defended hearing of the other charge, from start to finish!  They withdrew the charge and offered no evidence because they knew damn well they would be done for perjury and didn't want to make it any worse than it already is!:

Sgt Garry Anthony Wilson laid a prosecution which he knew was corrupt on the basis of a claim by a malicious liar, David Gallagher.  Both of them knew perfectly well that I hadn't assaulted Gallagher or anyone else. There were over a dozen witnesses.  Not one of them would back up Gallagher's lies. Gallagher is best mates - or was until they both put themselves in the firing line for criminal proceedings for perjury - with the Police witness in the other unsuccessful assault charge, Barry Dixon. The Judge didn't believe any of them - it was perfectly clear that they were lying.

20 Corrections staff who could have been prosecuted over the death of Jai Davis

Posted on February 3, 2015 by rogerbrooking

 

What’s wrong with the police? For the second time, they have announced they will not be charging anyone over the death of Jai Davis in Otago prison. Davis died two days after he smuggled drugs into the prison by ‘internal concealment’ in February, 2011.
At the coroner’s inquest in November last year, Detective Inspector Steve McGregor said charges against Corrections officers had been considered – for manslaughter and criminal nuisance – but eventually claimed the evidence didn’t meet the threshold for a successful prosecution.
In reality, there is no threshold – the Solicitor General just made that up. But after the inquest, Inspector McGregor announced police would reconsider their decision not prosecute. Today, two months later, the coroner, David Crerar (right), announced the police have advised that no charges will be laid afterall. It seems the evidence still doesn’t meet the non-existent ‘threshold’.

The prison protocol
How is this possible? The Corrections Department has a written protocol called: “Management of prisoners suspected of internally concealing unauthorised items”. It says that the prisoner should be placed in a ‘dry’ cell – one without a toilet. When the prisoner needs to ‘go’, they give him a cardboard potty. Officers then examine the contents so they can retrieve the drugs and charge the prisoner with bringing in the ‘unauthorised item’. The policy also says that “a Medical Officer must be informed”. The reason is obvious – a prisoner with drugs inside might die. He needs to be examined and, if necessary, sent to hospital for an x-ray.
The Customs Service has a similar protocol and they advise that “no person has ever died while being detained by Customs” when following this policy.

Three prison managers involved
In Davis’ case, there were at least 20 employees at the Otago prison who ignored the protocol. Three of them were prison managers. The most senior was acting prison manager, Chris Gisler, who had been with Corrections for 21 years. Believing that Davis would be concealing drugs when he arrived, Gisler gave the order to segregate him in a dry cell ‘for the purpose of security, good order, or safety of the prison’ under section 58 of the Corrections Act. He probably could have saved Davis’s life by using section 60 of the Act – ‘segregation for the purpose of medical oversight’.  But he didn’t think of that.
Gisler was off duty when Davis was brought in so he delegated the task to Operations Manager Ann Matenga and Security Manager Michael Fitzgerald. On Friday 11th February, 2011 when Mr Davis arrived at the prison, Ann Matenga signed the segregation order stating:

“I will notify the Medical Officer of the prison of this segregation within the applicable timeframe after the above named prisoner is placed in a cell…”

The applicable timeframe was three hours. Ms Matenga was on duty all weekend but never called the doctor. At the inquest she claimed she didn’t know that ‘medical officer’ meant ‘doctor’.
Michael Fitzgerald was the Security Manager. He briefed the security team that Davis was coming in with drugs on board. One of his team then went to the prison health centre and advised the nurses on duty of the situation. The reality was that Gisler and Fitzgerald were totally focussed on security issues – preventing Davis passing the drugs to other prisoners – so they didn’t even think about calling the Medical Officer. Nor did they check with Ann Matenga to see if she had done so. Not one of these three managers thought it necessary to advise the prison doctor that a man was being brought in who was at risk of dying from a drug overdose. It wasn’t even discussed.

Six prison nurses involved
Six different nurses were on duty over the weekend – three of them on the day Davis died. They all knew Davis was in the dry cell because he was suspected of concealing drugs internally.
None of them called the doctor – not even on the Sunday morning when the prison officers on duty noticed Davis had deteriorated and looked seriously unwell. So unwell, that one said:

“He looked like a corpse. His eyes were sunken and he had the cold sweats. .. his breath smelt like faeces… and he had slurred speech as well. He looked as though he should have been in hospital.”

Because the officers were concerned, nurses checked on Davis three times that morning but did nothing. One of them, Gayle Catt, told Corrections Inspector David Morrison, that…

“(Davis) seemed to slightly deteriorate from 7-30 to 8-30am. My concern was that he would go unconscious but officers would think he was asleep.”

Three years later at the inquest, she’d forgotten she said this and claimed: “He was well; he was absolutely well every time I saw him. I had no concerns about his physical safety whatsoever.”
Then there’s Janice Horne, the last nurse to see Davis alive. She was on the afternoon shift on Sunday and only went to see Davis once in her eight-hour shift – at about 4 p.m. Even then, she didn’t go into his cell to examine him. She spoke to him though a small flap in the cell door. Afterwards, she made an observation in his Medical notes that he appeared to be under the influence of drugs…

“because of the slow movements that he was making… she had a conversation with the unit officer where she stated to the officer, Mr Davis ‘looks stoned’.”

Nurse Horne didn’t seem to realise how serious the situation was. She carried on with her other duties, knocked off work at 8 p.m. and went home. Davis appears to have died two hours later. His last recorded movement on the CCTV tape occurred at 10.01pm. A few months after Davis died, Janice Horne resigned and went to live in Australia.

The health centre manager
Despite the risk posed by internally concealing drugs, not one of the six nurses on duty over the weekend called the prison doctor. Not one of them even bothered to consult with the health centre manager, Jill Thompson, who was the head nurse. If they had, Ms Thompson could possibly have saved Davis’ life. When she was interviewed after his death, she said:

“As there was clear knowledge that this person was concealing drugs, why did he come here in the first place? The prison is 45 minutes away from a hospital. If drugs had exploded in a prisoner’s gut, we would not be able to get (him) to the hospital in time…”

That’s her clinical opinion on what should have happened. But it didn’t happen – because Jill Thompson wasn’t at work on the Friday afternoon when Davis was brought in. She wasn’t away at a managerial seminar. She wasn’t sick. Three years later when asked by lawyers at the inquest where she was on that Friday, Ms Thompson claimed she didn’t remember.
The police didn’t seem to realise the significance of Jill Thompson’s unauthorised absence. In the course of a three year investigation, they never even asked her where she was that day. Perhaps she went shopping. The point is she abandoned her legal duties and Mr Davis died. That’s called negligence and it’s potentially a criminal offence. But Ms Thompson was never prosecuted. She didn’t lose her job. She wasn’t reprimanded by Corrections. She wasn’t even questioned by police.

Ten prison officers involved
At least ten Corrections officers were also aware that Davis had drugs on board – and could have called the doctor. Five of them escorted Davis from the prison gate to the At Risk Unit. One of them, Chris Dalton, wrote on Mr Davis’s At Risk management plan “information received from operational intelligence unit that prisoner is concealing drugs on person.” He told police it was his role to ensure the safety of both staff and prisoners and “if anything needs to be done when there is no manager, it falls upon me to action that request.” There was no manager, at least no health centre manager. But Dalton didn’t call the doctor either.
Another officer, James Neill testified that he was briefed by security manager Michael Fitzgerald. He said he then went over to the prison health centre and advised two nurses that “a prisoner was coming in suspected of concealing drugs”. Mr Fitzgerald showed one of the nurses a document titled “Advice to Prisoner Suspected of Concealing” and said “a medical officer is required to sign it.” But the medical officer wasn’t there. Mr Fitzgerald took the form away – so no one signed it. (The medical officer was hardly ever there. See Prison deaths linked to Corrections refusal to employ sufficient doctors.)

There were also half a dozen other prison officers on duty in the At Risk Unit on the day Davis died. Two or three of them were concerned that Davis had deteriorated and should have been taken to hospital. But none of them made the call – they all thought it was the nurses’ job.

The police have a job too – to prosecute those responsible when their negligence contributes to someone’s death.   At the inquest, Senior Sgt Colin Blackie who conducted the police investigation, gave the impression that, at the very least, he would have prosecuted some of the nurses. But he was taken off the case. The harsh reality is that no one in the Corrections Department has ever been prosecuted over a so-called ‘unnatural death’ in prison.