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