The Crewe Murders | New Zealand
Evidence Locker True Crime Podcast
On a rainy winter's night in June 1970, Harvey and Jeanette Crewe settled into their usual evening routine in their Pukekawa farmhouse. After putting their 18-month-old daughter Rochelle to bed, the young couple sat down to a simple dinner of flounder, potatoes, and peas. Farm paperwork and mail were spread across the dining table as they ate, discussing the day's events. Later, they moved to the warmth of their living room, where a fire crackled in the hearth.
Harvey, 28, took his usual armchair, a stack of New Zealand Herald newspapers on the table beside him. Jeanette, 30, curled up on the sofa to his left, picking up her knitting – a jersey she was making for her husband. Neither could have known that these ordinary, peaceful moments would be their last. As Rochelle slept soundly in her cot just meters away, an intruder was about to transform their quiet farmhouse into the scene of one of New Zealand's most enduring murder mysteries, a crime that would remain unsolved for over half a century.
You are listening to: The Evidence Locker.
Thanks for listening to our podcast. This episode is made possible by our sponsors—be sure to check them out for exclusive deals. For an ad-free experience, join us on Patreon, starting at just $2 a month, with 25% of proceeds supporting The Doe Network, helping to bring closure to international cold cases. Links are in the show notes.
Our episodes cover true crimes involving real people, and some content may be graphic in nature. Listener discretion is advised. We produce each episode with the utmost respect for the victims, their families, and loved ones.
Pukekawa, New Zealand is located about 90 minutes southwest of Auckland in the Waikato region. During the 1970s, this rural farming community was characterized by close-knit relationships. Families and neighbours worked together on their land, lending each other a helping hand when needed.
Jeannette Demler was born into a prominent local farming family. She completed her teaching qualification in 1958 after attending teachers' training college the previous year. In 1961, Jeannette travelled overseas with friends before returning to New Zealand to teach, first in Maramarua, then Papakura. A move to Whanganui for work led to her meeting Harvey Crewe, who worked as a stock agent. Their connection was immediate, and they married on June 18, 1966.
The couple shared deep roots in farming - Harvey had grown up in rural New Zealand, while Jeannette was raised on her family's Pukekawa property. Both understood and were well-suited to the demands of farm life.
When Jeanette's uncle Howard died in a tractor accident in 1950, he left his property to Jeanette and her sister Heather. Soon after Jeanette and Harvey's wedding, Heather agreed to sell her half of the farm to Harvey for $40,000. He paid $9,000 in cash from his savings and took out a mortgage for the rest. The couple then moved to the property and made it their own, farming sheep and beef dry stock.
But life wasn't always easy for the Crewes. In 1967, their house was burgled, and the next year it was damaged by fire. In 1969, a second fire damaged their hay barn. But things began to look up in December 1968 when they welcomed their first child, a daughter they named Rochelle.
In early 1970, Jeanette's mother, May, passed away from a brain tumour, leaving her share of the Demler farm to Jeanette, along with money, shareholdings, personal belongings, and a vehicle. However, her will also stipulated that Jeanette’s father, Len, had the right to live on the farm and keep all the income from it for the rest of his life. The inheritance came with complications – Len’s solicitor informed him that the estate’s death duties were far higher than expected, adding financial strain to an already complex situation. Additionally, May had cut her younger daughter, Heather, out of the will due to her marriage to a divorced man, which May, a devout Presbyterian, strongly disapproved of. While these circumstances created tension between Len and Jeanette, their relationship had not deteriorated beyond repair.
Apart from this lingering tension, Harvey and Jeanette’s life was pretty good. The routine on the Crewe farm revolved around hard work and family – spending time with baby Rochelle. By all accounts, Harvey and Jeannette were well-liked and respected as salt of the earth farmers.
On Monday, June 22, Jeanette’s father, worried because a stock agent who had had an appointment with Harvey said he was not home. When a second agent called Len, he decided to go to the Crewes’ home to see if they were okay. When he arrived, he found the farmhouse in an eerily quiet state. The living room carpet was covered in blood, but there was no sign of Jeanette and Harvey.
As he made his way through the house, he found his 18-month-old granddaughter Rochelle, in her cot. She appeared unharmed but hungry and somewhat dehydrated – her cot was wet and soiled. It was clear that she had been unattended for some time. Strangely, Len left her there and went back to his house next door to call the collector to say that Harvey was not there. Only then did he alert authorities.
When police arrived at the scene, it was pretty baffling. A half-eaten meal was out on the dining room table, and the living room was in disarray, with armchairs moved from their usual position, all pushed together to one side of the room. It looked as if there had been a violent struggle, and the tale-telling bloodstains on the living room carpet did not bode well. There were cups of tea on the coffee table and Jeanette’s knitting had been tossed to one side of the couch.
The discovery prompted a police investigation. Initial searches of the property yielded no clues as to the whereabouts of the couple. Friends and family were deeply concerned, as the Crewes were not the types to simply abandon their home and child.
What followed was one of the most extensive investigations in New Zealand’s history. Neighbours, friends, family and everyone in the area were questioned. The Crewes were last seen alive at a stock sale about 22 kilometres away, on Wednesday afternoon, June 17. The weather was terrible, and Jeanette stayed in the car with Rochelle while Harvey had a look at the livestock. They left the sale just after 2:30 PM. Their car was seen parked on the side of the road two kilometres south of their house at about 5:10 PM that evening, presumably as Harvey shifted sheep or tended to stock in a nearby paddock. They probably then went home for dinner.
The couple usually sat down to eat between 6:30 and 8:30 PM after Jeanette had fed Rochelle and put her to bed. That night, Jeanette prepared flounder, potatoes and peas. The couple ate, then left their empty plates on the table, with the remnants of the fish on a larger plate in the middle, and paperwork, mail and farm documents spread around. They made cups of tea and moved to the lounge. Harvey sat in his usual armchair, with a side table piled with copies of The New Zealand Herald next to him. Jeanette moved to the sofa to Harvey's left, where she picked up her knitting. What happened after that, no one knows.
A labourer who was working on a neighbouring farm told police that he had seen a woman entering the Crewe home, three days after they were last seen. When Rochelle was found, she was hungry and crying, but all things considered, she was in a relatively good state. Dirty diapers were found discarded on top of the fridge – not how Jeanette or Harvey would have disposed of it. A world expert in child abuse, Professor Carole Jenny, reviewed the case and concluded that Rochelle's condition was:
"…clinically incompatible with complete starvation and lack of fluid for five days."
She noted that the wet state of Rochelle's bedding indicated normal urine output, which would not be expected if the child had been deprived of fluids. This led to the conclusion that Rochelle had been given food and/or drink between the time her parents died and when she was found by her grandfather. But by who?
The Crewes had a daily delivery service, with bread, milk, and a copy of the Herald newspaper left in a wooden box at their front gate. On June 18, 19, and 20, the delivery man made his usual stops. Each time, he noticed that his previous deliveries remained untouched in the box.
By June 22nd, seeing that nothing had been collected, he decided to pause the deliveries. Believing the Crewes were simply away without having informed him, he removed the stale bread from the box and tossed it into an adjacent field to prevent rats from getting into the Crewe’s food box.
From the outset, police found Len Demler to be rather suspicious. His actions in the days after his daughter and son-in-law were reported missing were peculiar: he watched the investigators as they combed the Crewe farm from a distance, always on horseback.
When investigators learned about his troubled relationship with Jeanette, they were convinced he had something to do with the disappearance.
To add to their suspicion, traces of Jeanette’s blood were found on the seat in his truck. And when detectives asked to see his firearm, he did not know where it was. Being the early 70s, police used some unconventional methods of harassment on Len, hoping he would buckle under the pressure and confess. However, Len remained unfazed, made sure he had a lawyer on the case and even hosted a birthday party to take his mind off things, with his daughter and son-in-law still missing and feared deceased. Because of this, he faced a lot of scrutiny from the police and community.
On August 16, 1970, nearly two months after the couple was last seen, the mystery deepened. Jeanette’s body was discovered floating in the Waikato River, wrapped in a blanket from her own home. Len Demler was asked to identify his daughter’s remains at the scene. He reportedly did so, without showing any emotion.
The discovery of Jeanette’s body confirmed the worst fears. This was no case of a tragic accident or disappearance – it was cold-blooded murder. And the murder meticulously tried to hide his crime. Flood waters eventually caused the Waikato River to yield Harvey’s body on September 16, a month – to the day – after Jeanette was found. Like Jeanette, his body was wrapped in a blanket from their home, tied up with wire, with an old car axle used to weigh down his body.
The police investigation established that Harvey was shot first, from behind, by someone standing in the kitchen or just outside the open louver window. The bullet entered the left side of his head just above his ear and would have killed him instantly. Evidence suggests Jeanette verbally challenged the offender, possibly by screaming or shouting. She was struck in the face with an object first, then hit her head on the front left corner of the fireplace. She was then shot at close range on the right side of the head.
Neighbour Julie Priest told police she'd heard three gunshots on June 17, probably after 8:30 PM.
Both victims died from a single gunshot wound to the head, caused by a .22 calibre pistol. Their bodies were then taken to the river, where they were discarded of. The perpetrator or an accomplice made a feeble attempt of cleaning up the scene, as suggested by blood evidence in the kitchen sink. The person or persons returned to see to baby Rochelle’s most basic needs – a couple of diaper changes and some food.
A month after the bodies were found, however, police had a new suspect: the Crewe’s neighbour, Arthur Allan Thomas. Thomas had no apparent motive. However, the axle used to weigh Harvey’s body down appeared to have come from an old trailer belonging to Thomas’ father. This link was made when police matched wheel hubs to the axle, found in a dump on Thomas's farm. They also discovered the same kind of wire that was used to bind the bodies in Thomas’ shed.
Investigators ordered another search of the Crewe’s back garden, and miraculously, another key piece of evidence emerged. A spent .22 calibre shell casing, fired from Arthur Thomas’ gun. Curiously, the garden had been searched on two occasions prior to this discovery, and nothing was found then.
It seemed like all evidence pointed to Thomas being guilty of murder, yet there was no motive… That is, until investigators discovered that Arthur Thomas and Jeanette Crewe were childhood friends. When she went oversees, they kept in touch by writing letters. When she returned to New Zealand, Arthur bought her a Christmas present, a brush and comb set. Fearing that Arthur was romantically interested in her, Jeanette did not want to accept the gift and lied, telling him she had a boyfriend. This all happened 10 years before her death. Police wondered if jealousy or anger because of rejection could have been the reason behind the killings? Investigators felt the unrequited-love angle was a plausible enough explanation and moved forward with an arrest.
Despite Thomas’s consistent denial of any involvement in the murders, or any allegations of a love interest, he was charged with the murders of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe.
His trial began in 1971, even though the case against him was largely circumstantial. The prosecution argued that the cartridge case found in Thomas's garden matched the ammunition used in the murders, and the axle found with Harvey's body was linked to Thomas's father’s trailer. These two pieces of evidence became the cornerstone of the prosecution’s argument.
The Crown argued that Thomas drove the 9 miles from his home to the Crewe’s farmhouse, approached the home from the back garden, where he stood on a ledge and shot Harvey Crewe through a louver window. Once he knew Harvey no longer posed a threat, he entered the house where he shot Jeannette point blank. They also implicated Thomas’ wife Vivian, claiming that she was the one who looked after Rochelle.
Vivian denied this of course, and also provided an alibi for Arthur, insisting that he was home with her the entire evening. Also, the engine of his car was well-known to be quite loud, and he would not have been able to arrive unnoticed. As it was a cold and rainy night, the louver windows would also have been closed. Then there was the shell casing… Ballistics noted that there was dried soil inside. If it had been in the garden since the murders, it would certainly have been damp – as there had been constant rain during that time.
The jury did not warm to Arthur and Vivian and the atmosphere in the courtroom was openly hostile. To make things worse for Thomas, a witness came forward, claiming that he repaired Thomas’ wristwatch in the weeks following the murder. The man claimed that the watch had blood on it. The jury inferred that the blood came from the victims.
Arthur Thomas was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the conviction was far from the end of the story. Concerns about the validity of the evidence and the fairness of the trial began to surface almost immediately.
People across the entire country signed petitions to grant Thomas a retrial. There was a feverish interest in the case, which is rather curious. But it did cause the Court of Appeal to have another look at the case, and finding irregularities, granting Arthur Thomas a retrial in 1973. Despite his wife and cousin providing alibis, the prosecution’s case still relied heavily on a spent cartridge case allegedly found in the Crewes' garden, which matched Thomas’s rifle. This crucial piece of evidence led to another conviction, and Thomas was once again sentenced to life imprisonment. However, doubts about the case persisted.
By the late 1970s, public and political pressure to re-examine the case had grown significantly. Journalists, legal experts, and members of the public raised concerns about the integrity of the police investigation. Among the most damning allegations was that police officers had planted the cartridge case in Thomas's garden to frame him for the murders. The gravity of these concerns was reflected in the 1980 Royal Commission's stark assessment when they ominously stated:
"…the most serious inferences ... can be drawn".
In 1979, after years of campaigning by Thomas's supporters, a Royal Commission of Inquiry was established to investigate the case. The commission found that the cartridge case had indeed been planted by police. This revelation led to a dramatic decision: Arthur Allan Thomas was granted a Royal Pardon, and he was released from prison in December 1979 after serving nine years behind bars.
The pardon was a historic moment, as it marked the first and only time in New Zealand's history that a Royal Pardon was granted in such circumstances. However, it also left a troubling question unanswered: if Arthur Thomas didn’t kill the Crewes, who did?
The Royal Commission’s findings pointed to significant flaws in the original investigation, but it did not identify the real killer. Over the years, various theories have emerged, but none have been conclusively proven.
In recent years, renewed interest in the case has led to further investigations and the publication of books and documentaries. Journalists Kirsty Johnston and James Hollings have explored the case in depth, uncovering new insights and re-evaluating the evidence in their book ‘The Crewe Murders – Inside New Zealand’s Most Infamous Cold Case.’
In their investigation, they examined the axle used to weigh down Harvey Crewe's body, which bore the serial number ‘17600.’ This number corresponded specifically to a 1929 Nash 420 vehicle, as detailed in an auto-parts manual they discovered. The finding was significant because, for years, police had asserted that the axle came from a trailer linked to Arthur Allan Thomas, suggesting it originated from a 1928 Nash 320. Hollings and Johnston's research indicated that the axle was "very likely" not from Thomas's father's trailer, thereby challenging a key piece of evidence used against him. And raising the question: who did it belong to then?
One enduring mystery is the question of who cared for baby Rochelle in the days following her parents’ murders. Witnesses reported seeing signs of activity at the Crewe farm after the couple’s disappearance, suggesting that someone returned to the house to feed and care for the child. Some speculate that this individual may hold the key to solving the case.
Another theory focuses on William Demler, Jeannette's father. Demler’s behaviour in the days following the murders raised suspicions, and he was known to have a strained relationship with his daughter. However, no concrete evidence has ever linked him to the crime.
In 2010, Rochelle Crewe, now an adult seeking long-overdue answers, approached the police with two pressing concerns. She wanted to know what steps had been taken to identify her parents’ real killer after Arthur Thomas was pardoned, and she demanded accountability for the officers, Bruce Hutton and Len Johnston, who had planted evidence yet never faced prosecution. Her request reignited public interest in the case, leading to a major police review.
The review acknowledged severe investigative failures, including overlooked alibis, a failure to prioritise previous suspicious incidents at the Crewe farm and ignored vehicle sightings. For instance the witness account of Ross Eyre, who was 16 years old at the time, and was a neighbour of the Crewes. Ross knew the Crews well as he occasionally worked on their farm. He recalled that one day (sometime after June 17), he was waiting for the school bus at the family farm gate when the Crewe car went past. Waving out, he recalled the driver glaring at him and, continuing on, hitting a pothole on the corner and nearly losing control. The Crewes knew the pothole, he said, and would not have hit it. Also, Jeanette would have waved back.
When the Crewes’ disappearance became known, his mother rang the police. He told the detective who paid him a visit that he “saw the Crewe car”. The reply: “That’s not possible, they’ve disappeared.” The officer closed his notebook and accused the boy of seeking attention. No one ever followed up on this compelling statement.
For the first time, police formally admitted that officers had fabricated evidence to frame Thomas. Despite this, investigators maintained that Arthur Thomas’ rifle was still the most likely murder weapon. However, they were finally able to clear Len Demler of any involvement, with Acting Deputy Commissioner Grant Nicholls issuing a public apology to Rochelle. Independent counsel David Jones QC concluded that due to lost and destroyed evidence, it was now nearly impossible to bring anyone to justice.
In a December 27, 2020, article, journalist Ian Wishart explored new developments in the 1970 Crewe murders case. He reported that Harold Plumley, a wealthy individual who posthumously donated his $122 million estate to the Catholic Church, had previously been considered a potential suspect in the murders. Plumley's connection to the case is further complicated by his tie to Detective Inspector Bruce Hutton – Hutton was dating his sister and later married her. Hutton was the lead investigator in the original case, who was later implicated in evidence tampering that led to the wrongful conviction of Arthur Thomas.
Wishart's investigation was prompted by information from former colleagues of Plumley, who alleged that he had expressed animosity toward a local woman he called "Gee-net" prior to the murders. He allegedly chose to spare Rochelle’s life in a moment of Catholic guilt. These revelations add a new dimension to the case, suggesting possible personal motives and connections that were not fully explored during the initial investigation.
The Crewe murders remain one of New Zealand’s most infamous unsolved crimes. For many, the case represents a failure of the justice system and an unsettling example of how easily the truth can be obscured.
As of the most recent updates, Detective Superintendent Dave Lynch confirmed the file isn't closed, but no active work is being done without new significant and credible information.
For Rochelle Crewe, who was raised by Harvey’s family, and now lives a private life, the murders of her parents are a deeply personal tragedy. Despite the passage of time, the search for answers continues, driven by a collective desire for justice and closure.
As new generations of true crime enthusiasts learn about the case, the hope remains that someone, somewhere, holds the key to unlocking the truth. Until then, the Crewe murders will remain a story of tragedy, resilience, and the enduring quest for justice.
If you'd like to dive deeper into this case, check out the resources we used for this episode in the show notes.
Don’t forget to follow us on social media for more updates on today's case – you can find us on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and X. We also have a channel on YouTube where you can watch more content.
If you enjoy what we do here at Evidence Locker, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts or wherever you're listening right now and consider leaving us a 5-star review.
This was The Evidence Locker. Thank you for listening!
©2025 Evidence Locker Podcast
All rights reserved. This podcast or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a podcast review.