Fifty years ago today, New Zealand’s most talked about Cold Case murders occurred at Pukekawa, in South Auckland, when Harvey & Jeannette Crewe were murdered in their home, execution style. Drawing on details revealed in the book, “I Fed the Baby”* by private investigator, John Ingley, from Police files and many books and reports by others, I share here my take on what happened way back when, answering the three key questions that apparently the cops of the day (and ever since) couldn’t answer: Who, why & how? Cold Case . . . no more.
Disclaimer: In this post I share my opinions and deductions basing them on facts revealed by multiple sources. In doing so, I name names. If any deduction is wrong it is because my logic or facts are wrong and as per my Disclosure Statement [below] I undertake to revise or update this post accordingly. This work therefore is a work in progress, and as always, I invite comments or correction.
During the course of this blogging, I became aware of an error of assumption in John’s work, specifically that his multi-decade struggle to identify Pam resulted in his faulty guesswork that Leslee and Pam were sisters. They are actually cousins (Pam said that they shared the same grandfather’s half brother), thus I have updated my writing to reflect that clarity. I have not however updated John’s original work as it seems inappropriate to correct what could be seen as a minor detail long after close-off of the print version of the text. John too made it abundantly clear when he wrote that he didn’t have all the answers.
“Who fed the baby?” and “Who pulled the trigger?” are the two primary unanswered questions in this sordid matter, at least according to officialdom. OK they say also that they don’t know why either . . . hmm!
Two people were involved in feeding the baby Rochelle . . . Jeannette’s cousins Pamela Ann (b. 1949, Whangarei) and her cousin Leslee Sinton (b. 6 October, 1947, Whangarei) also nee Howard. Sources: Leslee (actually Pam) confessed her identity to her boyfriend at the time, John Ingley in the late 1970’s. She lost two front teeth in the restraining/murder of Jeannette (she ‘played’ with her plate when under pressure or stress), had frequent nightmares and was under Police protection in 1980, thus was “known to the Police”. Both Leslee and Pamela were highly experienced in the use of disguises (wigs, name changes etc) and frequently deceived others over their identities, sometimes in incredible ways. More on that in a minute.
The shooter was again one of Jeannette’s cousins, the older of two of Alf Hodgson’s stepsons (they were all brought up in close proximity e.g. holidaying together as children). It is most likely that all four cousins (two men & two women) were present; that they knew of the intended murders and actively helped with them, but it may have been only three present. I will explain the true circumstances of the murders shortly.
More importantly though is to understand who commanded them to do what they did. Len Demler was the mastermind to the executions, and it was he who called them on the Tuesday night (the day before), most likely activating a loosely planned operation that had been on the back-burner for months, but possibly longer.
Some in the NZ Police know (and knew back then) the answers to both these questions. This is why there is still an active cover-up of these murders in multiple divisions within New Zealand’s power systems (at least as at writing, mid 2020).
A substantial portion of John Ingley’s 30 year research was focussed on ‘following the money’ and in an amazing journey tracing back through land transfers, he identified largely hidden ‘old English wealth’ within Jeannette’s maternal side.
Len Demler’s then recently deceased wife Maisey was, through her various trusts a ‘Pukekawa banker’, using her inherited wealth to loan to many dozens of farmers (and others) within the South Auckland region. In the process she had enormous power and commanded respect, but control of this wealth had recently transferred to Jeannette Crewe (nee Demler) along with her [relatively] new husband Harvey. They were preparing to sell up and relocate out of the Pukekawa region when murdered. This pending departure is why the house was not done up but they were investing into stock, which they would have taken with them. It is also one of the reasons why the community closed ranks upon their murder, as death often erases debt, and Jeannette’s death following her stated intention to call-up loans due (and overdue) gave cause for those in debt (or who would benefit from deals with Len) to ‘keep Mum’ within “Demler Country” [Port Waikato to Te Kuiti]. Police attitudes and treatment of those giving evidence also worked their way through the local grapevine very quickly!
Len’s financial situation (for various reasons) was challenging for a male, to say the least, suffice to say that there was a huge split in the fortunes of the two sisters, Len (with his preferred daughter Heather) benefiting from the murders most at the expense of Jeannette (Maisey’s preferred daughter). Cui bono addresses this matter best, and the clear transfer of wealth from one side of the family to the other following the murders when visualised, is telling. I show this in pictorial form in the book.
Understanding the truth about this “Cold Case” requires us to ‘park’ all preconceptions, and to largely ignore the NZ Police’s version of events. In future posts (if I am still around and able to) I will attempt to ‘divine’ the aspects of Police conduct that were accurate and professional; those that were lacking or unprofessional; and those that were outright dishonest and represent corruption of the most serious kind.
Summarised briefly however, Police evidence gained in the first 24 (perhaps 36) hours was clean and reliable. EVERYTHING done by, or supplied from the Police since the first point of corruption though must be double-checked and was/is suspect. Most things relating to Arthur Allan Thomas should be totally ignored – his involvement or otherwise was/is a total distraction. EVERYTHING relating to .22 rifles must also be ignored – the murder weapon was a .22 pistol, not a rifle. Any report or review from officialdom needs to be viewed in terms of its Terms of Reference also, and interpreted carefully by the agenda of the author – the Judiciary, politics, the legal fraternity, private authors and particularly from the Police.
I’ll share more about this in future posts but while the Police, in particular Johnston and Hutton, were proven to be corrupt during their investigation, there is the obvious question about whether they initiated the cover-up or whether it was from above. From where I sit, 50 years later, this corruption came from above and has extended since in two ways – both in time and also in reach. It includes politics, the legal profession, the judiciary, the multiple stands of the media, the NZ civil service (i.e. bureaucracy), the farming community and even in the simple so-called legally tight job of recording of property transactions. It also extends in time right until today, well at least until 2015 that I know of, at present.
The Crewe murders case is (even 50 years after the event) a massive hot potato. To say that two police officers just did something wrong 49 years ago is a gross insult to reality when you understand how hot this matter is still, today. Whether those two proven corrupt officers were responding to an external corrupting influence or whether they initiated it for personal gain is a VERY good question! Many have learned since that it is the former if not both.
Maisey died in early 1970 resisting to the end Len Demler’s serious efforts to get her to change her will. Her will gave full control of multiple inheritances (I know of just under a million dollars in assets but there could easily have been and probably was more) to her favoured daughter Jeannette.
On or about midday [updated: Actually later in the day] 16 June 1970, Len Demler and his daughter Jeannette had an argument. I gather that this argument related to the will/probate and Jeannette’s insistence that her mother’s wishes be carried out. I strongly suspect that she confronted her Dad when he tried to pull a fast one as Maisey had confided in Jeannette, particularly in the more recent times. Jeannette knew of all the trusts and the assets that existed and knew her father’s financial matters well. She would have argued with her father saying that things (most likely that either some or all of the hidden [or blind] trusts) were missing. BTW, Maisey (and by deduction Jeannette) knew who the troublemakers were who had broken in, set the haystack alight and were agitating, but she hushed it all up – they were family. It is unlikely that Harvey knew though.
This confrontation (Len vs Jeannette) is the event that triggered the murders the following night. It is likely that Len, who I suspect had a form of ASD, called Alf Hodgson’s widowed wife Rose Amy (perhaps visited her but at least got the message to her) that “It [the murders] was all on!”Her boys (the Gurney brothers were the muscle).
On Wednesday night, Jeannette prepared a third meal for her father Len as per usual. With Maisey’s death, Len had taken to eating with Jeannette and Harvey daily (not weekly, misinformation spoken of elsewhere). Instead of Len arriving however, Jeannette’s cousins arrived (probably two boys and the two girls), and were welcomed in. One of the boys had the pistol hidden on him. Harvey and one (perhaps both) of the boys went outside to get firewood. It was a winter night, wet and cold. The location of the firewood shed required them to go out the front door, down from the front door/concrete porch, turn right down a path around the corner of the house, then turn left to a gate to the Eastern paddock, out the gate and to the right (South). Update: It is possible that they took the shorter route through the kitchen, though.
Harvey was wheeling an empty wheelbarrow and wore a yellow ‘Parka’ with hood or a cloth of some sort. A parka is an oilskin type of raincoat seen in the first set of Police photos. At the gate, one of Jeannette’s cousins shot Harvey in the head, but if the neighbour is correctly reported as hearing three shots in total, using two shots. I do not know why he shot twice. It’s possible that he was nervous and the first one missed and he needed a second shot. More likely there was only two shots in total.
Harvey was untrusting of the Demler family because of the family conflict (including fires and break-ins) thus he would have been alert if not actually ‘on edge’. Also as a big man he was also quite capable of defending himself. With both hands on the wheelbarrow, a hood over his head (it was raining), and stopped or stopping at the gate, he was however, a sitting duck, especially at point blank range.
When shot, he fell to the left onto a small tendrill bush and then either fell onto or rolled onto the fence bottom rail. The rail then broke (or if it was broken previously it exacerbated the break).
Inside, Jeannette knew instantly that foul play was occurring and it was her husband who would have been the target. That she was restrained physically indicates two people inside, likely Pamela and Leslee but perhaps one of the boys as well. The resulting struggle was short but violent and lasted the time between the neighbours report of two shots followed by a third shot later. In this fight to the death, Jeannette lost half a dozen teeth and Pamela, two. Jeannette’s skull was split from top to bottom, so it was clearly a violent time, so horrendous that even in Leslee’s remarkable confession to John Ingley under extreme emotional trauma almost ten years later, Leslee did not (more likely could not) even talk about it.
The shooter(s) would have raced inside immediately and (probably the same shooter) finished Jeannette off with a one bullet, close-range execution style. Once you have killed once it is a lot easier to do it again, and it is unlikely that he would have given up the weapon (his source of power) to anyone else at that time with the adrenaline pumping through his body.
The two [most likely] boys returned outside to Harvey’s body and lifted him onto the wheelbarrow; brought him back around to the front concrete porch; then dragged his body off the wheelbarrow; dragging his legs through the front door and put it into the chair in the lounge. Death causes loss of body fluid control, thus urine and sometimes feces release. No urine was found on the chair. Blood stains though did occur on the chair, so this movement occurred very soon after the shootings. You can imagine their thinking, “Quick get him inside then we will decide what to do with them both.” The time for blood to congeal is only usually minutes, but is extended in moist and/or cold conditions (like that night) so it is to be expected that bleeding would continue in the new location inside. It also explains the dragged blood stains on the doorstep where it appears that the blood-stained legs were still moist with uncongealed blood.
Both bodies were moved either that night or the next morning to the woolshed (yes, the very shed where the Police had 100s of people merrily coming in and out of their HQ!), wrapped and then disposed of using the brown [International] truck seen there the next morning. While I don’t know this for sure they were likely taken and stored at Jeannette’s northern farm (a second farm Sections 67 & 68 very close to the Waikato river that most do not know she even had!) where they were eventually dumped, then later found in the river. Again one needs to be very cautious about accepting Police versions of events, particularly in regards to their conclusions.
After the murders, Leslee and her cousin Pamela (in Leslee’s words) “helped clean up” and returned to feed and change Rochelle’s nappy at least once, probably more than once, but unlikely at any time during the last day or so prior to being found. All visitors to the Crewe farmhouse used the back ways to and from Len Demler’s house which avoided the front letterbox area. [Update: It is also an error of logic to assume that Rochelle was in her cot alone all the time between the murders. There is reason to believe that Rochelle and at least Pam spent some, if not all, of the first three days at in or near Len Demler’s house.] John has spent time on site more than once and as an experienced hunter his analysis of human activity like this is exemplary. He knew the layout of the various properties and river well.
Len deliberately made himself scarce during that time, and their combined intent was to make things look like normal as long as possible. Their failure to think about and address the letterbox deliveries was an oversight. As they utilised the back paths, they didn’t see anything to trigger an alert to bring the letterbox items in.
I have a lot of respect for John Ingley’s determination, logic & research skills, but I did not find his explanation of the shenanigans surrounding Len Demler’s manipulation of the probate process fully compelling. As an alert to fraud – yes, definitely. As to the legal process of fraud – I’m still not sure. John admits that he is no lawyer, and my legal advisors give me conflicting advice in regards to this situation. In a normal situation wealth inherited from a maternal line would pass through Jeannette to her surviving offspring, in this case supposedly to Rochelle. That it didn’t, but that it came to Len and Heather instead may be explainable somehow (John gives a possibility) but it certainly indicates that some fraud has occurred in this context.
Indeed this was the direct, actual and intended result of the murders of two innocent people, fifty years ago today! So something untoward happened!
The Police Review of 2014 is explicit in its methodology – it only looked at what evidence had been gathered to date, and the authorities state that no new evidence has come to hand. Looking in such a narrow way at the case, the “legal proof is required” approach is deliberately limiting. Please use common sense guys – unless you want to cover something up, of course!
The Police (or at least some within the Police) knew more than they let on from the point that the cover-up began around 24 hours into the investigation. As investigative author Ian Wishart has rightly opined, “If they only look into their own little black box of tricks, what else do you expect except the same old mantra?” – paraphrased somewhat, thank you Ian.*
The pardon of Arthur Allan Thomas does not mean that he, or his family are innocent of all crimes. I certainly do not believe that AAT is guilty of two murders, and he may be totally innocent of all wrongdoing but this does not automatically mean that the entire Thomas family are totally innocent victims nor that others within the Thomas family have not benefited from a crime. I do know that they secretly recorded a conversation when they explicitly agreed not to! I suspect that, like many in the Pukekawa farming community too, that there have been ‘other things’ that they don’t want exposed. I also do not believe that they do not know the full story as I have outlined above. Crumbs, half of Demler Country knew that Harvey was not killed inside his house but that his wife was by those who knew them!
When I look at the cyclic nature of generational issues like this, it seems to me that it will be the third generation that spills the beans. I’ll explain it like this: The old saying that, “The first generation makes it; the second keeps it and the third loses it” could be adapted to read: “The first generation did it; the second kept it quiet; but the third generation spoke about it!” Many families (and I’m talking here an estimate of two dozen properties or more) gained some benefit from these murders, by way of Maisey’s financial assistance during tough times. Sometimes it was land, sometimes stock and other times it was money that Len dealt with. That such a huge area was known by the locals as “Demler’s Country” indicates his success at gaining influence with Maisey’s wealth. Those who benefited directly from these events will probably never speak up – they will take it to the grave with them. The next generation will not normally speak up either – they may know that their farm or family wealth, or part of it, may have been gained by immoral means but this was their parents. It’s too close. When however their parents pass on the grandchildren (the third generation) have a lot more freedom to fess up. It seems to me that the Pukekawa Region needs to wait until the children of the 1970s move out of positions of power or die off before the truth can properly out, and they say things like, “Yes Dennis, you’re right. Len Demler bought off my grandfather too with a ‘deal’ on Port Waikato property.” or whatever.
Authors all have their own agendas, no matter how passionate they are or how they present themselves as impartial. The late Pat Booth did an amazing job revealing the corruption in regards to planted evidence, but his murder-suicide theory is utter nonsense. Ian Wishart, while detailing (incidentally) the early UK advice that the gun that fired the fatal bullets could easily be a .22 pistol, and getting much analysis right in regards to Police indiscretions and failures in logic, took a wild stab in the dark to actually accuse the crooked cops of pulling the trigger. The Police were right to laugh this accusation off in this case, but knowing more than most about the way things really work in power, Ian had balls nonetheless to go there, and always said that it was his conjecture! Chris Birt’s private dealings with John Ingley indicates a compromised source to me. Of course the Police too have a vested interest in justifying their failure to arrest the crooked cops and more!
Truthseeking requires the application of sound logic onto fact. Let’s deal with my sources of fact and how I’ve applied logic in the major aspects of this summary:
The Murder Weapon – the How. John Ingley had a relationship with Leslee Sinton (Jeannette’s cousin; the woman who fed the baby; but actually Pamela in disguise) from mid 1976 until April 1980. During this time, Leslee asked him to go with her to Alf Hodgson’s house on 3C4 which he did, driving past the Crewe house on that trip. She went in to the house, got the murder weapon and asked John to fix it [corrected]. She talked about that specific weapon’s “interesting history” although at the time without admitting to being at the murder scene and actively participating in the murder. Apparently it had a habit of jamming, which concurs with other reports of these weapons. He describes it as a “Ladies Companion [the brand name] pepperbox [a generic phrase from 100 years ago] with bone or ivory handle”. Because I know his integrity, I trust John’s research, thus this is as close to factual validation as I can get. No proven fact counters this analysis. The Crewes were killed with this actual weapon and this understanding provides first, the basis of other conjecture but more importantly, the preclusion of much other nonsense. If it’s anything to do with rifles – forget it!
Motivation – the Why. Len Demler proved his capacity to out-think, protect himself, and to put his interests above others to the discerning public many times throughout the heady days during the investigation, court and media circus following the murders. Indeed many believed and even still believe that “Len did it!” The truth however is that while Len benefited from the murders, and is most likely to have engineered them, he didn’t pull the trigger, nor was he likely even there. He was way too smart for that. Motive is very well documented in Police records and third party documents elsewhere. John Ingley’s research however puts huge flesh onto the financial and political aspects of this monetary control motive sufficient that it becomes a “white hot” subject. It’s a slam dunk to me, especially when you analyse the flowchart showing the actual wealth redistribution.
Identities, and the Who. Having established that Len Demler was the kingpin in the events of 50 years ago, and that this was a family affair with more than one person involved, the identity of the one who pulled the trigger to me reduces in significance. Personally, I see that the only one who had the balls sufficient to ‘take them out’ was Alf’s older step-son, reported as a hot-head. I can quite easily see Pamela & Leslee ‘getting their hands dirty’ but pulling the trigger? Nah! Then dragging Harvey back inside again? Nope! Harvey was a big man. What I alluded to before was the trickiness that both Pam & Leslee had by manipulating others. John Ingley reported multiple instances of confusion himself from at the time, way back when, when recalling past events with these girls. I mean how could an intelligent, capable man who is ‘sleeping’ with a woman get confused between cousins unless something odd was going on? Sure, if he was on dope or incapacitated but he wasn’t. He was a ‘straight’ man – a practical hunting, man of the bush, with some degree of street-smarts. Take into account too that the Police actively protected his ‘Leslee’ once in 1980, so they knew her all right, or at least some within the force did!
Early Corruption. Logic tells me that there were higher forces that got involved in this investigation within 24 hours of it commencing, possibly as late as 36 hours after the first call-out. The logic I use is this . . . the police photographer took photos of the scene and he was obviously straight or untainted at the time. Clearly he was simply doing his job recording the scene, and his photos revealed a rag or yellow parka on the ground beside the wheelbarrow. This was later removed. The [freshly] broken bottom fence-rail was also either repaired or moved back, and the tendril bush (which would have been covered with fresh blood) was burned up. This is prime facie evidence of deliberate, conscious, early deception. The photo of bloodstains on the doorstep clearly show something soaked in fresh blood being dragged IN to, not out of the house. Rust on the front porch is best explained by a body being dragged OUT of a wheelbarrow on the porch. Multiple critical tracts of data went missing from the early investigation. Excuse me? Somebody wanted things to go awry, and it was NOT as simple as just getting a conviction for political purposes although Ross Meurant was obviously correct that this was one factor. Corruption occurred as early as the second (or third day) following the photos coming in to Police possession.
Evidence of early corruption changes the entire way that this Cold Case should be looked at – another reason that I advise all to ignore all events relating to Arthur Allan Thomas, rifles, bullets and so on.
I have concerns regarding the whole Crewe murders Cold Case, and they are not just simply tut-tutting at corruption from the authorities 50 years ago . . .
- Rochelle. Rochelle’s responses concern me – first that she doesn’t want to talk about past matters, and secondly that she is happy that her family is exonerated. As an innocent party to her parents’ death at the hands of foul play by her own grandfather, I am deeply concerned for Rochelle’s welfare. She has a new identity and has been reported as being appreciative for those who respect that desire to be anonymous. I too have and will respect that reported desire. John Ingley too attempted to make contact with her, even to the extent of travelling to a South Island location and identifying her personally, and he was denied the opportunity to discuss his findings directly. I can understand her desire to put the past events away but thinking that there is another out there who had it in for her parents when this is a falsehood, is not integrity. I am concerned for her but I value the truth more than her perception of reality. I have made a commitment to speak about this matter publicly though, and have done what I can to mitigate unnecessary trauma, thus this post.
- Rochelle’s inheritance. While I have no interest in becoming a social justice warrior, one cannot help but wonder at why two murders, particularly of one’s parents can permit a financial injustice over multiple generations. I watch Samoans fight in their courts over land disputes going back generations and recognise that greed is a major force in evil there . . . but in New Zealand too, and murder?
- Trust in TPTB. If there is one thing that the Crewe murders did in New Zealand in the mid 1970s as evidence of Police corruption came out into the mainstream, it was that it became known that the TPTB can be crooked. In my eyes this actually helped Kiwis to grow up and in many ways the various streams of power structures in NZ get what they deserve in terms of respect, or lack of it. My concern though is that people read the above analysis thinking that things have changed; or that TPTB today are not the same as before; or that this was an exception to the rule. Today, people with power are using it to suppress the truth and to protect those who have done wrong or who are doing wrong. As John Ingley worked his way through documents showing what occurred within the Demler empire (before and after the dastardly deed) he found doors mysteriously closing in front of his very eyes. “Leave it alone John!” and “Don’t go there, John!” indicates a subject too hot to handle. Documents still disappeared from official records, even as late as 2015! I am very concerned that people today do not understand that the very same forces that caused one man to engineer the death of one of his own offspring (and her husband), then to lie about it, and for others to remain quiet about it, and convict an innocent man are at work today.
- Pukekawa Region. Throughout the lead-up to Harvey and Jeannette’s death the Pukekawa region experienced blessing as farmers helped farmers. Neighbours largely trusted others and they helped each other. The Crewe murders were the first blow to this community, but worse was to follow as trust evaporated still further when Len, the Police and selected families did things unbecoming of the community spirit that Kiwis are known for. Families moved away from the region as a result because they knew what was going down. People clammed up and learned that corruption within the Police existed. People refused to speak when they saw what happened to those who spoke truth as they saw it – especially if it countered the game of those who wanted something otherwise. I’m deeply concerned that this community has been subjected to an unspoken of evil. They need to get it out and deal with it.
- The truth. Healing will not occur until the truth is out. Vested interests are STILL protecting their own. You can see this with the same old, same old, with the Police Review in 2014 – a limiting Terms of Reference and an official version of events that has no explanation of who or why information has gone missing; no accountability for criminal conduct from senior police and a massive effort to come up with an explanation to simple questions that belies credibility. Knowing the identity of the woman who fed the baby, and that she had Police protection in 1980 yet reading that their 2014 conclusion was that “nobody fed the baby”; that the murder weapon was a pistol (something that the Police were told by the UK experts at the outset); having been found to have planted evidence by very senior legal authorities yet not doing anything about it and even claiming that Jeannette lost so many teeth due to her body being in the water for a few months is totally hilarious. Spare me days, you gotta laugh at these people if they actually believe a word of what they are saying has any credibility!
- My own welfare. I was evicted from Samoa when I named the Prime Minister’s mistress in a book called “Corruption in Samoa”. The old man didn’t have any issues with the corruption thing – he controls it all anyway but he took real issue to me naming his girl – that hadn’t been done before. So Tuila’epa had to break the law to declare me a “Prohibited Immigrant” without due process – as if heading up a corrupt nation like he doesn’t show his true colours anyway. Speaking the truth in the face of hypocrisy and corruption like that comes at a cost. I lost everything in the process, although I did prove that he’s just another politician and a coward, and I gained huge kudos from many ex-pat Samoans who hate him. The Police in New Zealand are probably no different in 2020 than in 1970. Exposing them as I have here could very likely generate a negative response, particularly when I indicate that there is more going on behind the scenes. I am concerned about physical violence against me in the same way that I know the consequences of speaking truth in the face of political BS are as inevitable as the Christians getting thrown to the lions. I fully expect a midnight visit from the boys in blue and a little rough-up of me and my office. So if I’m ever found suicided, you’ll know the full story eh?
So, now you know. Thanks for reading.
Remember to drop a comment down here if you’ve got any issues with anything above. I only lightly moderate comments, but keep it respectful please.
I would note that as mentioned elsewhere I have been assured by the local cops that they are straight and would not let anything untoward go down on their patch. It’s possible that their little ‘hick town’ operation will get a curry-up if the big boys take offence with this exposure. Hopefully things are different nowadays and there are now people in power who seek to solve things the honourable way. I guess, watch this space!
Let’s Go Now . . . I Fed the Baby – Confession & Motives in the Crewe Murders Cold Case by the late John Ingley
* Ian Wishart:
As I state in The Inside Story, media attention has focused for 40 years on the police file, or what I called “information in the box”. But the official fabrication findings against police prove we can’t trust what was in that box. Which is why Rob Pope’s sly promise to Rochelle to dig back into that box and come up with answers is a crock of pig manure.
The answer is not “in the box”, because the prime suspect in the killings was in charge of that box and saw to it that nothing that could incriminate him ever came near that box. [This is supposition from Ian and not factual]
Perhaps I’m wrong, and a smart young police analyst will do more than read the police file, he will also read The Inside Story and realise his bosses are trying to turn him into a patsy.
This police inquiry is a small step, but a dangerous one for both Police and the Government. For Police, if they try and whitewash this yet again, they will face a wave of white hot public anger because people are reading The Inside Story and seeing the evidence for themselves. [Well IFTB has the facts a little more accurately about the motive, murder weapon and people, but Ian was definitely right to smell a rat over Police conduct!]
* Updated 25/10/20