"It therefore appears that there were sundry articles and perhaps
documents which had been in possession of the aircrew which came
back to New Zealand otherwise than in the custody of the Police or
the chief inspector" (paragraph 360).
In evidence Captain Gemmell had denied knowledge of the change that had
been made to the McMurdo waypoint but the Commissioner did not accept
that answer; and he is linked with the matters mentioned in paragraph
360 on the basis that he had known "about the changed co-ordinates
before he went to Antarctica" and that because he--
"... plainly kept this significant fact to himself, (he) was to be
the arbiter of which documents were relevant. The opportunity was
plainly open for Captain Gemmell to comply with the chief
executive's instructions to collect all documents relevant to this
flight, wherever they might be found, and to hand them over to the
airline management."
The next sentence of that paragraph contains the finding already
mentioned:
"However, there is not sufficient evidence to justify any finding
on my part that Captain Gemmell recovered documents from Antarctica
which were relevant to the fatal flight, and which he did not
account for to the proper authorities."
At the conclusion of this section of the Report the Commissioner said
that he could "quite understand the difficulty in recovering loose
documents from this desolate mountain side, although the heavy atlas",
he said, "was not in this category". But he stated that an opportunity
had been "created for people in the airline to get rid of documents
which might seem to implicate airline officials as being responsible for
the disaster". And he spoke of all these matters in terms of
"justifiable suspicion".
The condition of Captain Collins' flight bag when it was first seen by
Mr Woodford had already been mentioned. His letter dated 5th December
1980 was written immediately after some cross-examination of Captain
Gemmell had been given widespread publicity and on Monday 8th December
1980 Captain Gemmell was still giving evidence. By then he was under
cross-examination by counsel assisting the Commission and the latter
proceeded to read into the record the text of the letter (Exhibit 266)
which reads:
"Dear Sir,
At the time of the DC10 crash I was employed in Antarctica by
D.S.I.R. as a survival instructor/mountaineer assistant. I was one
of the three mountaineers who made the initial inspection of the
site for survivors. I was also one of the three mountaineers who
accompanied Messrs David Graham (Investigator) Ian Gemmell & Ian
Wood (Air NZ) during their initial inspection of the aircraft.
During the first six days after the accident I was at the crash
site at all times when the site was occupied.
In regard to evidence reported in the Christchurch Press today, 5
Dec 1980, I can state unequivocally that:
(1) Captain Gemmell did not spend any time inspecting the aircraft
without other people being present.
(2) Captain Collins flight bag was found by me the day after the
crash, this being three days before any Air N.Z. personnel or crash
investigators reached the site. My recollection is that it was
empty when I first inspected it. It certainly contained no diaries
or briefing material.
(3) Captain Gemmell did not remove any items from the persons of
deceased lying in the area...."
Counsel proceeded to read from the letter which goes on to refer to
instructions concerning the crevassed area of the ice-slope.
No challenge was made to the views expressed by Mr Woodford nor was he
called to give evidence. And no evidence to any contrary effect was
given by anybody. Yet apart from the passing reference to the matter in
paragraph 349 of the Report the point of view Mr Woodford expressed
seems to have been given no attention. The extent of the evidence which
could have been given by Mr Woodford if he had been called as a witness
is indicated by his affidavit now put before this Court. The importance
of the letter seems obvious. The bag being empty when it was seen only
18 hours after the aircraft had crashed it is difficult to understand
how it could have any significance when found in that same condition
three days later. Yet in this part of the Report it is left as a central
issue. Mr Woodford's own concern about all this is indicated in the
lengthy affidavit which he prepared for the purpose of exonerating
Captain Gemmell. It was sworn by him on 21st May 1981 not very long
after the Report of the Royal Commission had been made public.
A final comment should be made about Captain Gemmell's position. It
concerns a submission made on his behalf to this Court that "In view of
the 'not proven' verdict against Captain Gemmell and the various
critical statements made about him it is a remarkable thing that he was
given no opportunity for further comment when the Commissioner decided
to make further enquiries of the police sergeant and Mr Chippindale at
the conclusion of the hearing of evidence". If Captain Gemmell was to be
left enveloped in "justifiable suspicion" this is something that
certainly should have been done. Indeed if the post-hearing
investigation had been sufficiently developed the Commissioner might
have been satisfied (as now appears from the affidavit of Mr Stanton)
that the police officer who gave information to counsel assisting the
Commission about one or two flight bags was not even in Antarctica while
Captain Gemmell was there. The affidavit indicates that the police
officer arrived to take charge of the police store only on the evening
of 6th December and by then Captain Gemmell had been back in New Zealand
for two days.