In the absence of the truth, Mr. Hall uses a number of ploys to convince by impressing.
One ploy is his habit of quoting 'backup', as when he refers to suitable - for him - statements from such as the late Official Solicitor Drennan, John L. Deane and the former Mr. Kerr QC.
Another ploy was to use the word "comprehensive", a classic example of which is his lying "Report" dated 30 January 1984 which he referred to as his "Comprehensive Report" on many occasions to give the impression of completeness and therefore finality in this whole sordid affair.
Mr. Hall's key ploy, however, is to qualify his most controversial statements and decisions and those of fellow Official Solicitors by stating that all these decisions were made under the direction of the Judge or the Court.
If, as Mr. Hall states in the second paragraph of his letter, below, he gave me a "comprehensive explanation" to my question about accounts, there would have been no need whatsoever for me to pay a solicitor more money to obtain a comprehensive explanation. In fact I didn't want a comprehensive explanation anyway, all I wanted was to see a copy of those accounts. It was as simple as that. Mr. Hall neither gave me a comprehensive explanation nor a copy of the relevant accounts.
Hall states in paragraph 3 of his letter below, that all the questions were resolved before Master Bridges on 6 January 1984. You see, Hall uses Master Bridges as well to back up his lies.
Paragraph 3 of his letter is surely the most interesting. Hall states, "...since the end of December 1983 all payments made on behalf of the Patient have been drawn from his account in the Court Funds Office which, like all such accounts, is subject to regular inspection by internal auditors." Obviously Mr. Hall did not provide these auditors with copies of my letters of protest at the scandalous waste of Freddie's money in many ways during that time.