Site map and contents

Please note that text in red denotes my comments

My letter to Care and Protection Office dated 3/8/1985.

Dear Mr. Chambers,
There is one very important question which must be explored and answered.
Wy did Mr. Hall appoint Mr. Deane of Murdock & Deane, Estate Agents, to value Freddie's home and engage a barrister to protect the occupier of that home?
Is your office and the Judge aware that Mr. Hall in a previous letter to me (a copy of which I sent to the DPP) that he stated that Mr. Deane and Mr. Russell of the DOE agreed with him that Freddie did not own the odd numbers in Francis Street? Why did Mr. Hall need the services of these two men in order to bolster up this statement?
Could these men be asked why they agreed with Mr. Hall when they did not have access to the knowledge of what my father gave to his son, Freddie? What discussion did Mr. Hall have with these men in order to make them agree with him? What information did he give them and what reply did he expect from men who had nothing whatever to do with Freddie's affairs?
Could Mr. Hall not have made a simple phone call to the Fraud Squad who were already aware of what Freddie owned? Mr. Hall could have phoned Tughan & Co who were appointed by Mr. Charles Gilpin who took possession of all my father's documents or he could have phoned Cleaver, Fulton & Rankin who were legally in charge of Freddie's affairs for almost three years. He could have phoned the original family solicitors my father left in charge of all his affairs. Why had it to be Mr. Deane and Mr. Russell?
Would the last Court hearing have taken place if the Judge had been made aware that Mr. Deane was not an independent valuer as stipulated to us, but someone whom Mr. Hall must have had detailed discussions with in regard to Freddie's case previous to the Court Hearing?
Why did Mr. Hall accept without question the word of these men who did not even know Freddie?
What chance had Freddie of having a true and fair hearing when such abuses against a mental patient are allowed to take place?
Perhaps your office will now understand why we are condused as to what interest Mr. Hall has in Freddie and what his duties are with regard to mental patients. We understood that the interests of the patient must and should be paramount in the minds of anyone in charge of a Patient in Care. The last Court hearing had nothing to do with Freddie's interest. He was given no rights or protection or legal representation. My brother's name was never even mentioned.
Every piece of property given to Freddie by my Father was taken from him in the same manner. This was able to be done because Mr. C. Gilpin appointed Tughan & Co and so had access to all Freddie owned.
His home must not and cannot be treated as a separate issue. No properties can be made exempt from investigation just because Mr. hall stages a show of strength of his own making.
What does Mr. Hall intend to do about all Freddie's other propeties? Will he ignore them or accept the opinion of some other obscure men in the same way as he used the names of Mr. Deane and Mr. Russell?
Is this the way all mental patients who have "had" property given to them are treated with such utter abandon by the Courts. If that is the case it is a scandal and an outrage and something that must be brought to public notice.
Freddie's name cannot be made valid with regard to the sale of any of his properties.
In the first instance Freddie had no bargaining power and would have had no knowledge or understanding of what he was signing yet all soliciors involved in this sordid mess were well aware of Freddie's incapacity. No honourable solicitor would have taken advantage of Freddie or allowed him to sign any documents without first making reference to the Courts.
Freddie must not lose his home or any of his properties just because of the negligence or malpractice of solicitors who had no interest in his welfare. Mr. C. Gilpin's only interest was in obtaining as much of Smithfield as he possibly could and giving the "bits" away to all and sundry that he was not interested in. He appeared to have plenty of helpers to enable him to do this.
What is your office doing now to protect Freddie? Must your office stand by and see a patient treated in the most degrading fashion with no-one to protect his basic human rights?
I do hope now that your office is aware of the situation you will act accouringly and before we can count another year on to the seven that I have already endured and see justice done to one of your Patients in Care. Why is everyone using delaying tactics? Do they think I will eventually give up or that all can be glossed over behind closed doors? The family will never give up until truth prevails.
A copy of this letter will be sent to Dr. Lyons, MIND of Harley Street, Police Headquarters and all interested parties.


(Mrs) Eileen Wright.

Site map and contents