Dear Mr Simpson,
You passed my letter to you of 21st August 1989 to Mrs Deirdre Bowers for reply, but since the latter, in the ultimate sentence of a letter to me dated 4th March 1987, stated that there was no need for "further correspondence" with her, I shall continue to write to you as the authority responsible for the proper and just management of my brother's affairs.
I understand you are in receipt of a copy of the Official Solicitor's letter to me so you will find it convenient for reference as I deal with the suspect, erroneous and misleading statements and conclusions contained therein.
In her opening paragraph Mrs Bowers states that you have nothing useful to add to the advices given to me in the past. The only advice you gave me was to seek a Review of my brother's case. A Review is a stratagem which achieves nothing and is a waste of time and money.
A positive and equitable course of action for you to take, in order to reach a just resolution of my brother's case, would be for you to institute a Judicial Inquiry whose findings would be acceptable to all in the knowledge that they would be impartial and reached in an open forum. This would be in, contradistinction to the Court Hearings I have experienced which were orchestrated by Official Solicitors and held behind closed doors.
In paragraph 2 the air of finality implicit in the underlined phrase "for the last time" is totally unacceptable as it is my intention to pursue my struggle for justice with unabated vigour to make sure that the material abuse of a Patient in Care is not condoned by the Offices of the Official Solicitor and Care and Protection in that they put the interests of the offending solicitors before those of the patient.
It is good to have a sense of humour. Paragraph 3 raises a laugh! The import of it is that Messrs Gilpin and Wright were benevolent godfathers and gave Freddie £35,000 for nothing!
My argument that an illegal sale did occur is reinforced by a critical examination of paragraph 3 of the enclosed Agreement concocted by Brian Hall in collusion with McCloskey & Co, solicitors for Tughan & Co. I quote from it "the Official Solicitor will repay to Tughan & Co the sum of £35,000 in respect of the price originally tendered to the Patient on the 14th October 1977 for the purchase of the said properties described in paragraph 1. The operative words from this quotation are "for the purchase of". In any English dictionary of repute the word "purchase" is defined as "to acquire (an estate) other than by inheritance". So Charlie Gilpin, ably abetted by Herbert Wright, got his pound of flesh! This was his (Charlie Gilpin's) "jewel in the crown". Excuse the mixed metaphor.
The presence of Neville Johnston (Garages) in occupation of Freddie's Smithfield holdings is further evidence of a fait accompli.
Charles Gilpin was the main shareholder.
Before leaving the question of the "£35,000" I should like to highlight an example of how a patient in care was discriminated against by an Official Solicitor, because of the latter's inordinate desire to ingratiate himself with the offending solicitors. The £35,000 had to be repaid "together with a sum representing the gross interest earned upon investment of the £35,000" over a period of nine years. Why did the same proviso, about investment and gross interest, not apply to the £45,125 to be paid by Tughan & Co in respect of rental income due to the Patient over the same nine years?
I refute the assertion in paragraph 4 of Mrs Bower's letter that a sale was attempted. An illegal sale was effected by Herbert Wright and Charles Gilpin, Christian entrepreneur and manipulator, and therein lies the roots of a fraud perpetrated against my mentally handicapped brother. There is no doubt in my mind about what Gilpin contemplated. By cajolery, harassment, intimidation, lies and other undue pressure Gilpin acquired the assets and good will of Andrews & Co from my elder brother, William John Andrews.
But in order to have the whole Andrews complex for sale he had to have the ownership of Freddie's holdings and large piece of ground at the rear of the showroom - ground which belonged to Freddie.
Herbert Wright was a willing partner in the conspiracy. In passing, it is worthy of mention that my elder brother had a favourable reply from the Toyota Company concerning a dealership.
With regards to the contents of Paragraph 5 of Deirdre Bowers' letter I would draw your attention to the omission from the Bill of Indictment of the figure of one million pounds. I have no knowledge of what that was paid for. That leaves the £375,000 to be accounted for. The Bill of Indictment expressly states that Herbert Wright between the 1st day of August 1979 and the 31st day of January 1980 dishonestly obtained £375,000 from the Ryland Vehicle Group Ltd. by falsely representing that Neville Johnston had a good and marketable title to premises known as 60/65 Smithfield Square, Belfast. These aforementioned premises were the property of my brother Freddie.
Therefore it is logical to draw the incontrovertible inference that the £375,000 was the marketable value of my mentally handicapped brother's property.
According to the evidence evinced at the trial of Herbert Wright by Lord Justice O'Donnell the £375,000 obtained by Wright went into the accounts of Tughan & Co. Where should it have gone but into the account of my brother Freddie?
Certain pertinent observations must be made about the contents of my two preceding paragraphs. First, that this sale to the Ryland Group took place when Freddie was a patient in Care, second, that the then Official Solicitor, the late Mr J Drennan of Cleaver Fulton and Rankin, did not report this criminal aspect of the sale to the Police and third, the present Official Solicitor or her predecessor has not recovered this £375,000 for the Patient.
In paragraph 7 of her letter Mrs Bowers is guilty of a deliberate omission with the ill intent of destroying my credibility in your and other's eyes. Upon receipt of a copy of her Affidavit concerning her application to the Court on Monday 9th March 1987, I replied by return of post informing her that due to having suffered a severe attack of shingles, being admitted to hospital for same and being advised to take a holiday I would not be present at the Hearing.
Also she is incorrect in saying no objections were raised to her application. Mr Fergie, solicitor for Mrs Betty Hamilton my sister, raised an objection to the sale of Freddie's property but the Judge did not answer him, summarily declared the property sold and left the Court.
Concerning the issues raised in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the Official Solicitor's letter, it appears that she, like her predecessor, remains adamant in her constant refusal to give me access to the financial affairs of my brother, even though the Judge (then Mr Justice MacDermott) at the first Hearing dealing with the question of Freddie's home, announced that I should be regarded as Freddie's Guardian.
Be that as it may, I shall continue to explore every avenue open to me in my endeavour to achieve access to accounts relating to Freddie's affairs since the death of my father in 1972. In particular I intend to pursue the promise implicit in a letter to me from Mr.W.D.T. Mercier, Legal adviser to the Police, dated 3rd May 1988, when he writes and I quote "if the Official Solicitors were unwilling to accede to your request for accounts, then the matter would be looked into by the Police." unquote.
Finally I extend to you a warm invitation to visit 4 Norwood Gdns to witness for yourself evidence of mismanagement of Freddie's affairs by the present Official Solicitor. You will understand my concern and anxiety about Freddie's affairs when you see for yourself how £6,987 of Freddie's money was spent on foolhardy and fruitless alterations carried out by second-rate workmen two years ago.
I am copying this letter to Dr A Lyons, to Lord Mackay of Clashfern, to Det. Insp. Moss of the Fraud Squad, Mr Roy Beggs MP and to the Media.