May I again take the liberty of replying to the Director's letter (enclosed) through your office in reply to mine of the 10th March and 2nd April 1990.
My allegations of fraud, forgery, malpractice and misappropriation are not ill-founded, as Mr Simpson suggests but the findings of an experienced fraud officer who spent three years on Freddie's case.
(1) My brother's estate was not administered through the Courts as Mr Simpson alleges between 1972 to August 1980.
Mr H Wright of Messrs Tughan & Co was the solicitor engaged by the 'Christian' entrepreneur immediately after the death of my father in 1972 to dispose of my brother's entire estate. Dates of sale, prices paid, names of estate agents involved are available to anyone interested in the truth.
We are well aware that the former Official Solicitor has not the power to stop a criminal case, but he did in 1983... We were not informed of this intrusion until 1989 by either senior officers in the fraud squad or the Official Solicitor.
Freddie's case is a Criminal one and it would be a futile exercise to apply to the High Court for a ruling or appeal to the Court of Appeal.
We contacted the RUC Fraud Squad in 1980 and were very satisfied with their findings. We understood that Mr Simpson would have been aware of this information.
Mr Simpson's assumptions that the solicitors and QC appointed by me to defend my brother's interests did not do so, as Mr Simpson suggests, because they considered my allegations were not valid, has no basis in fact. Is a criminal not entitled to be defended in Court, yet a mental patient innocent of any crime is not, according to Mr Simpson? Is this considered British Justice by the Director of the Court Services?
We demand to have access to audited accounts and movements of property from the accountants engaged by my father long before he died to look after Freddie's affairs. This firm has been denied the right to give us this information by the Official Solicitor although he has no right to do so.
We are now well conditioned to threatening and attacking mail because it appears to be their only defence. These letters will not deter us from seeking Justice for my brother in an open criminal court. We are not afraid of the truth and will persist until justice is seen to be done. We put Freddie in care for his protection, not the protection of the legal profession.
No answer has been forthcoming to the enclosed letter to Messrs Laing & Co inquiring as to whom they paid the £300,000. Perhaps the Official Solicitor or the Director of the Court Services could supply this.
I eagerly await answers to questions asked.
My thanks for your kind attention.
(Mrs) Eileen Wright.