Minette Walters - Fox Evil

"He was treated with generosity when he first arrived, particularly by the owner's wife, who was concerned for the woman and toddlers in his care. Her kindness may have given him a false sense of belonging, but those feelings would have turned to anger very quickly when he discovered she was interested only in helping his partner break away from his influence. It is probable that this unknown woman and her children were his first victims. If so, his subsequent killings would have been strongly linked in his mind with the Lockyer-Fox family.

"The evidence suggests that Wells's pattern of behavior moved from highly organized in 1997 to highly disorganized by 26 December 2001. Whatever his motives for acquiring 'families,' they seemed to serve a purpose until boredom and/or lust for killing led him to attack them. Within weeks of slaughtering two members of his traveling fantasy family in a hammer attack, he was using the same hammer on the gardener and granddaughter of his extended fantasy family.

"His disintegration may have been due in part to the growing tumor in his brain, but it's not unusual for serial murderers to spiral out of control. It's conceivable that he knew what was happening to him. He allowed a witness of the November attack to live, and he committed his final, frenzied killing spree against people who would recognize him. The inevitable conclusion is that he wanted to be caught and stopped."

Bella Preston disagrees. "Fox Evil was well named. He used women and children until he lost interest in them, then he killed them. He was the worst kind of predator. He killed for pleasure."

Anne Cattrell

HOCKLEY & SPICER, SOLICITORS

OLD COMPTON HOUSE, BRIDPORT ROAD, DORCHESTER

Julian Bartlett, Esq.

Flat3

32 Hardy Avenue

Dorchester

Dorset

18 September 2002

Dear Julian:

Following your telephone call of this morning, I can confirm that the death of Brian Wells will have no bearing on your case. As you know, the only statement he made to police was the one concerning his alleged dealings with you. While we can and will challenge that statement, I should remind you that most of what he claimed has been substantiated by police searches, witness statements, and forensic evidence.

I realize how frustrated you are, particularly in respect of your bail conditions, but, unfortunately, the prosecution has always believed that the charges against you can be successfully proved without further testimony from Wells. Of course, you are entitled to change your solicitor at any time. However, solicitors can only work with the facts they've been given. As a friend, I would urge you to consider the following before you look for someone "who believes you."

As I have explained previously, it was not in your interests to push for early trial. The more damning the case against Brian Wells, the easier the jury would have accepted your proposed defense that you were a victim of violent intimidation. However, I feel obliged to point out, as I have done several times before, that you undermined that defense in advance when, during police questioning, you accused your wife of bearing sole responsibility.

If we take the saliva evidence from the voice distorter alone, it is clear that you were the only person who used it. Nor was Eleanor a signatory to the bank accounts you opened. In addition, Ms. Gemma Squires's evidence relating to your sudden interest in Leo and Elizabeth Lockyer-Fox in July, and in any secrets Vera Dawson would have known about the family, suggests you were complicit long before Eleanor became involved toward the end of October.

I would not be doing my duty if I did not remind you that Courts impose stiffer penalties when a plea of "not guilty" is found to be unsustainable. The charges you face have been considerably reduced since police and prosecution accepted your assurance that you had no knowledge of the guns in Wells's bus or of his murderous intent. However, again, I must point out that your ignorance of these facts undermines your proposed defense of intimidation.

If you had no idea that Wells was the sort of man who went armed and was prepared to attack anyone who thwarted him, then your defense looks unconvincing. If you knew he was armed, then you may be in danger of having charges reinstated, namely those relating to Wells's possession of illegal weaponry. I do urge you to give a thorough consideration to these conflicting positions in the next few days, particularly as you have no satisfactory explanation for how amounts to the value of £75,000 came to be in your bank account.

Your stockbroker has no knowledge of the shares you claim to have sold, nor have you been able to supply documentary proof that you ever owned them. The situation is further complicated by allegations from your former employer that you were offered early retirement after an "expenses" fraud pertaining to a 10-year period was uncovered in your department. While you denied, and continue to deny, involvement in this fraud, it is nevertheless naive to close your eyes to the implications of a police investigation into your activities there. A true accounting of funds is necessary if you are not to face additional charges.

Had you chosen to remain silent during questioning instead of allowing yourself to be provoked, then a change of solicitor might indeed bring "an unbiased eye" to your case. However, I am bound to tell you that I do not think silence would have helped you. The evidence against you is forensic as well as circumstantial and any solicitor would advise you to reconsider your defense in light of it.

The prosecution can produce witness evidence that you met Brian Wells in a pub on 23 July, although they will have difficulty proving design rather than accident. Vera Dawson's evidence is inadmissible because of her senile dementia; therefore Wells's claim that you met several times subsequently at Manor Lodge is unproven. However, Ms. Squires's assertion that she accompanied you there on 26 July and saw Brian Wells through the window is damaging, as is your 24 October email to her describing your wife as "an idiot. She'll believe anything of L-F because she hates him so much." Inferences will certainly be drawn, as Eleanor's meeting with Brian Wells and "Vixen" took place on 23 October.

On 27 December 2001 you denied being shown any Monet sketches by Colonel or Mrs. Lockyer-Fox, a fact attested to by the Colonel. Yet fingerprint evidence shows that both you and Wells handled one of the Monet sketches, stored in the Colonel's strong room for the last two years, which substantiates Wells's claim that he delivered it to you and you told him to replace it because it was too "well authenticated" to sell. Further, you have been unable to explain why your fingerprints were found on several items of silverware in Brian Wells's bus. There is witness evidence to prove you sold items of jewelry in Bournemouth that have since been identifled as belonging to Ailsa Lockyer-Fox. Most damagingly, the envelope containing the letter to your wife and purporting to come from Leo Lockyer-Fox carries your DNA in the saliva residue on the stamp.

With respect, you have offered no plausible rebuttal to this evidence except to say that Ms. Squires is "a desperate bitch who'll say anything because she fancies DS Monroe" and "the fingerprint evidence is a plant." This will not wash with a judge and jury, and I ask you to recognize that my efforts to have your charges reduced will result in a moderate sentence if Colonel Lockyer-Fox and his family are spared any more pain and distress. By the same token, the Court will give you little sympathy if you force the Colonel's granddaughter to listen to accusations of incest which are evidentially untrue.

In conclusion, I should like to remind you that solicitors, too, have a right of dismissal. While I understand your numerous frustrations, particularly in relation to divorce proceedings, loss of friends, and inability to move away, I am not obliged to put up with the sort of language you used this morning. Should it happen again, I will certainly insist that you consult another partnership.