SIGNED, Richard D. Loughbury
WITNESS to signature only, G. R. Buxton
STATEMENT
For the past six or seven years, I have been the legal representative of Mr Robin Cork-Bradden, of Church House, Mumblesby. I have acted in the same capacity for other residents of the village, including Mr Leonard Palgrove, of the Old Mill Restaurant; Mr Raymond Bishop, of Church Lane, the retired orthopaedic surgeon; and Mr Spencer Gash, the farmer.
In 1978, I was consulted over a land conveyancing matter by another farmer in the vicinity, Mr Benjamin Croll. In the course of conversation, Mr Croll made certain remarks concerning his wife’s fidelity which I found offensive and embarrassing. He, however, obviously was accustomed to making such comments on the shortest of acquaintance.
About the end of May 1980, I had occasion once more to visit the farm of Mr Croll and once again he sought to turn the conversation to the subject of his wife. In spite of my objections, he succeeded in imparting the information that she was now (in his words) being “knocked off” by Mr Raymond Bishop and that he expected “all hell” to be raised by Mrs Constance Whybrow, Mr Bishops companion of many years’ standing.
Although the subject was by now exceedingly distasteful to me, it became clear from the tactful inquiries I made during the next few weeks that her husband had not exaggerated the scope of Mrs Croll’s activities. At least four persons were involved—all, unhappily, clients of mine. Their names appear in the first paragraph of this statement.
This is how the situation appeared to me in the early summer of 1980.
Croll, though complacent to a degree, regarded his wife as a financial liability and a general nuisance. Bishop was flattered, no doubt, by Mrs Croll’s allowing him certain liberties with her person, but the possibility that his consort might find out must have worried him considerably. Gash was Master of Foxhounds; such a position would require any partner in turpitude to be unfailingly discreet, a quality in which Mrs Croll was notably deficient. In Palgrove’s case, not only his marriage but his livelihood would be put at risk by discovery. As for Cork-Bradden, a county councillor and a magistrate, any open acknowledgment of his intimacy with Mrs Croll would be disastrous.
I did not personally make the acquaintance of Bernadette Croll until I was introduced to her by Mr Cork-Bradden at a wine and cheese party organized on behalf of the local Conservative Association. Her attractions, sexually speaking, were undeniable and she was having considerable success in selling raffle tickets. My impression, though, was that Cork-Bradden’s main object was to “unload” the woman on to me, in order to placate his wife. On more than one occasion subsequently, I encountered her at the Cork-Braddens in circumstances that strongly suggested an actual liaison.
Spencer Gash was another of her “beaux”. It was he who provided the money with which she bought the little green sports car that was to become a somewhat infamous symbol in the locality. Gash boasted that year to a mutual acquaintance that he had “laid” Mrs Croll eighteen times during Flaxborough Fair Week.
In June, there were rumours in the village that Mrs Cynthia Palgrove, joint owner of the Old Mill Restaurant, had left home following her discovery of Mrs Croll, in a near naked condition, on the rear seat of her motor car, which Mr Palgrove claimed to have been tuning in the restaurant garage late one night. Leonard Palgrove himself came to me shortly afterwards and confided that although his wife had returned, she was determined that continuation of the marriage, and of the business partnership, should be conditional upon his severing his adulterous association. I drew up a document of undertaking and he signed it.
On Thursday, July 17th, I received a visit at my Flaxborough office which, it seemed to me, might well bring to a head the whole unfortunate business. My caller was Benjamin Croll. His wife, he asserted, was pregnant, and he demanded that proceedings for divorce be instituted immediately. He alleged adultery with all the persons mentioned above. I pointed out at once that the law presumed legitimate paternity so long as a wife resided with her husband, but Croll refused to be advised.
Exercising the utmost discretion, I apprised my other clients of the turn matters had taken. All displayed anxiety and distress. It was agreed that I act as intermediary and attempt to achieve a mutually acceptable accommodation.
Croll proved to be less vindictive in mood once he learned the probable total cost of divorce proceedings. He said he would discontinue in consideration of £200 in cash and his wife’s undertaking to have an abortion free of any charge upon himself.
The “consortium”, as I henceforth shall call the four interested parties, met thereafter and heard Croll’s proposition. I undertook to make personal representation to Mrs Croll with a view to obtaining her co-operation in her own interests.
(I feel that I owe it to myself to place on record here a suggestion which, though “laughed off” by the person who offered it, deeply shocked me at the time. The remark, made by Spencer Gash, was: “I vote we do the bloody woman in and save ourselves all this trouble.”)
Mrs Croll came to see me at my office on July 29th. I outlined the difficulties in which, however unintentionally, she had placed not only her husband but others. Her answer, unfortunately, was to declare herself delighted with her condition and happy to be divorced whenever it suited her husband.
Reluctantly, I introduced the possibility of financial inducement. At first, Mrs Croll said she was not to be “bought off”, as she termed it, but eventually she agreed to give the matter further thought.
On August 6th, we had an interview at the Crolls’ farm. Croll himself was not present. She told me that she no longer ruled out the possibility of abortion, but her agreement would be conditional upon payment of £5,000 in cash. For £3,000 more, she would undertake to leave the district.
Doubting if such terms would be acceptable to my clients, I made a further approach to the husband two days later. Harvesting had begun, and our meeting took place in the open air. It did not take long. Crolls price had risen to eight thousand. I realized at once that there now was collusion between husband and wife and I lost no time in warning the consortium of their unethical behaviour.
On August 18th, the Vicar of Mumblesby and his family left for a short holiday in the Lake District. The consequent cancellation of services made it a simpler matter for my clients to confer in the seclusion of the church. On the evening of the following day, Mrs Whybrow telephoned me at home and asked me to come to their meeting place. I did so, and was told that the consortium had decided to make a final, direct appeal to Mrs Croll.
The settlement they had in mind was generous, and it would be put to her confidentially, there in the church, away from her husband’s influence, late on the evening of Thursday, August 21st.
I agreed to be the intermediary just once more. Mrs Whybrow said something to the effect that I should not be the loser. This intimation of special reward, I had, of course, to rebut at once. I asked for my instructions. They surprised me considerably. The message I was to take to Mrs Croll was that Mr Cork-Bradden would meet her “in the usual place” at half-past eleven the following night. If he had not arrived, she was to wait. One of the church candles would be left burning, but on no account was she to switch on any of the electric lights.