Deception Most Foul e3ac

DECEPTION MOST FOUL

Edmund Williams

AuthorHouse™ UK 1663 Liberty Drive Bloomington, IN 47403 USA www.authorhouse.co.uk Phone: 0800 047 8203 (Domestic TFN) +44 1908 723714 (International)

© 2020 Edmund Williams. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse 12/16/2019

ISBN: 978-1-7283-9701-6 (e)

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only. Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Contents

Dedication

Synopsis

Legal Terminology Made Plain

Prologue

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Chapter 15

Chapter 16

Chapter 17

Chapter 18

Chapter 19

About the Author

Dedication

I wish to dedicate this book to Ruth Lorincz, (née Appleton) and Stanley Darer, kind and considerate dear friends who have been relentlessly and heartlessly deprived of their former eloquent charm and intelligence through an affliction with Alzheimer’s disease.

One day Alzheimer’s disease will be a rare illness. The timing for this will in large measure depend upon levels of research. Please endeavour to see that you and all those you can influence contribute as generously as possible to the funding needed to hasten this time.

When the age is in the wit is out, God help us. William Shakespeare

Synopsis

Deception Most Foul takes the reader through the manner in which Alzheimer’s disease first presented in Annie Attwood, a fit elderly lady. It describes in easily followed descriptive the slow progression of this illness over several years as it eroded the quality of her life, with the distress caused to her nearest and dearest as the illness became more clearly apparent. To be confronted with a malady of this magnitude is particularly stressful, but all that ensued was far worse, when her family discovered that the woman Annie had entrusted to her care had successfully schemed to rob them of their considerable inheritance. Step by step we are taken through the costly legal confrontations that ensued during the following eighteen years, including two major High Court battles. The surprising twists and turns revealed in this saga as the tale unfolds are all the more amazing with the realisation that this is an of unimagined cunning and greed that is based entirely on a true story. All names, dates, and private locations are a total fiction although this chronicle of events is factual. The reader may well find in this narrative portions that will resonate, awakening memories of events affecting an elderly person they presently know, or once knew. Readers wishing to share experiences are welcome to the author at <[email protected]>.

E. Williams

Legal Terminology Made Plain

A simplified explanation of some legal used in this . A Will or Testament is a legal document in which a person termed the Testator lists all their possessions, or Estate and declares how this is to be distributed upon their death. It names one or more persons as an Executor to manage the distribution of his/her estate at their demise. Testamentary Capacity means that the Testator understands what he/she possesses, how he/she wishes to dispose of these possessions and to whom. A Will to be valid must be correctly prepared i.e. Duly Executed. To fulfil this, the testator must be of an age of majority, of sound mind to dispose of his estate freely and willingly and must have Testamentary Capacity. Once prepared, the will must be signed and dated at the end of the document by the testator and the g witnessed by at least two witnesses who are not beneficiaries. Probate, derives from the Latin meaning to prove and is the method of proving that the will of a deceased person is valid, so that their property can be transferred to beneficiaries of the will. Solicitors and Barristers are attorneys; the basic difference is that only the latter will plead in the higher law courts.

Prologue

Every Home has its secrets. The house at 217, Iverson Road, in West Hampstead, North London, with its three self-contained flats and postage stamp size vestigial front garden, guarded by a low red brick wall and black wrought iron gate was certainly no exception to the rule. On the ground floor in a single bedroom flat lived Annie Attwood an affluent elderly lady. Intelligent, feisty and independent, she was able to live comfortably with those daily necessities provided by the modern British welfare state that included the help of a nurse in the istration of medication, washing and dressing; meals on wheels; and a daily home help to assist with cleaning house and shopping. Childless, her family lived abroad so that visits were made only once or twice each year. The first floor apartment was occupied by a young friend, Dr. Angela Caldrus, who in return for rent-free accommodation, provided overall care supervision.

Annie’s constant wish was to remain living independently in her own home and to this end she believed she had achieved her ultimate goal. In 1986 Annie was persuaded to give Dr. Caldrus, Power of Attorney, which gave her legal authority to collect Annie’s pension, and other state benefits, such as mobility and attendance allowance and ister Annie’s income and expenses. Annie was content with these provisions, yet as she aged and became more infirm with the gradual onset of Alzheimer’s disease, her family became increasingly concerned with her living and care arrangements.

Ultimately numerous doctors, solicitors, and the police became involved during her last months of life. Following her death a legal mêlée erupted over her will as police enquiries and numerous court appearances followed for many years after her death and still continue. This is the dramatic story surrounding Annie and her home with all its many unexpected twists and turns of duplicity and betrayal. Herein is a true concerning the years leading up to and following the death in 1991 of Mrs. Annie Alicia Attwood. To preserve anonymity all individual names have been changed and are completely fictitious,

as are all trial dates and private addresses.

With the co-operation and approval of Mrs. Attwood’s family I have written this outline of the tribulations surrounding Annie’s final months together with a summary of at least two of the resulting major court trials.

E. Williams London August 2013.

Chapter 1

Death can arrive in many different ways and without choice, my aunt Annie Attwood was undeservedly allowed to end her days in a slow unseemly manner. Abducted in September from her bed in London’s Princess Alexandra Hospital, she was driven to a house in New Barnet, North London that was unknown to her, her family, the Court of Protection, or Social Services. Precisely four weeks later, while confined in a cheerlessly bare room, neglected and alone, she breathed her last. There was no tender loving care at the end of her life. There was no reassuring hand, no consoling words from which her child like mind might gain some comfort as she slipped into her final oblivion. Her lifeless emaciated old body was still warm when in the afternoon of October 8, 1991, the ambulance, summoned by phone, arrived outside the house in 17, Tudor Rose Road, New Barnet, the home of Dr. Clara Berry, where she had been imprisoned without from any other persons but her erstwhile companions Dr. Caldrus and Dr. Berry. Contrary to rules prevailing at that time the corpse was then taken by ambulance, to the Accident and Emergency department of the local Barnet General Hospital, in Wellhouse Lane. Unaccompanied by any family, both these doctors followed the ambulance to the A & E department by car. The duty medical officer after examining the deceased in the ambulance and questioning Annie’s accompanying companions then notified the coroner. An autopsy followed, but no inquest was held and the police were never notified, or even involved, until nine years later. Enshrined almost 2,500 years ago, the Hippocratic oath requires that a doctor will always use his best endeavours for the treatment of the sick. It would appear that in the case of Annie, Dr Caldrus and her medically qualified cousin somehow fell far short of this obligation.

At the time my family and I just could not understand why these two women had

carried out such a bizarre act of absconding with Annie and concealing her until her death. Only years later when the various parts of this mysterious human puzzle slowly fell into place, could we begin to comprehend the full magnitude of Dr. Caldrus’s final disregard of this frail lady’s needs. It haunts me to this day that I was prevented from bidding my aunt farewell, or even telling her how much I loved her. I still miss her and to my eternal sorrow, despite our best endeavours, neither my family nor I could adequately protect her in the years before her death. She was failed not only by me, but also by the law, the police service and a plethora of medical and National Health Service and social welfare personnel. Living in a civilised Western European society, I never remotely suspected the possibility that anybody would abuse a defenceless old lady in this way, yet by the time my suspicions were fully aroused it was then too late to change the course of events, no matter how hard I tried.

In these days, when increasing numbers of people live to an advanced age, often lonely, sometimes depressed and many suffering from varying degrees of impaired memory, hearing, vision and possible speech impediment, and difficulties with locomotion, there are universal lessons to be learned from this dramatic tale of evil and foul deception. This is both Annie’s and my story.

* * *

Chapter 2

We had no inkling that Aunt Annie had made any will apart from that which she had made in 1978 leaving her estate to her family with my husband Peter Vanderzan as executor. In the third week of October 1991, Peter, who was then my former husband following our divorce five years earlier, now applied for probate. At this point, to our utter astonishment we first became aware of the existence of two further wills in which Annie had disinherited her family. These were later termed the Boyle Will and the Julienne Will, each named after the persons who witnessed them in August 1990 and through our solicitors we challenged the validity of both these latter wills. A day earlier that same autumnal month, Dr. Caldrus visited Annie Attwood’s solicitors, Miles and Miles in Wood Street Barnet and gave Patrick Johnson a copy of Annie’s death certificate. As executrix of Annie Attwood’s October 1990 Julienne Will, Dr. Caldrus obtained a grant of probate in her favour two weeks later. Years later when a record of Patrick Johnson’s legal notes were inspected, they revealed that Dr. Caldrus mentioned a troublesome niece who had been in touch with her Aunt in 1991, but never before and was causing problems. This could only have been me and I was at a loss to for this offensive comment, let alone the pretence that I had not visited my Aunt before 1991, which she knew to be entirely untrue. Once we became aware that Aunt Annie had disinherited us in favour of her carer and companion, who she had also named as executrix, Peter and I immediately consulted our attorney. Leaving aside the manner in which Dr. Caldrus had somehow ingratiated herself sufficiently to influence Aunt Annie to be named as sole inheritor of her estate, Peter issued a summons through our solicitor requiring Dr. Caldrus to prove that both the Boyle Will of October 9, 1990, and the later Julienne Will of October

14, 1990, had been duly executed and that at the time Annie possessed testamentary capacity. The consequence of our challenging these wills led to the first trial, which was heard at London’s Royal Courts of Justice, the imposing Grade One listed building in the Strand. Our case was heard on July 3, 1998 before Mr Justice McIntyre and lasted three days until July 7, 1998 when the judge gave his findings.

An observer, or a student attending a law court can find it an interesting and even an exciting experience, but this did not apply in my case. I had risen early that July morning, showered, dressed, eaten a continental breakfast in the dining room of the hotel where I customarily stayed and taken the tube train to Holborn, ing the throng of daily commuters proceeding to work. It was a warm summer day and I would have preferred to be journeying onwards to Wimbledon to watch the lawn tennis championships on centre court, where the American, Pete Sampras, was once again defending his title and to savour one of those delicious servings of English strawberries and cream, but that was at present out of the question. Leaving the tube station I hurried along Kingsway to avoid being late and minuscule beads of perspiration soon made their appearance on my upper lip. Facing me as I hastened onwards was Bush House, above which in a huge alcove, protected by netting, stood the majestic statue entitled, To the Friendship of the English Speaking Peoples. Turning left I soon approached the precinct of the court. It was then that I became aware of those tiny and embarrassingly unsightly damp patches that had started to appear on my blouse in the small of my back and under my arms.

As I entered the impressive wrought iron gates to gain entrance to this magnificent 19th. century Victorian gothic building, with its vaulted main entrance hall and observed the judge’s entrance with the carving of a dog and cat above, representing litigants fighting in court, my heart sank. I hurried onwards and ascended the curved stone stairway to approach the

allocated court-room when I was suddenly overcome with foreboding. I could sense my knees weakening with each upward step and for a few moments I clung desperately to the oak handrail for before I could make myself continue. My family and I had been cheated out of our inheritance and I felt stressed and intimidated within the walls of this forbidding building where so much would depend upon the judge’s interpretation of all that was presented to him. Once seated in the cold stillness of the court, I observed the wigged figure of Mr. Justice McIntyre and somehow my mind wandered and I assumed from his name that his ancestors might well have been amongst the Jacobite opponents of King George from the picturesque village of McIntyre midway between Edinburgh and Glasgow famed for its Wee Bush Inn, frequented by Robbie Burns. My ex-husband, Peter Vanderzan, was the Claimant and Dr. Angela Caldrus, the Defendant. At the time of my aunt Annie Attwood’s, death on October 8, 1991, she was a modestly wealthy widow and had left an estate valued at the time of the trial in 1998 of almost £1,000,000. ($1,600,000). A childless divorcee, Annie had lived alone almost all her adult life and appeared to have made three wills. The first will was made in 1978 when aged 78 years and in this she left everything to her family, with my husband, Peter Vanderzan, named as her executor. In 1990 Annie who had been suffering from increasingly serious short-term memory problems unexpectedly changed her mind and made two new wills within a week of each other. She completely excluded her family who had been beneficiaries under her earlier will and left her entire estate to her friend and companion Dr. Angela Caldrus, a Rumanian doctor and appointed her as sole executrix, all of which was unknown to her family. Neighbours, Mr. and Mrs. Boyle, witnessed the second will which was signed by Annie when she was aged 90 years on October 9, 1990. The third and final will was signed by Annie less than a week later. Termed the Julienne Will, it was witnessed by two French carpenters, the Julienne brothers on October 14, 1990, in which Annie left her entire estate again to her friend Dr. A. Caldrus and once more appointed her sole executrix.

The trial was to contest the validity of my aunt, Mrs. Annie Attwood’s last two wills. Our legal team recommended that our strategy must be that we accept the legality of the third and last Will, which had been correctly prepared, signed and witnessed, but that we vigorously challenge Annie Attwood’s testamentary capacity. To succeed we were assured that we had sufficient evidence from her medical practitioners and social service personnel to show that Annie through mental illness was unaware of the contents of her estate and the manner in which it was to be distributed.

To the authenticity of the Julienne Will, Dr. Caldrus first produced letters, each dated November 1994, supplied from the extensive files she had prepared for the occasion. These were read out in court from each of the Julienne brother witnesses who were now living in and unable to attend court, confirming that the Will of October 14, 1990, had been correctly signed and witnessed by them. Witnesses were not called for the slightly earlier Boyle Will since the wills were identical apart from the two witnesses. Dr. Caldrus also produced amongst other documents a written record that she had prepared of visits made by me and other of our family to my aunt. These she stated were contemporaneous, but I knew that this was impossible since they were grossly inaccurate and gave the impression that we visited no more than four times in a period of six years, whereas some family member visited at least twice or more each year. The star witness for the defence was Dr. Ian Galton, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, FR, publisher and consultant geriatrician on the staff of the St. George’s Hospital. Dr. Galton standing confidently on the witness stand was immaculately attired. Wearing a snazzy navy blue polka dot bow tie, white shirt, black jacket and pinstriped tros he looked the part of a true patrician, with his mane of well-groomed grey hair. He stated that he had visited Annie on no fewer than three occasions at her home between January and March 1991 and placing his reading glasses in position on his nose he read the reports of his consultations to the court with appropriate gravitas. When cross examined by the claimant’s counsel he boldly asserted, “Of course

Annie was old and had some impairment of short term memory, but I was of the opinion that Annie possessed testamentary capacity and understood what she was doing.” My family and I and Annie’s doctors had been completely unaware of these consultations. Annie’s general practitioners Dr. Singh and Dr. Paul, were credible witnesses confirming their belief that Annie, in her latter years and certainly since 1988 as noted in their practice notes, had been exhibiting progressive signs of an early dementia, but their observations when set against the opinion of a senior consultant geriatrician made little impact on the court as will be seen from the manner in which the defendant’s counsel grilled Dr. Paul. “Dr. Paul, did you make an entry in your patient, Mrs. Annie Attwood’s notes, in 1988 stating Early Dementia?” “Yes, I did.” “I realise that this entry was made many years ago, but could you explain how you arrived at this conclusion?” “I arrived at this opinion from medical reports received following my patient’s hospital issions in 1986, 1987 and 1988 and on clinical examination of my patient at the time.” “Would you indicate which of these most influenced your opinion?” “It would have been from my personal observation and clinical examination of the patient.” “Were you aware that until August 1991, Mrs. Attwood had a daily copy of The Times newspaper delivered to her home, which her carer Dr. Caldrus has stated she read each morning, discussing the contents with her? Does this seem like the behaviour of someone suffering from dementia?” “No. I wasn’t aware of that fact, but the delivery of a daily newspaper does not mean that Mrs. Attwood read it, or understood what she was reading.” “Having made your tentative diagnosis, no further entry appears in your notes

concerning dementia until August 1990. Could you explain why there were no further entries relating to this condition during that time, a period of three years?” “Most of the adverse medical conditions that my patient was experiencing related to physical problems. There were frequent falls, which often resulted in bone fractures and these were always recorded. There was no specific remedy or treatment available for a patient suffering from dementia other than daily supervision and management. To the best of my knowledge, such arrangements were satisfactorily in place with the provision of home help, meals on wheels and the daily attendance of a ed nurse, so there seemed little point or benefit to the patient to repeatedly record the term dementia.” “The court has recently heard evidence from Dr. Galton, a most distinguished Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and an eminent consultant of geriatric medicine at the St. George’s Hospital, who examined your patient in great detail on no less than three separate occasions in early 1991. It was his opinion that your patient was not suffering from dementia. How would you for this difference of opinion?” “I’m greatly surprised and disappointed to learn that following his examination of my patient in 1991, Dr. Galton failed to agree with my earlier diagnosis of dementia. I’ve never met, or had any communication from him. He examined Mrs. Attwood without ever first obtaining an accurate medical history from her general practitioner, which I find astonishing. Even more surprisingly he ignored the common courtesy of providing the patient’s G.P. with a medical report of his clinical findings following each consultation. “Doctor, all this is beside the point. My question was how do you for the fact that an eminent and distinguished consultant geriatrician found no evidence of dementia and yet you, with considerably less experience claimed to the contrary? Would you please answer my question?” “I have had considerable experience spanning more than thirty five years in general practice. Together with this has been my involvement as medical director of a Nursing and Residential Care Home group, in which I monitor the care of a significant number of patients with various grades of dementia. In my opinion my patient was certainly suffering from an early dementia, which by 1990, had become progressively more pronounced. It was at that time when she was no

longer able to identify me, or my partner, or to even recognise her only brother Eric and her niece Barbara that I felt a second opinion from a psycho-geriatrician was urgently indicated. At that stage I believed she was suffering from a far more severe loss of mental function. While I agree that Dr. Galton is undoubtedly a more experienced physician than me, it’s quite possible that even a more knowledgeable consultant might be wrong.” “Quite so, but would you have greater knowledge and experience of the ills specifically afflicting the elderly than Dr. Galton, a distinguished consultant in geriatric medicine with many publications on the subject to his name?” “No.” “Dr. Paul I have two further questions. Prior to diagnosing dementia in a patient of 90 years, had you ever received any specialist training in geriatric medicine?” “No.” “Have you ever received any specialised training in Alzheimer’s disease or dementia?” “No. I have attended course lectures on the subject, but no specialised training.” “Thank you; that will be all.”

With these last three questions, defence counsel completely demolished the credibility of our family practitioner medical witness. Thinking of Wimbledon and those delicious helpings of strawberries and cream, I felt that the only expression the defence barrister failed to utter was ‘That’s game, set and match’. I sensed our counsel would now face an uphill battle to convince the judge that Annie lacked testamentary capacity and was indeed suffering from Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. A. Caldrus and Dr. C. Berry had earlier given evidence. Each claimed that in

their medical opinion Annie possessed testamentary capacity. She was old and a little forgetful at times but certainly not confused. They stated that a copy of The Times newspaper was delivered each day to the house, which Annie read avidly, discussing the contents in detail with them and that she also listened with interest to the news and her favourite programmes on the radio. Even though we disagreed with Dr. Caldrus’s and her cousin’s pastiche of their version of the truth, our counsel produced no one else to gainsay Dr. Galton’s glossy reports that Annie was a slightly forgetful, but otherwise mentally normal elderly lady. Needless to say the Judge preferred a consultant’s version of events plus the opinions of Dr. A. Caldrus and Dr. C. Berry, dismissing almost out of hand the evidence and opinions of Annie’s general practitioners. The Judge, Mr. Justice McIntyre summing up on July 8, 1998, at the end of the trial stated, as his voice rang out before a hushed court. “I accept that the last of the three wills, the Julienne Will of October 14, 1990, was understood by Mrs. Annie Attwood and gave effect to her wishes.” “Dr. A. Caldrus was the friend who shared her home from 1984 onwards. It was her brother Eric Heinz and his daughter Mrs. Barbara Vanderzan and their family who arrived on the scene seeking to remove her from her home and to place her in a care home, which to Annie was a real and justified fear since her abiding wish was to remain in her own home.” “Her hostility towards her brother and his family may have been fuelled to some extent by Dr. A. Caldrus, but was none the less genuine. Even though Barbara Vanderzan undoubtedly wanted the best for her aunt, there was nothing irrational in Annie regarding her niece as a threat to her remaining independently in her own home as she wished and to her friendship with her companion Dr. Caldrus, whom she trusted.” “In some cases the exclusion of the testator’s immediate family from a will may be evidence of an unsound mind, a lack of understanding, or approval; However, in this case there was no reason why Annie should have felt any moral obligation towards her family for there was no care, help, or interest apart from a monetary gift for the deposit on her house more than forty years earlier and some assistance during a difficult illness in the 1970’s.

“There is little evidence to suggest that they gave her any practical or friendship, or really cared thereafter for her and very seldom visited to make their presence known. Conversely Dr. Caldrus had provided and friendship for the last six years. Throughout that time they had shared her home together. It was not irrational that Annie Attwood would wish to will her estate to her, in place of her own family.” “There was no reason to see anything sinister in the 1986 Power of Attorney that Annie entrusted to her very good friend Dr. Caldrus.” “I have found the Vanderzan witnesses to be unreliable in respect to their Aunt’s mental state and so have placed greatest reliance upon the most senior and knowledgeable of those doctors who have given evidence. Dr. Galton, a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and consultant geriatrician from St. George’s Hospital knew and had examined Mrs. Attwood, as he stated, on no less than 3 occasions in early 1991 and I therefore give credence to and accept his findings that Mrs. Attwood had testamentary capacity.” “In 1990 Annie Attwood’s life was reasonably settled and happy in part attributable to the friendship and of Dr. Caldrus. The court wishes to praise Dr. Caldrus for the six years of and friendship shown to Mrs. Annie Attwood.” Mr Justice McIntyre then pronounced, “In the matter of Mrs. Annie Alicia Attwood’s Will, I find in favour of Dr. Angela Caldrus.” Amidst the series of gasps of disbelief from our team and the sounds of back slapping and jubilation from those of Dr. Caldrus, we nearly missed Mr. Justice McIntyre’s last important utterance. “Mr. Peter Vanderzan is to pay his own and Dr. A. Caldrus’s costs of the trial.” With this pronouncement the case ended. Dr. Caldrus, triumphantly swept out of court with the broadest of smiles, provocatively inclining her head upwards in my downcast direction adding to the mortification that we had lost our legal

challenge along with our inheritance.

* * *

Chapter 3

As I was guided, dazed and leaden-footed by Peter from the London Law Courts I it I was stunned, but as we emerged into the bright sunlight of a glorious English summer’s day, my mood swung abruptly from disbelief to seething anger. I had just witnessed the inconceivable triumph of wickedness in a British court of law and it was a devastating experience. Indignantly I commented to Peter. “It’s a total travesty of justice. It’s as though the judge has been living on another planet. How is it possible that Mr. Justice McIntyre has completely ignored the truth? I bet he wouldn’t know his right hand from the left if he weren’t wearing a watch. Please tell me it’s all been a terrible dream and when I wake up none of this will have happened.” “It’s not a dream! It’s a bloody nightmare. I’ve to pay Caldrus’s costs as well as my own. These past few days will end up costing me close on a hundred thousand pounds (£100,000), and I just don’t have that kind of money. I’ll be completely ruined.” “We must lodge an appeal, because if we don’t there’s nothing more that we can do about it.” “No I can’t afford it, so we’d better get used to the fact that it’s really happened. Unless we can obtain some form of legal aid there’s no way we can challenge the judge’s decision.” “I don’t care how much it costs; it’s the principle of the thing. How can we possibly let that dreadful Caldrus woman smile and then laugh at us with what she did to Aunt Annie, let alone stealing our family inheritance?” “I feel the same as you, Barbara, but as the claimant I have to find £100,000 for starters and heaven knows how much more if we’re to stand any chance of successfully challenging today’s judgement. Principles are very fine in political

speeches, but they’re way too costly to pursue. They’re ideals that ordinary working people like us can’t afford. There’s no way I can afford to go on unless we can somehow obtain some financial help.” “I know you’re right but I feel we’ve witnessed some kind of sick joke; a lampoon on English justice. Why didn’t our legal team challenge Caldrus’s fabrications and lies more energetically? Why ever did they let Caldrus and her lot walk over us like that; were they asleep?” “I agree. Our case was terrible and what about that sham geriatrician Dr. Galton? How was it that Mr. Justice McIntyre accepted his testimony and ignored our evidence and all the other professional witnesses that clearly showed poor Aunt Annie was suffering from Alzheimer’s for years before she changed her will?” “Let’s go and have some tea, or a drink somewhere and then maybe when we’ve cooled down a bit we can decide what we’re going to do next.” We walked from The Strand into Fleet Street and found one of those delightful quintessential 18th century watering holes frequented by journalists and, after ordering our drinks sat in a shadowy corner in the rear at a table for two. We chatted away discussing the case, for there were so many unanswered questions. “It’s inconceivable that Mr. Justice McIntyre just didn’t believe our version of events and didn’t see through Dr. Caldrus’s mischief and cunning.” “Wasn’t it the pits to hear him praise her for six years of dedicated care? The care was appalling! It may have started well enough, but it descended into years of neglect with a total disregard for Aunt Annie’s well-being, and that web of lies Caldrus conjured up! Why did nobody ever tell the judge what Caldrus did to Annie during her last few days? The police should have charged her at the very least with manslaughter.”

Even at that time, seven years after Annie’s death, we were still unaware of the extent of Dr. Caldrus’s deceit that was yet to be revealed. As we probed further into the last months of our poor aunt’s life, peeling away one secret after another unravelling each mystery as layer upon layer, like peeling a sweet Vidalia onion, to say that we were astounded would be no exaggeration.

* * *

First Appeal Application:

Following our High Court defeat, Peter and I were assailed with a host of financial problems relating to the case and I experienced what might best be described as a complete nervous breakdown. I was so depressed I couldn’t work. At night when I eventually fell off to sleep I kept waking with my mind in a horrible, tumultuous turmoil that banished further rest. My food seemed tasteless and I lost all appetite. I looked haggard as the kilos dropped off me week by week, like autumn leaves in the fall. It became an unbearably embarrassing occurrence to keep bursting into floods of tears without any provocation. My husband and children suffered almost more than me. They were left in a state of constant confusion not knowing how to help me as they struggled to understand the best they could provide during the blackest bouts of my illness. The proceedings went round and round in my mind incessantly and my chief topic of conversation with Peter, and my husband Tom was to search for the reasons for our failure. In my mind the judge’s trial comment that he found me to be an unreliable witness, hurt deepest of all. This state of affairs continued for months and months interspersed with counselling and antidepressants before I regained anything like my former equilibrium to supervise the care of my family and finally more than two and a half years later with depression behind me, to return to the mixed blessing of full time work. Could our failure have been due to what we believed initially had been the poor performance of our solicitor, Mr. Fleming, or Mr. Charles, our barrister, or did the fault lay elsewhere? In all fairness, the judge could only deliberate and judgement on the facts presented to him in court. We finally arrived, after deep soul searching, at the bitter conclusion that together with our legal team we were largely to blame for our own debacle. Annie’s medical practitioners and Camden Social Services, had been completely in agreement with us, based on personal observations that Annie was suffering

from a severe state of confusion that was most probably caused by Alzheimer’s disease. This being so, we became over-confident that we would win, since we believed it would be a simple matter to explain Annie’s mental decline to the judge and he would certainly rule that Annie lacked testamentary capacity when she made her new wills in October 1990.

Unsuspectingly however, we had been ambushed and outmanoeuvred by Caldrus. Like a successful general, she had painstakingly planned the course of events that was to be followed during the last 18 months of my aunt’s life with almost military precision. She turned up at the hearing with numerous labelled records enclosing reams of documents which she had collated and filed over many months. In addition she had then produced her secret weapon in the person of Dr. I. Galton, a consultant geriatrician. We had been totally unaware of his clinical examination of Annie. His evidence appeared indisputable to the judge and we had no consultant psychiatric or geriatric opinion to challenge his findings. Added to this was the fabricated documentation that Caldrus produced as alleged proof of lack of and involvement of our family in Annie’s care. All of this helped convince the judge that Annie was suffering from no more than a little forgetfulness that one might expect to find from time to time in a 90 year old and certainly not the Alzheimer illness that we maintained she was suffering from when she made both her new wills in 1990. Consequently, Mr. Justice McIntyre found that our family failed in our claim and Caldrus succeeded in what we had to concede was her brilliant campaign based mainly on distortions and blatant fabrications of the truth.

We could not let Caldrus’s trickery win the day. Having learnt from our errors, we would prepare our case more thoroughly and appeal. Peter, on behalf of my brothers, and I, sought permission to challenge the court decision and in September 1998, we applied for an extension of time to appeal Mr. Justice McIntyre’s judgement. No matter how great our disappointment, we felt our day would surely come when we would once again applaud the unbiased fairness of

the British judiciary. Little did we realise what a mountainous range of difficulties and expenditure would obstruct our way.

* * *

Our application to appeal Mr Justice McIntyre’s judgement was heard on March 6, 1999, in the Court of Appeal before Lord Justice Gibson and Lady Justice Shale. The Judges dismissed the application and as they did so they described our appeal, “As completely hopeless.”

At this stage, costs for the July. 1998, Royal Courts of Justice Trial and now this March 1999, First Application to Appeal, totalled £107,000. Peter was financially responsible and without benefit of legal aid, he was driven close to bankruptcy. It was an immense sum and almost half the value of Annie’s house in 1991. Matters, however, became even worse. In the summer of 2002 the U.K. Legal Service Commission, endeavouring to recover the legal costs that they had laid out on legal aid for Dr. Caldrus, obtained a freeze order against Peter’s bank and his home and were causing him considerable financial hardship. Little did we appreciate that his monetary dilemma would one day provide the key to enable us to successfully reopen the matter of our second Appeal Application and in so doing create British legal history.

Immediately after Mr. Justice McIntyre gave his judgement in July 1998, Dr. Caldrus found a solicitor to transfer the title of Annie’s house at 217, Iverson Road, into her mother, Maria Caldrus’s, name and both she and her mother

continued to live in Iverson Road. At this stage there was little doubt that Caldrus believed that her years of trickery and scheming had succeeded. She had outsmarted us and she had every reason to consider that she was at last home and dry. In truth were it not for a little unexpected turn of good luck this might well have been so, for after our appeal was rejected, there was nothing more that we could do in any British court of law, since a second appeal application was never permitted.

* * *

Chapter 4

I was born into a war torn world, in the spring of 1943 to Eric and Augusta Heinz in Lodz, the third largest city in Poland. My father, who my mother believed had either been killed or captured as a prisoner of war in Russia, never saw me until I was seven years old. I was their third and last child, their only daughter who my mother named Barbara. Lodz, pronounced woodge, was founded in the 14th century and became a major textile manufacturing centre during the 19th century. In 1793 it had become part of Prussia, only to be occupied by Russia in 1815 before reverting back to Poland in 1918 after the First World War. The local yarn was of an elderly peasant working in the field who sees the arrival of two officials with their theodolite and other surveying equipment. Filled with curiosity he enquired. “What are you doing here with all these strange implements?” “We’re measuring the boundary to determine if this is now part of Russia, or Poland.” “Well, tell me. Which is it? Is this still Russia, or Poland?” “It’s now part of Poland.” “Thank heavens.” responds the old man, “At least I won’t have to endure another of those terrible Russian winters.” This story concerns my aunt Annie Alicia Attwood, my father Eric Heinz’s only sister, who lived the latter half of her ninetyone years in England until her untimely death in London in October 1991. I wish that I were writing a fictional narrative, but I swear that every word of this story is absolutely true. It is the of how a sweet and independent old

lady very slowly developed Alzheimer’s disease, although unrecognised as such in its earlier stages. As this illness gradually progressed she became more vulnerable. As investigations and court records ultimately revealed Annie became a victim of appalling cruelty motivated entirely by the avarice of her carer. Annie Alicia Heinz was born to a Polish family of German Lutheran extraction on August 9, 1900, according to the old Julian calendar still then in use in Lodz in Russian Poland. She married Ernest Attwood, the descendant of 16th. Century Scottish immigrants, but shortly before the start of World War II she and Ernest were divorced since she had been unable to bear him any children. Annie however retained the family name of Attwood and her zest for life. On the morning of August 31, 1939, there began a fiendishly planned, top secret, Nazi German military operation on the eastern border of . A handful of German civilian prisoners dressed in Polish army uniforms were then driven without explanation, under close military guard, to a radio station on the German Polish border. On their arrival the radio station was blown up and every prisoner brutally shot by their S.S. guards. Newsreel cameramen and journalists arrived shortly after to record the evidence of this cowardly and unprovoked Polish military incursion into . Early the following morning of September 1, 1939, the massed military might of ’s land and air force swept into Poland and headed for Warsaw. Nazi ’s Reich Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, claimed. “This was in justifiable retaliation.” Although in private he repeatedly stated, as the Nazis resorted to full-scale war. “The bigger the lie the more convincing.” The governments of Great Britain and each issued an ultimatum to to stop all military activity and withdraw to their border, failing which a state of war would ensue. The Nazi German Third Reich ignored the allied confrontation and continued with their invasion. It was in this manner that The Second World War erupted on September 3rd 1939. Two weeks later the Soviet Union, in collusion with following a secret protocol in the Ribbentrop, Molotov pact of August 23, 1939, named after the German and Soviet Union foreign ministers at the time, invaded and occupied eastern Poland with hardly a shot fired in resistance.

It was a horrifying time for us as our beloved Poland was dismembered by two brutal neighbouring dictatorships. Father was conscripted into the German Army in 1942 and was sent into Russia. His sister, my Aunt Annie Attwood, was deported that same year to work in . Pitifully bedraggled Jewish men, women and even their children were rounded up systematically into ghettoes and those who didn’t die from hunger and disease were sent to death camps alongside gypsies, homosexuals and those the Nazis considered were unfit for purpose. My mother with 3 young children suffered hunger and terrible deprivation alongside all who remained, for there was no escaping the ravages of war. Annie found herself in Nazi where she was compelled to work as a cook to the family of a middle ranking German officer from the winter of 1942, until May 1945, when the war in Europe ended. Miraculously in spite of so many hardships and despite constant malnourishment, somehow we at least survived the conflagration as a family. By the time I first went to school in 1948, my mother and we three children had been forced to move westwards through ethnic persecution, to live in Straubing, a pretty medieval Bavarian town overlooking the Danube. Although my Heinz family ancestors had lived in Poland since 1820 our forebears were German Lutheran and we were no longer welcome in largely Roman Catholic Poland. Never giving up hope, mother constantly watched and checked the daily lists published by the Red Cross at the end of the war, which enabled displaced and missing persons to link up with their loved ones once more. Hopefully looking for names, mother ed the thousands seeking news of the whereabouts of loved ones until our family was finally reunited with my father in 1950. Father was forced to serve as a private infantryman in the German Wehrmacht (wehren to defend; macht to force) during the war. He served on the Eastern front, where he was captured during the siege of Stalingrad in 1942. He was exceptionally lucky to have been one of the very few who survived as a prisoner of war in the U.S.S.R. At the end of hostilities father worked as an interpreter and translator for the U.S. forces. He had miraculously been able to link up with Augusta, my mother, through the Red Cross and when his employment with the U.S. 8th Army finished he settled in Straubing with his family and there he and mother raised my twin older brothers, Henry and Harry who were born in 1935

and me. Once fighting had stopped in Europe, Annie had lost all with her close family in Poland, which was now under the total control of the Soviet Union, behind the ‘Iron Curtain’. Consequently she chose to remain in where she experienced great hardship as she eked out a bare living as an interpreter. Mirroring our activity in Bavaria she also checked the Red Cross lists daily in her endeavour to link up with any of her surviving family. Long interested in the paranormal Annie had been convinced that in some earlier time she had lived in England and at the earliest opportunity decided to explore her past. She arrived in England in 1949 from a devastated by war. Speaking with a soft central European accent she soon became proficient in English, which she added to her fluency in Russian, Polish, French and German. She obtained work in Kidderminster employed in a carpet factory, but before long became dissatisfied with the menial employment that her agile mind found unacceptably repetitive and undertook a secretarial course at an evening class held weekly in the local school. On completion of her course she was granted a diploma and moved to London in search of better employment opportunities. She soon found a tiny bedsitter in Paddington and searched the evening newspaper jobs vacant ads for work. Replying promptly to an ment Annie rapidly obtained a post in Hatton Garden working for Mr. Levy, an immigrant Persian-Jewish businessman in the wholesale jewellery trade. She found her job stimulating and her employer generously considerate and consequently remained there until her retirement in 1965. Annie was small, wiry and tough. Throughout her working life in London, she worked and saved hard to provide something better for her future and in the early 1950’s purchased a modest but comfortable terraced house at 217, Iverson Road, in West Hampstead. Even with a mortgage the cost would have been prohibitively beyond her reach if it were not for a gift of three hundred pounds from my father, her younger married brother Eric Heinz, then living in Bavaria, with whom she had re-established . This money represented the 10% deposit, which was needed for the house to enable her to obtain a twenty-five year mortgage bearing an interest rate of 6% with the Chelsea Building Society

and for which she was eternally grateful to Eric. Built at the end of the 19th century the house was on three floors and was conveniently located near Finchley Road, with all the amenities it had to offer. There were a variety of shops and restaurants, bus and rail links and but a short ten minute bus ride, road traffic permitting, along the Finchley Road to central London. The house may have been unpretentious, but it was soundly constructed, and Annie soon set about converting it into three separate flats, each consisting of a living room and kitchen and a single spacious bedroom with en-suite facilities. She did this with help from a professional plumber and electrician, undertaking much of the remaining conversion building work by herself working tirelessly every evening and weekend, with the occasional help of an Irish casual labourer. She occupied the ground floor flat herself and rented out the first and second floor flats to provide much needed additional income with which to repay her twenty five years mortgage.

As a young woman I attended university in Paris at the Sorbonne and it was there that I met a handsome Dutch student, Peter Vanderzan. We fell in love and following our marriage I became Mrs. Barbara Vanderzan and moved with my husband to live in Holland in The Hague. Peter and I were blessed with two beautiful daughters, Erica and Claudia, yet in spite of this we had grown apart over the years and in 1984 we separated and three years later divorced. Some years later I married Tom Streppel, my second husband who today remains my closest friend and companion.

* * *

Chapter 5

Father usually visited Annie at least once or twice each year. When old enough I accompanied father every summer to London where we would visit and stay with Aunt Annie in Iverson Road. During these visits my aunt and I developed a special girl’s relationship, which never happened with my brothers. They seldom visited, for they had too many alternative interests and pursuits that kept young men occupied. The first time I meeting Aunt Annie she was a sprightly lady, of short stature and slender build, with slightly curly grey hair. She was very gregarious, had a fine sense of humour and continued her work as a secretary with the same jewellery company until her retirement in 1965. She had great qualities as a person and although she hadn’t benefitted from a long, formal education, she was intelligent, wrote and spoke five languages fluently, albeit with an Eastern European accent and was fun to be with. We became great friends. Whatever she lacked in physique, she made up for with the strength of her personality and made me promise to write regularly. Helped initially by mother, I wrote at least once a month in English and Aunt Annie always replied promptly, often enclosing some coins, which she instructed me to use to buy ice cream, or chocolate.

When I married Peter, not only did Aunt Annie attend our wedding in Bavaria, but Peter and I became frequent visitors to London not just visiting with father on her birthday in August, but at other times. My visits became more sporadic as I started my own family, but there were always regular phone calls and the mail. In August 1978, during one of my visits with Peter to celebrate her birthday, Annie caught us unawares when she suddenly announced that she had been thinking for some time that she should put her affairs in order, particularly since she had recently made her last mortgage repayment and now owned her own home and had acquired a number of other assets.

She explained that she had recently approached a local solicitor to make a will and discovered that it wasn’t quite as simple as she had imagined. In executing it, she would need two people who were not beneficiaries to witness her g it, which was a simple enough matter. In addition she had been advised that as part of the process she would need to appoint an executor to be named in the will who should be some years younger than herself who would deal with the istration of her estate according to the instructions in her will. She then turned to my husband. “Peter, would you agree to be my executor? There shouldn’t be too much work involved.” “Of course you can name me as your executor. It would be a privilege to help you in any way I can.” “Thank you, that’s a load off my mind. Now I can tell you what I propose to write in my will. I’ve worked very hard for every pound I’ve earned and I’ve gone without to save each penny for my future and now I’ve somehow become a lady with assets, as they tell me at the bank. Well, when the time comes I want you Barbara to benefit from all my long hours of work. I’m going to give a small bequest of five hundred pounds to my brother. I’ve always been deeply indebted to Eric for all his help. Fortunately he’s well established. He and Augusta have all that they need, including a brood of wonderful children, which is something that the good Lord never blessed me with. The residue, as the lawyers call it, will be entirely for you Barbara.” “Thank you, that’s very kind, but what about my brothers?” “I’ve hardly ever seen your brothers and further more they’ve never shown any real interest in me. You’re the only one I really know and who visits regularly.” “Leaving everything to me isn’t at all fair. I’m sorry; I simply can’t accept your offer. If I did, not only would it be unjust to my brothers, but they’d believe that I’d somehow influenced you in your decision and that would be horrible. It would sour my relationship with them for the rest of our lives. I’m sorry but I just can’t be a beneficiary unless you include them in your will.” “You’re being a silly girl. I thought you’d be delighted to inherit all that I can leave you. I respect what you’re saying Barbara, it makes sense, so just give me a few moments to think about it.”

After what seemed an interminable pause she announced. “I’ll tell you what I’ll do. I’m not in agreement with what you’re telling me, although I can understand your reasoning. Instead of leaving my house to the dog’s home in Battersea I’m going to do as you suggest, although not exactly as you want it. So that you can have a larger portion of what I leave I shall give Peter here a quarter share in his name, which will give you twice as much between you as each of your brothers. Will that compromise suit you?” “Of course that’s much better, now everyone can be happy with what you leave us and I’m so glad you saw my point of view. Auntie, you’re a real sweetie.” As we continued to thank her she held up her hand and stopped us short. “No more of this, it embarrasses me. You’ve proven yourself to be an honourable woman and I want you and your brothers to have and enjoy whatever I’m able to leave you. Once the will has been completed I shall have two copies made. One will stay with the solicitor who will have your address and the second will be sent to you for safekeeping.” “Now not another word; a will should be executed and then locked away for a very long time, until it’s needed.” “There’s an old wives tale I used to hear about in Poland from amongst the Jewish people when I was a girl that if you talk about making, or even changing a will it may alert the Angel of Death, who might take it upon himself to visit when you least expect him and carry you off. So let’s have no more idle chatter about my will just in case there’s any truth in it.” In mid September 1978, Annie made her will and as promised, her solicitor mailed a copy to me in Holland, with Peter named as executor.

* * *

Chapter 6

Annie had enjoyed good health until she underwent a major operation for a hiatus hernia in 1972, and three years later she, unfortunately, lost the vision in one eye during a cataract operation that went wrong. On both occasions her sister-in-law, my mother, Augusta, travelled to London from Straubing, and moved in for several weeks, each time to help nurse her back to good health. Apart from those medical problems and a recurring degree of anaemia, Annie participated in a full and active life living in West Hampstead. In October 1979, Annie fell in the street and fractured her left hip. Looking back at the event this was the turning point when her otherwise good health started its slow decline.

Rushed by ambulance to the local Royal Free Hospital she underwent surgery to her left hip where the orthopaedic surgeon exposed the bone and then inserted a titanium pin and plate to hold the fracture in position until it united and healed. While in hospital she first learned that she had developed osteoporosis, a slow but progressive largely age related thinning of her bones. Little did she know at that time that her life was scheduled to change in many other ways, for it was there she met and was befriended by a Rumanian lady doctor working in the hospital as a phlebotomist, collecting patient’s blood samples. When well on the road to recovery, she was informed that she had not only osteoporosis, but in addition had developed maturity-onset type 2, diabetes. She was instructed that while not of a severity to require insulin injections, she would need to watch her dietary intake of carbohydrates very carefully and take various mineral and vitamin supplements in an attempt to slow the rate of her bone loss. As an in-patient, one of almost thirty six mainly elderly women lying in a typical National Health Service ward, where privacy could only be secured by a cotton bedside curtain, she felt particularly isolated and depressed. At this vulnerable stage of her recovery, she first met Dr. Angela Caldrus, who had arrived in

London from Rumania the previous year. Like herself she had been born in Eastern Europe and spoke many languages. In spite of a considerable age difference of more than forty years, they shared a common interest in current events and politics and soon developed an early friendship, which was to continue after her hospital discharge. Annie felt particularly flattered that such a well-educated younger woman who promised to visit with her once she had been discharged should have befriended her.

While Dr. Caldrus had qualified as a doctor in the Rumanian capital of Bucharest, she was not eligible to practise medicine in the UK since she had not gained registration with the General Medical Council. Consequently, she had only been able to obtain employment as a laboratory technician, collecting blood samples from patients in the Royal Free Hospital and St. Catherine’s Hospital. Although her post was poorly remunerated, the pay by Rumanian standards would have been considered remarkably good and far greater than a doctor’s income in Rumania. On Annie’s return home following her successful hip operation Augusta arrived in London, staying until late October, to once again help Annie as she adjusted to caring for herself and regained her confidence to walk unaided. Annie by this stage had acknowledged the reality that she was becoming increasingly vulnerable to falls. When she left her home whether to take a little fresh air and some exercise, or to purchase her few groceries and other needs at her local shops she felt compelled to adopt the use of a walking stick. In November 1983, in spite of the steadying effect of a walking stick, she tripped in the street and fell, badly injuring and fracturing her right wrist and was taken to The Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead by ambulance. There she was itted and under a general anaesthetic her Colles fracture was reduced and a Plaster of Paris cast applied to immobilise the fracture site during a six weeks healing process. On that occasion Augusta was no longer able to travel to London to help Annie during her recovery. Regrettably, my mother had been beset with her own serious health problems with a recently diagnosed cancer, which prevented her from travelling any distance. Sadly, she and Aunt Annie never saw each other again.

Annie’s repeated falls greatly eroded her self-confidence, and consequently, she reduced the frequency in which she left the safety of her home to attend to her few shopping needs. The less often she took exercise outdoors, the more rapidly she lost strength in her legs and confidence when walking outside her home. This in turn led to increasing loneliness with reduced s with outsiders. In addition, due to bone loss, she started to experience chronic back ache and an early kyphotic curvature of the upper spine, known colloquially as a ‘dowager’s hump’. When Annie was aged 84, in October 1984, an occupational therapist’s report stated; “Mrs. Attwood’s short term memory appeared to be poor and she doesn’t appear to what is said to her.” Just one month later in November 1984, there was a domestic problem. Annie had somehow forgotten she had left the gas cooker on. A Social Service report on this incident stated; “Mrs. Attwood is unsafe with the gas stove. This coupled with her memory problems renders her use of a gas appliance a safety hazard. We are instructing a service engineer to disconnect the gas service to the cooker. A hot midday meal will be provided daily henceforward through the agency of meals on wheels.” On January 9, 1985, a meals on wheels assessment was reported to social services stating; “Mrs. Attwood’s mental state is poor.” These reports were the first real indications coupled with her failing short term memory, recalling names and recent events, together with occasional unexplained falls that Annie was experiencing early symptoms of a dementia. Regrettably neither of her G.P’s, nor any of the hospital doctors appreciated the onset of this illness at that time. It was not until three years later at the end of 1987, that the first mention of ‘Early Dementia’ appeared in her G.P’s notes. A further three years were to elapse until August 1990, when any serious attempt was made to have a psycho—geriatrician examine Annie to determine the cause of her persistent and increasing confusion. These assessments in the light of a later review headed by Dr. K. Cornelius, an eminent psychogeriatrician, indicated early manifestations of Alzheimer’s

disease. All of this information was available, yet at the first trial in 1988, our counsel never presented any of these facts, but I’m running a little ahead of Annie’s story and must return to 1985.

In addition to the frustrations of her diminishing mobility, Annie was beset at this time with structural problems in her home. The postponement of certain necessary repairs had caused damage to the fabric of the building. Neglect of a few slipped roof tiles had resulted in the ingress of water during any downpour. The failure over many years to paint the exterior woodwork was followed by rotting of some exposed timbers and mildew on internal walls. The local Camden Council, alerted to a number of these building problems by one of Annie’s tenants, had issued instructions to Annie that she must institute the necessary dilapidation repairs. When these instructions were ignored, there followed a legal building order under the ‘Housing Act Repairs Notice’ that Annie, as the landlord had to remedy named building defects. Furthermore, should Annie fail to comply with the order, the Council would instruct builders to remedy the defects at her expense. On October 6, 1985, Annie was again itted to The Royal Free Hospital following another fall and underwent a hip replacement. During her hospitalisation it was recorded in her notes; “Mrs Attwood is suffering from short term memory loss.” While in hospital she again met Dr. Caldrus who was made aware of the availability of a vacant first floor flat at 217, Iverson Road. Annie invited her to visit and inspect the accommodation. Following her inspection a modest rent that Caldrus could afford was agreed and Dr. Caldrus moved in almost straight away. Within a matter of days, Annie had confided to Dr. Caldrus telling her of the frustratingly lengthy ongoing dispute she had been experiencing with Camden Council, with which she could barely cope. Caldrus offered to deal with the council on her behalf and to resolve all the outstanding problems. Annie regarded this assistance as a heaven sent gift. Dr. Caldrus arranged for the council to carry out all the necessary repairs and as the work proceeded she assured Annie that to save her having to worry about

these problems she would supervise the building works and the cleaning required as the work progressed. This again earned Annie’s further gratitude. So much so that Annie informed Dr. Caldrus that she could not accept further rent from then onwards in view of the many services being rendered by her, which with a broad smile Dr. Caldrus cheerfully accepted. The Council at a later date made mention that in addition to the essential repairs, additional construction works had been requested and authorised by Dr. Caldrus. Camden Council likewise confirmed that the council offered interest bearing loans where building works undertaken by the Council could subsequently be paid for by the council taking a first charge against the property to be settled when the property was sold, an option that Dr. Caldrus chose on behalf of Annie who was unaware of these arrangements. Annie believed that Caldrus had negotiated with the Council on her behalf that no charge was to be made. The reality was the building works had amounted to £10,600 and Camden Council had taken an interest bearing first charge against the property in that sum. Annie was of course grateful, but never more so than when, because of her increasing mobility difficulties Dr. Caldrus undertook all shopping tasks, collected her pension from the post office and showed her how she maintained a separate purse when she did any shopping and kept a strict financial for Annie. As Dr. Caldrus explained, it was hardly any trouble and after all they had known each other since 1979 and were now firm friends. This behaviour further impressed 85-year—old Annie, particularly as 44-year-old Dr. Caldrus now undertook all those chores which had previously necessitated Annie walking in the street. This new arrangement helped to reduce the likelihood of falls, which had so terrified Annie in the past months. Annie with her increasing immobility and reliance upon Dr. Caldrus was doubtlessly unaware that Dr. Caldrus had given up her research employment in 1985 and now had no source of U.K. income, nor that her mother, Maria Caldrus had taken up residence at 217 Iverson Road although this was periodically denied by Dr. Caldrus who covered up by telling Annie that her mother was just visiting and had stayed overnight in her flat. She paid no rent, nor did she contribute to any of the cost of rates, utilities, upkeep of the house, or food.

Early in 1986, Dr. Caldrus suggested to Annie that since she had no family in the UK upon whom to rely in an emergency, it would be a wise precaution that she should give her, as a trusted friend, Power of Attorney. In this way, should anything untoward crop up in the future that deprived Annie of her ability to handle her own day to day financial affairs, such as might occur should there be a lengthy stay in hospital, it would give Dr. Caldrus the authority to deal with matters on her behalf. As she explained with her characteristically disarming smile, “On a short-term basis only, pending your recovery.” Dr. Caldrus assured Annie that this was a temporary precaution that Annie, or her family could revoke at any time. Dr. Caldrus drew up the appropriate document and whether Annie understood the full implication of what was being proposed or not, had her sign it in the presence of a witness. The witness chosen was Annie’s next door neighbour Mrs. Boyle, whose presence provided Annie with further reassurance. “I can guarantee that it will only be used, if at all, during an emergency for a matter of days simply to give you and your family, who live so far away, peace of mind. Mrs. Boyle, will be your witness so that you know it’s all above board and there can be nothing wrong in your doing this.” Annie was a lonely, vulnerable lady. It is probable that at this stage without anybody realising it, she had been demonstrating the early symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease for more than two years since 1984, which included phases of forgetfulness increased vulnerability to suggestion and recurring falls. There was evidence of early memory loss reported by her occupational therapist in October 1984 and again during her hospitalisation in October 1985.

Normally, my father and I would have visited Annie each year particularly in August for her birthday, but Augusta, my mother, had been diagnosed with a cancer of her kidney and was terminally ill in Bavaria. Consequently, none of our close family visited Annie in the summer of 1986. Aunt Annie and I had always communicated regularly by mail and occasionally by telephone, yet our correspondence had gradually ceased shortly after Caldrus had become a tenant. My letters remained unanswered and this hardly ed with me at the time,

since every available weekend and time off work was spent in commuting to Bavaria to be with my mother and assist father in whatever way possible. To Annie with her greatly reduced mobility and decline in physical independence her isolation must have weighed heavily, almost akin to solitary confinement. Soon, Dr. Caldrus took advantage of the absence of Annie’s family and lack of friends to capitalise on her loneliness. So began a process whereby as Annie’s feelings of isolation found no respite from her otherwise reliable and caring family in the Netherlands and Bavaria, so did her confidence in and reliance upon Dr. Caldrus, increase correspondingly. Her tenant and friend Dr. Caldrus gradually took advantage of the situation. Annie had become frailer with age and was becoming a vulnerable old lady who most probably felt lonely, unloved and unwanted. She became susceptible to the unwarranted advice and comfort of her younger friend and readily acquiesced to her suggestion without realising that she was unwittingly taking the first hesitant steps down a path that would gradually ensnare her as a victim that she unwittingly became. Never at any time did Caldrus discuss obtaining a power of attorney with any of my aunt’s family, nor did she seek our input or permission, although she was in possession of all our details. Furthermore, Annie never endeavoured to seek our advice, or participation in any way as all correspondence from her ceased.

Within a few days Dr. Caldrus explained to Annie that their simple homemade power of attorney agreement might not be adequate and that a solicitor should properly prepare a legal document. As a consequence a few weeks later, Dr. Caldrus attended the office of Mr. Raymond, a local solicitor in West End Lane, with a letter in her own handwriting and bearing Annie’s signature countersigned by two witnesses, Mrs. P. Boyle, a next door neighbour from 219 Iverson Road and her friend Dr. Angela Caldrus. This stated that he was to accept Annie’s written instruction to prepare the following document. Power of Attorney September 15, 1986. This authorises Dr. A. Caldrus to deal with all matters related to Mrs. Annie Attwood’s ownership of 217, Iverson Road, London NW3, including dealing with the various

departments and offices of the London Borough of Camden and the social services and the DHSS. Annie’s signature to this document was witnessed by Dr. Clara Berry and Mrs. P. Boyle.

Mr. J. Raymond, a respected solicitor, accepted 86 years old Mrs. Annie Attwood’s signed instruction in Dr. Caldrus’s handwriting without any apparent query. Never at any time did he see his client, or witness her signature. He did make a note that he thought it a little unusual that the instruction to prepare a power of attorney came from a third party, Dr. Caldrus, and not from Mrs. Attwood in person. Nobody aroused Mr. Raymond’s suspicions to the false statement that the witness signatory Dr. Clara Berry was not a friend but was Dr. Caldrus’s younger cousin. Nobody alerted Annie’s family grieving in Holland over the loss of Augusta, and Social Services were unaware of anything unusual. A phone message received by John Grey of Camden Social Services a few days later and documented by him stated; “Dr. A. Caldrus has informed me of the Power of Attorney set up by Mrs. Annie Attwood’s solicitors and confirmed that she had authority from Mr. P. Vanderzan to act for Mrs. Annie Attwood.” This was a total fabrication. Mr. P. Vanderzan never gave any such authorisation and was completely unaware of the existence of the Power of Attorney. Dr. Caldrus was manipulating people, and concealing the true state of affairs, a trait that was to recur in the years ahead. From that point onwards Dr. Caldrus had gained almost full control of Annie Attwood’s finances. Although highly qualified, the last time Dr. Caldrus had any paid employment was in 1985. At no time did Dr. Caldrus ever disclose in what manner Annie’s pension and other income was being used, in spite of repeated requests by me for this information. She boasted with pride and showed those who were gullible enough to believe the manner in which she strictly maintained a separate purse when shopping for Annie, but this in my opinion was mere window dressing. Initially every one shown this by Dr. Caldrus was impressed and taken in. The

reality was that no documentation was ever produced concerning the use and disposal of Annie’s income from 1986 until her demise, nor of what became of her other assets and possessions, which gradually disappeared from her home. Annie’s family in Europe, were unaware of there being any financial irregularity, or that she was providing board and lodging and ing Dr. Caldrus and her mother. Annie was seemingly pleased to have a companion to talk with, an intelligent woman whom she believed she could trust because she had been told time and again by her that she had her best interest at heart. After all she was an educated lady, a doctor, who had dealt rapidly and efficiently with the Camden Council officials and their builders without it apparently costing her a penny.

One wonders if Annie ever understood that a legal charge was placed on her 217, Iverson Road, property which would secure the recovery with interest of the Council’s outlay when the building was sold. On December 27, 1986, a formal Power of Attorney document in favour of Dr. A. Caldrus was signed by Annie, superseding the two earlier documents prepared that year by Caldrus. This arrangement remained secret for some time and gave Dr. Caldrus full control of Annie Attwood’s finances as she had planned. It is open to conjecture whether Annie really understood what she had been encouraged by her friend Angela Caldrus to acquiesce to and sign as a legal document. Years later, after I discovered to my dismay that Annie had given Caldrus a power of attorney, I challenged Dr. Caldrus and asked her why she hadn’t informed Annie’s brother, or me, as next of kin that she had been given this legal power. She smiled as was her customary habit and replied. “Why should I? It wasn’t my business to tell you. She gave me her power of attorney after all and it was for Annie to tell you whenever she felt she was ready.” Then shrugging her shoulders dismissively and with a smirk on her face, she turned away.

During the mid 1980’s as a consequence of Augusta’s declining health Annie’s brother Eric was unable to visit her. He did however write on a number of

occasions and his letters survived, yet Annie did not reply. He wrote of Augusta’s deteriorating condition as treatment failed to arrest the spread of her cancer and finally his despairing letter of her death from her illness in the autumn of 1986 and of his devastation and loneliness. In spite of the closeness of these sisters in law and the fact that Augusta had spent months in London year’s earlier nursing Annie back to health whenever she needed help and care during her recuperation, there was no response. Repeatedly Eric wrote seeking news of Annie and still she failed to reply yet she was apparently able to dictate and sign several versions of a Power of Attorney. There was a phone in the flat for which Annie paid until her demise, but which Annie never used to speak with her family in Holland, or Bavaria, or for that matter any one else. As I discovered much later, the phone was deliberately shut away out of Annie’s reach in another room.

In spite of our separation in 1984, Peter and I continued to visit Aunt Annie separately and did so in August 1985 to celebrate auntie’s birthday. We of course met Dr. Caldrus who invariably smiled and in every way seemed a charming well-educated lady who in addition to being her tenant had somehow become Annie’s companion. My first impressions were of her constant smiling. Her eyes seemed to sparkle with good humour and she incessantly chatted about herself, her close friendly relationship with Aunt Annie and how they had so much in common. It seemed wonderful and almost too good to be true that Annie had found such a pleasant, caring and charismatic friend, who was helping her in so many ways and was also medically qualified. Pleasantly reassured we left the house feeling that all was well, and were completely unaware that we and Aunt Annie were about to be cruelly deceived by this unhealthy relationship. We knew nothing of the rent arrangements Annie had earlier made, or of the Power of Attorney that was being planned. I am certain that in 1986 Annie was no longer able to fully comprehend what was happening due to her declining mental ability. At the time we were also introduced to Dr. Caldrus’s friend Dr. Clare Berry (in fact her cousin) and to Dr. Caldrus’s mother Maria who we were told was visiting at the time, but who in reality was living in the house without Aunt Annie’s knowledge.

* * *

Chapter 7

On August 4, 1987, Annie was found unconscious on the floor by a next door neighbour who had a key to the house and used to visit Annie each day. Nobody knew how long she had been lying there alone. An ambulance was summoned and she was itted to The Royal Free Hospital. Annie was unaware of what had happened to her or initially where she was. She was found to have a Cellulitis of her leg. This bacterial infection of the deeper skin layers, which is commoner in diabetics, had been a recurring problem. Treatment was needed and Annie remained in hospital for a month. We were not told at the time that her toe nails had been so neglected that she needed urgent podiatry referral to a chiropodist. Had we known of this it might have been an early pointer indicating that Caldrus, a doctor had been paying scant attention to some of the very basic needs of Annie who she now claimed was a close, valued friend. My father and I visited Annie for her birthday while she was in hospital and I visited her a few weeks later once she had returned home. Investigation at the hospital revealed no cardiac or other apparent cause for Annie’s temporary loss of consciousness and when these events recurred in the months ahead with increasing frequency, no physical cause was ever established. With hindsight a medical friend had suggested that these might have been the equivalent of a transient ischaemic attack that occurs when a certain portion of the brain is temporarily deprived of its blood supply either due to the narrowing or even closing off of a very tiny artery in the brain. In the elderly while this does not cause complete loss of function in a limb such as one might observe when a more major artery is blocked, it can result in a small loss of brain function and with each additional episode can lead to a progressive impairment of brain activity termed multi infarct dementia, or vascular dementia, which is akin to Alzheimer’s disease. This is the next most common form of dementia after Alzheimer’s disease and is commoner in the older person with high blood pressure, diabetes and/or heart disease. Certain symptoms will predominate depending on which area of the

brain sustains these tiny microscopic patches of damage. Even so there is a progressive impairment of brain function resulting in a loss of ability to carry out day to day tasks, such as washing and attending to matters of personal hygiene, dressing or eating and brief episodes of loss of conscious with no discernable cause. An individual may lose short term memory, ability to solve problems, rationalise or control emotions. Their personalities may change. They may progressively lose the ability to walk unaided and become agitated. As in Annie’s case the sufferer frequently becomes more susceptible to suggestion and falls. The hospital Occupational Therapist Gillian Shepherd’s written report stated; “Patient needs prompting to wash herself thoroughly and to dress. She can do these things independently but may not initiate washing and dressing at home unless encouraged and prompted.” She advised “that in addition to the daily hot meal each noon time provided by meals on wheels, there should be a daily home help and the District Nurse should likewise attend every day.” While Annie was recovering, it was plain to those of us who knew her well that there had been a considerable deterioration in her physical and mental capabilities. In the first week of October 1987, Annie was once again found by her home help, collapsed on the floor in her home, alone and unable to move. There was once more no obvious cause and Annie appeared to make a rapid recovery. At 87 years of age, Annie had become a dependent old lady. Her general medical practitioner recorded in the patient’s notes that there were signs of early dementia, particularly with the patient’s deteriorating memory and the prompting necessary that she wash and dress herself. In early 1988 her general practitioner Dr. A. Paul visited Annie at home and had commented in his notes that Annie in his opinion needed nursing home accommodation. Questioned later he stated that the frequency of the occasions when she was found collapsed on the floor alone with nobody available to assist her in any way was most unsatisfactory. This led him to believe that she needed far more round the clock supervision than was available in her own home, the only remedy being placement in a care home properly staffed for the purpose. Towards the end of August 1989, Annie was found unconscious on the floor in

her home by the visiting district nurse. Once again she was itted to The Royal Free Hospital. Fortunately she had sustained no fractures. She was unaware that she had fallen or been taken to hospital and no apparent cause could be found for her recurring black outs.

An Abbreviated Mental Test, AMT, was carried out in the hospital some days after her August ission in which her score was 2 out of 10. This fact was glossed over during the 1998 trial as was an AMT test in 1991 when she achieved a score of 3 out of 10, demonstrating a major impairment in her mental function. The AMT was developed by a group of geriatricians and introduced in 1972 as a rapid elementary test of cognitive function. There are ten questions and the score out of ten indicates the number of questions answered correctly. The lower the score, the greater is the degree of mental impairment. The following are the questions:

1. What is your date of birth? 2. How old are you? 3. Would you please this address which I shall ask you at the end of this test. “42 West Street.” The address is repeated twice and the listener is asked to repeat the address in case of any hearing problem. 4. Where are we? 5. Can you identify two people present in the room? 6. In which year did the First World War start? 7. Can you name the monarch? 8. Can you take 1 away from 20? 9. What is today’s date?

10. Where do you live?

Assessing the evidence available from a number of independent medical sources at this time there is little doubt that Annie was suffering from a progressive Alzheimer’s disease that had first shown itself in 1984. Annie was discharged home after a week in hospital on September 11, 1989. Dr. Caldrus wrote a letter to Annie’s brother Eric dated September 3, 1989, telling him of Annie’s recent hospitalisation. Commenting on Annie’s history of fractured hips and wrist and her increasing physical frailty she failed somehow to notice, or chose to ignore the evidence of Annie’s failing mental state as she stumbled over occasional names and words. Peter, my former husband suffered a mild heart attack in 1989 and when fully recovered visited Annie in the autumn of 1989 with our daughter, Claudia. Although we were divorced he still retained a great affection for Aunt Annie, which she always reciprocated and he wanted her to see what a fine young lady her great niece had become. Annie at the time had been discharged from hospital some weeks earlier and Peter related to me that Annie did not know him and kept asking him if he knew Mr Vanderzan. She also thought that Claudia was his wife, whereas a few years earlier she certainly would have recognised her as our daughter. Her conversation was repetitive. She seemed really bewildered and confused and kept showing him the same photograph over and over again having forgotten that she’d shown it but a minute or so earlier. In Easter 1990 Peter was again in London and visited Aunt Annie. He told me that again she did not recognise him and that now she appeared an even more confused old lady, nothing like the Aunt Annie of former years. Something cataclysmic appeared to have taken place in her health and I was determined to visit and check for myself what had happened to her, since Dr. Caldrus had made no mention the previous year of any deterioration in her mental state. I wrote to Dr. Caldrus telling her of my proposed visit with my father Eric, whom she’d never met, to celebrate Annie’s 90th birthday. Father hadn’t been to

see his sister in her home since 1984 because of his own deteriorating health following the death of my mother in 1986. He had however written regularly at Christmas and on Annie’s birthday and at other times, although since 1986 he had never received any response. Unknown to me at the time but, in anticipation of our visit Annie had signed a document prepared by and written out in Dr. Caldrus’s handwriting stating: “I want my friend and attorney Dr. A. Caldrus to look after me. I give all my property to Dr. A. Caldrus absolutely and appoint her sole executrix.” This document was soon followed with another, more formal, when Dr. Caldrus drove to the Barnet Law Centre where she obtained the forms that when completed and correctly witnessed would give her an Enduring Power of Attorney. She completed the forms, and named herself and her younger cousin Dr. Clare Berry to act tly and severally as Annie Attwood’s attorneys. It expressly applied to all Annie’s property and affairs without limitation. It was signed and dated August 4, 1990, and was witnessed by Annie’s neighbour, Mrs. Boyle and Mr. Julienne, a French carpenter about whom we will later learn more. The next step down the victim’s path that would lead to her total ensnarement had been completed. Dr. Caldrus deliberately withheld all information relating to an enduring power of attorney from me. We had no knowledge of these events and had been given no opportunity to challenge, or put forward any alternative solution. Judging by what we had learned from Peter’s earlier visits and her general practitioners, I am sure that Annie would certainly never have been in a sufficiently lucid mental state to know what she was being asked to sign or do. Dr. Caldrus doubtlessly felt that she had equipped herself more than adequately to deal with any troublesome interference from Annie’s visiting relatives. We were completely unaware of Dr. Caldrus’s malign intentions and many years were to elapse before her scheming plots unraveled and we became more fully aware of the devious criminality of her actions. When we arrived at the front door of Annie’s home in the late morning of August 9th 1990, complete with gifts of Annie’s favourite Belgian chocolates and flowers, I rang the doorbell. To my surprise, father and I were given a very cool, hostile reception by Caldrus. Always smartly dressed, she opened the front

door telling us straight away that Annie did not want to see us and didn’t want us to come into her house. In spite of this unusual greeting we insisted on entering and found Annie seated in her front living room. She did not recognise us at all, although she chatted amiably enough with father in Polish and kept reiterating the same questions and sentences time and again, even asking father repeatedly whether he knew her younger brother Eric. In spite of the fact that we were expected and also the lateness of the morning Annie was still in her night dress, with her hair ungroomed. As I opened the door to walk into the bedroom it was almost worse than I imagined being struck by a bolt of lightning. The stale smell of urine combined with unkempt body odours that assailed my senses was like a whiplash causing my eyes and sinuses to smart as I clasped my hand over my nostrils and felt myself gasp for fresh air. The bedding on the bed was old and worn, with a separate mattress made up as a bed on the floor. The room itself was badly in need of decoration. I hadn’t visited Annie in her home since 1987 and it was an unimaginable shock for me to see how everything looked more than a little squalid in comparison with the way Annie had maintained her home and looked after herself three years earlier. I also noticed that Annie’s favourite carriage clock, which had formerly stood on the mantelpiece in a place of honour above the fireplace, and other small treasured items were now missing, but no explanation was ever forthcoming. My daughter Claudia had visited with her father in the previous year in 1989 as had my nephew Hans Heinz and they had each told me that living conditions for Annie were very poor, but entering her bedroom was far worse than anything I had expected or imagined. Her environment beggared belief. I told Caldrus in no uncertain that my Aunt looked unkempt and that I was appalled at the state in which she was living, particularly the unacceptable stench in her bedroom. She replied in an off-handed condescending manner, “Don’t you realise that old people always tend to smell, especially when they have incontinence.”

“That’s utter rubbish. If they’re looked after and toileted properly then odours shouldn’t be a problem.” “Well if that’s your opinion, you’re wrong. Anyway the main reason for the smell is that the deodorant spray can is empty and we haven’t another in the house.” “Deodorants only substitute one odour for another. To eliminate this dreadful stench you need ozone.” “You must be mad. Surely you must realise that ozone is a dangerous gas.” “As a doctor you amaze me. Clearly you should know that ozone when used properly, like electricity, water, or gas is perfectly safe. But why am I teaching you how to deal with urine odours when the real cause is that my aunt isn’t being cared for properly?” I was livid and told Caldrus in no uncertain that I was so unhappy with what had been reported to me and what I could now see and smell for myself that I intended to discuss with my family as a matter of urgency that it would be in my aunt’s best interest to sell the house and use the proceeds of the sale to have her looked after in a care home where she could be monitored and supervised 24 hours a day, which I could see she undoubtedly needed. To record that Dr. Caldrus did not take at all kindly to my observations was a major understatement. As I gave vent to my thoughts and feelings her whole body appeared to quiver, her face reddened and finally she erupted like an exploding volcano. She ranted and shouted at me and such was her vehemence that I thought at one time she might physically attack me. I didn’t care whether or not she was pleased with my criticism of Annie’s care, but what followed was incredible. “I’ve already told you. Annie doesn’t know you, or want you here. What right do you have to force your way in here and criticise the way I’m caring for Annie? You and that old man talking to Annie are complete strangers.” Her hand trembled and shook as she raged, gesticulating with manicured fingernails towards my father who was engrossed in conversation with his sister. “You’re absolute imposters who Annie doesn’t know and definitely doesn’t want to see. You’re certainly not related and I know Annie wants you to leave her

house right now. If you don’t leave immediately I shall call the police.” This was complete nonsense, absolute gobbledegook and Aunt Annie had said nothing of the kind and was engrossed talking to my father in Polish. Caldrus had met me on a number of occasions and knew me. She also knew from my letter that my father and I were here to visit his only sister on her birthday. To my amazement she then phoned the police, telling them that father and I were unknown intruders pretending to be family . The police arrived, took statements and since we had no proof with us of our relationship to Annie, requested that we leave the building. I was outraged as we were escorted off the premises. That father and I were greatly upset would be putting it mildly. We returned to our hotel, since father was tired and very distressed. From the hotel, seething with rage, I phoned Camden Social Services and spoke to Annie’s case worker Mrs. Margaret Manning. I told her of our great concern at the manner in which my aunt was being cared for and requested her assistance to have Annie transferred to a home for the aged or somewhere that she could be cared for in a clean and pleasant, odour-free environment with proper day and night supervision. Mrs. Margaret Manning assured me that she would visit the next morning to assess the situation. Mrs. Manning called the following morning and requested Annie’s G.P. to make a house call while she was in the house. Her general practitioner, Dr. Paul, made a house call the next day. Annie failed to recognize him in spite of his having been her doctor for many years and he again observed through questioning her that in his opinion Annie was in all probability suffering from senile dementia. His practice notes recorded his concern at his patient’s confusion and signs of dementia. He notified Mrs. Manning that he intended to arrange for a domiciliary visit from Dr. Guttman, a consultant psychogeriatrician at the Royal Free Hospital for his opinion and would phone with details of the appointment. When he telephoned to confirm the date and time Dr. Guttman would be making his house call, Dr. Caldrus who answered the phone, demanded, “You must cancel the appointment. Annie says she doesn’t want to see any more doctors and certainly doesn’t need to see your specialist.”

“I’m sorry but I must disagree. Annie is confused and needs to be in a home where she can receive proper care and supervision and that’s why I have requested Dr. Guttman to see her so that we can have the benefit of his opinion.” “And I am telling you that Annie tells me she doesn’t want to see your specialist. This is her home which she doesn’t wish to leave and you will cancel the appointment.” “Annie is too confused to determine what she wants or needs and . . .” “Dr. Paul. I’ve had enough of this nonsense. I’ve been given a Power of Attorney by Annie and what I say goes. No matter what you may think or say, she will not see Dr. Guttman, so you will please cancel the appointment.” Following that conversation, and never having been confronted with a situation like this in his many years of medical practice, Dr. Paul placed a phone call to his Medical Defence counsel for legal guidance. They confirmed that Dr. B. Caldrus, possessing a Power of Attorney was within her legal right to have the appointment cancelled. Angrily he cancelled the appointment and requested his partner, Dr. M. Singh, visit Annie the following day so that he might have the benefit of her opinion. I was present, visiting Annie again with father when Dr. Singh made her visit the following morning. Annie did not recognise her. She examined Annie’s heart, lungs and blood pressure and found everything relatively normal for her age, but that is what one would usually find in a case of senile dementia. Many years later when I was speaking to Dr. Paul, he reminded me ruefully of the day he had been instructed to cancel Annie’s consultation with Dr. Guttman and his frustration at the time. “Barbara, I still feel upset when I realise that Dr. Caldrus had no right at the time to obstruct the domiciliary visit that I had arranged. The advice the Medical Defence lawyer gave me was rather poor. He should firstly have instructed me to demand to see documentary proof of the power of attorney. He then should have notified me that a Power of Attorney only relates to control of financial matters as opposed to an Enduring Power of Attorney which would control every aspect of the individuals finance, life and welfare. It was pure bluff. I fell for it and it was my patient who suffered.”

* * *

Chapter 8

Up to the time of Aunt Annie’s 90th birthday, Caldrus had lived almost six years and her mother, Maria, had lived for more than five years rent-free in Annie’s home without any contribution to housekeeping, payments for telephone, utilities or food and living off Annie’s pension and other income. On our August 9, 1990, visit we inadvertently discovered that the telephone was shut away in another room where Annie might never have access, yet she always paid all the telecom bills. In addition there were news agent bills for the daily delivery of The Times newspaper and magazines that she had been unable to read for some years as a consequence of her loss of vision in one eye and deteriorating vision in the other in addition to her inability to and concentrate on what she was reading. In spite of my frequent requests, Caldrus never produced any proper s, detailing how Annie’s pension and other income was utilised. Copies of bank statements were never made available for me to see. Caldrus in her demeanor and counter questioning considered it an affront to her integrity, as she took the moral high ground that I should wish to see these financial documents and indicated that I was treating her like a small time criminal rather than Annie’s trusted carer and friend.

Caldrus and her mother had sponged off Annie over several years prior to, and with the aid of a power of attorney. To this achievement could now be added the recent acquisition of Annie’s Enduring Power of Attorney without any interference from Annie’s family, since she had successfully concealed these activities from us. Caldrus’s sense of confidence knew no bounds with this additional success and it was not surprising that her fraudulent attempts then moved up another gear as step-by-step she attempted to further enrich herself at Annie’s expense. Naively unsuspecting, I was totally unaware of what was happening as those

human jackals were attempting to close in for their kill. Unknown to me, or any of our family at the time, Dr. Caldrus next attempted a more audacious raid on Aunt Annie’s assets in the weeks following my father’s and my birthday visit. This was not fully revealed until years later during the second high court hearings, but I will briefly outline her planned fraud here.

In August 1990, Caldrus approached a local firm of solicitors with a view to arranging for the transfer to herself of Annie Attwood’s property. This attempt by Dr. Caldrus to gift Annie’s property to herself on the basis that she might do so since she held an Enduring Power of Attorney was daylight robbery. Fortunately it aroused the solicitor’s suspicions and he stated that he needed corroboration of the property owner’s state of mind before giving consideration to this unusual request. Dr. Caldrus appeared to balk at this response and did not proceed with the matter but instead consulted a second firm of nearby solicitors. This attorney did attend Annie in her home on September 3, 1990, and his attendance notes record that he interviewed Annie in the presence of Mrs. Attwood’s friend Dr. Caldrus, whom he said assisted him when he put questions to her:“Mrs. Attwood was adamant that she wanted to have nothing to do with her relatives. It was quite clear that Mrs. Attwood regarded Dr. Caldrus as a close and trusted friend, in whom she had complete confidence.” This solicitor was, however, unwilling to proceed with Dr. Caldrus’s request to arrange for the transfer to herself of Mrs. Attwood’s property without financial consideration.

Dr. Caldrus next approached a third group of solicitors Surtees & Co with offices much further away in White Chapel Road, East London and there spoke to Mr. Michaels, showing him the Freehold Deeds of Annie’s house, 217, Iverson Road, London NW3 and the certificate of Absolute Power of Attorney executed by Annie. She then requested that the deeds be transferred into her name. After listening to her unusual request, he felt suspicious and took Dr. Caldrus to see the senior partner, Mr. Mark Surtees and asked him to look into the matter and

advise him. The value of the property was in excess of £200,000. Mr. Surtees insisted on knowing why Mrs. Attwood could not execute the transfer herself and why there was to be no transfer of money. Finding Dr. Caldrus’s replies unsatisfactory and evasive, Mr. Surtees then stated that he would need confirmatory evidence of Mrs. Attwood’s identity and her signature. He would also need to see a medical certificate from Mrs. Annie Attwood’s general practitioner attesting that she was of sound mind, memory and understanding and would need Dr. Caldrus to produce evidence of her own identity. Dr. Caldrus agreed that she could produce all the further documentation required and would return in a few days. At this point Mr. Surtees requested that Dr. Caldrus leave the property deeds with his firm to be lodged in their deeds box, “For safekeeping.” As he made this statement, Mr. Surtees handed the deeds to his clerk and short of snatching the papers out of his hands Dr Caldrus had little choice other than to agree. A few days later, Dr. Caldrus returned to the office telling Mr. Surtees that she had taken alternative legal advice and had been informed that all the additional information he had stipulated was unnecessary and if he were unable to deal with the matter, she would take back the property deeds and go to another solicitor. Mr. Surtees refused to hand back the deeds stating that he would only forward them by ed post, or courier when requested to do so by her new solicitor. Mr. Surtees kept detailed notes of all conversations with his clients.

Failing to recover the deeds, Caldrus then consulted the firm of solicitors Donald Belcher & Co. of Elgin Avenue, London W9. Donald Belcher & Co. in turn, ed Surtees & Co. and decided not to assist Dr. Caldrus further when Surtees & Co. replied on September 20, 1990. “Dr. A. Caldrus approached this firm with the deeds of 217, Iverson Road, London NW3, the property of Mrs. Annie Attwood, regarding transfer of the property into her name, with no financial consideration. We were naturally concerned and ed the Law Society who suggested that

we should the relevant department of the Local Authority and also the Court of Protection regarding this matter. On ing the Local Authority, we were informed by Mrs. M. Manning, Senior Officer of The Elderly Persons Department, that she was aware of the situation regarding Mrs. Annie Attwood’s affairs and vulnerability. They were currently trying to get a medical referral in order that Mrs. Attwood’s affairs could be taken over by the Court of Protection. It was her opinion that Mrs. Annie Attwood was a very confused person and was not in a situation to run her own affairs, or to understand what she was doing in g over a property. In these circumstances we intend to retain the Land Certificate until some more satisfactory state of affairs exists.” Having sought unsuccessfully to persuade four different firms of solicitors to act for her in respect of a gift to herself of 217, Iverson Road, it appears that Dr. Caldrus then pursued another strategy. This was to approach yet another firm of solicitors, the fifth since my August visit. The solicitors chosen, Miles and Miles of Wood Street, Barnet, had been carefully and deliberately selected since they were many miles distant to the north and far removed from West Hampstead and Iverson Road. She instructed a partner in that firm, Mr. Patrick Johnson and told him that she had been highly recommended to him by a friend of hers, Mrs. Simpson, who lived in Barnet. Dr. Caldrus added that Mrs. Simpson, had said that Mr. Johnson was reliable and his fees were very reasonable. Dr. Caldrus then gave her name and address, referred to a Power of Attorney she had held since 1986 of Mrs. Annie Attwood, a widow, aged 90. She stated that Mrs. Attwood wanted to make a will in which all should go to Dr. A. Caldrus who was to be sole executrix. When asked whether Annie had any family, Dr. Caldrus replied that she had an elderly brother in who had terminal cancer and no children and there were no other siblings or children that she knew of. These statements she knew to be flagrantly untrue. She then requested that the will be mailed to her by ed post. Again we know of this conversation from the client notes kept by Patrick Johnson. Three days after her initial meeting with Mr. Johnson, Dr. Caldrus instructed a sixth company of solicitors, a local Hampstead firm, Dan, Horace and Co. with

offices in Finchley Road, not far from Iverson Road, the solicitors that had drawn up Annie Attwood’s 1978 Will. Dr. Caldrus stated that it was Mrs. Annie Attwood’s wish to prevent Camden Social Service from continuing their efforts to have her examined by any doctor, or consultant psychogeriatrician and requesting that they inform Camden Social Service to desist and cease this activity. Unhappily for Annie and her family in Holland and Bavaria who were unaware of all that was going on at this time, this solicitors letter had its desired effect and Social Services ceased all attempts for several months to have Annie medically assessed.

* * *

Chapter 9

Having been so far unsuccessful in her attempt to have Annie’s chief asset transferred into her own name the ever resourceful Dr. Caldrus decided that if there were no honey today she would not be thwarted in her singular ambition to have it sometime very soon thereafter. Annie was aged 90 years, frail with her physical and mental health in decline. Her life expectancy could not be measured in many more years. Providing the pretence that Annie was of sound mind could be maintained for just a few more months she could be easily persuaded to make a new will in which Dr. Caldrus would inherit everything. It was essential that this strategy be put into effect as soon as possible, since time would be of the essence because of the continuing deterioration in her mental state. To involve Annie in making a new will in her favour Dr. Caldrus as a medical practitioner, albeit uned, was aware that such a document could only survive when legally challenged, providing it could stand up to full scrutiny in a court of law and only then could success be hers. She was certain that the disinherited family would react like a swarm of angry bees whose nest was raided by an interloper for its honey and would challenge the will vigorously in a court of law. It would not only need to be formally prepared by a solicitor and correctly signed and witnessed, it would be essential to demonstrate that Annie was of sound mind, compos mentis. Even this, in itself, would not be sufficient unless she could continue the charade and clearly demonstrate that Annie had testamentary capacity, the legal term that when making her will Annie knew the value of her assets, who were to be the beneficiaries and the disposition being made. To enable her strategy to succeed, detailed planning would be necessary. Caldrus had to arrange for Annie to be examined by a competent medical consultant, a geriatrician, who could be influenced sufficiently to agree that ‘Annie although

infirm and a teeny bit forgetful had testamentary capacity.’ With this plan in mind, Caldrus needed to ensure that no proficient psychogeriatrician should examine Annie. At this stage, with her Enduring Power of Attorney, Caldrus had stopped Dr. Paul from arranging a psychogeriatrician’s domiciliary visit without any great difficulty. That house call would have taken place in mid August and would have ruined her plan completely. She had instructed her solicitor to inform Camden Social Services that Mrs. Attwood refused to see any more doctors and wanted no further intrusions from doctors trying to examine her, which they unsuspectingly accepted and fully complied with until August 1991 when a letter of complaint written by me drew their attention once more to my Aunt’s plight. The stage was now set to deal with the matter of a new will and in order not to arouse any suspicion she would need to find a solicitor who was unknown to those with whom she had recently been dealing in and around West Hampstead. Dr. Caldrus visited solicitors Miles and Miles of Wood Street, Barnet, mentioning the name of one of his clients who she knew saying that that the client had recommended Mr. Patrick Johnson who was both a conscientious solicitor and very reasonable with his fee charges. With this flattering introduction she then explained the purpose of her visit and gave instructions to Patrick Johnson on behalf of Annie for a will. Mr. P. Johnson never at any time saw Annie in person to take her instruction but accepted Annie’s written instructions in Caldrus’s handwriting and signed by Annie, which stated that:

“My house at 217 Iverson Road, London NW3, all its contents and all my other assets are to be left to my friend and companion Dr. Angela Caldrus of the above address, who will also be the executrix of my estate. Should Dr. Angela Caldrus predecease me or die within 28 days of inheriting my estate, then Dr. Clara Berry will inherit my estate and become executrix of my estate.”

Signed: Annie Attwood. Although Clara Berry was Dr. Caldrus’s cousin she informed Mr. Patrick Johnson that she was a very good friend. Doubtlessly and not for the first time she wished to conceal this particular family relationship. A draft copy of the will was sent to Annie for her approval which she received on Monday October first and was returned by post the next day with a letter bearing Annie’s signature but again in Dr. Caldrus’s handwriting, requesting him to finalise the will. Two days later Mr. Johnson sent off the engrossed will with instructions for its execution, requesting that when completed it should be returned for copying and instructions for its custody. Seemingly it never bothered him that he had neither seen, nor had any conversation with, nor met his new but unknown elderly client Mrs. Annie Alicia Attwood. On October 9, 1990, the will was signed by Annie Attwood and witnessed first by Mrs. Boyle and then Mr. Boyle, neighbours living in 219, Iverson Road. Unfortunately Mr. Boyle did not sign at the bottom of the page where required, as in his opinion there was insufficient room, but on a second sheet of paper stapled to the first. Later this was termed the Boyle Will. When returned to the solicitor by Dr. Caldrus, Mr. Johnson meticulously raised the issue that the presence of one of the witness signatures on a second sheet of paper and not the first as intended might be unacceptable since it could be considered invalid under scrutiny in a court of law. Mr. Patrick Johnson arranged for a further engrossment in identical to be sent to Mrs. Annie Attwood for execution. This second engrossment was signed by Mrs. Annie Attwood and dated October 14, 1990. On this occasion her signature was witnessed by different people, two French carpenters, who signed in the correct places allocated. The signatories were brothers; Dominic Julienne and Aldo Julienne who would both shortly thereafter be returning to . This will was promptly returned to Mr. P. Johnson and received by him on October 16, 1990. It was later labelled

the Julienne Will. Much more was to be heard about the Julienne Will in the years that followed. At the time Mr. P. Johnson was never made aware that Annie Attwood had given Dr. Caldrus an Enduring Power of Attorney two months earlier, since she failed to tell him and it never occurred to him that he need ask. Mr. P. Johnson was likewise unaware that the deeds of Annie’s property had been in the hands of solicitors Surtees & Co. as a consequence of a failed attempt by Dr. Caldrus to transfer the deeds to herself in September since she likewise failed to tell him. Surtees & Co. and the several other law firms that Caldrus had ed in the past few weeks and Annie’s family were in turn blissfully unaware of the activities of Mr. Patrick Johnson on behalf of Dr. Caldrus. Although of no concern to him, Mr. P. Johnson was unaware that on Dr. Caldrus’s instruction of October 5, 1990, Mr. Hallam, solicitor of Dan Horace & Co had written to Camden Social Services telling them to cease their Social Service visits to Mrs. Annie Attwood and enclosing letters signed by Annie Attwood stating that she had no wish to be further medically examined by any doctors. Mr. Johnson had no idea that three weeks earlier Dr. Caldrus had approached solicitors Ronald Fletcher & Co in order to recover the Land Certificate which Surtees & Co were refusing to return and that this application had failed. Had Mr. Johnson been aware of these other legal involvements it is more than probable that he would have at the very least asked to see 90 year old Annie Attwood to confirm that she understood and knew what was happening to her estate. He might, or should have considered that he, or a doctor might supervise the process of witnessing her signature. Mr. Patrick Johnson would have been a little more circumspect and suspicious that not only had he never seen or spoken with his 90 year old client, but that he had received all his signed witnessed instructions in Dr. Caldrus’s handwriting always from Dr. Caldrus who was both executor and sole beneficiary of his unseen client’s estate. When this last Julienne Will was executed none of a whole coterie of legal firms and their solicitors was aware of the juggling act in which Dr. A. Caldrus was engaged and certainly I and other of Annie’s family were unaware of

this will that was to replace her 1978 will and of the legal shenanigans that were in progress.

Caldrus in my opinion could have been likened at that time to a malign spider sitting in the middle of a spider’s web enmeshing Annie with her smiling pretence of friendship, and goodness, while all the time there was a dereliction of duty to the innocent she had befriended for the sake of high pecuniary stakes as she pulled various threads tighter making others react to her bidding. She had an intelligent cunning mind that for a period of time enabled her to anticipate the most likely course that events might follow and by scheming had for a time successfully changed them to accord to her wishes. Worst of all was the slow daily drip of poison that Caldrus used. Instead of biting her victim this spider having enmeshed her prey, whispered into Annie’s ears. Nobody that I’m aware of ever witnessed these events, but I would warrant that day after day a variety of subliminal messages were incessantly delivered to my poor Aunt Annie along the lines. “Your family don’t care for you but I do, I’m your friend, they never come to see you. They’re not interested in you.” “They’re like strangers they don’t love you like me. You can trust me I’ll not let them put you in a home.” “Your brother Eric is a bandit. Don’t trust him or his children. All they want is to get you out of the way, put you in a home so that they can inherit your property, but I’m here to stop them. You can trust me.” Aunt Annie besides her increasing confusion also had some justifiable right to feel in her few lucid remaining moments that we were ignoring her. We were caught in a Morton’s cleft. Annie must have been aware that we never wrote, phoned or visited and must at these times have believed Caldrus who repeatedly told her that we no longer cared for her. Whenever we wrote to my Aunt she never saw letters, birthday cards or even Christmas cards, because Caldrus never showed them to her. We know this because we later found them in the house unopened. Just like President Richard Nixon’s tapes they survived and showed us something of what had been going on behind the scenes. Not once when we telephoned were we ever connected to Aunt Annie.

My front door key to Aunt Annie’s home that she had given me years ago no longer fitted the lock and was now useless. Caldrus knowing that Peter and I each had a key to the house barred our entry when she had locksmiths install not one, but two new complicated locks. Consequently from 1989 onwards we could only visit by ringing the door bell. Since Aunt Annie couldn’t manage either of the two locks unaided, she became a prisoner in her own home visited only by the home help and meals on wheels whose personnel had keys and no other visitor unless Dr. Caldrus was in attendance. To lock a confused old person with seriously reduced mobility in a building, all be it her own home, for hours on end without supervisory care is what Caldrus imposed on Annie and in my opinion constituted a cruel criminal act. With her declining child like cognitive capability Annie could not understand what was going on and could be brain washed more readily. When we attempted to visit from August 1990 onwards Caldrus wouldn’t let any of us into the house and no matter what we did we were compelled to stop trying, because of that abominable Enduring Power of Attorney.

Although well known that those suffering from more advanced Alzheimer’s disease are increasingly predisposed to suggestion, my family and I had to acquire information from books and health professionals relating to this illness to help us to endeavour to understand my aunt’s state of mind. Sadly we didn’t recognise these things at the time and could not comprehend why Caldrus was behaving so out of character to the amiable person we had first met four years earlier. Progressively as we became more aware of Annie’s predicament we were thwarted by Caldrus at every turn as were her social services workers. There was no aid we could provide and no way of improving the near squalid conditions of neglect in which my aunt was being compelled to live in her own home until we could break the legal spider’s web in which Dr. Caldrus had entrapped her. On November 28, 1990, my solicitor Mr. Fleming wrote to Dan, Horace & Co. who I had every reason to believe was acting for Aunt Annie, requesting permission to have an independent psychogeriatrician examine her at my expense to determine the state of her health. I had also heard from Social

Services through Mrs Margaret Manning of the letter to her from Surtees and Co. concerning the deeds of Aunt Annie’s home and asked them at the same time to confirm that there would be no dealing of any kind with my Aunt’s property. These requests were made on three separate occasions during November and December 1990 without the courtesy of a response.

* * *

Chapter 10

Dr. Caldrus knew that her scheme would fail unless there was confirmatory evidence that Annie possessed testamentary capacity not only at the time the will was engrossed and signed, but also for additional safety she had to be shown to be fully compos mentis for weeks and possibly months thereafter. In the first week of January 1991 Annie’s GP’s Dr. Paul and Dr. Singh each received a letter from solicitors Dan, Horace and Co, which stated: “We act for your patient Mrs. Annie Attwood and have been instructed to tell you that you may not discuss her state of health or other matters of a confidential nature with any third party without her express written authority. She has recently received a visit from relatives from abroad and thereafter from the Camden Social Services, whom it appears, has been involved by them. Our client wishes to have no with her relatives or Camden Social Services Department.” Dr. Paul and Dr. Singh also later described how Dr. Caldrus would pester them repeatedly at their consulting rooms to have them listen to various tape recordings between Mrs. Attwood and her, to allegedly demonstrate and confirm how lucid and normal their conversations were and that Annie had no cognitive impairment.

* * *

The Court of Protection under the office of the Public Guardian was set up as a statutory body to review the affairs of vulnerable persons and to make decisions relating to property, assets and personal welfare where necessary. The protected person, where needed, could be placed under the care of the court and decisions made for their welfare and care. (Years later in 2005 the Mental Health Act

further formalised the activities of the Court of Protection, separating it from the Office of the Public Guardian). Dr. Alexander Fuller a consultant psychiatrist and Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists one of the Lord Chancellor’s Medical Visitors was instructed to visit Annie Attwood and examine her at her home and then to report back to the court. His purpose was to determine whether Annie was fit to manage her affairs and property and was fit to arrange and sign a power of attorney. He interviewed Mrs. Margaret Manning of Camden Social Services concerning a report she had earlier sent to the Court of Protection and out of courtesy also visited Mrs. Attwood’s GP, Dr. Paul, to obtain background and current information. The Court wrote to Mrs. A. Attwood notifying her that the Lord Chancellor’s Medical Visitor Dr. Alexander Fuller, a consultant psychiatrist would attend to see her at 11 a.m. on January 18, 1991. The court received a letter 3 days later in response to the Lord Chancellor’s letter concerning Dr. Fuller’s proposed visit. It was from Annie in Dr. Caldrus’s handwriting, signed by Annie and witnessed by Mrs. Margaret Newton, of 213, Iverson Road, stating: “That she did not wish to be visited or examined by any doctors and was happy with her present arrangements.” The court replied that there was to be no change to the proposed visit, which would go ahead as planned. Dr. Fuller was provided with a dossier on the patient, a court warrant and set off for 217, Iverson Road, on the morning of January 18, 1991. Dr. Fuller reported: “I arrived at the prearranged time of 11.00 am. The front door was opened by a woman who greeted me and stated she was Dr. Caldrus. After I explained who I was and the purpose of my visit she was very amicable and showed me into the front room. She explained that she was Annie’s companion, was a medical doctor who had qualified in Bucharest, and stressed that she had Annie’s power of attorney, which she repeated several times during our conversation. I asked questions relating to Annie and herself and whenever I sought an answer to any question Dr. Caldrus evaded the issue by responding with a question.

An example was when I asked her. “Could you clarify Dr. Berry’s relationship?” She replied “You know what happened to our President Ceausecu, last year. He was deposed and shot with his wife. Is this a similar police state?” “Of course not, but we need to know is she a friend or relative?” “Why do you need to know? “The court would like to clarify this relationship.” “Will you tell me why this is such an important issue for you?” So the question remained unanswered. I have dealt with many hundreds of patients in my career and after we had been speaking in this manner for almost half an hour I realised that Dr Caldrus was muddying the water and I was being given the run around. When I reiterated that I needed to see Annie she said that I couldn’t because she had to leave right now, since as a scientist she had an important appointment to attend a scientific meeting. I stated again that I needed to see Annie and stood up and approached the stairs. At this moment her attitude changed totally. She shouted at me several times, almost screaming as her demeanor was transformed. “I want you to leave. Get out.” I then withdrew my Court Warrant from my case and showed it to her especially the section dealing with obstruction of my duties and read out that she was committing an offence by not allowing me to see Annie and would be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or a fine. Dr. Caldrus responded by yelling more aggressively and pulled my arm. She had changed from being charming and amiable to near demonic as she shouted at me. It was like the Jekyll and Hyde transformation described in H.G. Wells book. “I don’t care. I’ve already told you I’m late for my meeting and you must leave this house. Now get out! Get out!”

Rather than risk any possible further physical confrontation I grabbed my case and exited through the front door, intending to return with a police officer. Caldrus came running after me into the street, in the icy cold in slippers and without any coat, like one demented shouting at the top of her voice. “Police! Police!” It was just too incredible. I set off and hurried to what I believed was the nearest Police Station in West End Lane, showed them my identification and Court Warrant and asked for their assistance. With a police officer I returned to 217 Iverson Road. Once at the house we repeatedly rang the door bell and knocked at the door. We looked through the letter box which was low down, almost at ground level since we could hear shuffling noises inside. We could see an elderly woman using a Zimmer frame shuffle towards the locked door. Her approach was agonisingly slow and when she reached the locked door she repeatedly fumbled with the lock, but couldn’t co-ordinate her efforts sufficiently to manage to open either of the two locks in spite of our words of advice and encouragement, shouted through the letter box. A neighbour hearing the commotion advised that the home help who lived a few doors away had front door keys, but there was no response when we called. The policeman offered to kick the door in and force an entry but I felt that we might not be able to secure the front door afterwards so declined the offer.” In a written report Dr. Fuller’s failed attempt was detailed to the Assistant Master, who stated that a further visit would be arranged with a psychogeriatrician. A few days later he received a letter of complaint from Dr. Caldrus stating that his representative had arrived at the house in an intoxicated state. He then became aggressive when she attempted to protect her charge Mrs. Attwood and that she had physically to restrain and evict him and to call the police. Dr. Fuller an experienced consultant who in his career had examined many hundred patients for the Public Trust Office over a period of 25 years and many thousands throughout his professional career died some months later, but left a well documented record of the events of that day. Had he been drunk as Dr. Caldrus complained to the Assistant Master, it would seem strange that the West End Lane Police Station constabulary never noticed any signs of intoxication.

* * *

Later that week Dr. Caldrus on her own accord and expense requested a private house visit from Dr. I. Galton F.R.C.P. consultant geriatrician from St. George’s Hospital whom she knew fleetingly from a time when she had briefly worked at that hospital, to examine Annie Attwood. Apparently Annie had undergone her own personal epiphany since her letter a few days earlier to the Lord Chancellor concerning the court’s Medical Visitor Dr. Fuller when she allegedly wrote stating, “that she didn’t wish to be visited or examined by any doctors and was happy with her present arrangements.” Dr. Galton made his domiciliary house call and visited Annie on January 23, 1991. Following the consultation his report concluded: “Annie was somewhat forgetful as one might expect for a 90 year old and there was no question of a court of protection being required since Dr. Caldrus held an Enduring Power of Attorney. Although somewhat forgetful she is well able to decide for herself what she wishes to do and how she should live.” He was unaware there were many important discrepancies in the medical history he had been given by Dr. Caldrus, together with a number of irregularities relating to the consultation itself. There was no record of any psychometric testing, or a simple AMT test which would have taken very little time and would have helped determine the patient’s mental function. In addition Dr. Caldrus was constantly standing by to assist and prompt with her input whenever Annie appeared to stumble in response to questions. Certainly in the 1990’s no consultant would assent to a non emergency medical consultation without a prior written request from the patient’s medical practitioner. No consultant would be expected to examine a patient without the patient’s medical practitioner having provided a prior written summary of the medical history and further more would never have agreed to attend without the courtesy of the practitioner being present. In conclusion a consultant would always provide the patient’s practitioner with a written report of his findings with a probable diagnosis and recommended treatment. Neither Dr. Singh, nor Dr. Paul, Annie Attwood’s medical practitioners were

aware of this consultation and surprisingly neither ever received any medical report. The implication is that Caldrus, an uned medical practitioner may have led Dr. G. Galton to believe that she was both Annie’s carer and doctor. Even worse she would not have been able to provide him with any accurate detailed medical history of the patient. I later discovered that his medical report was sent only to Dr. Caldrus with a copy to Annie. Dr. Galton then made a second visit to examine Annie on February 20, 1991, and again without any communication from, or to Annie’s medical practitioners. He examined Annie and pronounced: “that she was capable of understanding her affairs and understands the Enduring Power of Attorney given to Dr. Caldrus and that both Dr. Caldrus and Dr. Berry, can handle her financial affairs.” Dr. Galton’s two visits established everything that Dr. Caldrus needed to validate the recent will by confirming that Annie had testamentary capacity and was compos mentis. If this were so in January and February then it would most certainly apply to Annie’s cognitive state three and four months earlier when the will was made. Neither of Annie’s general practitioners was ever aware of these consultations nor did they receive any medical report, or communication from Dr. Galton. Dr. Caldrus realised that she had placed herself in a potentially difficult situation with the Public Trust Office. Even though she had written and complained that their representative Dr. Fuller was drunk and aggressive, which was the reason for her refusal to give him access to interview Annie, in time others might certainly appear. Following Dr. Galton’s second visit he then wrote a report at Dr. Caldrus’s bidding to the Assistant Master of the Protection Division, Public Trust Office, in 24 Kingsway, London. Mr. E. Hurst then replied from the Protection Division on February 28, 1991: “The fact that Mrs Attwood understands she owns her own house and states she wishes to remain in her own home until she dies is not sufficient reason for concluding she is capable of understanding her affairs. What the Assistant Master wants to know is:

1.) Whether Mrs Attwood is incapable or capable of managing and istering her property and affairs by reason of mental disorder as defined in the Mental Health Act 1983. 2.) Whether she has the capacity to understand the meaning and effect of an Enduring Power of Attorney and whether it is likely she had that capacity on August 7th 1990. That is to say does she or did she realise; 2a) that the attorneys would be able to assume complete authority over her affairs. 2b) That the attorneys would be able in general to do anything with the property, which she herself would have done. 2c) That if she should be, or become mentally incapable, the Enduring Power of Attorney, would be irrevocable without confirmation by the court.”

As a consequence of this letter Dr. Galton visited Mrs Attwood for a third time. On March 9, 1991, he again examined Annie in the presence of Dr. Caldrus and wrote the following: “To Mr. E. Hurst Protection Division, Public Trust Office. Dated March 14, 1991: I consider that the answers to your questions of your letter of February 28, 1991, are as follows:

1. Mrs. Attwood is incapable of managing and istering her property and effects. This is by reason of mental disorder, which in her case is poor short-term memory. She is a very elderly physically frail lady who is determined to maintain her independence. 2. I found that it was not possible to enable Mrs Attwood to concentrate and attend sufficiently to precisely the parts a) to c) of question 2.

She said of Dr. Caldrus “I trust her” on several occasions and of her brother “I

have nothing to do with my brother he’s a bandit. My brother has no right to do things against me.” I am convinced that Mrs. Attwood understands the meaning and effect of the Enduring Power of Attorney. Dr. Caldrus keeps separate purses for Mrs Attwood’s money and her own and showed me receipts of money she had spent on Mrs Attwood’s behalf. She showed me Mrs. Attwood’s cheque book and paying in book and in my presence explained to her the need to pay a recent electricity bill and had her sign a cheque from her cheque book for Dr. Caldrus to pay the bill on her behalf.

I have no doubt in my mind that Dr. Caldrus is a conscientious and wellmeaning person and would be very surprised indeed if she is deliberately mishandling, or manipulating Mrs Attwood’s affairs to her own advantage.

I hope that this will be useful to the Public Trust Office and the Assistant Master. Yours sincerely, Dr. I. Galton F.R.C.P.” Little did Dr. Galton realise that the day would come, although many years later, when the glaring absence of the protocol of obtaining a previous medical history from Annie’s general practitioner would rebound upon him in an excruciatingly embarrassing manner in the High Court of Justice. Further more in the light of subsequent events it would appear surprising that Dr. Galton failed to conduct a simple psychometric test, while his singular reliance upon Dr. A. Caldrus during his domiciliary visits for a medical history and for assistance when questioning Annie was a conflict of interest since his visits and reports were remunerated by Dr. Caldrus. Moreover, how very naïve of Dr Galton once shown a purse, a cheque book and paying in book to assume that all was financially in order. Surely it might have been more responsible to see the previous three or six months bank statements to derive any idea of what might have been happening with Annie’s finances.

In May 1991 Annie had fallen yet again. The home help had discovered Annie alone in her home in great pain and summoned an ambulance. She was taken to hospital where the fractured hip she had sustained was surgically repaired. On August 3, 1991, the home help once more found Annie sprawled on the floor with no-one else in the house having suffered a further fall and again summoned an ambulance to take her to the Royal Free Hospital where she was itted. Annie had no recollection of the event and no cause could be established. The itting diagnosis was: 1) Collapse, Cause Unknown: 2) Confused and unable to cope at home. During her hospital stay she was again given an AMTS (abbreviated mental test score) and achieved a score of 3 out of 10. The hospital recorded that Mrs. Annie Attwood had severe cognitive impairment.

When discharged from hospital on August 5, 1991, follow up consultations and visits had been recommended involving a respite ission under Dr. A. Wilton in the department of Medicine for the elderly, Princess Alexandra’s Hospital, where ission had been arranged for September 5, until October 10, 1991 and an ambulance had been booked to convey her to the hospital. The issions letter detailing this information was sent to Dr. Caldrus and to Annie’s G.P’s Dr.’s Paul and Singh. Dr. A. Wilton’s ission arrangements were implemented and on September 5th Annie was itted to The Princess Alexandra Hospital for The Aged to commence her planned five-week respite stay. The hospital ission records stated that: “The respite patient is demented and hard of hearing.” On September 9, 1991, Ms Ethel Edwards from Camden Council Home Care phoned the hospital to enquire why Annie had been itted. She stated that she was to be ed at least one week before Annie was discharged home to provide sufficient time to restore the essential package of home help care required by Annie. In spite of this clear instruction Camden Council Home Care

were never informed of the discharge. On September 9, 1991, just four days after Annie’s ission, the hospital records state: ‘Emergency Discharge home at 8pm. Carers transported patient home by car.’ Dr. Berry was the carer who collected her. Annie was not taken back to her home in Iverson Road, but for some inexplicable reason she was driven by car to Dr. Berry’s home at 17, Tudor Rose Road, in New Barnet. The Home Care Service Manager Peter Clarke complained in a letter to Dr. Caldrus dated October 7, 2011, “It is impossible for this department to provide a Home Help and Meals on Wheels service to Mrs. Attwood, if we are not provided with details of her movements and current whereabouts.” In the first week of August 1991 I had flown to London with the express purpose of visiting Aunt Annie to be with her on August 11th her ninety first birthday. Carrying a large bunch of summer flowers I rang the doorbell to her flat. After a pause I rang again and when there was no response I knocked on the door, first once then repeatedly time and again, but Dr. Caldrus would not let me into the house. I knew she was there for I caught glimpses of her lurking behind the front room curtains. I returned later that day and then at other times, but she always denied me entry to Aunt Annie’s home to see her. I returned at different times of the day on successive days for more than two weeks, hoping, even praying that if not Dr. Caldrus somebody might show a little decency or comion to let me in to see my aunt. Since I no longer had a key to the front door of the house there was nothing that I could do but go away. Beaten and dejected, I felt worse than an unwanted door to door salesman. The situation had become absolutely intolerable. There was no doubt in my mind that on a daily basis Annie was being severely neglected by Dr. Caldrus, yet I and other of our family were being denied access to help her because of an Enduring Power of Attorney, which my aunt had probably never understood in the first place. Out of concern for my Aunt’s well being and in utter frustration I wrote in the last week of August 1991 to Mrs. Manning of the Camden Social Services with an identical letter to Mr. Hurst of the Protection Division, Public Trust Office.

I pleaded that the Power of Attorney held by Dr. Caldrus needed to be removed immediately because of Dr. Caldrus’s gross dereliction of duty in the care of Annie Attwood. I added that it was my firm belief that at the time this Power of Attorney had been given in August 1990 my Aunt’s cognitive impairment was such that she was unable to understand what she was doing. I explained that all I wished to do was to arrange for Annie to receive proper and more responsible 24 hour care either in her own home or in a suitable nursing or residential home. In response to my written entreaty Dr. Caldrus was informed in writing from the Protection Division, Public Trust Office that a Director of Social Services had been allocated to visit Mrs. Attwood on October 8, 1991, and had informed Dr. Caldrus of the intended visit in order to arrange access and to again indicate the penalties that might be incurred if access to Annie was denied. Since there had been no attempt to implement penalties when Caldrus had obstructed Dr. Fuller ten months earlier it seemed an idle threat. The menace of possible penalties was no longer her main concern. Caldrus knew that there could be no repeat of the manner in which she had dealt with Dr. Fuller a few months earlier and there could be no further refusal of access to the Social Services personnel. It seemed as though Caldrus had entered a fixated compulsive state to avoid having Annie examined at almost any cost. On September 9, 1991, Dr. Caldrus made her response to the probing by the Camden Social Services and the proposed visit from the Court of Protection. Her riposte was to cancel Annie’s home help, daily nurse visit, and meals on wheels and decamp with Annie. She moved her away to a clandestine destination out of reach of any official who might in any way examine Annie’s mental state and in so doing jeopardise her well prepared plans. Assisted by her cousin Dr. Clara Berry, they removed this frail confused 91 year old lady from the Princess Alexandra Hospital for the Aged, in Paddington, without notifying Annie’s family, the Court of Protection, or Camden Social Services. Bundled into a car Annie was driven to New Barnet to live in a totally unfamiliar environment in a room at 17 Tudor Rose Road, the family home of Dr. Clara Berry to avoid with any unwanted prying visitors, without notifying, or seeking permission from her next of kin.

Frail patients seriously compromised with Alzheimer disease become increasingly stressed and confused with any major change of care and it is well established that there is a higher incidence of mortality soon after any such dramatic environmental change. There is little doubt in my mind that this may well have been a contributory factor in what happened next to my aunt. During the first week of October, within three weeks of her removal from hospital, Annie’s condition deteriorated. No record has ever been found to suggest that an outside doctor was ever called in to see her. There was no evidence to suggest that Caldrus or Berry had at any time sought medical help as Annie’s condition worsened, or that they attempted to obtain any antibiotic to help combat her respiratory infection, or medication that might in any way have given some ease in her last hours. As she sickened, her breathing became more laboured. There was no attempt at palliative care and then when she died she was alone in the unfamiliar room she had been allocated to live in for the remaining days of her life. She was far removed from her own familiar home, family and friends, with none to give her any comfort in deeds, or words. At no time did Caldrus ever attempt to notify Annie’s family of her deterioration or death. Where was the comion that a friend might have provided, for was this not the action of a fiend now totally corrupted by greed? Her body was still warm when Dr’s Caldrus and Berry telephoned for an ambulance to take her to Barnet General Hospital. An ambulance summoned to a house to take a sick person to hospital will not remove the body of a deceased person. Somehow Caldrus and Berry were able through a mixture of pleading and cajoling managed to persuade the ambulance operatives to overlook normal regulations and remove the recently deceased to hospital assuring them that they would closely follow by car. On arrival at the Barnet General Hospital the SHO, senior house officer on duty in the Accident and Emergency department recorded that: “Accompanying friends stated that the deceased was Mrs. Annie Attwood aged 91years. Mrs. Annie Attwood had died at home, the death had been witnessed by her great niece.” He was told that she had been bed ridden for years and when he asked for the name of Mrs. Attwood’s doctor the response was that she had no doctor, a further patently misleading statement. Annie did not die in her own

home, had not been bedridden for years and there was no great niece in England. An autopsy followed and the cause of death was given as:

1) Bronchopneumonia. 2) Congestive Cardiac Failure. 3) Aortic Stenosis.

The brain showed marked changes consistent with Alzheimer’s disease. Annie died on October 8, 1991, and the last time she had been seen and examined by her GP, Dr. Paul was August 3, 1991, when she had been found collapsed at home. Once death has occurred and the deceased has not been seen by a doctor within the previous three weeks, the matter is always referred to the coroner. Dr. Guarder as the coroner’s officer was notified by the hospital SHO and he correctly authorised an autopsy. The great shame was that he failed to hold an inquest investigating the unusual circumstances surrounding the previous days leading to her demise.

In the last week of September I telephoned the Princess Alexandra Hospital to enquire into my aunt’s well being and was astonished to learn that she had been discharged three weeks earlier. Every attempt that I then made to her or to determine her whereabouts met with the same response from her GP, social services and the court of protection, none of who were able to assist me. My worst nightmare now enveloped me for Aunt Annie had seemingly disappeared completely. The police visited 217, Iverson Road, at my request on successive days and reported that the house appeared to be empty. In a mounting state of anxiety I received no further information concerning Annie’s whereabouts until October 11, 1991, when I received a phone call from Annie’s GP, Dr Singh, who informed me that the coroner, Dr Guarder had just notified her of Annie’s death

the previous day. At no time did Dr. Caldrus notify me of my Aunt’s death or proposed funeral arrangements in order that I and other family might be present at the interment. Unforgivably, she later claimed that with her Enduring Power of Attorney she had the right to deny us access to this information. The taxpayer through Camden Council paid for the funeral, arranged by a Hampstead undertaker. Eventually when I was able to speak to Dr. Caldrus on the phone, the heartless woman also refused to disclose where my aunt was buried. Dr. Caldrus’s action in removing Annie from the hospital and her home in this manner demonstrated a complete lack of consideration and an absence of any affection or concern for her alleged friend. It was my opinion then and remains to this day that Dr. Caldrus’s behaviour abetted by her cousin was despicable and bordered on the criminal.

* * *

Chapter 11

Erroneously as it turned out, I believed that the bizarre circumstances surrounding Aunt Annie’s abduction from her hospital bed and premature death in a strange house in New Barnet would be dealt with during the trial before Mr. Justice McIntyre, but this did not happen. Following the failure of our appeal I finally summoned the courage to investigate making a police complaint, which while living in Holland was not a simple matter. Peter Vanderzan and I made a formal complaint to the police concerning the unusual and distressing circumstances surrounding Aunt Annie’s last few days of life. We asked that they officially rule out the possibility of foul play. The police were most courteous and helpful and in 2000 in spite of the time lapse of almost 9 years the West Hampstead Constabulary commenced their enquiries into Annie’s death. They were ed by the Serious Crime Squad in Barnet and by the summer of 2002 informed us that the forensic report into Annie’s death was inconclusive and that the Crown Prosecution Service felt there was insufficient evidence for a successful prosecution of Dr. Caldrus over the death of Mrs. Attwood. These were hardly the words of comfort that we were seeking. They had however uncovered some disturbing evidence when they had travelled to to take statements from the Julienne brothers. They had interviewed them on three separate occasions and taken written statements from both brothers which ed the belief that the Julienne Will had not been properly witnessed. The statements were briefly as follows:

1. Neither brother had witnessed Mrs. Annie Attwood g her will on October 14, 1990. 2. They itted g a document for Dr. A. Caldrus not knowing what it was and did not recall seeing Mrs. Attwood’s signature on the document. They

itted that they hardly understood English and did not know the nature of the document they were g. 3. Mrs. Annie Attwood was certainly not present when they signed the document. 4. In December 1992 and during the following week, Dr. A. Caldrus had ed them on several occasions by telephone asking that they confirm in writing that they had witnessed Mrs. Annie Attwood’s signature to the will and each of them had repeatedly refused. 5. The letters Dr. A. Caldrus had produced in her evidence in July 1998 at the Royal Courts of Justice before Mr Justice McIntyre written and signed in November 1994, by each of the Julienne brothers confirming their correct attestation of Annie Attwood’s signature on Oct 14th 1990, were not written by them. They claimed that they were not living at the time at the address shown on the headed notepaper and had not lived there for more than a year. They stated emphatically that the signatures on the notepaper were not theirs and were forged. 6. Aldo Julienne claimed that the witness signature on the Enduring Power of Attorney granted by Annie Attwood to Dr. A. Caldrus dated August 8, 1990, was not his signature and that he had never witnessed Annie g the document and that the signature was forged.

Having heard all this irrefutable Police evidence Deputy Master Reid of The Legal Service Commission granted an indefinite stay of execution of the costs order against Peter Vanderzan pending the outcome of his next Appeal Application. If Aldo Julienne’s signature on the Enduring Power of Attorney was not his it must therefore have been a forgery as he claimed and it must follow that the document had never been valid.

* * *

Chapter 12

Although unhappy at the inability of the police to prosecute Caldrus over Aunt Annie’s death, there can be little doubt at our relief to have received these police reports relating to the Julienne Will. Firstly we now had irrefutable proof of something that I had long suspected. Dr. Caldrus was an inherently untrustworthy woman. With the police report we knew that the Julienne Will would no longer be valid and we could make application to appeal the July 1998 Royal Courts of Justice decision of Mr. Justice McIntyre. Our solicitor had notified us that a second appeal application was unheard of and should we succeed it would enter legal history. Our application for a hearing date was made in July 2003, and it was almost a year later before we received news of a judgement in May 2004, that we could make an Application to Appeal against Justice McIntyre’s order of July 1998.

Appeal Application 2:

On May 2, 2004 at The Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London, we made our second Application to Appeal against Justice McIntyre’s order of July 1998, before: Lord Justice Wold, Lord Justice Walker and Lady Justice Shale. The appellant was my ex, Peter Vanderzan represented by Messrs Coombe Matthews Solicitors and Henry King, Barrister and the respondent, Dr. Angela Caldrus. The decision to permit a retrial as an alternative to the mediation that the Law Lords at one point considered, hinged mainly on the substantial costs awarded against P. Vanderzan when Justice McIntyre pronounced judgement for the Julienne Will. With the recent Police evidence showing the Julienne Will to be tainted, the legal fees against P. Vanderzan were no longer valid, even though they believed the court would still accept the 1990 Boyle Will. As the Judges concluded, “This fresh police evidence has to be itted. While it would invalidate the Julienne Will due to the allegations of fraud, the earlier Boyle Will of Oct. 9th 1990, would prevail. While it appears that Dr. Angela Caldrus was capable of deceit, Justice McIntyre’s conclusions had rested on the proof of Annie Attwood’s testamentary capacity provided by the professional witnesses other than the views held and provided by Dr. Caldrus. Since there was the earlier Boyle Will of October 9, 1990, which was identical to the Julienne Will except for the different witnesses it was unlikely that the finding in favour of Dr. Caldrus would change, but a retrial, would have the effect of removing the cost element incurred by Peter Vanderzan.”

Nine months later on February 17, 2005, Judgement was handed down by Lord Justice Wold, on behalf of Lord Justice Wold, Lord Justice Walker and Lady Justice Shale.

The Law Lords Judgement Decision was that Peter Vanderzan’s Appeal was successful. The Court of Appeal set aside Justice McIntyre’s order including the order that P. Vanderzan pay Dr. A. Caldrus’s costs and remitted the action for a retrial and ordered the costs of the trial be set aside to be dealt with at the retrial and ordered that Dr. A. Caldrus should pay the cost of Peter Vanderzan’s appeals. This was now 13 years after Annie’s death and to our immense relief, we no longer had to be concerned about the huge debt of court costs. Dr. A. Caldrus had applied for and received civil legal aid from the Legal Services Commission prior to the first probate trial. Once in possession of her legal aid certificate this would have covered the legal costs of advice and representation in court by counsel. To obtain this certificate, Dr. Caldrus had to show that she was unable to afford to pay for her legal costs. She would have needed to provide details of her income, benefits, savings and property. Having provided this information she then swore an affidavit in September 1997 attesting to the truth of her statements, following which legal aid was granted. In 2006 it was revealed that Dr. Angela Caldrus had failed to mention properties that she owned in Bucharest and elsewhere in Rumania and the income derived from these assets when she had sworn her affidavit in 1997. In July 2007 the Legal Services Commission Senior Costs Judge, R. Masters, investigated the matter. He ruled that Dr. Caldrus’s public funding certificate should be suspended and stated. “That the evidence Dr. Angela Caldrus had given was evasive and unreliable.”

* * *

Chapter 13

Although we had obtained permission for a retrial, we were a long way from obtaining a successful outcome. We had to prove that Aunt Annie lacked testamentary capacity in 1990, which meant refuting all the accumulated evidence that Mr. Justice McIntyre had accepted and only once this had been achieved would the earlier will succeed. The date for a case management conference to fix a time for the retrial was postponed since Dr. Caldrus, in the summer of 2005, issued a Petition to the House of Lords to appeal against the February 17, 2005, decision of the Court of Appeal to order a retrial. Dr. Caldrus was notified in February 2006, that her House of Lords Petition was refused. At this juncture we were then ready to proceed, but the court immediately received a request from Dr. A. Caldrus’s solicitors to adjourn the proceedings on the grounds of her ill health. This was the first of a steady stream of delaying tactics on various alleged grounds of ill health. A solicitor’s letter dated March 27, 2006, with an accompanying medical certificate stated she was suffering from a chest infection, varying from lobar pneumonia to bronchitis. There followed further delays owing to Caldrus’s claim of ill health due variously from low blood pressure to suspected angina and coronary artery heart disease, which would require extensive and time consuming investigation. Even so the case management conference date was fixed for September 18, 2006, and following that, a trial date was to be set for November 19, 2007. The pre-trial review was conducted by Mr. Justice F. Barrington on November 14, 2007, and since Dr. Caldrus’s legal aid certificate had been withdrawn, her legal representatives were generously working on a pro bono basis. A few days later Dr. A. Caldrus’s counsel produced further medical certificates, this time stating she was suffering from Stress and Tinnitus caused by Labyrinthitis and requesting further postponement of the trial since she was no longer fit to attend court or to prepare her defence. Further certificates appeared siting illness of Dr. A. Caldrus’s mother and claiming Dr. A. Caldrus was suffering from depression. The only suggested illness not cited at this time by Caldrus appeared to be housemaid’s knee, although in time it is probable that this too might have been

put forward. On the trial date, Dr. Berry appeared in court stating that Dr. A. Caldrus had collapsed on her way to court and had been taken to The Royal Free hospital where she had been itted. Counsel requested that a doctor appointed by the court be sent to examine Dr Caldrus in hospital. This doctor’s findings were conveyed back to the court and revealed that Dr Caldrus was suffering from no abnormality and was fit to attend court. A revised date for a further hearing was arranged and a trial date set for April 5, 2008 with an estimated seven days length of hearing. Judge David Davies stated. “Dr. Caldrus has to understand that there has to be a resolution to these proceedings. Justice must be done between both parties and must bring proceedings to a conclusion.” In the words of the late Dr. Fuller, psychiatrist, written of Caldrus in January 1991, “I realised she was giving me the run around.” Dr. Caldrus was still up to her old tricks with a multiplicity of certificated medical excuses which were barely worth the paper they were written on in her last ditch attempts to avoid appearing in court. There were further endeavours at postponement and delay, all finally to no avail, although I and other family incurred considerable non recoverable additional expense in air travel and hotel accommodation travelling back and forth to London when court hearings were postponed at short notice time and again due to some indisposition upon the part of Caldrus, or her mother.

* * *

Chapter 14

Solicitors, Coombe, Matthews of Grays Inn Square London WC1, who had represented us for our second appeal, were doing a magnificent job, taking preparatory statements and unearthing information from Camden Social Services that might have been, but was never made available in 1998, with the object of preparing a comprehensive dossier of evidence. One of their solicitors Mr. Roberts interviewed Annie’s GP, Dr. Paul, at 10 a.m. on October 16, 2006, at a Residential Home, just north of Swiss Cottage where he held the post of medical director. Mr Roberts told me of the conversation that followed after he had taken Dr. Paul’s witness statement. “Dr. Paul offered me a cup of coffee which I accepted. It had always been my experience that I learned far more from a witness in the more relaxed atmosphere at the conclusion of a meeting over a casual cup of tea, or coffee, than was forthcoming when taking the more formal witness statement. This meeting with Annie’s former medical practitioner was no exception.” “As the coffee was being prepared he offered to show me round the home, which I accepted. He was very proud of this purpose built facility which had opened in 1991. After my brief tour we sat in a small bright office fronting on to the busy Finchley Road, the double glazed windows closed to reduce the roar emanating from the constant scurrying stream of mid morning traffic.” Dr. Paul was at pains to explain. “This is one of four care homes that my wife and I have opened since 1970. In each of our facilities there has always been a strict company policy that staff may not witness a resident’s signature or participate in any way in the preparation, or delivery of a will, or any other legal document. Furthermore they are not permitted to borrow, or accept any object whether clothing, cosmetics, or gift of any kind from a resident. Of course when a resident leaves, or at Christmas time when gifts are customarily exchanged whether it’s a box of chocolates, or a monetary gift the rules are that they must be handed to the manager to be shared out equally among all the staff.”

“In spite of our rules, occasionally we see other kinds of abuse. People can be very devious in their attempts to exploit the frail elderly, even the residents in our care; you’d hardly credit what sometimes goes on.” “Try me.” “In almost forty years of general practice I could write a book on all that I’ve seen personally and heard from colleagues of the manner in which people take advantage of the elderly. Providing you have a few minutes to spare let me tell you of a few that readily come to mind.” By this time our coffee and some chocolate coated digestive biscuits, my favourites, had arrived and I asked him to continue. “The very first case I experienced was when I was a newly qualified house physician in Mexborough, a Yorkshire mining town. My patient was a former collier, who just a few weeks earlier had undergone an above knee amputation due to poor circulation in his leg resulting from a combination of years of smoking and poorly controlled diabetes. He’d been transferred from the surgical ward for a period of medical stabilisation before returning home. A widower in his early 50’s, he lived in a council house in which several of his young adult children still lived. When sufficiently recovered and his diabetes stabilised, the time came for him to be discharged home. I arranged for follow up assistance from social services, wrote a discharge summary to his GP and organised an ambulance to transport him home. My parting words of encouragement as he set off homeward bound in the ambulance that morning, were that he must keep to his diet and not smoke any more.” “To my amazement he reappeared at the hospital and was itted to my ward that same afternoon. The story was that when he’d arrived outside his home, the ambulance driver rang the front door bell. Two of his children appeared at the upstairs window and in no uncertain told the ambulance crew that they had no intention of opening the front door. They didn’t want any one legged invalid living in their home whether it was their father, or not and that they should take him back to the hospital where he belonged. Some days later when in dire need of the medical bed that he was blocking, he was transferred to a council home for the elderly. He was still 52 years old.” “One of our residents in this home had a former neighbour who would take him

out for lunch each week. Regular as clockwork the neighbour turned up in his car and off to lunch the pair would speed away. It was most commendable behaviour on the part of his neighbour and an outing that our resident greatly looked forward to and enjoyed. You’d believe there was nothing to cause any concern, providing he returned safely to the home in time for his evening meal, but you’d be wrong.” “At the end of lunch our resident, in return for being taken out would offer to pay the bill. With a bottle of wine it was a bit pricy, but it was a good restaurant and so it was acceptable. The next week by coincidence they met up with another friend and our resident again paid the bill. This went on month after month with more and more so called friends meeting just by chance, ing the group and the same resident paying for the meal. This continued until an observant bank manager querying the unexpected drain of many hundreds of pounds from the resident’s each month spoke to the next of kin. They quite naturally asked the home’s manager for an explanation. She in turn looked into what was happening and soon put a stop to the lunch outings with that particular friend.” “A variant of that same ruse was perpetrated by a resident who was taken out by a family member to do a little shopping. At the check out counter the family member claimed she didn’t have sufficient to pay and the resident offered. “Let me!” which without hesitation she accepted graciously.” “These weekly outing to do a little shopping were then followed by a light lunch and continued for several months. Nobody in the home was aware of anything untoward going on with our resident paying for the weekly shopping of a family of five people until somebody noticed the impact it was having on her dwindling bank .” “With advancing years and increasing frailty many senior citizens seem to lose the ability to realise that they have also lost their cognitive ability to be on their guard against the villainy that might confront them and can be persuaded to part with money or possessions without demur. The thrifty individual who under normal circumstances would have been careful when giving a pound to charity in of a starving child, or an abused animal rapidly becomes more amenable and can be persuaded to part with a fortune for any one of a number of good causes long before a formal diagnosis of Alzheimer’s has ever been made.”

“Another case that caused considerable angst was the resident who had a number of cheques stolen from her cheque book in her bedroom, her signature forged and the cheques cashed resulting in the resident losing a considerable sum of money before any one realised what had been happening. The resident hadn’t noticed that the cheques were missing and never checked her bank statements. The family were most upset. Once the home manager was informed, the police were called in and the atmosphere of suspicion that pervaded the home was, as you can imagine, awful. Many months ed before the thief was found. Fortunately it wasn’t a member of staff. I don’t know how the family identified the resident’s grandson as the culprit, but it was all most embarrassing.” “Yes I believe I understand the nature of some of the problems that beset some of the elderly.” “We were caring for a resident in her early 80’s with dementia in one of our homes whose closest family was her married niece who lived about two hours drive away by car and would visit once a month. The resident’s condition deteriorated and she died. A younger neighbour who was a regular visitor attended to pay her last respects at the same time as the undertaker was visiting to remove the body. As she was about to leave the building it was noticed that she had a large black shopping bag. The manager, who was standing in reception at the time and being of a somewhat suspicious nature, enquired what the neighbour had in her shopping bag. She itted to having taken a cashmere blanket from the room which had belonged to the deceased and which she claimed she had been given. With little encouragement she was persuaded to return it. The following day the family arrived and upon checking the resident’s inventory of possessions all appeared in order until a silver charm bracelet was spotted. “That’s strange,” observed the niece. “Auntie never wore silver because she said it gave her a skin rash, it was like an allergy. She did wear a beautiful gold heirloom bracelet inherited from our grandmother, which appears to be missing.” Senior care staff was questioned and one ed that the silver charm bracelet had appeared on the scene only a few days earlier. In the presence of the niece, the manager telephoned the neighbour who itted that her friend had given her the gold heirloom as a keepsake, in return for which she had swopped the silver charm bracelet.”

“Well I’ve the deceased’s family standing by my side and if you don’t have that gold bracelet here within fifteen minutes, I’m calling the police.” “Whether you believe in miracles, or not, the gold bracelet somehow reappeared within the stipulated time.” “Only last week in another of our homes an elderly resident ed away. She had no children but her goddaughter who was a regular visitor claimed that she had a power of attorney. Following the resident’s death the goddaughter stated that it was her intention, aided by some friends to clear the room, which contained a number of valuable paintings, as soon as possible. The manager phoned the solicitor who was responsible for paying the resident’s to notify him of the resident’s demise. It was then that he instructed the manager that he alone was in possession of this client’s enduring power of attorney and that the bedroom was to be kept locked until he could deal with the matter.” “We were alerted to an early problem when Geraldine, one of our former managers a retired 72 year old nurse was itted to the Chase Farm Hospital in Enfield, when she sustained a fall in which she suffered a fractured hip. Following a successful surgical repair she remained in hospital for almost two weeks. On her discharge in November 1989 she left a tip in an envelope with the ward sister for her staff. Upon opening the envelope the ward sister who knew that Geraldine had until recently been in our employ ed us to say that she felt a mistake had been made and was returning the cheque. It had been made out for £500, when a gratuity of £10 would have been considered generously adequate. Not many months later we realised that Geraldine had developed pronounced symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease.” “I believe that Annie as part of her illness succumbed to increased suggestibility. Annie had worked hard for every pound she’d scraped together and was very proud that she now owned her own home. She’d been brought up with the attitude that her crowning achievement was to leave all that she possessed to her surrogate children, her brother’s children, particularly her niece Barbara. That of course was before Dr. Caldrus came on the scene.” “With the elderly the predicament is that alongside increasing difficulties with vision, hearing and mobility they often feel side lined and invariably experience great loneliness. Villainy often follows when an individual provides the catalyst to remedy the relative isolation experienced by an older person and is even more

prevalent where there is unrecognised mental impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease. This was one of the categories into which Annie fitted.” “Another case that I was a former head master who was itted to our Enfield care home only last year with early Alzheimer’s disease. A childless widower, he had been befriended by a widowed friend of his late wife. Two of her three adult children had moved into his home as lodgers. As his confusion increased he had been persuaded to grant a power of attorney to one of the lodgers, a thirty two year old male. By the time he was itted he had been persuaded to give up his main bedroom and was living in appalling conditions in what had been the box room in his own home, his bank had been denuded of funds and he repetively complained to the home manager and any other staff who would listen that he couldn’t understand what was happening to him, or where all his money had gone. The Court of Protection were informed, the police called in and while there was no recovery of his missing funds at least these people were no longer able to take further advantage of an increasingly vulnerable old man.” “As we drank our leisurely cup of coffee Dr. Paul revealed something that was an unexpected bonus. He had retained Mrs. Attwood’s medical notes and correspondence. He explained. “I felt that after the Vanderzan’s had failed in 1998 in their challenge to Annie’s 1990 will that a terrible injustice had been perpetrated since Annie was suffering from dementia and this had not been recognised by the court. I felt the notes might prove invaluable whenever the Vanderzan family chose to challenge Mr. Justice McIntyre’s decision.” “He offered to make the records available, which I accepted on behalf of Coombe, Matthews. He also gave me his opinion that the Vanderzan family urgently needed a first class psychogeriatrician to counter the evidence of Dr. Galton.” “It was and still remains my opinion that Annie had lost testamentary capacity well before 1990. The Vanderzan’s need an expert to review the evidence and demonstrate to the court that without doubt, Annie was incapable of making and understanding her will in 1990, contrary to the opinion given by Dr. Caldrus’s geriatrician Dr. Galton who through his own failing, never had access to Mrs. Attwood’s medical history.” “I’m certain that Jonathan Barry, who will be acting as counsel for the

Vanderzan family, will have looked into this, but is there any one you could suggest?” “My son is a consultant psychogeriatrician who I could strongly recommend, but he would never agree to act in this case because there might be the suggestion of a conflict of interest. If you wish I’ll have him telephone you with the name of a colleague he can recommend?” “Thank you Dr. Paul, I should appreciate you asking him to give me a call.” As we were parting company at the front door he said. “By the way Mr. Roberts I omitted to tell you that another of my elderly patients a widow, Mrs. Lillian Manners who lived in Cavendish Road and was looked after for a number of years by a carer died a couple of years after I retired from my medical practice. My secretary phoned to tell me that her next of kin were most upset to discover that the property in which she lived had been left to her carer. I know nothing more about the case but it would seem that this sort of problem is possibly far more widespread than any of us suspect.”

* * *

Chapter 15

As with the hearing ten years earlier, the Second Trial took place at The Chancery Division of The Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand. There, any similarity ended. In 1998 when walking through the magnificent portals of the court of justice I was, to put it bluntly, absolutely terrified. Maybe it was some sort of premonition that our case would go badly. On the morning of April 5, 2008, the street vendor at the kerbside outside the court was displaying his wares of tulips and daffodils. Spring was in the air, which heightened my feeling of confidence. We knew the nature of our opponent and this time as I climbed the long flight of stone steps to our allocated court my feet felt as though they were on air for I sensed that we might at last be able to turn the table on our adversary. Our hearing, allocated to court number four before Mr. Justice Barrington lasted until April 16, 2008. The Claimant as previously was Mr. Peter Vanderzan, nephew by marriage of Mrs. Annie Attwood, represented by solicitors Coombes and Matthews and barrister Jonathan Barry. The Defendant was Dr. Angela Caldrus, friend of Mrs. Annie Alicia Attwood deceased who represented herself.

In brief, this was the long delayed retrial of a probate action 17 years after the death of Mrs Annie Attwood and was to determine once again which of Mrs Annie Attwood’s three wills should be itted for probate. In the earlier trial before Mr. Justice McIntyre in 1998 the due execution of the 1990 Julienne will was conceded by Mr. Vanderzan and the trial concentrated on Annie Attwood’s testamentary capacity. Mr. Justice McIntyre, largely on the evidence of the geriatric consultant Dr. I. Galton found in favour of Dr. Caldrus following which the Julienne Will was accepted for probate. The claimant was then refused leave to appeal.

An investigation by the police in 2002 threw doubt upon the legality of the

Julienne will following which the claimant Mr. P. Vanderzan, for an unprecedented second time, applied for permission to appeal Mr. Justice McIntyre’s decision. The appeal was successful and an order was granted for a retrial. Dr. Caldrus chose to represent herself in court since she no longer had the benefit of a public funding certificate. In spite of repeated delays to the start of the retrial, on the grounds of Dr. Caldrus’s claimed persistent ill health the judge observed that at no time once the trial started did Dr. Caldrus show any evidence of earlier health problems, or of being in any way unwell. At the conclusion of the trial the judge also made known in open court his observations concerning Dr. Caldrus. “I have found Dr. Caldrus to be calculating and manipulative and some of her answers untruthful.” In spite of this opinion, he went to great lengths to assist her in the presentation of her evidence and in the manner in which she cross examined witnesses. The one thing he wanted to avoid was the possibility that he might in any manner be considered to have been unfair to the defendant. Mr. Justice Barrington dealt with the validity of the 1990 wills. The two Julienne brothers, who had signed the October 14, 1990, will as witnesses were French and at the time neither of them could read English and one of them could hardly speak or understand the language. Their evidence about the event, which was understandably vague, was that at the time they did not know they were witnessing a will. They did not recall seeing Annie Attwood’s signature or see her sign anything and they did not sign in her presence. Despite their evidence raising doubts about what happened, the Judge held that it was not sufficient to rebut the presumption arising from the standard attestation clause contained in the wills that both the 1990 wills were duly executed. The only other witness able to give evidence, Mrs. P. Boyle was contradictory. Eighteen years had elapsed and with time her memory could no longer be relied upon. Mr. Justice Barrington stated that the main consideration had to be whether, when making these wills in 1990, Annie possessed testamentary capacity. The main witness in of this apart from the medical evidence given by Dr. Caldrus and her cousin Dr. Berry came from Dr. Galton, FR a consultant in

Geriatric Medicine at St. George’s Hospital who was the most senior medical witness and also the chief witness in the 1998 McIntyre trial. Dr. I. Galton first visited Mrs. Attwood six days after the failed visit by Dr. Fuller as the Lord Chancellor’s Medical Visitor at the direction of the Court of Protection. This visit was made at the request and expense of Dr. Caldrus in spite of her having written to the Court of Protection on behalf of Annie, with Annie’s signature just three days before Dr. Fuller’s visit stating that Annie did not want to be visited by any doctors. Mr. Justice Barrington declared that he was very unconvinced concerning the genuineness of Mrs. Attwood’s wish not to be examined at that time by Dr. Fuller. Dr. Galton acknowledged that Dr. Caldrus and Mrs. Attwood herself had provided him with the patient’s medical history and he was unaware at the time of the involvement of the Court of Protection, or that Mrs. Attwood was suffering from short-term memory problems. Further, he conceded that in retrospect, it would have been better if he had approached Mrs. Attwood’s family practitioner and also some responsible member of her family about his visit. He affirmed that his visit was not made to assess Mrs. Attwood’s mental state but to determine her ability to continue living alone at home with the that she had. He had not been asked at any time to determine her testamentary capacity. He also itted that he was oblivious of the matters affecting Mrs. Attwood’s mental health that an examination of her past medical history as set out in the various medical notes would have revealed. He had simply accepted in good faith all that Dr. Caldrus and the patient had told him as the truth. He was ignorant of the fact that Dr. Berry, the good friend mentioned by Dr. Caldrus was in fact a relative, a cousin. When cross-examined by Mr. Barry, Dr. Galton conceded: “Had I known of the 1990 wills and the changes in provision compared to the 1978 will, everything would have been different.” He also accepted that when he examined Annie for the third time in March 1991,

she did not have an understanding of the meaning and effect of an Enduring Power of Attorney, although he could not give an opinion whether this would have applied nine months earlier in August 1990 when it was made. He acknowledged that at no time prior to or during his three visits to examine Annie had he researched any of Annie’s medical history beyond that which Dr. Caldrus and the patient had given him. Dr. K. Cornelius, a Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and a consultant psycho-geriatrician whose specialty is the early diagnosis and treatment of dementia was called as a specialist medical witness on behalf of the claimant. Before expressing an opinion on Annie Attwood’s testamentary capacity in 1990 when the Boyle and Julienne Wills were made Dr. K. Cornelius reviewed the notes of Annie’s GPs, all her hospital records together with statements and reports from Camden Social Services and Dr. Galton. He stated that it was his opinion, based on the records examined that “Annie showed evidence of progressive cognitive impairment from as early as 1979 and more clearly with memory impairment from 1984. The frequent falls of which she had no recollection ed the diagnosis of cognitive problems.” He believed that from 1987, she suffered a moderate dementia and from 1990 there was gross confusion with short term memory loss, a failure to recognise people and an inability to events from the distant past. This, together with the autopsy findings from the brain in October 1991, showed clear evidence of a progressive Alzheimer disease.” Dr. Cornelius pronounced that, “In October 1990 although Annie might have understood the nature of a will she would not have been able to generate, understand and retain the information needed to understand the extent of her property and the claims to which she should give effect. This being the case she would not have retained testamentary capacity at that time by virtue of her short and long term memory problems, which would have compromised her judgment and would have prevented her from making a fully informed and balanced decision.” “I also need to draw the court’s attention to the many instances of suggestibility where Annie would readily sign any document placed before her, which was a further clear symptom of mid and late stage dementia.”

Dr. Caldrus was then provided with the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Cornelius. She pointed out that while he might be an eminent specialist he had never seen or examined Annie and then launched into a spirited attack to attempt to negate the findings he had interpreted from the notes. Dr. Galton, the only specialist to have examined Annie was cross examined and taken chronologically through the hospital records and notes to which he had not previously had access. He acknowledged the frequency with which short term memory loss was mentioned over so many years and accepted that the most likely cause was dementia. He granted that dementia was a progressive condition but stated that he had no way of determining the rate of progression of Annie’s illness. He expressed the view that when he examined her most carefully in March 1991 in response to the enquiry from the Court of Protection he found that due to her memory loss she was unable to concentrate on the questions raised by the Court of Protection and she would not have understood the details of her will at that stage. He accepted that with the autopsy findings confirming Alzheimer’s disease this was therefore the cause of her progressive mental decline. He conceded that were he to assume that her mental decline was of a steady progression, then in October 1990, she would certainly have lacked testamentary capacity. Dr. Galton accepted that with the additional material that had not previously been available to him when he examined Annie, his views on Annie Attwood’s mental state would not have been as he had pronounced in the July 1998 trial before Mr. Justice McIntyre. He also itted his regret that on the two earlier visits in 1991 when he first saw Annie that he did not take more trouble to assess her ability to make decisions and had not availed himself of the notes that her family practitioner could have made available had he but requested them. Dr. Galton was re-examined by Dr. Caldrus, following which Mr. Justice Barrington summed up the case and then pronounced judgement: “I have come to the view that Mrs. Attwood did not possess testamentary capacity at the time she made her 1990 Wills. I do so for the following reasons.

It was the clear opinion of Dr. K. Cornelius. Allowing for the fact he never saw Mrs. Attwood I found him to be an impressive and persuasive specialist witness. It is the opinion agreed by Dr. I. Galton that Mrs. Attwood’s mental decline was progressing and all the evidence presented indicates that her dementia was deteriorating and that by August 1990 her inability to recognise her family and G.Ps. indicated acute mental impairment. Dr. Galton’s opinion that in October 1990 Annie would have understood the effect of the will she made falls far short of evidence of her possessing a full testamentary capacity. Dr. Caldrus did not understand, or possess any expertise in geriatric medicine. Her whole case was that Mrs. Attwood remained in full command of her mental faculties at the time of the 1990 Wills and indeed until long after. I reject that evidence as self serving and contrary to the overwhelming evidence presented in this court.”

Claimant’s counsel Mr. J. Barry submitted a written submission that was read out by him in court. “Your Honour, I rise to assert that even if Mrs. Attwood had testamentary capacity and one of the 1990 wills had been duly executed, Dr. Caldrus exerted undue influence on Mrs. Attwood that overbore her ability to know and approve the contents of the wills.” In response Mr. Justice Barrington stated. “I accept that the circumstances surrounding the making and execution of these wills excite the suspicion of the court for the following reasons. First that Dr. Caldrus was the sole beneficiary. Secondly that Mrs. Attwood’s family receive nothing even in the event that Dr. Caldrus should predecease, or not survive Mrs. Attwood by 28 days, with everything going to Dr. Berry, who Annie Attwood barely knew and who would

never have had a greater claim than of Mrs. Attwood’s own family. Next that Dr. Caldrus acted as sole intermediary between Mrs. Annie Attwood and the solicitors. She instructed them on the preparation and engrossment of the wills, with the lawyer having no with Mrs. Attwood. Instructions were given to the solicitors in Dr. Caldrus’s own handwriting despite her assertions that Annie Attwood could read and write virtually until the time of her death. Dr. Caldrus selected a solicitor Mr. P. Johnson in Barnet, many miles from Iverson Road in West Hampstead, where there were many solicitors, some of who had acted for Mrs. Attwood in the past. It was odd that Mr. P. Johnson had no knowledge of the other attorneys previously involved by Dr. Caldrus on behalf of Mrs. Attwood. The witnesses to the Julienne Will did not understand English and did not understand what they were doing. Dr. Caldrus cancelled an appointment made by Dr. Paul in August 1990 for a specialist psychogeriatrician to examine Mrs. Annie Attwood and in January 1991 also prevented Dr. Fuller, the Lord Chancellor’s medical visitor, from examining Mrs. Attwood.” Mr. Justice Barrington then took a sip of water and continued. “Since these matters were not raised by the claimant’s side that focused properly on the plea of lack of testamentary capacity I come to Dr. Caldrus’s written response, which was mainly directed to rebutting the suggestion that she had exercised undue influence. I therefore conclude that Mr. P. Vanderzan, succeeds in his challenge to the validity of the 1990 Wills.” “Therefore I find contrary to the judgement in the 1998 trial, which is that Mrs. Annie Attwood lacked testamentary capacity when she made both of her 1990 Wills.” “Since there is no challenge to the earlier 1978 Will, I shall pronounce in favour of its force and validity.”

“I shall revoke the grant which Dr. Caldrus obtained in the 1998 trial.”

We had won, for with Mr. Justice Barrington’s pronouncement, our struggles for redress of the many deceptions relating to my Aunt’s will were virtually at an end. Later we discovered that further challenges remained, for Dr. Caldrus continued to be a wily adversary. The Daily Mail and Daily Express newspapers each clamoured for an interview. That night I couldn’t sleep. I thought I must be dreaming, for I couldn’t come to with the reality that after almost eighteen years we’d won. On the other hand there was no remedy for the years of criminality imposed by Dr. Caldrus and her accomplice cousin Dr. Berry, on Annie. The painful truth was that in spite of all her planned preparations for a safe and comfortable old age in her own home, a progressive decline in her mental capacity had left her vulnerable to the unscrupulous behaviour of Dr. Caldrus, the person in whom she had unwisely invested her trust. We learned that legal aid payments for costs incurred by Dr. Caldrus in what we now knew were in of her fraudulent activities since 1991 were in excess of £300,000, a further expense for the hugely out of pocket British tax payer.

* * *

Chapter 16

In the late autumn of 2008, some months after the conclusion of our last trial at The Royal Courts of Justice, I received a small package from Rumania. This rather puzzled me since I knew nobody in Eastern Europe, although as the trial and its outcome had been well publicised and syndicated in news media throughout Europe I felt this might be from some well wisher. I opened the envelope, which contained the translation of a newspaper cutting from Rumania. There was an accompanying letter written in excellent English and to my astonishment I discovered that the writer claimed to be none other than Dr. Caldrus’s cousin Sylvia. She explained that in view of our recent trial involving Dr. A. Caldrus, I might be interested to read of one of her earlier escapades in Rumania where there was every indication that she had been closely involved in the premature death, from unexplained trauma, of her father who was an uncle to Dr Caldrus. The translation recorded as follows: ‘Dr. A. Caldrus stayed for a time in the fall of 2003 in the town of Braila, on the Danube west of Bucharest, as a companion to her recently widowed uncle, Viktor Tofrei, brother of Maria Caldrus. He was a wealthy retired senior citizen with an adult married daughter Sylvia, from who along with other family he was estranged. He had been a successful industrialist with investments in property and was known to have maintained some of his assets in gold coins, his deceased wife’s jewellery and cash which were kept in a safe in his home. In addition he had been a numismatist and had a collection of rare coins on display at his residence. It appeared that this elderly 80 year old gentleman sustained a severe injury to the right lower chest and abdomen. There is no information concerning how this may have happened. He was first found by Dr. Caldrus, who stated that she had returned to his apartment on

October 27, 2003, where she had found him in his home on the floor in great pain with bruising to the lower chest wall. She claimed that she wished to call a doctor. Her uncle insisted that it wasn’t necessary and forbade any such action. With some difficulty she helped him to his bed, but failed to inform his daughter, her cousin Sylvia, or even his nephew Dr. Oliver Tofrei, who was employed at the local hospital. The following day, with her uncle’s condition clearly deteriorating an ambulance was summoned. He was taken to hospital where he was itted at noon, with an itting diagnosis of an acute abdominal problem. Surgery was immediately undertaken when he was found to have a tear to his liver, which had been bleeding into the abdomen and a ruptured bowel. In addition he was also found to have fractured at least four and possibly five of his right lower ribs. He was taken to the ward postoperatively where the authorities refused Dr. Caldrus access to the patient’s bedside. Even then Dr. Caldrus did not notify his daughter or nephew of his critical condition. Two days later on October 30, 2003, he died with a diagnosis: Acute Peritonitis and it was only then that his daughter and nephew were informed. Police investigated the case since it was discovered that in addition to Viktor Tofrei’s traumatic death, the safe in his home had been opened and the contents had mysteriously vanished as had the contents of his safe in the local bank. Dr. Caldrus never provided a satisfactory explanation concerning her delay in arranging for her uncle’s urgent ission to hospital in spite of his alleged protestation when as a doctor she could clearly see the severity of his condition. She likewise could not explain how she apparently failed to ask how he had sustained his injuries when he had seemingly been well enough to discuss not calling a doctor. Finally she never explained her failure to inform Viktor’s daughter Sylvia, or his medically qualified nephew of his desperately serious condition until after his death. Although under a cloud of suspicion, she was never prosecuted and left Braila for the U.K. immediately after being interviewed by the police.’

I wrote a brief letter of thanks to Sylvia for the news cutting and her translation and commiserated with her, telling her woman, to woman, how sorry I was to learn of her father’s death. There I thought the matter would rest. Two weeks later a further letter arrived from Rumania. It was from Sylvia and the content, which indicated that she had little regard for her cousin was astounding. Below is a summary. “Dear friend, for I feel that anybody who has been able to get the better of my cousin, Angela Caldrus, must be a friend. Firstly thank you for your condolence letter. Even though you do not know me, it shows clearly that you have a good heart. In Rumania after the Second World War, we survived, under the most brutal communist regime, later headed by President Nicolae Ceausecu, from 1965 until his overthrow in 1989. There were tens of thousands of uniformed security agents everywhere with two hundred informers for each agent working incognito. If a person dared say, or even was foolhardy enough to think the wrong thing, then without warning they disappeared to be tortured in police custody. Those who survived were then locked away in a security prison for years without trial. Travel abroad was prohibited and we lived in a total prison state. Under these vicious conditions only those who belonged to the state communist organisation that ed Ceausecu and his regime prospered and that, I am not proud to it, included my late father. At the very summit was the CSAT, the Supreme Defence Council and they certainly lined their pockets. Beneath were several agencies whose and families also lived very well. There was the SIE the foreign intelligence gathering service whose methods could not be disclosed to anyone under any circumstances. Then there was the Securitate, the DSS, Department of State Security established by the Soviet NKVD in 1948. In the 1990’s the DSS became the SRI, Rumanian Intelligence Service, and the SIE the STS, the Special Telecommunication Service. Dare I mention that while the names changed the workforce remained the same and their attitudes hardly altered until many years later. When Ceausecu came to power as President, there were 22 million people living

in Rumania. Under his yolk, for we were treated as beasts of burden, we could barely breathe without authorisation let alone travel abroad. Here, I must now ask you a question. How was it possible for my Aunt and cousins to travel abroad and live in England? Files exist in the government archives with details of former DSS agents, access to which is still closely guarded. My nephew, who I am not under any circumstance permitted to name, is employed in the STS. He tells me he has seen the file on my cousin Dr. Angela Caldrus and has revealed some of the contents to me, which I will briefly relate. Angela was a very bright student who volunteered to the DSS. She was trained and used as a secret government informant during her years of medical studies. When she qualified she requested further training as a DSS agent. This was refused at the time, but as a concession she was permitted to travel abroad to the UK to act as a ‘mole’ an undercover agent for the STS. In London she was ed by department 6 of the DSS and returned to Rumania for further training before returning to London. I believe that the information relating to her connection to the DSS could now explain how she avoided further investigation and possible prosecution following the death of my father.” The contents of this letter left me stunned, for I could now see Dr Caldrus in a grotesquely new light if this information was true.

* * *

Chapter 17

Neither Mr. Justice McIntyre, nor Mr. Justice Barrington were ever required to look into the most serious aspect of this whole case, which was not the failed attempted theft of Annie Attwood’s estate but of Annie’s abduction by Dr’s Caldrus and Berry and her untimely demise. Annie was conveyed by ambulance from her West Hampstead home on September 5, 1991, to The Princess Alexandra Hospital for a 5 weeks respite period under the care of Dr. A. Wilton head of the Department of Medicine for the Elderly and was scheduled to remain there until October 7, 1991. Four days later on the evening of September 9, 1991, Dr. Caldrus and Dr. Berry arrived at the hospital. Under the pretext of possessing a valid Enduring Power of Attorney they removed Annie from The Princess Alexandra Hospital, without consent. They bundled her into a car and spirited her away, taking her not to her home of almost 40 years in Iverson Road, but to a destination unknown to all except her two medical abductors. This was an illegal act for the following reasons: The hospital ission diagnosis described Annie as ‘Demented and hard of hearing’. She was not able to give her consent to be discharged and removed from the hospital. The Enduring Power of Attorney was a fraudulent document on three counts.

1] Dr. Galton stated when cross examined under oath before Mr. Justice Barrington that he accepted that when he examined Annie in March 1991, she did not have an understanding of the meaning and effect of an Enduring Power of Attorney. In fairness he also stated that while her loss of cognitive function was progressive he could not give an accurate opinion as to her mental capacity nine months earlier in August 1990 when the Enduring Power of Attorney was made. On the other hand there were the copious practice medical records of Dr’s Paul and Singh, which clearly stated that she was suffering from dementia and record an attempt, thwarted by Dr Caldrus, to have Annie examined by Dr. H.

Guttman, a psychogeriatrician at the Royal Free Hospital to confirm the diagnosis of what was considered by them to be a severe dementia. Consequently Annie could never legally have given consent to Dr. Caldrus being granted an Enduring Power of Attorney at that time. 2] Caldrus used coercion to have Annie, who she realised was suffering from an increasingly severe progressive dementia, most probably Alzheimer’s disease, to sign a legal document, the Enduring Power of Attorney that Annie did not understand. 3] The Barnet Serious Crime Squad in the summer of 2002 had interviewed Aldo Julienne in . Despite being one of the two purported witness signatories to Annie’s Enduring Power of Attorney granted by her to Dr Caldrus. He claimed that he had never signed the document as a witness and most damning of all that the signature was not in his handwriting and was a forgery.

Removing Annie in this manner without the specific consent of her known next of kin and holding her in a concealed location was an illegal act of premeditated kidnap by Dr. Caldrus and her co-conspirator cousin Dr. Berry. This was a planned abduction and concealment without legal authority in furtherance of Dr. Caldrus’s criminal act of obtaining pecuniary advantage of Annie and her next of kin through an unlawful will. Annie’s life was in all probability shortened through this fraudulent abduction, although there was no confirmatory proof. Those with dementia do not simply fade away, but they do need a continuing and increasing degree of supervised care. Neither Dr. Caldrus, nor Dr. Berry was ever prosecuted in a British court of law for any of their crimes against Annie and her next of kin.

* * *

Chapter 18

Legally my twin brothers, my former husband and I were each the recipients of an equal share of our Aunt Annie Attwood’s estate. The main asset was the terraced house at 217, Iverson Road, West Hampstead. All other possessions of money, vestiges of valuables and furniture had disappeared without trace. Caldrus then behaved as a squatter stating that her elderly mother was too sick and infirm to move. Vacant possession was not achieved until more than two years later in 2010 as month after month for more than two years Caldrus found reason due to her own and her mother’s claim of ill health not to vacate the premises. Once bailiffs had been called in, Caldrus and her mother were evicted and the property became ours. The interior was a mess piled high with newspapers and junk that was cleared at considerable expense, in the process of seven working days filling five builders rubbish skips. Council Taxes to the London Borough of Camden were three years in default and bills for the supply of utilities were similarly unpaid and became our responsibility. Caldrus and her mother once evicted were at Camden council’s expense immediately provided with bed and breakfast hotel accommodation until offered council accommodation in West Hampstead. In the appeal judgement of February 2005, Lord Justice Wold for the Court of Appeal set aside Mr. Justice McIntyre’s order including the order that P. Vanderzan pay Dr. A. Caldrus’s costs. This meant that Peter no longer owed any money to the Legal Service Commission. At the same time Lord Justice Wold ordered that Dr. A. Caldrus should pay the cost of Peter Vanderzan’s appeals. When faced with the cost of our appeals Dr. Caldrus filed for bankruptcy to avoid this financial commitment, which meant the British taxpayer paid the legal charges for her years of duplicity and yet she still retained ownership of properties in Rumania.

My husband through his E.U. employment worked for almost three years in Bucharest. During our stay I attempted to research whatever property assets Dr. Caldrus might have concealed. In spite of my lack of knowledge of Rumanian my investigations revealed that she was the owner of two debt free properties, a house and an apartment in Bucharest, both rented to tenants and an undisclosed plot of land. I consulted a lawyer in Bucharest explaining that Dr. Caldrus had concealed her Rumanian assets and had not paid my ex-husband and me the costs awarded against her by Mr. Justice Barrington. He agreed to represent me in a Bucharest court of law, but said that he would first need certified copies of the 2005 judgement made by Lord Justice Wold that Dr. Caldrus should pay the cost of our appeals and Mr Justice Barrington’s pronouncement revoking the grant obtained by Dr. Caldrus during the 1998 trial and ordering her to pay our costs.

I obtained the documentation required and supplied all the information that our Bucharest legal representative had requested. He in turn presented our case in court in 2012 requesting that Dr. Caldrus’s assets be seized and sold and the proceeds of their sale be remitted to Peter Vanderzan and me. In response to my action Dr Caldrus informed the Bucharest court that all the High Court documents and court records I had presented were forgeries. The British metropolitan police were notified and commenced a detailed forensic investigation on the basis that with the use of forged legal documents I was attempting to obtain money from her through criminal deception. The court hearing was suspended indefinitely pending the outcome of police investigations both in London and Bucharest. The London metropolitan police were asked to investigate my alleged criminal activities. The police in turn ed our London attorneys Coombe, Matthews. They were able to represent me, at my expense, confirming the validity of all the documentation I had sent to our attorney in Bucharest following which the London Police investigation ceased. In time we will endeavour to pursue our demands against Caldrus but I feel deep down that she will inevitably find some means to delay and nullify our legitimate claims until we are compelled to accept the reality that the costs

involved in time as well as money might well exceed the value of her Rumanian assets. Dr. A. Caldrus was at the very least a serial fraudster and confidence trickster. She applied for Legal Aid and received aid to which she was not entitled by falsely concealing assets abroad that she knew would preclude her from obtaining legal aid. She committed perjury in English courts of law on numerous occasions, which included introducing documents that she knew to be false. She faked, or had signatures and documents forged by others, thereby giving her a false Enduring Power of Attorney over Annie Attwood. She stole and for nineteen years from 1991 to 2010, enjoyed possession of Annie Attwood’s estate with a house which had an estimated value in excess of £900,000 at the time of the Royal Courts of Justice trial in 2008, before Mr. Justice Barrington. She used Mrs. Attwood’s pension and lived off the proceeds from 1986 until Annie’s demise in 1991, neither ing for any of this money, nor Annie’s other assets. She denied that she permitted her mother to live rent free without any contribution to household expenses in 217, Iverson Road, from 1986 until 1991, and allowed her to enjoy the amenities of that property for a further 19 years, leaving only when compelled in 2010. Dr. Caldrus and her cousin Dr. Berry, removed Annie, in September 1991, from The Princess Alexandra Hospital without consent of her next of kin by knowingly using an illegal Enduring Power of Attorney document to perpetrate this unlawful action. They then conveyed her not to her home, but to a destination only known to her abductors, a crime which should be described as kidnap. As a consequence, although impossible to prove, their criminal behaviour shortened Annie Attwood’s life. She and her mother continue to live in council accommodation subsidised by the London Borough of Camden. In addition to these legal wrongdoings she lied and caused me and my family great distress and anxiety during the latter years of our

Aunt’s life. She erected unacceptable obstacles between Camden Social Services, The Court of Protection and other legitimate state agencies that were dutifully attempting to help Annie who was an agreed at risk person. To the best of my knowledge in spite of these many unlawful acts, neither Dr. Caldrus nor her cousin Dr. Berry was ever summoned before a court of law to give an of their actions. Although guilty of an elabourate scheme to cheat me and my family, neither was ever prosecuted, nor punished. Were it not for the perseverance of my family at a prohibitive cost in time, effort and money over a period of many years, Dr. Angela Caldrus would have succeeded in her nefarious plan to plunder Annie’s estate and to steal our rightful inheritance. To quote Lord Justice Wold (February 2005); “Dr. Angela Caldrus was capable of deceit.” The Legal Services Commission costs judge stated; “The evidence Dr. Caldrus had given was evasive and unreliable.” Mr. Justice Barrington stated: “I did not find Dr. Caldrus to be a reliable witness. Some of her answers I found to be untruthful. Overall she struck me as calculating and manipulative. She clearly had a strong dislike of Barbara Vanderzan and to a lesser extent, of her family. She appeared at times scornful of their feelings for Mrs. Attwood and indifferent to the distress that they felt.” The intricate planning that Dr. Angela Caldrus conceived while acting the caring friend for the sake of financial gain beggars belief. In short she and her cousin were heartless insensitive fraudsters whose scandalous crimes have to this time remained unpunished. She and her kind represent the darkness and evil that is always present in the world.

* * *

Chapter 19

This chronicle of events is to remind every citizen what might befall the vulnerable and in particular the elderly vulnerable in our midst that may also be suffering from any phase in the development of Alzheimer’s disease. Variants of the problems that beset Annie and her family are in progress everywhere, everyday, although hopefully seldom to the extent recorded in this . Each individual has a natural right to feel safe and cared for by family, friends and society when in their own home, whether this is a mansion, a more modest semi, or a single room in a care home. People have a right to believe that their elderly relatives, who live at some considerable distance, are safe when in their home, yet our family were denied these basic rights. These pitfalls can be avoided only through constant watchfulness. None of us know whether the problem of Alzheimer’s disease will ever strike amongst our nearest and dearest, but should it do so there is no substitute, before it is too late, to establish a legal Lasting Power of Attorney. Next, no matter how seemingly excellent, or trustworthy the care home, or individuals responsible for day to day management, there needs to be constant vigilance. As the illness progresses it is immensely difficult for any adult to appreciate and accept that their parent or grandparent who formerly provided unstinting loving protection and guidance, will now need increasingly close supervision. They will need prompting to participate in activities. Help will be essential in the provision of personal care, which will include washing and dressing, feeding, toileting, dealing with incontinence, etcetera that a vulnerable young preschool child would need.

One of the major shortcomings in the system of care as revealed in this case

would appear to be that Social Services and the Court of Protection personnel, in spite of many warnings to alert them to problems of care, were too easily thwarted in their attempts to gain access to visit and fully assess a client deemed at risk. They were faced with an intelligent devious carer, who for whatever reason was attempting to conceal a guilty pattern of behaviour from the public gaze. Whether carer, nurse, doctor, friend or even a family member, regretfully, nobody should ever be above suspicion of abuse.

Those living independently at home with a companion, or care provider are amongst the most vulnerable to ill treatment, theft and fraud. Once behind a closed front door, none will be aware of the type of ill-treatment inflicted upon a vulnerable person. This could range from poor time keeping where an individual is left unattended for an excessive period of time due to a carer being late, or even not putting in an appearance on that shift, or even that day. Repeatedly, Annie was found on the floor in her home in a state of collapse and confusion in great discomfort and pain for considerable periods of time, unable to summon help, with none to assist her, or even provide a much needed glass of water for parched throat and lips. Other abuses continue to be reported ranging from verbal abuse and sadistic behaviour to outright theft. The numbers cared for in their own homes are so great and carers relatively poorly remunerated that the whole system is open to exploitation and can never be adequately supervised to avoid problems unless closely monitored by a close family member. In England and Wales between 50 and 70 children die annually at the hands of a parent, or carer from abuse and neglect. The NSPCC state that this is an understatement. An Office for Standards in Education report, (Ofsted report) indicates that in 2008 there were 199 deaths. In the USA there were 15,510 child abuse and neglect deaths between 2001, to 2010. There can be little doubt that the elderly person compromised with advancing cognitive impairment is every bit as much at risk. One might recall the abuse perpetrated by two British doctors where avarice coexisted with malice and evil: That of John Bodkin Adams (1899-1983), an Eastbourne G.P, an alleged serial killer who it is believed murdered more than one hundred elderly patients all of who considered him an angel and bequeathed him large sums of money, or

expensive gifts in their wills, and yet was only ever found guilty of minor drug misdemeanours in the late 1940’s. Harold Shipman (1946-2004) A G.P. in Hyde, Greater Manchester, the only G.P. to have been found guilty of murdering his patients of who there were possibly 250 victims. A further serious problem was the recurring ease with which a legal document with far reaching consequences could be obtained affecting a vulnerable person without an attorney, or a family GP personally attesting to the individual’s understanding of whatever was being proposed. While in the UK there is the commendable work of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) supervising services provided by the community and local National Health Services (NHS) it often appears that for the frail and compromised elderly the main emphasis is the endeavour to avoid hospital ission wherever possible, or once hospitalised to remove an individual back to their own home as soon as this can be achieved due to a financially hard pressed NHS. Sadly this attitude may have more to do with freeing up a bed needed for a more urgent ission, or finding the least expensive care package, than consideration for the welfare of the elderly with an Alzheimer type illness. As more people live to advanced years the numbers afflicted with Alzheimer’s will continue to increase for the foreseeable future and basically all that we want and need for a grandparent, parent, or distant elderly relative afflicted with this difficulty is to have a loved one cared for in a safe pair of comionate, willing, hands. This dilemma could in time involve any member of the reader’s family, or a close colleague or friend, whether this year or many years hence, for this is a widespread problem that will intrude upon each and every family in the land. Data currently available from the ‘European Community Concerted Action on the Epidemiology and Prevention of Dementia’ indicate that there are 820,000 known dementia sufferers in the UK, which is probably under reported, and this is predicted to increase to one million by 2020, with 1 in 3 persons over 65 years of age likely to develop this illness. Those afflicted will invariably want to remain in their own home, but is this always in the individual’s best interests?

It is the author’s personal belief that the most vulnerable, with few exceptions, can only find the security and companionship that is craved within the home of one of their close family, either a child or sibling, or in a properly regulated and supervised licensed care or nursing home, properly overseen by the CQC. Whichever care package is selected it is essential that a trusted family member or legal representative regularly exercise overall supervision. Even in those care homes supervised by the CQC there are some that have been less well managed that have in the past been found guilty of neglect of their more vulnerable clients. In spite of a small reduction in birth rates, people are living longer. This in turn is producing an increase in world population and one of the major problems that this is likely to create amongst the frail elderly will be a lack of carers in years to come, particularly in the western world. In the U.K. there is the RSPCA for animals and the NSPCC for children. There could well be some advantage in establishing an NSPCSC charity, the national society for the prevention of cruelty to senior citizens. I wish to leave my reader with three final messages.

All should in the fullness of time consult a solicitor to create a Lasting Power of Attorney leaving this with a trusted younger child or attorney.

There needs be persistent scrutiny of supervision, as the frail will always be at risk when in the care of others.

The affliction of Alzheimer’s can become a disease of the past, largely through research. To advance the arrival of this time will need funding and I implore any reader to make a contribution in search of a cure today.

* * *

All the world’s a stage and all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts, . . . . . and Last scene of all, That ends this strange eventful history, Is second childishness . . . . W. Shakespeare

I should like to record my thanks to those many family and friends who have ed and encouraged my endeavours in recording this saga of Deception Most Foul. In particular I wish to thank Ronnie Goldberg for his legal expertise and proof reading; Jan Porter, an extraordinary friend from across the Atlantic for her helpful advice and suggestions; Marilyn Belgrave RGN for her help in recounting some of the care home resident’s stories; Michael Williams for his literary guidance and June Williams as always for her proof reading and continued tolerance of my writing endeavours. I would also like to acknowledge my great thanks for the help and advice received from Peter Gvozdev in the translations that appear in Chapter Sixteen. My special thanks to Sebastian Balcombe for his photographs of the London Royal Courts of Justice and to Tristan Balcombe for his graphic design. My grateful thanks to Annie’s niece Barbara, who encouraged and permitted me to write this of the tribulations of her Aunt and her family. In conclusion my thanks to Springdene Nursing and Care Homes, for their generous sponsorship of this publication.

Edmund Williams London 2013.

About the Author

Edmund Williams MB. ChB. LR. MRCS. Was born in central London and graduated from Sheffield University faculty of medicine in 1957. His experiences since then have included medical training and practice in hospitals in a mining community in Yorkshire, Barnet, Baltimore Maryland, USA and Saskatchewan Canada, where he also held the post of H. M. Coroner. He returned to London and settled into general medical practice in North London in 1963. In 1971 he and his wife, June, established Springdene Nursing and Care Homes, which today provides excellent care for a large number of senior citizens in four modern purpose built, nursing and care homes in London. Following prostate cancer treatment and a coronary artery by graft, he retired from primary health care in 1996 and began a second career as an author. He and his wife have lived in East Finchley for more than forty years, while close by live their three children and nine grandchildren. He and his wife are avid theatregoers, while Dr. William's personal hobbies include interests in photography, genealogy and gardening. He is a member of the University College School Centennial choir, where his son and daughter in law also sing. His published works are: In Search of Henry, 2006 Raging Against Time, 2007 A Touch of Chutzpah, 2011 Deception Most Foul, 2013.