On 6 July he describes himself as ‘managing a situation’. I believe he’s managed this situation for years, since he found out about Helen’s condition when Paige was a child. Sarah-Jane says they started The Fairway Players when Paige was a toddler, and according to Marianne, this is the point when her health apparently improved. Once Helen had a place to be centre-stage, where she could express her attention-seeking side, she stopped making her daughter ill. The Fairway Players is an important community group, but its significance to the Haywards is far greater: it keeps them functioning as a close and loving family.
This situation doesn’t occur to Sam. Why would it? She’s heard from Issy that Lauren and her mum have seen Poppy being treated at Mount More. Who would make their own child or grandchild ill anyway? Which brings me to Paige. We’ve seen how close mother and daughter are. Could they suffer from the same psychological make-up? Did the fact Paige was abused like that – made ill by her own mother as a child, in an environment where that situation was not challenged or addressed – somehow inform a pattern of behaviour now? She certainly shares a love of the spotlight with Helen, and similarly she’s kept in her own happy world by the rest of the family.
So Martin nurtures a scenario that Helen and Paige play into. It’s all so that he can start the appeal for non-existent experimental drugs and raise the cash he so desperately needs. Only it soon becomes more than he can handle. Martin does not realise quite how far the community will go to help him and his family. The appeal explodes into a flurry of activity and a deluge of cash. With this comes more lies, more deception, even more stress, and more problematic management issues, not least Tish.
Martin confides in Tish about his wife’s condition, but she does her own ‘due diligence’ and turns this wealthy family’s explosive secret to her own advantage. She probes their background using RedHawk Consulting, discovers Helen’s true identity and secures evidence of her involvement in the death of her first child. It is the one thing the family does not want their friends to know.
Knowledge is power, and Tish uses hers to ensure she is the sole beneficiary of the appeal. They are soon dependent on each other in the worst way. For the record, I don’t believe Poppy is given drugs when she goes for ‘chemo’ – Tish fabricates the whole process. She even makes Poppy feel poorly on 2 July to reassure Paige the chemo is working. When she withdraws her participation, Martin says, ‘Poppy needs treatment of some sort’ as if Helen and Paige will not be happy unless the little girl is having medical care.
So is Martin acting alone, or are James and Glen part of this, too? I suspect they know about it from the off. Glen, who believes the meningitis story, is on board with what he thinks is a quick fix to bail the family out of their temporary financial straits – of which his failure to find work is key; on 22 May he is emailed by Ben Taylor, saying that his contract will not be renewed. Meanwhile James is reluctant. I wonder if he would prefer his mother to seek professional help for her condition? In their early correspondence James and Martin are cool with each other, as in ice-fucking-cold. On 19 May James says to Issy: ‘I never wanted to be a part of this. I tried to talk them out of doing it in the first place.’ We thought he meant the play, but it’s the appeal – the deception – he is drawn into against his will.
James refuses to attend Poppy’s Ball. The family lies about the reason. They say he and Olivia are babysitting Poppy, when Beth Halliday is doing that. I’ve tried to identify the moment James is forced to engage with his father’s plan. It’s when Sam visits Martin with her theory that Tish is lying to them. On 1 June Martin says, ‘I don’t know what to do or which way to turn. I’m sorry about everything else. I know how you feel but we need you on our side.’ For a man like Martin, that is serious emotional stuff. James is a part of it from then. It’s against his better judgement, but he’s aware his IVF is part of the problem and that his whole family’s health, wealth and future happiness now depends on the deception, the appeal and the play.
It’s James who insists Sam and Kel are excluded from the fundraising committee, and James who says, ‘Don’t reply, Dad, leave it to me’ when Sarah-Jane objects. That’s it. Martin now relies on James for emotional support and practical help. But when James is called away to an ailing Olivia on 5 July, the somewhat less-articulate Glen is required to do his bit for the family and email Sarah-Jane. So, having said all this:
Who killed Samantha Greenwood? Martin Hayward, to stop the family secret being exposed.
Who knew it was going to happen? Glen Reswick, who helps Martin and effectively takes James’s place while James is with Olivia at the hospital.
Who knew about it before her body was discovered? James Hayward, because Martin tells him once the twins are born.
Who is erroneously imprisoned and why? Isabel Beck, because she is a quiet, awkward outsider at the bottom of the social hierarchy, with a well-documented obsession and a complex psychological life. For some reason, she also happened to be at Sam’s flat that night.
Charlotte
There’s no suggestion Helen made James ill as a child?
Femi
No. But Martin had a job in the City at that time. Let’s say Helen felt secure enough then to function normally. It’s when things get rocky that she starts again.
Charlotte
Ok. But the actual murderer could be any combination of the Martin/Glen/James triangle.
Femi
Theoretically. But James is at the hospital with Olivia and the twins. He’s out of the picture the whole night. Glen wakes Paige at 4 a.m. with news she’s got Sam’s part in the play. But I don’t believe Glen has Martin’s motivation. We can’t account for Martin after he’s sent the emails to Sam and SJ. He describes the whole thing as a ‘bloody mess’ to James the next day. But I also don’t think they know for sure Sam is dead at that point – even if they suspect it.
Charlotte
James asks Issy if she’s seen Sam. She says ‘no’. A one-word email from Issy? That says more than any of her rambling missives. Why was she at Sam’s flat that night? She doesn’t tell the police the reason.
Femi
This is what we need to establish. Perhaps she intends to speak to her about what they discuss in the car park. The next day she tells Celia and Joel she has something for Kel.
Charlotte
That’s a lie. She wants to ‘discover’ the body and call the police. We keep hearing how Helen loves to be centre-stage. Well, so does Issy. Even says she can’t wait to be ‘back onstage in the spotlight’.
Femi
Has she arranged with the Haywards to find the body? James and Issy are closer than they themselves realise. They have quite a bond. He confides in her when he wants info about Sam, when he says ‘I never wanted to be a part of this.’ He defends Issy several times, to Sarah-Jane and Martin. James is an outsider in his family – does he identify with Issy, the social outsider? Tanner describes Issy as ‘a survivor’, but not in a good way. Does she delude herself that she’s acting for the best, for the benefit of her friend James and the alpha family?
Charlotte
What is it James says to Issy after the murder? ‘Thanks again for your support. You’re a vital member of our team.’
Femi
We’re no nearer the ‘who’s-who’ thing Tanner is so keen on. If the third person ‘not who they say they are’ is Helen, then I have no idea ‘who pretends to be who’ later on. No idea.
Charlotte
We need to think on that, and why Issy is at Sam’s the night of the murder.
Femi
Let’s see what Tanner says. We may have got there without needing the who’s-who thing.
Femi Hassan
Charlotte Holroyd
Dear both,
Further to our meeting today: thank you. You have identified what I believe to be the crux of this case and now we can move forward. To recap: Helen is the final character not who they say they are. Records are patchy, but we know she was born
Helen Macauley-Grace in Boxborough, a well-to-do suburb of Boston, Massachusetts, in 1956. She marries a Kenneth Anderson in February 1973. In August 1973 David Kenneth Anderson is born. The child dies in October 1978 of renal failure and breathing complications. Helen Anderson is charged with Voluntary Manslaughter after doctors report their suspicions to the coroner, whose Open Verdict stands to this day. The trial takes place in 1979. Evidence is overwhelming, yet circumstantial. Helen’s display of grief in the witness box is, by all accounts, riveting. Doubts fester. Sympathy flows. A technicality is raised. The judge stops the trial. Helen is a free woman, but there is too much evidence for her reputation to survive in that small community. Her marriage is dissolved in 1979 and she makes a new start, in a new country.
By 1980 a Helen Anderson is living not far from here in Lymbridge, although it is Helen Grace who marries Martin Hayward in 1981. James is born in 1982 and Paige in 1985. Do they know their mother has a past life in America? Clearly the subject of the older brother has arisen, but whether they know the full story is yet to be established. When did Martin discover the truth? Probably years after falling in love and starting a family with a woman whose act he believed. By then it was too late.
You’ve worked hard, and I feel we are very nearly there, but not quite. As promised, attached is the explanation Isabel gave for her journey to the Greenwoods’ flat the night of the dress rehearsal. It explains much about how the relationship between Samantha and Isabel ended. As usual with this case, the meat is all between the lines.
Isabel’s conviction for murder hangs on whether she intended to kill Samantha or not. There is a quiet confidence we’ll commute to manslaughter. However, I believe Isabel did not even enter the Greenwoods’ flat that night. Someone else did. That’s why this appeal is so crucial.
You’ve put forward a good argument for Martin Hayward, but read his statement attached and see if you feel the same way. As you’ve come this far in the dark, to a degree, I’ve included a few other statements you will find interesting. I have not relinquished my quest for you to see the final masquerade. I believe it is crucial.
I cannot meet up again before the deadline, so please use The What’s Up to communicate your thoughts. Thereby, please liaise with Sandra.
Yours,
Roderick Tanner, QC
Senior Partner
Tanner & Dewey LLP
County Police Interview Report
Extract from police interview with Isabel Beck:
Ms Anand: I’d like to read a further statement.
Sgt Cooper: Good. Go on.
Ms Anand: I have remembered the reason I visited Samantha Greenwood’s flat on the night of 4 July. I was in possession of some property of Ms Greenwood’s and wanted to return it. This property is a colourful fabric shoulder bag, decorated in a traditional African style. Ms Greenwood lent me the bag some weeks earlier, and afterwards said I could keep it.
Sgt Cooper: Thank you. Why did you want to return it, if she said you could keep it?
Ms Beck: No comment.
Sgt Cooper: And why go there so late at night? You could have given it to her the next day at work.
Ms Beck: No comment.
Sgt Crowe: Where is this bag now? For the benefit of the transcript, Ms Beck is trying to communicate with the duty solicitor.
Ms Anand: My client would like a break.
– Interview suspended –
Ms Anand: My client would like to make a further statement.
Sgt Cooper: Go on.
Ms Anand: As Ms Greenwood left the dress rehearsal, she voiced her regret at having given the bag to me. I was shocked and upset, so did not think to return it to her immediately. She left. I then wanted to return the bag as soon as possible, so took the bus to her flat. When I arrived there, we argued as per my previous statement.
Sgt Crowe: Thank you, Ms Anand. So this bag is at Ms Greenwood’s flat now?
Ms Beck: No comment.
Sgt Crowe: You go to the flat to return the bag. Sam lets you in. ‘Here’s the bag’ – you give it to her . . . then you argue and Sam ends up . . . as we all know. Is that accurate?
Ms Beck: No comment.
Sgt Crowe: There’s no bag that matches this description in Sam’s flat. We have officers searching your flat now. So let’s wait and see.
Sgt Cooper: Meanwhile we can move on. In your original statement you say you ‘panicked and ran home’. Yet you closed and locked the balcony doors after you. That’s not the action of someone in a panic, is it? It’s calm, calculated.
Ms Beck: No comment.
Sgt Cooper: Was it your suggestion you both move to the balcony? Seems strange to go out there at night.
Ms Beck: No comment.
Sgt Cooper: And you ran all the way home? Over five miles.
Ms Beck: No comment.
Extract from a later police interview with Isabel Beck:
Ms Anand: My client would like to make a further statement.
Sgt Cooper: Go ahead.
Ms Anand: While Ms Greenwood and I were talking, she suggested we move to the balcony, as her neighbours had complained about loud voices in the flat. I must have automatically closed and locked the doors afterwards. I have been running regularly for several months and ran home in a panic.
Sgt Cooper: Thank you. Do you recognise this, Ms Beck? [Ref. no. 000967] It’s ‘a colourful fabric shoulder bag, decorated in a traditional African style’.
Ms Beck: No comment.
Sgt Cooper: We found it hung behind your bedroom door. If you had this bag with you when you went to Samantha Greenwood’s flat, then you certainly took it home again, didn’t you?
Ms Beck: No comment.
Sgt Cooper: Maybe you decided to take it back after you’d killed her, but if you really wanted the bag that much, you’d never have gone there to return it in the first place. I don’t think you went to the flat to return the bag. I think you went there to kill Ms Greenwood. You lured her out onto the balcony, where you pushed her over it to her death. Afterwards you locked up and calmly walked home.
Ms Beck: No comment.
County Police Interview Report
Extract from police interview with Martin Hayward:
Sgt Cooper: Thank you for coming in, Mr Hayward. I understand your solicitor would like to make a statement on your behalf.
Mr Allardyce: Thank you. My name is Martin Hayward and I am volunteering a statement in relation to the death of Samantha Greenwood on the night of the 4–5 July 2018. I am taking this step because Ms Greenwood and I had a public falling-out shortly before she was found dead, and I am keen to set the record straight. On the evening of 4 July I was at St Joseph’s Community Hall from 6 p.m., conducting a dress rehearsal for The Fairway Players’ production of All My Sons, for which I am director. However, I was forced to terminate the rehearsal early, at around 9.15 p.m., because Samantha Greenwood publicly accused my wife and I of using inappropriate means to raise money for our granddaughter’s life-saving brain-tumour treatment. Her accusations were inaccurate and unfounded, but they upset my wife, as well as our long-standing friends. I wanted to defuse the situation, so I cancelled the rehearsal and sent everyone home. After locking up at the hall, my wife and I arrived home at 9.45 p.m. She went to bed to read. I emailed Samantha Greenwood and Sarah-Jane MacDonald, further to the disastrous rehearsal, as well as checking on our son, James, who was with his wife at St Ann’s Hospital. Their twins were born that night. I also emailed our daughter, Paige, and asked her to call my wife as she was upset. Distressed by what had happened and anxious over whether or not I had handled it well, I spent much of the night playing poker via my account with StarlightPoker. My hard drive and other devices are available to the police, if required. I understand several of The Fairway Players mentioned in passing to police officers that my granddaughter’s appeal has been defrauded of £80,000 by a woman called Lydia Drake. I am pleased to put the record straight that this is untrue. It is, however, an honest misunderstanding o
n their part and is not a police matter.
Sgt Cooper: Thank you, Mr Allardyce. Mr Hayward, when did you discover Ms Greenwood was dead?
Mr Hayward: Friday, when Joyce Walford, who lives opposite the Greenwoods, called my wife.
County Police Interview Report
Extract from police interview with Sean Greenwood:
Sgt Cooper: Thank you for coming in, Sean.
Mr Greenwood: It’s Kel.
Sgt Cooper: Why’s that?
Mr Greenwood: Lots of Seans. My dad, his dad, my mum’s dad, my uncle, an older half-brother – that’s complicated. I’ve always been Kel.
Sgt Cooper: We appreciate this is a difficult time, so won’t keep you long. Can you tell me when and where you last saw your wife, Samantha?
Mr Greenwood: Outside our block. I . . . we left the hall about nine, nine-thirty. Drove home. We sat in the car outside for a little bit. Then she got out and went in.
Sgt Cooper: Did you go in with her?
Mr Greenwood: No.
Sgt Cooper: Why not?
Mr Greenwood: We split up.
Sgt Crowe: You ended your relationship. When?
Mr Greenwood: Right then. She said she would go back to CAR – er, Central African Republic – as soon as she could. I drove away and . . . that was it.
Sgt Cooper: You didn’t go inside to collect your clothes or . . .?
Mr Greenwood: No.
Sgt Crowe: Why not?
Mr Greenwood: Couldn’t face it.
Sgt Cooper: That seems sudden.
The Appeal Page 31