UK UK - Fred Handford, 56, New Mills, Derbyshire, March 1976

[Ausgirl]

I find it hard to believe in fognesia for murders. JMO

Me, too, Dan.

I'm also beginning to wonder whether the hypnosis session happened at all, and if it did, whether it happened the way Janet claims it did. I'd like some hardcore proof on that, is my current thought.

 

[wfgodot]

Perhaps it's a way of clearing her conscience, writing a salable book, AND still being free of charges:

It is probable that the court will exclude the evidence of a witness who has been hypnotised under section 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on the basis that it would have such an adverse effect upon the fairness of the proceedings that it would be unfair to admit the evidence.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/hypnosis/

 

[LadyL]

the article says the murder occurred 40 years ago (when she was 24) and that at the time of the disappearance, she had worked at the farm for 12 years

really? she began work on a farm at 12 years old? did her family live nearby and she just helped out after school or something?

 

[Ausgirl]

She was 14, I think, when she first agisted her pony at the farm and didn't become a partner in it til she was in her 20's, iirc. The farmer vanished when she was 26.

I just read the bit where - despite crowing on about only wanting to give Fred's sisters peace of mind, and it's all for their benefit, etc - she sells the farmhouse portion of the property, despite this being against the wishes of Fred's family. Janet gets quite indignant when presented with the idea that this wasn't a decent thing to do, "It's my farmhouse." "I need the money". The property had been in Fred's family for a couple of hundred years.. but she sells it anyway, and for quite a hefty sum.

What gets me, though, is that she takes such a poor-me tone when her boss ditches her after he sours on their 20-year affair, and uses this rejection as the excuse for embezzling 50,000 pounds from his company (her reasoning being that getting caught would cause her boss' dirty laundry to come to light and ruin him as well, which is why she was stealing - nothing to do with greed, eh?). Never mind what that might do to his wife and kids. Not that I think this was actually her reason for stealing 50K in the first place...

Point being, I am seeing a highly manipulative person between the lines, rather than just a dotty old bat with fake memories...

 

[Steely Dan]

It's interesting how she confessed to the killing, but nothing she's done can get her arrested. Good story, no legal consequences, for the most part and salable. What's not to like?

 

[txsvicki]

If she sold the family property and had a 20 year long affair with a married man then I don't believe her at all.

 

[Ausgirl]

Well. Considering that Janet made more than half a million pounds from selling the farm off bit by bit, I think that (even if she did have an inexplicable 200K pounds worth of mortages still owed after the last sale of land), she should be pretty well set for life.

Not bad, for an initial investment of 900 pounds and ongoing payment of 10 pounds a week, which is what she initially bought into the farm for, and what I would guess gave her the legal leverage to end up owning the whole place lock and stock after Fred vanished (which left it all in legal limbo and Janet's control for 7 years..)

She also had her ample wages at the law firm, occasional periods where the farm did make money - and the 50K she stole. But lived, somehow, in abject debt and poverty for most of those years. :no:

What's really got me squinting though is how Janet winds up a victim at the end of dastardly act she admits to...

Now, I have to take into account the fact that this book is written by Janet herself, and so everything in it should IMO be taken with a grain of salt. But she seems to have a pattern of financially falling on her feet via a crime, and then justifying that position by villainising the man involved. The main message of the book appears to be: Do not get in the way of Janet getting what she wants when she wants it, or you'll lose your career/vanish/have your dad tagged as a rapist/have your family heritage sold off/burn in your beds..

The last refers to her "gay friends" who committed the awful crime of looking after her home and animals while she did time in prison for theft. She says it took her six months of effort -and- a threat to burn them alive to chuck them off the property, as they wouldn't vacate it the very moment she got out of jail (on early release).

ONOES JANET. NOT MOAR VILLAINS. :scared:

And since the farm was cursed by gypsies and all, one can hardly be surprised that Janet was so often surrounded by all these dastardly men who gave her jobs and shares in farms for next to nothing, and free caretaking, etc..

Now, as with everything in this book, I have to wonder.. What's the bet Janet didn't inform the "gay friends" that she was coming home early, and simply expected them to pack up and get out immediately.

Right now, I'm even wondering whether this book she wrote and the rape story is not her vengeance for the unfavourable light she was put in, in the booklet Fred's daughter wrote. There's a definite spite surrounding her mentions of that..

 

[Donjeta]

Point being, I am seeing a highly manipulative person between the lines, rather than just a dotty old bat with fake memories...

That was close to what I felt too, although I didn't finish reading the story yet. I got the feeling she was bothered by the stories and the gossip in the neighborhood about her and his disappearance and this was a somewhat self-serving attempt to tell the story from her angle. THe conversations she reported having with people did not read like actual conversations that one is likely to have with friends but like ones designed to make a point. I suppose all authors do that to some extent and if her co-author wrote a lot of the book she wasn't there and would have to improvise quite a bit. But since Ms Holt says it's all true... that's what I'd expect it to sound like.

Her description of the discussions she had with the police back in the seventies when Fred Handford disappeared would have to be largely reconstructed since she can't remember it exactly after several decades. But the way it's written it sounds to me like a reconstruction of an interrogation where the person lied and was delighted to get away with it, not like a reconstruction of an interrogation in which the person is basically honest but clueless. It's the way she says things like, "my voice didn't waver" and "I knew my gaze was steady" I guess. That's what you think if you're lying and trying to appear honest and straightforward, not if you are focusing on trying to help the police find a missing person.

 

[wfgodot]

As the story unravels (thanks, posters above, for the fine research and thinking!) the more this woman is reminding me of the West Yorkshire housewife who claimed to have been raised in Colombia by Capuchin monkeys.

Still wondering what the hell did happen to old Fred, though.

 

[Cappuccino]

He probably fell down a mine shaft just like the original police investigating his case thought.

 

[Donjeta]

Who knows... At one point of the book she gets quite emphatic that the married boss was her first lover which seemed to come out of nowhere and of course it made me wonder if she did in fact have an affair with Fred (it would help explain the weird financial arrangement that made them business partners) and if Fred finding out about the other guy had anything do with his disappearance.

 

[Cappuccino]

Well... maybe he fell down one of the many disused mine shafts in the are, maybe he was pushed. Maybe he even jumped.

I don't believe a word of this woman's story anyway.

 

[Ausgirl]

The popular theory was actually that Fred threw himself down a mineshaft. And he might've done so. He might've even been a clumsy old farmer and fallen in.

The reason I am not completely sold on that is primarily that Janet's book is so very slimy on a subtext level. And contains a lot of overt and implied violence, lots of bitter, vengeful thinking and acts of personal destruction against those who dare to cross her, and a great deal of finger-pointing and subversion of blame when she does admit wrongs.

Is she crackers? Yup, pretty sure she is. But is she a killer?

I think.... I'm at 75% positive Janet is cunning as an outhouse rat and quite capable of both killing for profit and making sure she gets away with it - look at what she claims to have done to Miles. That took patience, sustained rage, a lot of cool methodical behaviour, and a total lack of compassion for who else might be hurt by her actions aside from the chosen target.

Of course, it all might be simply wish fulfilment fantasies in the mind of a lonely old biddy. But eh, not many silly women like that make my neck hairs prickle.

 

[wfgodot]

Lots of lead mining done in Derbyshire, back in the day. Perhaps Fred fell down a shaft time had forgotten - as lead mining in Derbyshire basically ended in the 19th century. But also coal mining occurred near Buxton, the Danebower colliery perhaps being the largest concern. Abandoned in 1922.

One would know, one would think, if there were mine shafts on one's property. Convenient place for an exit, perhaps, were it that.

Huge amount of mine shafts in my immediate area but people very rarely fall down them. And even more rarely throw themselves down them.

One would think the police might have done better diligence in establishing this possibility as fact, though. But who knows. Perhaps they did.

 

[Donjeta]

A mine shaft would be a great place to get rid of a body, if you were so inclined.

When she describes the search she went on with the police she says that the police said the ground hadn't been disturbed where she said she buried the body, and claims that they're wrong, that the area was dug up for the pipelines in the eighties and suggests that the remains may have been removed with the earth back then. Very convenient.

Then she says there must be logical reasons why the police didn't find Fred's body where she said it was. If she knew it wasn't there it would be perfectly logical...

 

[wfgodot]

The Kansas City branch of "the Mob" are said to have disposed of many dozens in the shafts hereabouts.

 

[Ausgirl]

One loud fact in the book .. Janet likes to openly admit to any wrongdoing (theft, adulterous affairs, even murder) with what appears to be abject humility but without exception goes on to justify her terrible behaviour by making herself the true victim in the situation. It smells of narcissistic sociopathy.. and a clever ruse, if it is one. In which case she got away with a year and two days in jail for grand theft of the 50,000 pounds and possibly a very profitable murder, too.

Idk. I can't just dismiss her as being delusional, since that perception, to me, seems like exactly what she is -trying- to achieve.

And yup, he's probably down a mineshaft or in a peat bog or something.. I think the whole field debacle could have been an intentional misdirection..

 

[Donjeta]

One loud fact in the book .. Janet likes to openly admit to any wrongdoing (theft, adulterous affairs, even murder) with what appears to be abject humility but without exception goes on to justify her terrible behaviour by making herself the true victim in the situation. It smells of narcissistic sociopathy.. and a clever ruse, if it is one. In which case she got away with a year and two days in jail for grand theft of the 50,000 pounds and possibly a very profitable murder, too.

Idk. I can't just dismiss her as being delusional, since that perception, to me, seems like exactly what she is -trying- to achieve.

And yup, he's probably down a mineshaft or in a peat bog or something.. I think the whole field debacle could have been an intentional misdirection..

It seems like she confesses things that apparently are common knowledge among her acquaintances anyway or at least suspected and gossiped about. Then she puts her own spin on it.

There was also an author's note in one of the links yesterday that kind of implied to me: "hey, look here, I confessed an affair with a married man so you see, everything else must be true too".

I like the way she minimizes blaming Fred's young relative "Debra" for her theft. She calls it a "stupid" thing to do. How about "cruel", "wrong", "cowardly", "vindictive", "dishonest"?

Edit: Here's the note
http://www.scribd.com/doc/131764286/The-Stranger-In-My-Life-An-Autobiography

 

[Ausgirl]

There was another bit (which I can't be bothered just now looking up for an exact quote, sorry..) where she calls her friends "stupid" and gets quite nasty about it, when these are the very people (among the few) who put up with her.. I can't help feeling sorry for Mary (if she actually exists) for putting up with so much before finally ditching Janet as a lost cause.

Anyways -- here's a book review. By Fred's sister. :viking:

Amazon.co.uk: Profile For E Stafford nee Handford: [email]Reviews@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com[/email]/images/I/5116TTkVW1L.@@AMEPARAM@@5116TTkVW1L

 

[Donjeta]

Here's one of those conversations that doesn't have much verisimilitude to me.

http://authonomy.com/books/47210/the-stranger-in-my-life/read-book/?chapterid=453335#chapter

The therapist tells her that she must be prepared for the worst. What is the worst, you might ask. Well, the worst, according to good Dr Browne-Thomas, (allegedly), is A) that the police might not find the body and B) t might be a false memory and in reality Janet wasn't raped and isn't a murderer. Also she seems to be concerned that the police might not be able to charge Janet without a body.

I suppose it's a matter of personal preference but I don't really see how not being raped and not being a murderer could be worse in a therapist's mind than being raped and being a murderer. And do therapists really say things like "call on your coping mechanisms"? It sounds more like it came from someone who doesn't really know what advice a therapist would actually give in such a situation so they came up with a vague technical term that covers everything.

The other excerpt is from the same chapter. I'll bet you good money that this conversation never took place. How do I know?

Well, because she can't decide if it happened when Mary phoned her as she was in the police car or while Mary was looking at her speechless and bemused and because she is not sure if she's not seen Mary for two years or if she was in Mary's kitchen when the police came for her, and because she's not sure if she explained to her friend in ten minutes that she killed a man in 1976 or if she just used code to communicate to Mary that she couldn't speak but something serious had happened.

This book is a load of crock and if Ms Holt paid the co-author something for editing this she was robbed.

Does anyone know what the law regarding patient confidentiality is in the UK? Is a therapist required or authorized to report a crime that her client may or may not have committed several decades ago if the client does not at present threaten anyone's safety?