|
Correspondence from Aleister Crowley to the Director of Public Prosecutions
[undated: circa July 1934]
To the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Sir,
in re REX v. EDWARD ALEXANDER CROWLEY, on a charge of receiving letters alleged to have been stolen.
Bound over. July, '34.
I ask, and shall menforce answers to, the following questions.
1. Messrs Waterhouse, solicitors for Constable and Co. in Crowley v. Constable and others, while employing their staff to procure evidence for the prosecution, turned over the public conduct of the case to an obscure solicitor named IWI, from the Gold Coast.
Why?
2. The allegations that the letters were stolen was made on April 13, 33. The arrest was only made on June 21.
Why?
3. Messrs Waterhouse gave notice that they would apply for security for the costs of the Crowley v. Constable appeal on May 17. They only made the application on July 24, at the moment when Mr. Crowley was most hampered by the criminal proceedings.
ARE NOT QUESTIONS 2. AND 3. CAUSALLY CONNECTED?
4. During the whole summer of '33, when the civil action was expected at the opening of the October term, Betty May, Mrs. Sedgwick, was continually sending messages to Mr. Crowley that she was ready to confess the truth. Was not this approach made on every occasion when Messrs Waterhouse revolted her levies of blackmail?
Mr. Crowley refused her advances, and she accordingly perjured herself in the High Court (Crowley v. Constable) in the Marylebone Police Court and at the Old Bailey. (Rex v. Crowley.)
WERE THESE PERJURIES KNOWINGLY SUBORNED MY MM. WATERHOUSE?
5. Betty May, who had been living with Cruze during the early stage of her dealings with Messrs Waterhouse, used him and a solicitor introduced by him in those negotiations. She had "parted with him on good terms", and was still seeing him from time to time, long after the supposed date of his alleged theft of the letters. She valued them at "hundreds of pounds".
Was she not the instigator of his approach to Gregg Mather about the offer to Mr. Crowley of the use of the letters?
6. A Warrant was issued for the arrest of Mr. Crowley, who was available at any time. Only a Summons was granted against Eddie Cruze, who was then and still is, in hiding.
Why?
7. Detective-Sergeant Davidson seems to have made no serious attempt to serve that summons, although he was supplied with all information necessary.
Why? (P.S. He denies that he received this information.)
8. On April 10, '33, Cruze was seen in London. The next morning Detective-Sergeant Davidson was notified. He stated that the Summons had been withdrawn.
WHO ASKED LEAVE TO DO THIS? AND ON WHAT GROUNDS?
(He now says that Iwi did this; grounds, inability to find Cruze.)
WAS CRUZE ASSURED OF PROTECTION FROM THE FIRST?
If not, what is the explanation of the Magistrate's actions?
IS IT NOT MANIFEST THAT THE SOLE OBJECT OF THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS WAS TO 'FRAME' MR. CROWLEY?
9. The negotiations about the letters were directed by 'Aunt Nancy', an intimate friend of Cruze, and a barrister.
Why did he not come forward? What is his name?
10. No proceedings of any sort were taken against Gregg (alias George) Mather, who actually received the letters from Cruze, and handed to him the £5 paid for the use of them.
Why?
11. Mr. Isidore Kerman (Forsyte, Kerman, and Phillips, solicitors for Mr. Crowley) received the letters from Mr. Crowley. No proceedings were taken against him.
Why?
12. On Dec. 19, '33, a conference was held at the 'Falstaff' in Fleet Street to discuss the purchase of the use of the letters. Present Messrs Isidore Kerman, Gregg Mather, and Karl Germer. Mather related the whole of his negotiations with Cruze, and on his statement Mr. Kerman advised that the transaction should be carried through, though he said that the value was less like Five Pounds than Five Shillings.
Mr. Kerman swore at the Old Bailey that he had had no previous knowledge of the proposed transaction.
Why?
I submit that the above facts constitute a prima facie case for a full and impartial investigation into the whole of the circumstances. I submit that they establish the very strongest presumption of criminal conspiracy against Mr. Crowley.
|