A Bank Mandate, a Stroke, and Decades of Withheld Trust Funds”

The documents that follow explain a critical fact the reader must understand: the impostor trustee did not know where the Emerald Trust bank account was held—despite claiming to be the lawful trustee.

It took years of collaboration between the impostor trustee and Mr Smalley before access to the account was finally obtained, and even then, it was only possible after securing the personal authorisation of Mrs Durrant. The reason is telling. The bank would deal exclusively with her, as it retained Mr Durrant’s original signature on file. Without that signature, no authority could be recognised.

The Emerald Trust deed relied upon by the impostor trustee—manufactured after Mr Durrant’s murder—was therefore unusable. It carried no signature from the settlor. The bank would have rejected it outright. In practice, the only document that mattered was the one created during Mr Durrant’s lifetime and supported by his authenticated signature.

This single point dismantles the impostor trustee’s entire position. A trustee who does not know where the trust’s bank account is held, and who cannot access it without the widow’s consent, is not administering a trust. They are attempting, retrospectively, to take control of one.

The documents below show exactly how—and when—that attempt finally succeeded.

Remarkably, just six days after Mrs Durrant signed a will in the Isle of Man—prepared by Mr Smalley—she suffered a stroke. From that point onward, beginning in 1990–1991, the impostor trustee and Mr Smalley kept income and capital from the relevant accounts rigidly segregated.

The stated reason for this separation is extraordinary. They claimed uncertainty as to who the true beneficial owners of these millions actually were. Yet this position sits in direct conflict with an undeniable fact: access to the bank account had only ever been obtained through Mrs Durrant herself. The bank recognised her authority because it held Mr Durrant’s signature on file and would deal with no one else.

To any reasonable observer, that conduct raises a fundamental question. If you rely on a person’s authority to gain access to an account, but then withhold the assets on the basis that ownership is “uncertain,” what does that say about intent? Is this merely bad faith—or something more serious?

Crucially, this information did not emerge voluntarily. It came to light only during the Isle of Man proceedings, buried within one of Mr Smalley’s own witness statements, reproduced below. Until then, the position had been carefully obscured.

That leads to an unavoidable question: why has my family received nothing from the estates and trusts Mr Smalley has claimed to be “resolving” since September–October 1989? Why have the courts permitted him to retain everything—year after year—by way of legal fees, while the true beneficiaries remain excluded entirely?

Is this justice?Or is it an example of a small, insulated elite assuming they can operate without accountability in the offshore islands?

I think the answer is obvious.

Why This Letter Matters

The letter shown above was sent by the impostor trustee to the wrong bank in Jersey. That error is crucial.

Despite being addressed incorrectly, the letter was forwarded internally to the Royal Trust Bank account in the Isle of Man. The only reason this could have happened is that the bank already knew the relevant account numbers and relationships. Without that internal knowledge, the impostor trustee would not have been able to locate the correct bank or account so quickly.

In other words, the impostor trustee did not independently identify the Emerald Trust bank account. Contact was made only because the initial letter—sent to the wrong institution—was redirected by banking staff who already knew where the account was held.

This directly contradicts the claim that the impostor trustee was acting with full knowledge and authority as trustee at the time and since November 23rd 1978 as sole trustee. It shows that access to the account was achieved indirectly and with assistance, not through any legitimate control of the trust’s banking arrangements.

The copy of the letter is poor, but it is readable. More importantly, it reveals how the account was located and accessed—something that would not have been possible without inside knowledge held by the bank.

The documents speak for themselves.

What This Letter Confirms

The letter shown above was sent by the Royal Trust Bank in the Isle of Man to the impostor trustee. Its contents are decisive.

The bank makes clear that its records were not aware of the company’s involvement with the account. In other words, the entity now claiming to have been trustee was unknown to the bank at the relevant time and that account had been operating since 1980 so how could the impostor trustee have been the sole trustee of the Emerald trust since November 23rd 1978 an impossibility.

The letter also confirms two critical facts:

1. The bank held Mr Durrant’s original signature on file, and

2. Authorisation to access the account required a valid trust deed acceptable to the bank.

This is fatal to the impostor trustee’s position.

The trust deed later relied upon by the impostor trustee—produced after Mr Durrant’s murder—was not ever sent to bank because it did not contain his signature. As a result, it could not be used to authorise access to the account so confirming it was a worthless document when trying to access the Emerald trust true bank account.

The bank’s position was clear and unequivocal: without Mr Durrant’s authenticated authority, or a properly executed trust deed created during his lifetime, no access could be granted.

This letter confirms that the impostor trustee was not acting as a known or recognised trustee in the eyes of the bank. It also explains why access to the account could only be achieved later, and only through Mrs Durrant’s personal involvement.

The document is simple, factual, and devastating. It shows that the narrative promoted for decades does not align with the banking reality.

The evidence is now in the public domain.

What the Internal Notes above Reveal

The internal notes shown above were made by Ita McArdle while working in the Isle of Man for Mr Smalley. These notes are significant because they record that the bank mandate for the Emerald Trust was missing.

Despite the absence of a mandate, the notes confirm that the bank took instructions directly from Mrs Durrant. This aligns precisely with the bank’s own correspondence, which stated that it held Mr Durrant’s signature on file and would only recognise authority flowing through Mrs Durrant in the absence of a properly executed trust deed.

Crucially, the bank mandate has now been located by Jordan and is reproduced some way below. Its existence directly contradicts years of uncertainty, delay, and misrepresentation surrounding who had authority over the Emerald Trust bank account and why access was restricted.

The notes also establish that the impostor trustee did not have recognised banking authority at the time. If a valid mandate had been in place in the trustee’s favour, the bank would not have needed to rely on Mrs Durrant for instructions.

For completeness and transparency, it should be noted that Ita McArdle later served as a director of BAE Systems Overseas Limited. Public company records also show corporate connections, via other entities, to individuals including Mark Carney. These are matters of public record and are noted here to illustrate the broader professional and corporate environment in which these events took place.

It should also be noted that Mr Smalley, together with his fellow trustee and executor, served as directors of BAE Systems Overseas Limited, operating under its earlier corporate names in the Isle of Man.

This is a matter of record and provides additional context when assessing the professional networks, governance experience, and responsibilities of those involved in the administration of the Emerald Trust and related companies.

Readers may wish to bear this in mind when considering the wider documentary record and the long-running failure to resolve the trusts and estates following Mr Durrant’s unsolved brutal murder.

The documents below speak for themselves. Together, they demonstrate that control of the Emerald Trust bank account rested not with the claimed trustee, but with Mrs Durrant—and that the narrative presented for decades does not match the banking reality.

Who Controlled the Emerald Trust Bank Account

The letter shown above was sent by Mrs Durrant to the Royal Trust Bank in the Isle of Man. Its meaning is unambiguous.

In this letter, Mrs Durrant authorises the bank to share information only with Ita McArdle and Mr Smalley. No other individual or company is authorised. This confirms that, at this stage, all parties involved—the bank, Ita McArdle, and Mr Smalley—knew exactly who was in control of the Emerald Trust bank account.

It was Mrs Durrant.No one else.

There was no confusion. There was no uncertainty about beneficial ownership. There was no lack of clarity while Mrs Durrant was able to communicate. The bank took instructions from her, recognised her authority, and limited disclosure strictly in accordance with her written consent.

This document dismantles the later narrative that income and capital were withheld because the true owners of the monies were “unknown.” When Mrs Durrant could speak, the position was perfectly clear.

The letter stands as contemporaneous proof of control, authority, and knowledge—and it shows that any later claims of uncertainty were not genuine, but constructed after the fact.

The evidence is in black and white.

Attendance Notes Confirm Who Had Authority

The attendance notes shown below confirm that Mrs Durrant had given authority over the Emerald Trust bank account and that a new bank mandate was to be prepared on that basis.

This is significant. It demonstrates that, at the time these notes were made, there was no uncertainty about who controlled the Emerald Trust bank account. The authority rested with Mrs Durrant, and the bank mandate was to reflect that position.

Once again, this directly contradicts later claims that income and capital were kept separate because the beneficial ownership of the monies was allegedly unclear. If ownership had truly been uncertain, no new mandate would have been prepared on Mrs Durrant’s authority.

These contemporaneous notes show that control, authority, and knowledge were clearly understood by all parties involved. Any suggestion that the position was ambiguous only arose later—after Mrs Durrant was no longer able to speak for herself.

The documents tell a consistent story. When Mrs Durrant could give instructions, the Emerald Trust bank account was treated as being under her control.

Bank Confirms Who Gave Instructions

The letter shown below was sent by the bank to Mr Smalley’s former law firm. Its wording is unequivocal.

The bank confirms that it took instructions from Mrs Durrant, acting in her capacity as the sole executrix of her husband’s estate. No other person or entity is identified as having authority to instruct the bank at this stage.

This is a critical document. It confirms that, in the bank’s own records and dealings, Mrs Durrant was recognised as the controlling authority in relation to the estate and the associated bank accounts. There was no reference to any corporate trustee exercising control, and no suggestion that authority was unclear.

Once again, this directly undermines later claims that income and capital were withheld because ownership or control was uncertain. The bank knew exactly who it was dealing with and why.

When contemporaneous banking records consistently show instructions being taken from Mrs Durrant alone, any later narrative suggesting confusion over authority does not withstand scrutiny.

The evidence is consistent.The control was known.And it was documented at the time.

Why These Attendance Notes Are Critical

The attendance notes shown below record that a new bank mandate was created for the Emerald Trust for an RBS bank account. This point is crucial when the position of Mr Vaart, the real trustee of the Emerald Trust, is properly considered.

For decades after the murder of his close friend, Mr James William Durrant, Mr Vaart has maintained a bank account in Jersey with Royal Bank of Scotland. That connection matters, because it identifies one of the very accounts where Emerald Trust monies appear to have been kept separate for decades following the murder.

This also explains a long-standing and troubling issue: why RBS in Jersey has refused to comply with Mr Vaart’s Subject Access Request for a bank account that contains his own name—an account he did not even know existed until the Dutch tax authorities asked him to include his Jersey bank account in his tax returns.

The attendance notes bridge that gap. They show that a mandate was put in place without Mr Vaart’s knowledge or involvement while funds linked to the Emerald Trust were being held and controlled elsewhere. The separation of monies was not accidental; it was structured.

When viewed alongside the other documents on this page, a consistent picture emerges:

• Mandates were created and amended when required

• Control was exercised without the knowledge of the two true trustee's

• Accounts were maintained in parallel, with information withheld

• Banks later relied on “confidentiality” to refuse lawful disclosure

These notes help explain how that system functioned—and why discovery of these accounts has taken decades.

The documents below allow the public to see how control was exercised, how information was withheld, and why the true trustee's were kept in the dark for so long.

Jordan also followed all the bank accounts involved [file soon].

Power of Attorney: An Early Warning Sign

The letter below, written by Mr C. Durante to his UK lawyer at the time, records a serious concern raised by his mother, Mrs Durrant.

Mrs Durrant became alarmed when one of the lawyers attempted to use her Power of Attorney (POA) to take control of the bank account. She intervened and stopped the attempt. This action is documented and speaks for itself.

The significance of this letter is not rhetorical—it is evidential. It shows that Mrs Durrant was alert, capable, and actively protecting control of the bank account at that time. It also confirms that authority over the account had not been freely or lawfully transferred to lawyers or third parties.

This episode provides important context for what followed. Access to the bank account represented control over substantial sums. Mrs Durrant’s decision to prevent the use of her POA demonstrates that she understood the implications and acted to retain control.

The document stands as an early warning sign: attempts were being made to access and control the account before any genuine clarity, mandate, or transparency had been established.

The letter allows readers to draw their own conclusions.

Attendance Notes Raise a Serious Question

The attendance notes shown below were taken on the same day that Mrs Durrant is recorded as having signed a will prepared by Mr Smalley.

Within those notes, one point stands out clearly: National Savings Bonds valued at £200,000 were due to Mrs Durrant imminently. These were her bonds. There is no ambiguity in the notes as to ownership.

Yet just days later, following Mrs Durrant’s stroke, income and capital—including assets such as these bonds—were treated differently. Funds were kept “separate” from Mrs Durrant’s family on the stated basis that ownership was somehow unclear.

That position is difficult to reconcile with the contemporaneous record.

When these attendance notes were made:

• The bonds were identified as belonging to Mrs Durrant

• She was able to communicate and give instructions

• There was no recorded uncertainty about entitlement

The obvious question therefore arises: why, only weeks later, were these assets treated as if their ownership was in doubt? What changed—other than Mrs Durrant’s ability to speak for herself?

The notes do not answer that question.But they do show that, at the time, the position was understood.

As with the other documents on this page, the record is clear. Any later suggestion that ownership was genuinely uncertain must be viewed against what was known—and recorded—at the time.

The Trustee’s Own Lawyers Identify the Beneficiary

The letter shown below was written by lawyers instructed by the impostor trustee. These same lawyers have previously acted for John in unrelated proceedings, including matters involving significant financial settlements. That background provides important context, but the key point here is what this letter actually says.

In the final paragraph of the letter, the lawyers state plainly that the widow, Mrs Durrant, is the beneficiary.

That statement matters.

If Mrs Durrant was recognised as the beneficiary by the impostor trustee’s own legal representatives, a simple and unavoidable question follows: how, when, and by what mechanism did Freemasons later appear as beneficiaries in the so-called Emerald Trust deed relied upon by the impostor trustee and why were funds and income kept seperate ?

There is no reference to such beneficiaries in this letter. There is no suggestion of uncertainty. On the contrary, the position is stated clearly and unequivocally.

This also dismantles the long-running justification used to withhold and divert funds—namely, that beneficial ownership was “unclear.” It was not unclear when these lawyers were writing to each other. Their own correspondence confirms that.

Yet despite this clarity, millions in capital and income were diverted and kept separate for decades. The explanation offered later does not align with what the contemporaneous documents record.

The importance of this letter lies in its simplicity. It shows that, at the time, the parties involved knew who the beneficiary was. Any later attempt to suggest otherwise must be judged against their own written words.

The record exists.The letters exist.And they tell a very different story from the one later advanced.

Readers are entitled to draw their own conclusions.

A Letter That Reveals Uncertainty Over Ownership

The letter below, written by Mr Smalley to Mr C. Durante’s UK lawyer at the time, is highly revealing.

In it, Mr Smalley states that the bank account in the name of the Emerald Trust is either part of Mr Durrant’s estate or owned by Jersey. He then asks whether Mr Durante would have any objection if the account were transferred to Royal Bank of Scotland in Jersey.

This wording matters. It shows that, at that point in time, even the executor was uncertain as to who owned the account. An account that is clearly and properly constituted as a trust asset would not be described in such terms, nor would permission be sought from the family to relocate it.

The letter therefore reinforces what the other documents on this page already demonstrate:

• Ownership and control were not settled into the so called Emerald trust deed that the impostor trustee relies on and does still today,

• The account was being treated as movable, not fixed

• Decisions were being contemplated without clear authority

There is an additional factual point worth noting. The address of Mr Smalley’s former law firm, shown as 17–19 Seaton House, Jersey, is the same address historically used by John in Jersey. Public records also show that the Bank of Japan, in connection with the Fujitsu Trust, was associated with the same address.

These address overlaps are matters of record. Their wider significance will be examined separately in due course, including alongside material relating to the Post Office scandal, when the full documentary file is released.

The documents continue to tell a consistent story.

Beneficiary Objects to the Movement of the Account

The letter shown above was written by Mr C. Durante to the Royal Trust Bank, in the name of the Emerald Trust. Its significance is clear.

In this letter, Mr Durante—writing as a beneficiary of the Emerald Trust—formally objects to the proposed transfer of the bank account to RBS in Jersey. That objection was explicit and unequivocal.

This document is important for two reasons.

First, it confirms that the family was treated as having standing in relation to the account. Mr Smalley and the lawyers did not act unilaterally; they sought the family’s consent before moving the account. That fact alone demonstrates that they knew these monies did not belong to them and were not free to be dealt with as they pleased.

Second, it exposes the contradiction at the heart of the later narrative. For years it has been claimed that income and capital were kept separate because the true beneficial ownership was “unclear.” Yet here, in real time, the executor and lawyers are asking permission from the very people they later claimed could not be identified.

There was no confusion.They knew whose money it was.That is why they asked.

The letter stands as contemporaneous proof that the true beneficiaries were recognised at the time—and that later claims of uncertainty were constructed after the fact.

The letter above from the impostor trustee, in which they claim that—as directors of the company—they were merely “showing an interest” in the bank account and that Mr Durrant acted as an agent for their trust and companies, is wholly unsustainable.

In reality, this organisation was Mr Durrant’s fund manager during his lifetime — nothing more. That role is well documented. It did not confer ownership, trusteeship, or authority over the bank account, nor did it permit them to characterise Mr Durrant as their agent.

While Mr Durrant was alive and able to speak for himself, the bank was expressly dealing with himself and his wife Mrs Durrant after his murder. The suggestion that the fund manager later acquired standing, authority, or agency rights over Mr Durrant’s assets fundamentally contradicts both the contemporaneous banking instructions and the true commercial relationship.

The attempt to retrospectively recast a fund management role as trusteeship or agency is not only misleading — it directly conflicts with the bank’s own requirements for written authorisation and exposes a serious misrepresentation of fact.

The attendance notes above, spanning three pages, record that the bank intended to block the accounts pending confirmation of the true beneficial ownership. This decision alone confirms that, at the relevant time, the bank did not accept the assertions being made by third parties and required proper verification before any further action could be taken.

The notes also record that Mr Smalley intended to assert that James William Durrant was domiciled in the Isle of Man. This point is particularly significant and will be addressed in detail in a forthcoming post, supported by tax records and documentary evidence.

Importantly, the attendance notes also refer to the Wild Oaks property. This reference becomes highly relevant when read alongside later documentation, which shows that Jordan’s mother was one of the trustees personally chosen by Mr Durrant during his lifetime. The appearance of this property in the contemporaneous records directly connects the bank’s concerns over beneficial ownership with the true trust structure put in place by Mr Durrant while he was alive and able to give instructions.

Taken together, these notes demonstrate that:

• the bank recognised unresolved issues of beneficial ownership,

• assertions were being prepared by third parties rather than proven by documents, and

• key trust assets were already linked to the individuals later shown to be the original, lawful trustees.

• The so-called Emerald Trust Deed dated 23 November 1978, which the impostor trustee has relied upon for decades, does not name James William Durrant as settlor. In fact, it contains no settlor’s name at all, does not name any member of his family, does not name his wife, and does not bear Mr Durrant’s signature.

  For these reasons, this document was never produced to the bank as evidence of authority. The bank instead relied on contemporaneous mandates and instructions given directly by Mr and Mrs Durrant, because the 1978 document could not lawfully establish control, ownership, or trusteeship.

  By contrast, the genuine Emerald Trust Deed dates from 1975, when Mr Durrant was alive, able to speak, and fully in control of his affairs. That deed is the operative trust instrument. It is the document that governed the Emerald Trust during Mr Durrant’s lifetime and forms the true basis of beneficial ownership.

  The later attempt to rely on an unsigned, unnamed 1978 document — while withholding it from the bank — explains why uncertainty over beneficial ownership later arose. That uncertainty was not accidental; it was the direct result of relying on a document that could not withstand scrutiny.

  It is also notable that the 1978 document purports to name Freemasons charities as the only beneficiaries, despite the absence of any settlor identification or execution. This further underscores why it was never accepted by the bank as a controlling trust deed.

• I would refer the reader to Part 1 of the Delhi Trust case in the Isle of Man courts, where Mr Smalley sought secrecy over a trust deed originating in Jersey.

  In that case, the application for secrecy was supported by a large international charity, which stated in open court that it did not want the public to know that the settlor had left his entire fortune to that organisation. The reason given was that disclosure would allegedly result in a worldwide decline in charitable donations.

  That reasoning is notable.

  Readers may reasonably ask whether the same rationale applies here — and whether the charity that sought secrecy alongside Mr Smalley in the Delhi Trust case is connected to the charities named in the Emerald Trust documentation.

  In particular, the question arises as to whether the Freemasons, who appear as beneficiaries in the later Emerald Trust deed, are linked to the same pattern of secrecy:

  • secrecy over trust deeds,

  • resistance to disclosure of settlor intentions, and

  • arguments that public knowledge would be “damaging” to charitable fundraising.

  This is not presented as an assertion, but as a legitimate question of public interest, especially where:

  • secrecy is repeatedly sought over trust instruments,

  • the identity of the settlor is obscured, and

  • banks and beneficiaries are left unable to determine true beneficial ownership.

  It should not be overlooked how the leadership of the Freemasons reacted following discussions between Jordan Durante and Dr David Staples, in which Jordan outlined several key aspects of the Emerald Trust issues.

  Shortly afterwards[ten days], Dr Staples appeared on Sky News, where he addressed the status of Masonic accounts and stated that steps were being taken to free them — an intervention described at the time as unprecedented.

  The timing of that public response has raised legitimate questions, particularly given the existence of an Emerald Trust deed that names Masonic charities as beneficiaries. No conclusion is asserted here yet, but the sequence of events is notable and forms part of the wider factual record.

  Emails and recorded calls relating to communications with the Grand Hall of Freemasons are retained and will be released in due course, allowing the public to assess the context and content for themselves in 2026.

  As with all material referenced on this site, the focus remains on documents, chronology, and transparency, rather than speculation.

  • 

  A link to the Delhi Trust case is provided below so that readers may examine the court record and draw their own conclusions.

  CHP  2013/120

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ISLE OF MAN

  
  

  CIVIL - CHANCERY PROCEDURE

  DELPHI TRUST LIMITED

  Judgment of His Honour The Deemster Doyle, First Deemster and Clerk of the Rolls delivered on the 4th day of February 2014

  
  
  
  

  Summary

  1. So far as I am aware this is the first case in which this court has had to consider the law as to whether it is appropriate for the court to sit in private when dealing with an application by a trustee for assistance under the court's inherent jurisdiction and/or section 61 of the Trustee Act 1961. Certainly counsel have not brought to my attention any relevant Manx case law on this point. I have therefore considered the position in other jurisdictions (especially Jersey) in some detail and that has resulted in a lengthy judgment but has greatly assisted the court in determining the position in Manx law which is set out in paragraphs 128-153 on pages 71-78.

  2. In this case the Applicant as trustee has applied to the court for assistance under the court's inherent jurisdiction and/or section 61 of the Trustee Act 1961. The Applicant sought an order that the proceedings be held in private as a major charitable beneficiary had expressed concerns that the publicity associated with the matter might have adverse consequences internally and externally for the charity as there could internally be competition for the allocation of funding and externally donations could drop because of the size of the fund. The Applicant's first skeleton argument dated 25th September 2013 suggested that the orders sought in the claim did not determine the civil rights of anyone and submitted that

"(1) the title in the Claim form should be anonymised, as should all references to the various members of the dramatis personae in the Application Notices, the Claim Form, Witness Statements, directions, orders and judgments;(2) all hearings and the trial be conducted in private without recordings or transcripts being made; and(3) all orders and judgments are clearly marked or stated to be delivered in private with all references to numbers, amounts and values redacted; and(4) there shall be no access permitted to the Court file without the consent of the court."

3. In this judgment I give my reasons for the order which I made on the 16th December 2013 that all hearings and the trial in respect of the application of the Applicant be conducted in open court but that the definitions contained in the confidential Key filed with the court be used and references to any specific amounts (including the amounts of any proposed distributions) shall be avoided. I also ordered that in all orders and judgments in respect of the matter all references to numbers, amounts and values shall be redacted and that there be no access permitted to any person other than the Applicant to the court file or recordings or transcripts of the proceedings without the consent of the court. By granting such orders I was endeavouring to balance the important interest of open justice and the legitimate concerns of a beneficiary in respect of privacy and confidentiality. The proceedings would be conducted in open court but there would be no reference to the identity of the settlor, the name of the trust, the beneficiary, the size of the fund or the amounts of the proposed distributions. I gave the Applicant liberty to restore its application for the proceedings to be heard in private at a future date.

4. In this judgment I endeavour to set out the principles to be followed as to whether a court should sit in open court or in private when it is hearing an application by a trustee under section 61 of the Trustee Act 1961.

Introduction

5. The Applicant as a trustee has applied for assistance from the court under the court's powers under section 61 of the Trustee Act 1961 and under the court's inherent jurisdiction. It is said to be an uncontentious matter arising in the administration of a trust. The trustee applied for certain privacy orders in respect of the proceedings, restricting access to the court file and the recordings of the proceedings and the redacting of judgments and names being anonymised. Mr Robert Ham QC appeared for the Applicant. I am most grateful to him for the valuable assistance he has provided to the court. It is plain that Mr Ham has extensive international experience in the field of trusts and I am grateful to him for sharing his experience and knowledge with the court. I have had the benefit of 3 thick files of worldwide authorities on the privacy point.

6. This judgment concerns the parts of the application of the trustee Applicant which request privacy orders.

Application in respect of privacy orders

7. The Applicant sought an order that the proceedings be held in private as a major charitable beneficiary "has expressed its concern that the publicity associated with the Claim might have adverse consequences internally and externally for the charity. It would be unfortunate, if the Settlor's generosity caused problems within the charity by way of competition for the allocation of funding, or externally causing donations to drop because of the size of the fund…" (penultimate page of the Applicant's skeleton argument dated 25th September 2013).

8. By a letter dated 13th November 2013 the major charitable beneficiary supported the Applicant's application for privacy orders. It was stated that publicity from previous large donations to the charity had given rise to two serious difficulties: (1) in terms of internal pressures within the charity as to fundraising activities and how such funds should be allocated; and (2) a severe downturn in donations from other individuals and organisations worldwide to the charity and its work. It was stated that a privacy order would ensure that publicity of the nature of the distributions is kept to a minimum. The charity would, if it is possible, prefer that the names of the beneficiaries receiving distributions be made anonymous and numbers, accounts and values redacted. It is the charity's stated firm belief that by granting a privacy order the court would ensure that other fundraising work is not adversely impacted by publicity of the scale of distributions and would allow the charity to more effectively carry out its work, in line with the settlor's intentions.

9. The Applicant also requested an order that all orders and judgments be clearly marked or stated to be delivered in private with all references to numbers, amounts and values redacted and names anonymised. Furthermore, there was a request for an order that there shall be no public access permitted to the court file or recordings of the proceedings without the consent of the court.

https://www.judgments.im/content/J1454.htm

Full link above to the top secret Isle of Man court case involving a major charity.

The letter above originates from a London law firm that Mr Smalley used in the early 1990s. The same firm was also used by the impostor trustee, as evidenced by this correspondence addressed to the impostor trustee in Jersey.

This establishes an important overlap: Mr Smalley and the impostor trustee were using the same London law firm at the same time. Despite this shared legal channel, Mr Smalley failed to secure any payment, accounts, or proper disclosure from the impostor trustee from 1989 onward, and never passed any such information or funds to the Durante family from the Emerald trust deed.

That failure persisted for decades.

A forthcoming file will set out, in detail:

• Mr Smalley’s repeated inability to resolve the trusts or estates,

• his continued reliance on the same law firm as the impostor trustee, and

• the working relationship between them that resulted in no accounts, no distributions, and no resolution for the family until Jordan communicated with the impostor trustee in 2022.

The documentary record shows that this was not a shortcoming of time or opportunity. It was a prolonged failure that left the trusts and estates unresolved for decades, while control and information remained elsewhere.

The letter above refers specifically to 20 Wild Oaks and records that the property was owned by Anna Kingsland-Jones before being transferred to Manor Estates.

From 1990 onwards, Mr Smalley was in charge of Manor Estates. He therefore cannot deny knowledge that Anna Kingsland-Jones owned 20 Wild Oaks in her capacity as a trustee of the real Emerald Trust. That knowledge is embedded in the documentary record.

Despite this, Mr Smalley:

• never disclosed this fact to resolve the trust issues,

• never relied on this property to clarify beneficial ownership, and

• never used this information to protect the interests of the Durante family.

• Never mentioned it to the real trustee Anna in all these decades nor asked Anna to sign a deed of retirement or appointment of new trustee[DORA].

Instead, he worked for decades alongside the impostor trustee.

Following the murder of James William Durrant, the impostor trustee became a shareholder in Manor Estates. That position remained in place for decades. In 2017, the impostor trustee returned the shares, stating that they held no declaration of trust authorising them to hold those shares.

That admission is critical.

It confirms that:

• the impostor trustee had no lawful basis to hold shares in Manor Estates and Smalley never questioned that from 1989 -2017 why ?

• yet acted as a shareholder for decades, and

• worked in that capacity alongside Mr Smalley, or required him to account to them as shareholders.

By their own words, the impostor trustee therefore confirms that they were not only acting as an impostor trustee, but also as an impostor shareholder in one of Mr Durrant’s key companies.

Finally, it should be noted that the London law firm referred to above features prominently in the book The Mafia, CIA and George Bush, which I have relied upon extensively in my research. A separate post will follow examining that connection and setting out, in detail, what occurred in the period after Mr Durrant’s murder, supported by documents and contemporaneous records.

The letter above, sent by the impostor trustee to the bank, shows that an agreement had been reached between the executor and the trustee’s office regarding use of the bank account.

What is striking is the timeline.

Despite the impostor trustee’s repeated claim that it had been the sole trustee since 23 November 1978, it still required Mrs Durrant’s personal authorisation to access the account — and even then, access was only achieved two years and 230 days later.

This directly contradicts the claim of sole trusteeship.

The documentary record shows that the trust and associated companies remained with Barclaytrust well into 1979. There is no contemporaneous evidence of any valid transfer of trusteeship or control to the impostor trustee during that period.

This point is reinforced by Mr Smalley himself. In his Isle of Man witness statements, Mr Smalley states that he believed there was no evidence showing a transfer of the companies from Barclaytrust to the impostor trustee — and that he had never seen any such transfer documentation.

That raises an unavoidable question.

If the executor believed there was no valid transfer,and if the impostor trustee could not access the bank account without Mrs Durrant’s authority years later,why did the executor not act to challenge this position?

Instead, the record shows that Mr Smalley continued to work alongside the impostor trustee for decades, despite the absence of evidence supporting their claim to sole trusteeship.

The contradiction is clear.The silence that followed is harder to explain.

What is the reader’s view?

A substantial documentary file will be released shortly setting out damaging remarks made by Mr Smalley about the impostor trustee in the Isle of Man court proceedings. Those remarks are already on the court record.

What is notable, however, is that no meaningful action followed.

Over decades, responsibility appears to have been repeatedly attributed to the impostor trustee, yet the executor took no effective steps to resolve the trusts, recover accounts, or secure distributions for the Durante family. This raises a serious and legitimate question:was blame being shifted elsewhere while nothing was done to correct the underlying position?

The outcome speaks for itself.

The Durante family’s inheritance and trust monies were never passed on. Instead, funds derived from the impostor trustee’s reliance on the disputed Emerald Trust deed were absorbed into legal costs, leaving the family with nothing after decades of unresolved administration.

This is the context in which Jordan Durante has chosen to go public. Not out of choice, but necessity.

The records show:

• a murdered settlor, James William Durrant,

• decades of unresolved trust and estate administration,

• repeated acknowledgements of problems without corrective action, and

• beneficiaries excluded while professionals remained in control.

Accountability has not yet been delivered.Transparency has not yet been provided.

That is why the evidence is now being placed in the public domain — and why this process will continue until the full documentary record is examined and responsibility properly assessed.

Justice delayed does not extinguish responsibility.

If accountability is not delivered in 2026, the consequences for the wider trust and legal services industry will be reputational rather than rhetorical.

The documentary record is now extensive. It is being lawfully and carefully released, piece by piece, so that regulators, journalists, and the public can examine the facts for themselves. As more material enters the public domain, the inconsistencies, failures, and unresolved contradictions will become increasingly difficult to ignore.

This is not a warning.It is a statement of reality.

Industries built on confidence, secrecy, and professional trust depend on transparency when serious questions arise. When transparency is withheld, scrutiny follows — and reputations are shaped by what the evidence shows, not by what institutions hope will remain unseen.

The path forward is straightforward:

• full disclosure,

• proper investigation, and

• accountability where it is warranted.

Absent that, public examination will continue — because the evidence exists, and the truth does not expire.

Justice delayed invites scrutiny.

The bank’s letter above, addressed to the impostor trustee, records that a new bank mandate was issued to Jaques & Lewis, the former law firm of Mr Smalley, and that bank statements were to be supplied to the impostor trustee in Jersey.

This is a critical document.

It demonstrates that Mr Smalley had operational control of the Emerald Trust bank account. The mandate was routed through his law firm, and the banking arrangements placed him in a position of authority over the account.

That raises an obvious and unavoidable question.

If Mr Smalley was in control of the bank account, why were the funds not distributed to the true beneficial owners — namely, his client Mrs Durrant’s children? Instead of making distributions or resolving beneficial ownership, the record shows that he continued to work alongside the impostor trustee.

For decades, Mr Smalley repeatedly wrote to the Durante family stating that:

• he was not in charge of the Emerald Trust, and

• he was “trying very hard” to resolve a complicated situation.

In light of this bank correspondence, those explanations ring hollow.

The documents show that Mr Smalley was not waiting on the impostor trustee. He already had control of the account. The failure to distribute funds or resolve the trust cannot therefore be explained by lack of authority or access.

The contradiction is clear:

• control existed,

• beneficiaries were known as Mr Smalley sought permission to pay the tax man and to move bank accounts from Mr C Durante

• yet distributions were not made from the Emerald trust bank account under Mr Smalley's control

The reader is left to draw their own conclusion from the documentary record.

The document below is the missing bank mandate that no party was previously able to locate. It was uncovered only because Jordan Durante reviewed every file ever sent to the Durante family. In doing so, he identified a letter from the bank addressed to his father, C. Durante.

That letter is decisive.

It identifies James William Durrant himself as the trustee — not the impostor trustee — and it refers specifically to the Alan Way property. This is significant because subsequent SARS disclosures to Bridson Halsall confirm that Anna Kingsland-Jones was the trustee of that same property.

Once again, the records show Anna Kingsland-Jones acting as trustee, directly contradicting the impostor trustee’s long-standing claim that it had been the sole trustee since 1978.

Immediately following the bank mandate is a further letter from the impostor trustee’s lawyers. These are the same lawyers who also represented John in relation to the $74 million US land transaction.

That letter is equally revealing.

It shows that the impostor trustee’s lawyers knew that the Emerald Trust was established for the benefit of Mr Durrant’s children. In other words, the legal representatives acting for the impostor trustee were fully aware of the true beneficial ownership of the so-called Emerald Trust.

Taken together, these documents establish that:

• Mr Durrant was recognised by the bank as trustee,

• Anna Kingsland-Jones was trustee of key trust property, and

• the impostor trustee’s own lawyers knew that the beneficiaries were Mr Durrant’s children.

The continued assertion that beneficial ownership was “uncertain” is therefore not supported by the documentary record.

Readers are invited to look closely at the right-hand side of the bank mandate, where a series of XXXXXX appear over a redacted name.

Based on the surrounding context of the document — including the property references and the contemporaneous banking records — a reasonable question arises:

Does the name beneath the redaction read “Kingsland”?If so, it would correspond with Anna Kingsland-Jones, Jordan’s mother, who is independently shown through other documents to have acted as trustee in relation to the same assets.

This is not presented as an assertion.It is an invitation to examine the document carefully and consider whether the redaction aligns with what the wider documentary record already shows.

The mandate itself speaks for the evidence.

The letter below, sent by Mr Smalley’s law firm, states that for historical reasons certain clients would remain with Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).

That reference is significant.

It directly connects to Mr Vaart, whose involvement will become clear when the banking file is released shortly. The continued use of RBS for “historical reasons” aligns with the earlier trust and banking arrangements already identified in the documentary record.

This correspondence further undermines the narrative that control, trusteeship, or beneficial ownership was unclear. Instead, it shows continuity of banking relationships tied to the original trust structure, not the later claims advanced by the impostor trustee.

Further documentation will be published to place this letter in full context.

Readers should also note that **Mr Smalley stated in the Isle of Man proceedings that he retired in 2007.

That statement raises obvious and reasonable questions.

What, in concrete terms, was achieved for his client, Mrs Durrant, prior to that retirement?Why were the trusts and estates still unresolved at that point?And if he had retired, on what basis were legal fees continued to be charged to the trusts after 2007?

These are not abstract concerns. They go directly to issues of accountability, value delivered, and fiduciary responsibility — particularly where beneficiaries received no distributions and no final resolution after decades.

The reader is entitled to ask:

Is this the standard of trustee or executor one would wish to safeguard their family’s wealth in the Isle of Man?

The documents allow readers to form their own view.

The letter above shows Mr Smalley continuing to state that he was pursuing accounts from the impostor trustee.

However, the documentary record already shows that he was in a position to obtain those accounts at any time. He had access, authority, and an established working relationship with the same parties he claimed were obstructing him.

Instead of exercising that authority, Mr Smalley chose to write letters of this nature to the Durante family over many years, repeatedly presenting the matter as unresolved and outside his control.

The contrast is stark:

• access existed,

• authority existed,

• yet action did not follow.

Readers are entitled to consider whether these letters reflected genuine inability — or whether they served to create the appearance of effort while the underlying position remained unchanged.

A statement made by Mr Smalley in the Isle of Man proceedings records that an agreement was reached in 1991 between the executor and the impostor trustee.

Under that arrangement:

• all rental income and capital were kept separate, and

• two £200,000 National Savings bonds were also held apart,

• with their values reported annually to Jersey.

• This is why in the Delhi trust case in the Isle of Man they talk about staggering amounts of money as its accumulated since Mr Durrant's murder from 1988

This is a critical admission.

It confirms that assets belonging to James William Durrant were being controlled, segregated, and reported outside the knowledge or benefit of the true beneficiaries. Despite this long-running arrangement, no distributions were made, and the beneficiaries were never informed of the full position.

The fact that income, capital, and bond assets were being held separately under a private agreement between the executor and the impostor trustee. That silence speaks volumes.

The end result is deeply troubling:

• the beneficiaries received nothing,

• trust assets were retained and controlled elsewhere, and

• the family was later presented with legal cost liabilities, arising from an administration they neither controlled nor benefited from.

Readers are entitled to ask how the true beneficiaries could emerge owing money, while those administering the assets retained control for decades.

This is why the documentary record is now being made public.Transparency is no longer optional, and accountability cannot be deferred indefinitely.

A serious question arises as to why Mr Smalley was receiving accounts relating to the Emerald Trust at all.

According to the position advanced by the trustee, in 2006 the Freemasons were removed as beneficiaries of the Emerald Trust, and the children of James William Durrant were allegedly added in their place. If that change was valid, it carries important consequences.

Most notably, no lawyer ever informed the Durante family that they had been added as beneficiaries of a Jersey trust. No trust instrument was provided, no accounts were supplied, and no explanation of rights or interests was given. The family was left entirely unaware that they were supposedly beneficiaries of a “valid” trust.

That omission alone is troubling.

It also leads to a further question:on what basis was confidential trust information being shared with Mr Smalley, if he was not a beneficiary of the Emerald Trust and had no personal entitlement under it?

If the impostor trustee considered the 2006 position to be genuine, then:

• beneficiaries should have been notified,

• accounts should have been provided directly to them, and

• confidential information should not have been circulated to third parties without authority.

The continued sharing of trust information with Mr Smalley — while excluding the alleged beneficiaries themselves — is inconsistent with basic principles of trust administration and confidentiality.

Readers are entitled to ask:

• who authorised this disclosure,

• why the beneficiaries were kept uninformed, and

• whether the stated beneficiary changes were ever implemented in practice.

These questions go to the heart of whether the Emerald Trust was administered for its beneficiaries at all — or whether control and information were retained elsewhere, contrary to what was later claimed.

It must not be forgotten that the murder of James William Durrant was financially motivated. The events that followed — the control of assets, the secrecy surrounding trust structures, and the exclusion of the beneficiaries — cannot be separated from that fact.

For years, key information has remained concealed. That position is now changing.

Jordan Durante will shortly publish further material identifying the individuals and entities involved in the financial arrangements that benefited from Mr Durrant’s murder. This will be done through documentary evidence, court records, and contemporaneous correspondence, allowing the public to assess the facts for themselves.

This process is not about speculation.It is about disclosure.

When a murder is followed by decades of unresolved financial control, unanswered questions are inevitable. Transparency is the only way those questions can now be addressed.

The extract below from Mr Smalley’s witness statement confirms that monies were deliberately kept separate for decades.

This admission is significant. It shows that income and capital were not distributed, resolved, or applied for the benefit of those entitled, but instead remained segregated over an extended period. The statement aligns with other documentary evidence already published, including bank correspondence and accounting records, which demonstrate prolonged separation of trust assets without resolution.

The extract speaks for itself and reinforces the central issue in this case: decades of administration without distribution, clarity, or closure.

The email below from the States of Jersey Police economic crime team shows that, rather than carrying out an independent investigation, the police chose to relay Jordan Durante’s allegations directly to the impostor trustee.

That decision is troubling.

Passing detailed allegations to the very parties complained about — without first establishing the underlying facts — exposed Jordan to unnecessary personal risk. Ordinarily, law-enforcement agencies do not forward sensitive information to alleged wrongdoers, precisely because doing so can compromise safety, evidence, and the integrity of any inquiry. Readers may reasonably ask whether this approach reflects accepted investigative practice — or whether it reflects the Jersey way.

The police were informed that James William Durrant had established two trusts in Jersey using nominee or dummy settlors. On this point, Jordan agrees — but with crucial clarification.

The real trust instruments, which pre-date the narratives advanced by the impostor trustee, are:

• 9 January 1969 — a trust naming a UK property company as beneficiary (file to be released shortly), and

• 10 November 1975 — the genuine Emerald Trust deed, which will be examined in detail in a future post.

Notably, in their response to the police, the impostor trustee did not rely on or even mention the purported 23 November 1978 Emerald Trust deed. Instead, their correspondence refers only to earlier trust structures.

That omission is significant.

It suggests that, when communicating with law enforcement, the impostor trustee avoided reliance on the very document it has otherwise claimed for decades to be the foundation of its authority. This inconsistency will be explored further when the underlying trust deeds and correspondence are published in full.

The documents raise serious questions about:

• how the complaint was handled,

• why allegations were shared with the subject of the complaint, and

• why key trust instruments were selectively referenced or omitted.

Readers are encouraged to review the material carefully as further files are released.

The police correspondence alleges that I threatened Mr Smalley and frightened his family. That allegation is not supported by the facts.

I travelled to the Isle of Man alone, from Spain, after first informing the police of my intention to attend the island. I made clear that this would be the first attempt in my life to locate and speak with my trustee.

While on the island:

• I requested meetings with lawyers through proper channels,

• no meetings were granted,

• I did  attend Mr Smalley’s home as I am good at finding people but met no one at his house

• I did not meet or see Mr Smalley or any member of his family, and

• there was no direct contact of any kind apart from with his son in law at one of Mr Smalley's old law firm addresses.

Despite this, I was reported to the police by lawyers who, paradoxically, had previously claimed to be unable to locate the family for years. The allegation therefore rests entirely on lawyer-generated reports, not on any interaction or incident involving me.

The email also states that Mr Smalley had to “hire lawyers” to deal with me. That statement is misleading.

Mr Smalley retired in 2007. His former firm subsequently merged with, or became associated with, Bridson Halsall, the same firm now representing interests aligned with him. There was no new or independent legal engagement triggered by my presence.

More broadly, this episode highlights a systemic issue within the Isle of Man legal community. Many firms operate within a closed professional ecosystem, including reliance on the same professional indemnity insurance providers. That structure creates a shared financial incentive to avoid findings of fraud or professional misconduct, as such findings would have consequences across the profession.

This concern was explicitly identified in Lord Garnier’s review of the Isle of Man legal services, which warned of cultural and structural barriers to accountability.

A forthcoming post will set out, in detail:

• the misleading statements made by lawyers,

• the inconsistencies between their claims and the documentary record, and

• why the public should approach representations from certain Isle of Man firms with caution.

This is not about personal grievance.It is about accuracy, accountability, and ensuring that allegations are tested against facts — not simply repeated because they originate from within a closed professional circle.

Above statement made by Mr Smalley in the Isle of Man proceedings confirms that Anna (Jordan’s mother) purchased 20 Wild Oaks using funds drawn from the Royal Trust Bank account held in the name of the Emerald Trust. This supports Jordan’s research that Anna was acting in a trustee capacity in relation to Emerald Trust assets and must be the xxxxx named on the bank mandate shown above.

This conclusion is not based on one document alone. It is supported by a growing body of evidence, including:

• SARS disclosures to Bridson Halsall (who represent Mr Smalley, the retired executor)

• SARS disclosures to the entity acting as trustee in Jersey

• references to Anna as trustee in respect of multiple assets (including redacted entries shown as “xxxx/xxxxx”) The companies in Jersey.

• recorded calls and meetings spanning 1989–2025

• Mr Smalley’s own comments on the court record

• Land Registry documentation and related property records

• banking correspondence and mandate material

• The bank used to send bank statements to Anna's address

• The inland revenue wrote to Anna at her address re the trusts and its companies

Taken together, the records consistently point to the same issue: the original trust structure and true beneficial ownership were capable of being identified, yet the beneficiaries have remained excluded while third parties retained control and still do.

This raises serious questions for the major trust service provider involved — including its senior leadership and any wider stakeholders who have been made aware of the documentary record:

• Why has full disclosure not been provided to resolve beneficial ownership and authority?

• Why have the true beneficiaries not received distributions or accounts consistent with the documents?

• Why has the 1978 narrative continued to be advanced where contemporaneous records point elsewhere?

• Why has a position been maintained that conflicts with what banks, property records, and witness statements show?

If the evidence demonstrates that control has been exercised without proper authority, then this is not merely a “technical dispute” — it becomes a matter of regulatory fitness, governance, and public confidence.

For that reason, the question is not only what happened in the past, but what should happen now:

Should an organisation facing documentary evidence of unresolved beneficial ownership issues and disputed authority remain authorised to act in fiduciary roles, and should it continue to present itself as a trusted industry participant without full transparency?

These are questions for regulators, investigators, shareholders, and the public — and the documents will continue to be published so that the record can be tested openly, rather than controlled behind closed doors.

The two bank statements shown above relate to Jersey-based companies that were under the care of the fund manager. Both statements record a zero balance. This supports the conclusion that James William Durrant had moved his business affairs away from Jersey by that point.

That position is consistent with statements made by Mr Smalley, who acknowledged that there were fewer than thirty monetary movements through those Jersey accounts. The lack of activity, combined with the zero balances, undermines the suggestion that Jersey remained the operational centre of Mr Durrant’s affairs.

It should also be noted that the entity acting as trustee, together with its shareholder, has long been aware of Jordan Durante’s research. Despite this, they have repeatedly declined to meet with Jordan or with the original trustee based in the Netherlands, Mr Vaart, despite requests made over a number of years.

That position is now changing.

In the near future, Mr Vaart and Jordan will be interviewed by Dutch television, where they will set out very damaging details of the trust service providers attitude and crimes, the original trust arrangements, and the evidence gathered over decades. This will place the documentary record into the public domain beyond the UK and Channel Islands.

Thank you for reading.If you require assistance or wish to make contact, please do so via my website and happy new year to all readers.

Kind regards,

Jordan Durante

Topics examined in forthcoming publications (2026):Maxwell · BCCI · Epstein · Iran–Contra · Intelligence-linked finance · Drug cartels · Money laundering · Tax evasion · Freemasonry · Media silence · Anglo-American true crime · God’s Banker · Unsolved murders · Police corruption- BAE Systems-Black Eagle trust and much more.

Additional points set out below warrant careful consideration.

The documents, timelines, and statements published on this site raise serious issues of transparency, governance, and accountability. For that reason, this material is shared in the public interest, with the aim of encouraging scrutiny, discussion, and oversight — not speculation.

Readers who believe that public awareness contributes to safety, accountability, and reform are encouraged to support and share this website so that the evidence can be examined openly rather than remaining confined to private files or closed systems.

Transparency protects people.Silence does not.

Above is James William Durrant, and below is a newspaper headline referring to his murder as a “Masons murder mystery”. Notably, the same headline wording was also used in coverage of the murder of Roberto Calvi.

The parallel is striking.

Mr Durrant and Mr Calvi knew each other, and their connection arose through Masonic networks, including links associated with the Anglo-Dutch lodge of Freemasons. These connections form part of a wider historical and documentary record that will be examined in future posts as Jordan’s research into the Freemasons has finished after six years.

No conclusion is asserted here.However, the repetition of language, the overlapping networks, and the unresolved nature of both cases raise legitimate questions that warrant closer examination.

Further documentation and source material will be published so that readers can assess the evidence and chronology for themselves.

A legitimate question arises as to what the press already knew when it chose to link the murder of James William Durrant with that of Roberto Calvi.

Both cases were reported using the same striking phrase — “Masons Murder Mystery” — suggesting that journalists at the time perceived a meaningful connection, whether through shared networks, financial contexts, or organisational links.

That question deepens when considering a 1991 article in the Daily Mail, which went further by linking two additional murders to the circumstances surrounding Mr Durrant. Those links were raised publicly by the press more than three decades ago, long before the current body of documentary material had been assembled.

Why were those connections being drawn at that time?What sources or background information informed that reporting?And why were those lines of inquiry never fully pursued?

Since then, Jordan’s research has identified further overlapping figures and financial networks, including links to Robert Maxwell, whose death and business affairs have long been associated with unresolved questions involving offshore finance, intelligence-linked networks, and institutional silence just like the Durante case.

No conclusions are asserted here.The purpose is to highlight that the press itself raised these connections decades ago, and that subsequent research has only expanded the web of overlapping names, institutions, and unexplained deaths.

As further documents are released, readers will be able to judge whether these early journalistic instincts were pointing toward patterns that were never properly examined.

Many famous unsolved murders linked to Mr James William Durrant's murder soon to be shared with the public in a timeline.