The Devil's Feather - Minette Walters [51]
Time’s fairly short as Bill leaves Basra at the end of this month, and I doubt his replacement will be as sympathetic/interested as he is. Also, I’d rather you didn’t give information to Jerry Greenhough in Baghdad. 1) He’s leaving at the end of September; 2) A fake UK passport isn’t his problem; 3) He won’t include you in the loop, and by default me.
I’ll keep fingers crossed for a speedy result, and please keep watching your back. Of course, I’m worried about you. I’m worried about all of you out there.
Love,
Connie
From:
Dan@Fry.ishma.iq
Sent:
Wed 11/08/04 10:25
To:
connie.burns@uknet.com
Subject:
Good news/bad news
* * *
Good news: 3 positive IDs of the photo as Kenneth O’Connell.
Bad news: Alastair Surtees now claiming that, “following concerns raised,” he conducted his own in-house investigation and “gave Kenneth O’Connell his papers two weeks ago.” He has no idea where he went or what name he travelled under, but he allowed him to keep the O’Connell passport as he had no authority to confiscate it. Bill Fraser predictably furious and now going hammer and tongs at Surtees. As am I.
Will forward my copy on the Baycombe Group ASAP.
NB. There’s no record of a Kenneth O’Connell/John Harwood/Keith MacKenzie flying out of Baghdad airport, but Bill thinks he probably hitched a lift with an army vehicle and drove out through Kuwait. Frankly, with Iraq’s borders so porous, he could have left through any of them.
Bill seems to think it was my idea to show the photograph at the academy. I haven’t disabused him, but is there anything you haven’t told me about MacKenzie/O’Connell? Did he have anything to do with your abduction, Connie? Because despite your assurance that he didn’t, I’m having doubts.
Do you still not trust me?
Love, Dan
From:
Brian.Burns@S.A.Wines.com
Sent:
Thur 12/08/04 08:52
To:
connie.burns@uknet.com
Subject:
Telephone calls
* * *
Darling,
Written in haste. I’m in a meeting all morning but will call this afternoon when I’m back at my desk. Your mother’s terribly upset about the row last evening re the nuisance phone calls. When she asked if Jess Derbyshire could be making them, she meant, was it possible—i.e., had you given Jess our phone number or might she have seen it written down somewhere? (Be fair, C. It was you who planted the seed a couple of weeks ago, otherwise the idea of Jess making them would never have occurred to Mum.)
From the way you flew off the handle, I suspect you’re more worried than angry, but I don’t think there’s any reason to assume these calls are aimed at you. An adviser at British Telecom suggested they’re the result of random dialling—probably a man—who punched in numbers until a woman answered, and now uses “redial” for the thrill of it. We’ve had numerous calls from people trying to contact you, and we’ve followed your instructions to the letter—said you were out of London and taken their names and numbers to pass on to you. We’ve refused to be drawn into further detail, even when we’ve recognized the voices of your friends.
This is particularly true of this nuisance caller. Whoever’s doing it only rings during the day, and your mother hangs up as soon as she’s greeted by silence at the other end. In fact, she has no idea whether it’s a man or a woman as they never speak. There were some 20 calls between Monday lunchtime and yesterday p.m., but dialling 1471 doesn’t help as the caller’s number is withheld. I’ve now asked British Telecom to bar all withheld numbers, which means calls from abroad will be automatically rejected. It’s a bore in the short term, but hopefully this pest