Typhonian Ordo Templi Orientis
Aleister Crowley appointing Kenneth Grant
Alleged provenance of the forged document
[16 July 2001]
Dear Mr Koenig,
I am the individual who sent you the scans of the document signed by
Crowley appointing Frater Aussik to OHO of the OTO.
I am now, for reasons I will explain, able to reveal a little more of
its provenance, and the circumstances by which I came across it.
(Unfortunately, I am still unable to reveal my own identity, for the
same reasons I outlined in my previous communications to you. This is
not because of any sinister reason, but simply because my professional
reputation is at stake if it becomes known I acted unethically. For
what it is worth, I have suffered a great deal of remorse over the
incident, and now regret I acted so rashly; and if I had not acted as I
did, I may have been able to prove the document's existence and
authenticity beyond any doubt by more ethical and open means. Alas, I
have merely added to the confusion surrounding it. Ironically, if I
were able to reveal my identity and credentials, my professional
reputation alone would vouch for the document's authenticity! Such
thoughts however, did not enter my head at the time, and what's done is
done.)
I can now reveal the name of the individual who owned the document at
that time: In my previous communication to you, I indicated that it was
a gentleman who lived in the North of England. I'm afraid this was a
blind (for which please excuse me; I was merely trying to cover my
tracks), and in fact it was a gentleman who lived in the South, in St.
Leonards-on-Sea, near Hastings. The individual was Mr. Frank Letchford,
who personally knew the proprietor of Netherwood in Hastings, and from
whom he obtained the Crowley document.
Mr. Letchford has since died, and I have been keeping an interested eye
on various items from his collection that have come onto the market
since his death (he was a noted friend and collector of Austin Osman
Spare, and other artists, and a book dealer/collector), although I have
not been personally involved in the sale of his collection. Indeed, I
suspect that those persons involved in the matter remain unaware that I
valued Mr Letchford's collection at his request prior to his death; I
remember that on the occasions I visited him, Mr Letchford would usher
me quickly and furtively into his shop at the front of his home,
although not knowing him well that may just have been his manner...
On my second visit, Mr Letchford allowed me to take back to my offices
a battered blue card folder crammed full of miscellaneous loose
documents and letters, in order to go through them with more time at my
disposal. The Crowley document was among them. There were no other
Crowley related items, beyond a book or two, in the collection; as I
stated previously, Mr Letchford was not a practising occultist and had
no real interest beyond the literary and philosophical.
Upon my reading the Crowley document, I showed it to two other
professional colleagues who were able to vouch for its authenticity.
Furthermore, we have several copies of Crowley letters and documents in
our files with which we were able to compare this document. We were
able to satisfy ourselves that the document is genuine, and had we been
instructed to put it up for auction, we would have provided such proof
of authenticity as was deemed necessary.
I telephoned Mr Letchford and asked him if I may inform any interested
parties of the document's existence, perhaps with a view to sale. He
was MOST adamant that I do no such thing. When I attempted to persuade
him otherwise, he vehemently refused, insisted upon the entire folder's
immediate return, and slammed the telephone down. I must confess that
it was at this point I scanned the document, more in momentary anger
and frustration at his rude treatment of me, than with any clear idea
of what I would subsequently do with it. Fifteen minutes later, he
telephoned me back and apologised profusely for his reaction, allowing
me to retain the folder until my next visit, but still insisted that
the document was not for sale, and I was not to inform anyone of its
existence. That same afternoon, still smarting from the sting of Mr
Letchford's temper, I sent the scans to you. Several days later, I
returned the original to Mr. Letchford (who by now was his charming
self again.) As stated above, I almost immediately regretted my rash
action, but it was too late...
As to why Mr Letchford did not wish to publicise the existence of the
document, I cannot say for certain. It may be that he did not know that
Frater Aussik was Kenneth Grant, although I find this unlikely. Perhaps
a more likely explanation is that there seems to have been no love lost
between Mr Letchford and Mr Grant, for reasons obscure (but something
to do with their both being friends of Spare), and this may perhaps be
why Mr Letchford refrained from informing Mr Grant about the documents
existence. Perhaps. I only met Mr Letchford a few times in my
professional capacity, and he struck me as a nice elderly gentleman who
hadn't a malicious bone in his body, and yet... appearances can be
deceptive...
However, in the subsequent time since Mr Letchford's death, the
original Crowley document has not come onto the market as I have been
expecting. The reasons for this are unknown, but I cannot believe,
seeing as his collection has been scrupulously examined, split apart
and sold, that the document has escaped the notice of those
responsible. I must assume therefore, that the document is being
deliberately withheld from the open market by persons unknown for
reasons unknown at this time. Perhaps they are in secret negotiations
with interested parties for a higher price than it would fetch on the
open market? Who knows? It is this suspicious non-appearance that has
prompted me to contact you again; my (admittedly somewhat hazy at the
time) reason for sending you the scans was to see what I perceived to
be a wrong righted, a justice done. I now fear that perhaps someone has
a vested interest in seeing that Mr Grant does not officially and
legally succeed to the position he has adopted for so many years. If
the document has not already been privately offered to Mr Grant, then
perhaps it has been offered to those who oppose his position. If such
is the case, it may never see the light of day, and may indeed already
have been sold and/or destroyed.
It is a fact that some of the individuals connected with the
documentation and sale of Mr Letchford's collection either are or have
been members of the so-called Caliphate OTO, or are personally
aquainted with William Breeze.
Given that Mr Grant is the only person who can benefit from this
document, its non-appearance after Mr Letchford's death must be
regarded as suspicious. If the document was now in Mr Grant's
possession, the so-called Typhonian OTO would surely be crowing about
it. The fact that they are not perhaps indicates that they do not have
it. Or perhaps they may wish to keep silent, retaining it, as their
'trump card' in the eventuality of any legal action against Mr Grant's
authority?
On the other hand, if Mr Grant's opposers had obtained it, what would
they do with it? If examination of the original document could prove
beyond any doubt that it was indeed a forgery, then they would be the
ones doing the crowing. But if examination were to prove its
authenticity after all, wouldn't they then keep silent also? But
perhaps they do not have it either. Either way, someone somewhere
believes this document is genuine and possibly fears the consequences
of public scrutiny.
Or perhaps Mr Letchford himself destroyed the document prior to his
death? It is a possibility, but seeing he had kept it all these years,
why destroy it now? If he didn't want Mr Grant to know of it's
existence, why not destroy it years ago, when he obtained it?
Incidentally, I am certain that Mr Letchford remained unaware of the
documents appearance on your website.
I am writing to you now, explaining the full truth of my involvement in
this matter, in the hope that you will publicise these facts on your
website. I feel the affair of the document's non-appearance to be
worthy of attention under the peculiar circumstances, and the more
people know of its existence, the harder it will be for someone to bury
the facts. Please feel free to quote as much or as little of this
letter as you wish.
Incidentally, I have also learned that the 'graphology' study of the
handwriting was in fact organised and paid for by members of, or
persons loyal to the so-called Caliphate OTO.
Best wishes.
[Ed. by Koenig: the persons who paid for the graphology study were: Ben
Fernee, Clive Harper, Anthony Naylor. Use the below search engine to
learn more about these individuals]
To the document in question
To the main page about the Typhonian O.T.O. |
English online version of "The O.T.O.
Phenomenon" book
O.T.O. Phenomenon navigation page | main page
| Aura of the O.T.O. Phenomenon
| mail
What's New on the O.T.O. Phenomenon site?
Click here to go back to where you came from or use this Java Navigation Bar:
|
