Alleged Provenance of the Forged Kenneth Grant Document

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.