The Dark Room (13 page)

Following our conversation of yesterday, I have asked Andrews and Meredith to put together a summary of the case for you. The salient points are
these:

    None of the stolen paintings have materialized.
Andrews’ and Meredith’s view, which I share, is that robbery was never the motive. Extensive enquiries have produced no witnesses to the break-in. (NB: Mrs Landy has made an insurance
claim for compensation. The paintings were valued at £200,000 plus.)

    Landy’s movements were traced for the three
months prior to the murder but there is no evidence of anything remotely untoward in his background. His business was solvent, as were his personal finances, and bar some indications that he was an
occasional cannabis smoker, he did not engage in any illegal activities. Despite questioning of friends, colleagues and relations, there is no evidence of a secret liaison. It seems highly
unlikely, therefore, that he was killed by a jealous rival.

    He had several gay friends but extensive questioning
of the gay community has convinced Andrews and Meredith that he himself was not an active homosexual and that this was not a ‘gay’ killing.

    He was on good terms with his wife. Friends describe
him as ‘overly possessive of her’ but there is no evidence of domestic violence or cruelty. Her alibi for the afternoon and evening of 1 February is solid. The only time she was alone
from midday onwards was when she paid off the taxi which took her from the restaurant to the gallery and entered the premises. She was alone when she found Landy. Andrews and Meredith have taken
several opinions on the forensic evidence, all of which support the original theory that Landy had been attacked a minimum of one hour before she arrived at 21.05. With the cab-driver’s
evidence of the time he dropped her, and the logged 999 ambulance call, there is no question of her having committed the assault herself.

    Her movements have also been traced for the three
months prior to the murder. Andrews and Meredith looked specifically for evidence of an affair, but found none. They also looked for evidence of a contract between her and a third party to
eliminate her husband but, again, found none. Nor, it must be said, could they discover a reason why she would want him eliminated. Over a hundred friends and colleagues have been interviewed and
they all speak of an amicable relationship between the two. There is some indication that Mr Landy suffered periodic bouts of jealousy but this was put down to the fact that he was twenty years
older than she was and not to any infidelity on her part.

    There remains a continuing doubt over the role played
by Mrs Landy’s father, Adam Kingsley. All the evidence points to extreme hostility between him and Mr Landy. It is clear that he opposed the relationship from the outset and was deeply angry
when the marriage took place without his knowledge. He refused ever to speak to his son-in-law, however phoned and was phoned by his daughter on a regular basis. Friends of hers say she was upset
by the gulf between them, but refused to pander to either man’s ‘jealousy’ and continued to relate to both on surprisingly easy terms. Her only proviso was that she would never
talk about one to the other.

    After a prolonged investigation into Kingsley’s
movements in the weeks leading up to the murder and on the day of the murder itself, Andrews and Meredith have concluded that while it was not impossible for Kingsley to have committed the crime
himself (he was in London that day and could have gone to Chelsea between a meeting in Knightsbridge which ended at 4.30 p.m. and another in the Edgware Road which began at 6.30 p.m.) they believe
it to be unlikely. Kingsley refuses to give an account of his whereabouts between those two times, but independent enquiries, based on his movements in the preceding weeks, have elicited three
witness statements which confirm he was with a prostitute in Shepherd’s Market. This is a regular occurrence, and has been going on for many years.

    In the absence of any other explanation, Andrews and
Meredith incline to the view that Kingsley took out a contract on his son-in-law’s life. However, they have been unable to substantiate this view and, without any firm evidence to support it,
see no way to proceed. Their suspicions are grounded in an analysis of Kingsley’s character and background, which is briefly as follows:

1:   He is known to have had extensive contacts with the London underworld since his early career. Born and brought up in and around
the Docks in the 30s and 40s. Founded his fortune on black market racketeering during and after the war. Progressed to property scams in the 50s and 60s before ‘legitimizing’ his
business under Franchise Holdings and expanding into full-scale development of office sites.

2:   Began to amass an enormous fortune in the early 70s during the property boom. He has always had a reputation (unproven) for
dishonest business practices but has twice won out-of-court settlements against newspapers who were foolhardy enough to suggest it.

3:   Since Thatcher came to power he has been acquiring tracts of London’s Docklands at deflated prices. To do this, he is known
to be using his contacts in the underworld.

4:   He has been married twice. His first wife, the mother of Jane Landy, died in 1962 of septicaemia. She was a middle-class
doctor’s daughter who was educated at private school, and Kingsley is said to have adored her. He remarried in 1967. His present wife, Elizabeth Kingsley, came from his own background and was
a girlhood friend of his sister. It is thought he was engaged to Elizabeth in 1958 but broke the engagement to marry his first wife. The second marriage has not been a success. Mrs Kingsley has a
drink problem and the two sons from the marriage have been cautioned for petty thieving, vandalism and car theft. The boys have been educated privately at Hellingdon Hall since their expulsion from
Marlborough for possession of drugs. Kingsley is known to adore his daughter.

In conclusion, I endorse Andrews’ and Meredith’s analysis. Kingsley remains the prime suspect, although it is extremely unlikely that he
will have committed the offence himself. In the absence of any witnesses to the break-in or the murder, or indeed the stolen paintings coming to light, it is difficult to see how we can proceed.
Even were we given leave to search Kingsley’s numerous accounts for evidence of a contract payment, it is very doubtful we would find it.