◆ SpookStack

Pa ice page, there was a large photograph of her. Then below in 4 letters, “THE MODEL, M.1.5, THE RUSSIAN DIPLOMAT AND by Stephen Ward”, followed by this description: : “ This is Christine Keeler, the 21-year-old red-head model whoes ‘itee made news this week as the missing’ witness in an O1d Bailey eiboting trial. Christine knew a number of distinguished men in public B& Did she fear they might be named in the case? What is she like, this girl who came to London and became the friend of the famous and the wealthy? Boe bose the SU End Who knows her OCtler IhaD stepnca waerus On the inside pages there was the article by Stephen Ward on “ My, friendship with Christine ”. But there was not a word about Mr. Profumo in it, so it gave him no cause of action. A day or two later the newspaper paid Stephen Ward’s solicitor £525 for the story, and that was the end of that transaction, subject, however, to the ‘ Darling * letter: Dae te a fie "(v) The ‘ Darling’ Letter is Handed Back - 167. One important thing, however, remained to be done. The Sunday Pictoriai had all this time heid the original of the * Darling’ letter, that is, the letter of 9th August, 1961, by Mr. Profumo to Christine Keeler. They had kept it in their safe. It was the most talked of unseen letter in London, but no one asked to see it. And they had photographs of it too. They had it in mind, of course. On 15th March, 1963, when Stephen Ward's story had beeit accepted and the solicitor went to approve it, the newspaper editor’ mentioned the letter. He told Stephen Ward's solicitor: “I have got in my possession the indiscreet letter. Once things are over and done with, I will let you have it.” This did not form part of the negotiations. There was no bargain. about it. 168. The Sunday Pictorial continued to keep the letter. Even after the Edgecombe case, no one asked to see it. Even after Mr. Profumo’s statement in the House on 22nd March, 1963, no one asked to see it. But eventually the Sunday Pictorial did not want to’keep it any more. They wanted to get rid of it. They suggested to Stephen Ward's solicitor that he should have it. So on Wednesday, 3rd April, 1963, Stephen Ward’s solicitor went and got it from them. But both the newspaper and Stephen Ward's solicitor soon had second thoughts about the propriety of this. They seem to have come to the conclusion that the proper person to have the letter was Mr. Profumo’s solicitor, because the copyright in it belonged to Mr. Profumo. So on 5th April, Stephen Ward’s solicitor handed it over to Mr. Profumo's solicitor. But the newspaper kept thelr photographs of the letter. After all they had paid Christine Keeler £200. Maybe the photographs of the letter would come in useful one day. $3 J