‘Thank you,’ Brown said. ‘I have no further questions for my witness.’

Cork stood. ‘Ms Herring, one thing you have not addressed is the Rolex wristwatch, valued at approximately £55,000, purportedly given to the defendant by his wife, Barbara, as – ah – a supposed Christmas present some five years ago. This lady is a renowned worldwide authority on orchids, who regularly performs the function of judge in orchid competitions and had an orchid cultivation business, but is there anything to suggest she could have made sufficient money to make such a purchase?’

The financial expert answered him with barely a moment’s hesitation. ‘The defendant’s wife, Barbara Gready, from my careful study of the family’s financial affairs – and prudency – had inherited the sum of £284,000 net of tax from the estate of her late mother.’

‘Still quite an extravagant amount – close to twenty per cent of her inheritance on a gift for her husband – would you not say?’

Primrose Brown addressed the judge. ‘Your Honour, this is misleading. A rare watch of the kind Mrs Gready acquired is an investment, with a proven track record of rising in value. I would say, in our uncertain times, perhaps a better investment than having the money in some banks.’

Jupp nodded. ‘It is a fair point.’

Cork went on. ‘Ms Herring, in your experience, is it usual to find with this type of investigation that it is hard to connect actual people to these types of overseas bank accounts?’

Carolyn replied, ‘Yes.’

‘When you worked for the Inland Revenue, were you faced with the same issues?’

‘Yes.’

‘Would you agree that there are links between these accounts and LH Classics?’

‘Yes.’

‘So all you can say really is that you have not found the defendant’s name anywhere?’

‘Correct.’

‘Do you agree that someone has gone to great lengths to hide the origin of the monies in the accounts and the source of the large value deposits? Someone who could be the defendant, Mr Gready?’

‘Yes, but I found no trace of the defendant’s details.’

‘But then you would not expect to, would you?’

‘Not necessarily, no.’

Cork paused for a moment. ‘You placed great importance in your evidence that all the details Ms Denyer referred to were merely circumstantial evidence. However, circumstantial evidence is still evidence that the court can take into account, is that not true?’

She replied reluctantly, ‘Yes.’

He continued. ‘And in this case the court has heard there are substantial amounts of circumstantial evidence from the financial transactions, is that correct, Ms Herring?’

She muttered a response.

‘Sorry I don’t think the court caught your last answer, would you mind repeating it?’

She replied, ‘Yes, it is fair to say there is substantial circumstantial evidence in this case.’

‘Thank you, no further questions.’

‘I have no re-examination,’ Brown said.

The usher escorted Carolyn Herring from the witness stand.

‘I would now like to call my next witness,’ Primrose Brown said. ‘Mr Arthur Mason-Taylor.’