Dear Alan,

I’ve spent all night thinking about this email. There are numerous reasons why I don’t want to write it, and only one why I do—because it concerns my parents. Despite the pieces I’ve written over the years, highlighting the tragedies of women and children in war, I honestly believe I’d have allowed a thousand anonymous women to die before I said anything. It’s the old morality tale of the death-ray and the elderly Chinaman. Do you know it?

A rich man shows you a death-ray machine and promises you a million pounds if you push the button. The bad news is an old man in China will die if you do; the good news is no one will know it was you who killed him. The victim will be the only loser. His family are tired of looking after him, and pray regularly for his death, while you have only the rich man’s word that the machine can kill anyone—let alone a man you’ve never met. You have three choices: press the button and spend the rest of your life a million pounds richer, convinced the whole thing was a scam…press the button and spend the rest of your life a million pounds richer, with a murder on your conscience…or refuse to press the button and forgo the million pounds. Which do you choose?

I think the moral is that the first choice is impossible because there’s no such thing as a free lunch. You will always be plagued by doubt about its being a scam, and the rich man will always own your soul. The second and third choices are the only honest ones—to accept payment for murder, with all its consequences, or to refuse.

I’ve been trying to implement the first choice. Take the reward (my life) and convince myself that I have no responsibility for anyone else’s death—but I’ve failed because it’s not the choice I made. I opted for number two—took the reward, knowing full well I had a responsibility, but hoping I could live with the consequences. I can’t do that either. Not because my conscience is pricking me—it’s been pretty much dead since I switched my energies to survival—but because my parents are involved. Perhaps we can all kill from a distance—it’s how we fight war now—but it’s different when we know the faces of the victims.

Although this information is certainly redundant—I think you’ve always known the truth—please add the following facts to the ones I’ve already given you:

1. Keith MacKenzie aka John Harwood aka Kenneth O’Connell was my abductor. He had at least two accomplices—the driver of the car and one of the men who pulled me out of it. I can describe the driver because I saw his face in the rear-view mirror—fairly dark-skinned, no moustache, aged about thirty. The other two men wore ski-masks. I can’t tell you what nationality they were, as the only one who spoke was the driver (to confirm in accented English that he was driving me to the airport). However, from the build of one of the masked men, I suspect it was MacKenzie.

2. I remember something being held to my mouth (ether? chloroform?). The next I knew, I was in a crate/cage/kennel, stripped, gagged and blindfolded, with my hands tied behind my back. I have no idea where that was or how I got there. From then on, the only person I had any dealings with was MacKenzie, although I never saw him because my eyes were taped throughout.

3. All the bindings felt soft. I have since seen photographs of other hostages who had lint fastened over their eyes with duct tape, and I believe that’s how all mine were done. Despite trying several times to loosen my hands, the doctor who examined me afterwards found only “minor bruising of the wrists—similar to Chinese burns.”

4. On several occasions, the lint over my eyes became saturated with water and was replaced—presumably to prevent the tape losing adhesion—but I have no recollection of when and how that was done. (Sedation?)

5. Similarly, I have no recollection of being taken to the bombed-out building where Dan Fry found me on Tuesday morning. Dan described me as “wobbly and disorientated” but, by the time the doctor examined me three hours later, the effects had worn off.

6. I may have been held on or near a dog-handling establishment. When I saw MacKenzie at the Baghdad academy, he was instructing dog-handlers, and dogs were brought to the cellar regularly during my captivity. Also, the only consistent sound from outside was barking. NB. In Sierra Leone, it was widely known that a Rhodesian ridgeback patrolled MacKenzie’s compound.

7. My best guess is that I was held either in the cellar/basement of wherever MacKenzie/O’Connell was living at the time of my abduction; or the cellar/basement of an empty building which he “inhabited” for the duration of my stay. The length of my captivity was approx 68 hours, and I believe I can recall ten distinct occasions when he came to the cellar. I am having some difficulty isolating specific episodes so that number may be higher. It was not LESS than ten.

8. Allowing for the time he spent with me (I estimate a minimum of 45" for each episode) no more than 6 hours elapsed between visits, assuming they occurred at regular intervals during the 68 hours. While it was not impossible for him to drive away and return within that time-frame, it seems unlikely, as coalition patrols/check-points would have recorded the regular movements of his car. Nor do I think he would have attempted such trips after curfew, which would have drawn more attention to him. NB. I heard a vehicle leave and return on only two occasions.

9. At no time did I sense anyone else’s presence in the building. The barking of the dogs was audible, but there was no “human” noise—e.g., conversation, radio, television, mobile ring-tone, footsteps, moving furniture, etc. Shortly after the two occasions when I heard a vehicle, I was given something to eat. These were the only times I was fed during my captivity. NB. In Sierra Leone, no one went near MacKenzie’s compound because he was notoriously hostile to visitors/workers. His habit was to eat “out,” usually at Paddy’s Bar.

10. MacKenzie made a video of my captivity. Assuming the microphone was switched on, his voice will be heard as he issued numerous instructions to me and the dogs. I believe this video was a “trophy” item for his own private pleasure because it doesn’t seem to have appeared anywhere. If so, he may have it on him if/when he’s arrested.

11. As the only things returned to me on my release were the clothes I was wearing to travel, MacKenzie certainly knows my parents’ address and telephone number, which were stored in my laptop and mobile. If he wrote those details down, they may also be in his possession if/when he’s arrested. NB. I can supply a list of the contents of my suitcase/haversack/bag in case he kept anything else.

12. My hotel bedroom was entered regularly in the days before my abduction. I had no proof it was MacKenzie but, after one such intrusion, my laptop was open and my letter to Alastair Surtees, giving details of the Sierra Leone murders, was on the screen.

13. I believe the intention behind entering my hotel bedroom was to scare me into dropping the story and leaving Iraq (possibly to make a hijack easier). It succeeded. I believe the intention behind the abduction was to stifle any interest I might have in pursuing the story in the UK. To date, this, too, has been largely successful.

14. I cannot visually identify MacKenzie as my abductor because I never saw him. Nor did he identify himself to me by name. However, I recognized his voice and he used certain phrases that recalled a conversation I had with him in Freetown. Viz: “I’m calling in that good turn you owe me.” “Do you like me now, Ms. Burns?” “I warned you not to cross me.”

15. There is nothing I can say at trial that won’t be contested by the defence. At some stage prior to releasing me, he took me outside and hosed me down on some plastic sheeting to remove every last trace of my confinement/contact with him and the dogs. When Dan Fry found me, the binding had been removed from my wrists, the tape on my eyes and mouth had been changed (with the lint removed) and my clothes laundered. Bar a slight reddening where Dan ripped the duct tape away, I had no visible marks to indicate 68 hours of incarceration.

16. I am as convinced as I can be that my parents’ nuisance caller is Keith MacKenzie, and that he knows I was responsible for his photograph being made public. It’s too much of a coincidence that he should “re-emerge” shortly after Dan had the photograph positively ID’d as O’Connell. Which means that, if Surtees is telling the truth about handing MacKenzie his papers at the end of July, then MacKenzie is still in close contact with staff/students at the academy, or colleagues in BG, or Surtees himself. My guess is it was Surtees and he knows where MacKenzie is and how to contact him.

17. It’s possible MacKenzie was phoning from abroad but, in case he’s already entered this country, I’ve persuaded my parents to leave their flat and remove anything showing my current address/whereabouts. I was most concerned about my mother’s safety, as MacKenzie would have killed her if he’d broken into the flat while she was there. Unfortunately, my father’s office details were also stored in my laptop and mobile, but, since I alerted him to the possible danger, he has cleared his desk/computer of all personal information and is planning to take circuitous routes to their temporary address. Their visit to me has been postponed indefinitely.

18. My father feels he should notify his local police but I’ve made him promise not to. They will ask for more explanation than he can give. He knows only what I’ve told him—the rest he’s taken on trust—and I’m not willing to go to London to talk to the police myself or let Dad divulge my address so that they can come here. What I’ve said in this email is all I can say at the moment, and I don’t want to appear “evasive and unconvincing” by refusing to answer every question that’s put to me.

That’s it, Alan. I can’t accept that you’ll protect my confidence because you won’t be able to—you’ll be duty-bound to pass on all my revelations—therefore, before I say any more, I will need some cast-iron guarantees that: a) MacKenzie is in custody and b) my evidence is necessary to convict him.

Otherwise, I shall have passed my secrets to the wind to no purpose.

Best wishes,

Connie

PS. I’m assuming you won’t be in till Monday, but I’d appreciate some suggestions re my parents and the local police when you have a moment. Please don’t bother with advice on counselling because I won’t take it, and please don’t waste your time trying to think up tactful phrases. It isn’t necessary. I know you wish me well without your having to say it.