hold of it. However, this answer leads straight back to the problem of Bane’s thinking being influenced by his deluded beliefs about others who might influence his son. The examination then continued: “Q. … They [i.e. such beliefs] are all the product of delusion, aren’t they? A. Well, I think that is a possibility that is sort of in the background, yes. Q. It is the overwhelming probability, isn’t it, Professor Howard, that when he wrote this letter, he believed by one route or another that if he left his money to his son that it would fall into the hands of people about whom he had a deluded belief that they were trying to threaten and kill him. A. Well, I think that’s an interpretation …” 193. Professor Howard accepted in cross-examination that he had been wrong to assume in his report that Bane gave Zoran the house in Gleneagles and £100,000. The true position, as I have explained, is that the house was given to Zoran by his grandmother and his aunt, and that the proposed gift of £100,000 was never implemented because of the freezing of Bane’s bank accounts. Professor Howard agreed that Bane’s belief that Zoran had been responsible for changing the locks at Westmead House might have been the explanation for the estrangement between them, and was unable to point to anything else in the documentary record of 1984 or 1985 which might explain why Bane’s long-standing dissatisfaction with Zoran had then become so severe as to cause Bane to cease speaking to him. Professor Howard also agreed that Zoran’s inclusion in the December 1984 list of criminals might well have affected Bane’s assessment whether or not Zoran should be left all his money, and that this was so whether Bane regarded Zoran as a criminal himself or merely as having become involved in the criminal activity of others. This point is well brought out in the following passage of cross-examination: “Q. Whether he is merely involved or whether he is actively criminal, that involvement would affect, wouldn’t it, [Bane’s] assessment as to whether or not Zoran ought to be left all his money? A. It certainly might have, yes. Q. It would have done, wouldn’t it? It’s obviously relevant to a father’s consideration as to whether or not to leave a great deal of money to his son that he has been involved in a conspiracy, or involved in crimes, which are on any view, even if he hasn’t committed them, very serious. That is relevant to a father’s consideration of his son’s entitlement to money? A. Yes, I am sure – yes, if that’s what [Bane] believed. Q. You have just told me that that is what [Bane] believed.