I may be misunderstanding the role of legal advocate - but wouldn't all communication between Brady and his Advocate be subject to the usual client / legal representative rules on privileged information.
I don't see any reason why he wouldn't remember. Indeed, this will probably have been on his mind a good deal, which may make it more likely that he has remembered.
I'm a little surprised that Brady's character is th eonly one being questioned. My early feeling is that this visitor can be a little tricksy. And Brady, as far as we know, has said nothing; it is th evisitor making these claims*.
There seems to be three possibilities:
1 - The visitor was given nothing.
2 - The visitor was given someting that will turn out to be nothing.
3 - The visitor was indeed given the letters alleged by the documentary makers.
We shall see when the programme comes out, I expect, what she actually said.
*Though, in fact, it is really the documentary makers.
Brady was taken to Saddleworth Moor in 1987 after indicating that he would show police where Keith Bennett's body was. He couldn't (or didn't) find the spot then, and I doubt he could do it now. The moor is like all moors - one part looks much like another, and I believe it would be extremely difficult to remember a precise location after four decades.
I gather that the police narrowed down the suspected area to one of only a few square yards a few years ago.
There is something I'm having a hard time understanding. Why is it not as simple as asking the visitor to hand the document over, and then examining the contents? If she has indeed been given anything, she would surely know which of the docments in her home is the right one...I am trying to assume her integrity is a given, but I'm struggling.