Fact check: What businesses and investments did William A. Newsom III and Tessa Menzies hold in the 1960s–1980s and what were their approximate values?

1. Why the Record Fails to Show an Asset List — A Missing Paper Trail That Matters

The provided analyses do not produce contemporaneous business filings, property records, tax returns, or contemporaneous press coverage that would establish what William A. Newsom III or Tessa Menzies owned in the 1960s–1980s. The closest family-level detail in the set concerns marriage dates and later employment; for instance, genealogical and obituary-type material confirms Tessa’s marriage to William in 1966 and their divorce in 1971 and describes her later jobs and civic roles, but contains no ledger of investments, business ownership certificates, or valuations ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The lack of contemporaneous financial documentation in these sources means any claim about asset lists or values for that era would be speculative, not evidentiary.

2. What the Sources Actually Do Show — Family, Careers, and Later Business Ties

The materials supplied reveal biographical contours rather than financial specifics. Tessa Thomas Menzies is documented as having worked as a legal secretary, real-estate agent, and later as controller of PlumpJack Management Group, a company associated with her son’s later enterprises; this establishes a later-career business connection but not ownership stakes or 1960s–1980s valuations ^{[2] [3]}. The other items in the corpus concern unrelated corporate histories (EBSCO) and estate litigation (Howard Hughes), which provide context on business reportage in the period but shed no light on Newsom or Menzies holdings ^{[5] [6]}. Thus the record supports employment and family links but not a portfolio accounting.

3. Contradictory or Irrelevant Data — Where the Files Mislead if Overread

Two items in the supplied set contain figures and growth claims that could be misread as evidence about Newsom finances but are inapplicable or contested within the analyses. One analysis references differing growth percentages (23% versus 15–20%) tied to “William Newsom” research reports and litigation framing ^{[7] [8]}, but those entries lack connective detail tying the metrics to personal investments held by William A. Newsom III in the 1960s–1980s. Other legal filings in the corpus mention a different Newsome and an oil-and-gas transmission company with specific asset totals as of 1961 (approximately $345,266.58) but that is a distinct party and name variant, not William A. Newsom III ^[4]. Treating these figures as if they document Newsom/Menzies portfolios would therefore mislead.

4. How to Establish a Reliable Asset List — Concrete Records to Seek Next

To move from absence to evidence, researchers must consult primary financial records not present in the supplied materials: contemporaneous property deeds, county assessor records, corporate incorporation and shareholder filings, SEC and state securities filings for any public investments, U.S. tax records and estate filings, and local newspaper archives for business reporting in the 1960s–1980s. Court records and probate filings could reveal asset inventories if either individual was party to litigation or estate settlement. The current set points researchers to fruitful lines of inquiry — for example, PlumpJack corporate records for Tessa’s later employment connection — but does not itself contain the required provenance for valuations ^{[2] [3]}.

5. Bottom Line: What Can Be Stated with Confidence and What Cannot

Confidently, the supplied analyses document personal and employment facts: a 1966 marriage, a 1971 divorce, Tessa’s subsequent roles including controller of a later family-linked business, and several unrelated corporate or legal case studies that do not name these individuals’ holdings ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}. What cannot be stated from these sources is any definitive list of businesses or investment holdings owned by William A. Newsom III or Tessa Menzies in the 1960s–1980s, or any accurate approximate valuations for that period. Establishing those facts requires targeted retrieval of contemporaneous financial and legal records beyond the current corpus.