Jeremy Thorpe’s innocence: deceit and lies
Much has been written and broadcast recently about Jeremy Thorpe’s innocence, deceit and lies which surrounded the events at the time and continues to do so. For those who have somehow escaped the saga, Jeremy Thorpe was one time leader of the Liberal party charged and acquitted at the Old Bailey of incitement to kill and, in company with David Holmes, John le Mesurier and George Deakin (who were each also acquitted) with conspiring to kill a man known variously as Norman Scott or Norman Josiffe.
The catalyst for the most recent musings is A Very English Scandal, broadcast by BBC Television in three parts and which included stunning portrayals of Jeremy Thorpe by Hugh Grant, and Norman Scott by Ben Whishaw. It should be remembered though that the presentation was a drama and not a documentary.
The events which gave rise to the charges and 1979 trial, dubbed ‘the trial of the century’ occurred over 40 years ago. For some considerable time Norman Scott had been complaining to anyone who would listen to him that he was ‘Jeremy Thorpe’s lover’ (it has to be remembered that certain homosexual activity was illegal at that time).
It came to a head when Andrew Newton was tried at Exeter Crown Court for possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life. He had befriended Norman Scott, taken him to Exmoor where they both got out of the car and then shot Scott’s great dane, Rinka. During the course of his evidence in Exeter, Norman Scott proclaimed that it was all down to Jeremy Thorpe, his lover, who wanted him killed.
At the Old Bailey conspiracy trial of Thorpe and others, the principal evidence flowed from what can only be described as a motley collection of witnesses each of whom could be described as co-conspirators or who had motives of their own for concealing the truth. I had the privilege of sitting next to the witness box throughout the evidence of each and every one of them and I was able to make my own assessment.
Peter Bessell, a former Member of Parliament, a bankrupt who left this country hastily to avoid charges of fraud, provided the main plank of the prosecution evidence. Flown back from Oceanside, California, where he then resided, and granted immunity from prosecution in order to testify, Bessell recounted that Jeremy Thorpe had been so troubled by Norman Scott that he decided to have him killed and that Bessell and Holmes were to arrange it.
Only Bessell, Thorpe and Holmes know if any or some of the intricate tale he wove is true. Neither Thorpe nor Holmes gave evidence at trial, and Bessell and Thorpe are now dead.
But in the course of cross-examination Bessell admitted to having debts of £75,000 and agreeing with the Daily Telegraph to serialise a book about the trial for a sum of £50,000, a substantial chunk of which was only due if the defendants were convicted. John Mathew QC, counsel for Holmes, and George Carman QC for Thorpe demonstrated his capacity for bending the truth on countless occasions. In the words of Carman’s son, Dominic, ‘Bessell willingly admitted to being a serial liar, a hypocrite, thoroughly amoral, duplicitous, devious and disgraceful.’ Bessell admitted that he had a credibility problem.
When he entered the witness box to start his evidence, Bessell presented as a confident and smartly turned-out individual. When he left after several days of gruelling cross-examination, he cut a dispirited and bedraggled figure.
Norman Scott’s sworn testimony was hardly more inspiring. The lurid details of his contact with Jeremy Thorpe over a number of years, which go only to motive, take the case no further. True or false, his outpourings were an enormous embarrassment to Thorpe. Twice he was rebuked by Mr Justice Cantley for his outbursts from the witness box and at one stage admitted that he would put himself into contempt of court by refusing to answer further questions.
Thinking better of it, Scott then admitted in cross-examination that he had undergone psychiatric treatment and a compulsory spell of detention in hospital. Carman asked him: ‘You met Mr Thorpe and talked to him for five minutes or less. He hadn’t written you a single letter before you went to the House of Commons, neither had you written a single letter to Mr Thorpe before that. Why did you say that Mr Thorpe was a friend of yours when all you had ever done was speak to him for less than five minutes?’
Scott: ‘ Because when I had had the therapy at the hospital I was going through a delusion and I had these letters. I was using these letters to say that I had had a relationship with him already …’
Carman: ‘You were saying you had a sexual relationship with Mr Thorpe before you went to the House of Commons?’ Scott: ‘Yes’.
Carman: ‘Obviously, that was not true?’ Scott: ‘No, it wasn’t’.
Carman: ‘In fairness to you, were you saying it because you were suffering from a delusion?’ Scott: ‘Yes’.
Carman: ‘And you had suffered from other delusions, had you not?’ Scott: ‘Yes’.
Asked why he had lied, Scott replied: ‘Because I was trying to make myself appear a better person than I was. I cannot explain why.’
As if those questions and answers were not enough to destroy Scott’s evidence, it is worth adding that he went on to admit that he had told people his father was an earl or a peer. He had changed his name to Scott whilst working in Dublin in the late 1960s. The significance of that name change was that it was the family name of Lord Eldon: ‘I pretended I was the son of Lord Eldon.’
Carman: ‘Do you think that was a wicked thing?’ Scott: ‘Yes, I do, but I have done so many wicked things in the past.’
The third witness in this startling trilogy was the so-called hitman, Andrew Gino Newton, who was also granted immunity (in his case from further prosecution after the Exeter trial), later described by the trial judge as a chump and a highly incompetent performer. According to Newton, he was hired to kill Scott but lost his nerve. There was, he said, an abortive attempt at the Royal Garden Hotel, Kensington, when he hid a cold chisel in a bouquet. That failed because, according to Newton, Scott did not turn up.
As to the incident on Exmoor, Newton said he shot the dog because he was afraid that if he frightened Scott the dog would attack him. He then pretended the gun had jammed after he levelled it at Scott.
The story Newton gave when tried earlier at Exeter Crown Court was that he intended to fire but miss Scott in order to frighten him but the gun jammed. So he told different stories on different occasions. He also agreed he had devoted himself to negotiating the sale of his story and was resolved to milk the case as hard as he could. He had been paid £10,950 for interviews with newspapers and television plus £5,000 from Holmes. He agreed that everything he had was for sale.
It is hardly surprising, is it, that the jury acquitted the defendants? It may be – we shall never know – that one or more of the defendants decided the time had come to frighten off Scott. The evidence may admit that possibility. But the crimes alleged were those of inciting and conspiring to murder, and the Crown was a million miles from being able to prove those charges.
Even less surprising is that some are still trying to wring the very last drops from the case. Norman Scott, who is 78 years of age, is still talking to those who will listen and giving interviews. According to a recent newspaper report he is now alleging five different attempts to kill him.
Some people love to say it was an establishment cover-up. The Evening Standard reported only last week that ‘it was widely believed at the time that the trial was rigged’. Really! You merely have to examine the evidence to think otherwise, and the trial verdicts were those of a jury of twelve ordinary men and women not establishment appointees.
Tom Mangold, who made a BBC documentary for Panorama which was not aired at the time because of the acquittal, has also emerged from the woodwork with, would you believe it, a copy of the programme which he kept for himself (no doubt hoping that one day there would be a buck to be made for its publication). You may have seen it today or read about it in the Sunday newspapers but it does not add to the credibility of what we know already.
The BBC now report that Gwent police have reopened the investigation because, although it was widely believed that Newton had died, it is now believed that he is alive and living under a different name. At what expense and to what end exactly? Newton was granted immunity from prosecution 40 years ago. If he is to be used as a witness, against whom? He is, on his own version, a co-conspirator and he has been thoroughly discredited.
All this stuff stimulates the public’s prurient curiosity, it makes interesting television, it enables some to revive their conspiracy theories and their fantasies, and others of us to reminisce, but not a penny more of public money should be spent upon this nonsense. Time to put it to bed.