Witness Says She Lied To Protect Family

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30192, 25 July 1963, Page 13

Witness Says She Lied To Protect Family

(N.Z.P. A.-Reuter—Copyright) LONDON, July 24. A night club dancer, Margaret Ricardo, said in a statement read at the Old Bailey Criminal Court today that she had committed perjury in the lower Court hearing in the Stephen Ward case. “I just want everyone to know why I committed perjury—I don’t want to do it again,” Miss Ricardo said, according to the statement.

The Judge (Mr Justice Marshall) said later that he would have to tell the jury to completely disregard her as a witness. Ward, a 50-year-old osteopath. has pleaded not guilty to three charges of living wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution between June 1, 1961, and June 8 this year; to inciting Christine Keeler to procure a girl under 21 to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a third person; and to attempting to procure a girl under 21 to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a third person. He is being defended by Mr James Burge. Yesterday Miss Ricardo told the Court in a hushed, frightened voice today that she had given wrong evidence at a lower Court hearing. She retracted much of her early testimony. Mr Justice Marshall warned Miss Ricardo to consider her “position seriously” before resuming evidence today. He allowed the Prosecutor (Mr Mervyn Griffith-Jones) to treat her as a “hostile witness.”

Miss Ricardo said she had been introduced to Ward by a man named John Hamil-ton-Marshall. She described an evening in his flat when she and a man, Ward and another girl all had sexual intercourse at the same time in the same room. That was the only time she had gons to the flat. Miss Ricardo admitted she had one conviction for prostitution. Earlier Statement Mr Griffith-Jones questioned her on a statement she had made to police earlier and evidence she gave at the preliminary hearing. He read passages of her statement in which she described other visits to flats with Ward and other girls and men for which she was paid. She said police had put the “words into her mouth.” She had signed the statement because she was tired after being kept at the police station and because she wanted police to leave her alone. Mr Justice Marshall: You are telling the jury you deliberately went into the witness box and said those things were true when they were not? Miss Ricardo: Yes.

Today, in reply to Mr Grif-fith-Jones, she said she still agreed with her statement yesterday that she had made two statements to the police because she was “under various pressures from the police.” Miss Ricardo said she had made her firsit statement to the police on April 5. On April 10 she had made a second statement about Ward and a girl called Diane The second statement was made after police had spoken to her (Mias Ricardo's) sister, Dorothy. It was all true. Mr Griffith-Jones: If in fact the police were forcing you to make false statements and putting pressure on you when you made your statement on April 5, how does it come that on April 10 you were actually volunteering fresh information about the defendant to toe police? —I did not want my stater to go to a remand home. In mite of what the police had done and the pressure brought to bear on you five days later you were volunteertag fresh information?— My sister was on the point of going to a remand home. How would this stop your stater going to a remand home?—l thought if I helped them they would help me.

Mr Griffith-Jones read a statement alleged to have been made by Miss Ricardo on July 20, in which she said “I just want everyone to know why I committed perjury—l don’t want to do it

again.” The witness agreed she had made that statement. Miss Ricardo said she had never complained about the police pressure. The first time she told police that earlier statements were untrue was last Saturday at Scotland Yard, when she made another statement. Mr Griffith-Jones then read the new statement as follows: “I have come here this evening to make a statement about the Ward case. I want to say that most of the evidence I gave at Marylebone Court was untrue. “I want to say I never met a man in Stephen Ward’s flat except my friend ‘Silky’ Hawkins. He is the only man I have ever had intercourse with in Ward’s flat. Statements Untrue “It is true that I never paid Ward any money received from men with whom I have had intercourse. I have only been in Ward’s flat once and that was with ‘Silky.’ Ward was there and Michelle. The statements which I have made to the police were untrue.

“I made them because I did not want my young sister to go to a remand home or my baby taken away from me. ‘“Mr Herbert (Chief Inspector Samuel Herbert) told me they would take my sister away and take my baby if I didn’t make the statements,” the statement said. Mr Griffith-Jones added that the statement also said there was a threat her brother would be “nicked” (arrested) Mr Griffith-Jones read on: "He was nicked two days later for poncing (procuring). I believed what Mr Herbert said and so I made the statements and gave my evidence —three or four of them.

“I don’t want to give false evidence again, particularly at toe Old Bailey. I told my solicitor on Monday about this and he advised me to tell someone about it. This afternoon I went to the office of the ‘People’ newspaper and made a statement to them." the statement said. Mr Griffith-Jones said the statement ended: “That is my signature on it. I just want everyone to know why I committed perjury. I don’t want to do it again.” Miss Ricardo, asked if that was the statement made, replied: “Yes." Offer To Paper Miss Ricardo said she had been in touch with the British Sunday newspaper “The People,” and other newspapers. An agent had gone on her behalf to the “People" to offer her story for £ 12,000. She denied being told that the “People” said her story was not worth £12,000 or anything like that. Mr Griffith-Jones: My suggestion is that it was only because the "People" had refused to pay you the money you hoped to get for your story, because they said it was no good, that you then had the bright idea of livening it up a bit by saying the previous evidence was untrue. That would have made the headlines, wouldn't it? Miss Ricardo: This is not the reason why. Answering Mr Burge, Miss Ricardo said she had made her earlier statement because she was under strong pressure from police. She had feared her child and young sister, who lived with her, would be taken away from her as being in need of care and attention.

Nearly in tears, she denied she had ever said there was a two-way mirror in the Bryanston mews flat where she visited Ward. After Miss Ricardo ended her evidence, a tall brown - haired woman, identified the witness who appeared yesterday under the name of Miss “R," as her daughter, bom in 1941.

The next witness, a middleaged man, said his name was

James Eylan. He said he had met Christine Keeler early in 1961 and had intercourse with her, about three times in the Wimpole Mews flat, where she was living with Ward, and on several occasions elsewhere.

He had paid her £l5 or £lO each time and had loaned her money which she did not repay. He estimated he had given her about £lOO or £l2O in all. In cross-examination, he said he had taken her out to restaurants and other places of entertainment and found her “an amusing and attractive companion.” He had met Ward only once. He agreed he had had intercourse with Miss Keeler only when it was known Ward would be absent from the flat. The next witness was called under the name of Vicky Barrett. As she entered the box, Mr Burge said he would object to admissability of her evidence. But the Judge, alter a discussion of legal points, ruled the evidence was admissable. The girl said her name was Janet Barket, but she was known as Vicky Barrett. She was 20 years old and came to London from Birmingham in 1961. In August, 1961, she had been arrested in Bayswater for soliciting for the purposes of prostitution, and had spent two days in Holloway, the London women’s prison. Met In Street She had later returned to her parents’ home in Birmingham. She had met Ward before going to Birmingham. She had been walking along Oxford street, London, when he drove up in a white Jaguar car and asked her if she would like to go to a party. She had refused him, saying "I do not like parties. Then Ward said it was not actually a party—it was just a few friends with wives and girl frieinds. He wanted a girl himself to have a conversation with.

"He said he would give, me some money if I stayed for two hours," Miss Barrett said. "I told him I was not a prostitute, and he said he did not want anything to do with me except to have conversation. We got into the car and drove to nis flat. On the way he told me what he wanted me to do" Mr Griffith-Jones: What was that? —He said he had a man in the flat who wanted to go with a girl and he said the man would give him the money. The Judge: Who was to be paid the money?—Stephen Ward. Mr Griffith-Jones: What was he going to do with it? —He said if I visited him two or three times a week he would save the money ana I could live in the flat. Did he say what if any advantage there was in a fiat, with clothes and so on? —He told me with clothes and that in the flat he could introduce me to the best clients. ‘Ward Had Money’ Miss Barrett said Ward later took her to the flat at Bryanston mews, where she had gone to bed with a man who was waiting in the bedroom. Afterwards Ward had said he already had the money, but he did not say how much.

She had agreed to him keeping it for her and he had driven her back to Oxford street. The following Wednesday and Friday Ward had picked her up again and she had gone through the same process with different men. On the latter occasion there had not been ordinary sexual intercourse, but she had used a cane, at the man's request. Ward had said he had received the money from the men.

She had not been offering herself to anybody else at this stage apart from the men she met in the flat. She had gone back to the flat two or three times a week for about two months and a half. She admitted she had been asked to whip other men during these visits, sometimes with a cane, and sometimes with a horse-whip. The men were middle-aged or elderly. When she had asked Ward how the savings were getting on, he said he had nearly enough, but he did not tell her how much. Ward did not speak again about a flat and clothes for her, but he did buy her a dress and a costume and two pairs of highheeled shoes, she said. Mr Griffith-Jones: With your knowledge of the trade —rather profession—what would be the normal payment for services such as you rendered? How much a time? —Five pounds in the flat. And for the whipping, what is the market price?—one pound a stroke. You remained in London and carried on with prostitution?—Yes. And you have been convicted on one or two occasons since?—Yes. Mr Burge, cross-examining, asked: No money question or fee was ever discussed at Wimpole mews, no sum?— No. Miss Barrett denied she was under contract to any newspaper for her story, or that she had been interviewed by the London ‘Daily Sketch.” Disliked Fairbanks Yesterday, Marilyn RiceDavies said she had had sexual intercourse with Douglas Fairbanks, jun "but not for money ” She denied she had mentioned his name to make her story more sensational to newspapers and so fetch a better price for it. But she agreed she was negotiating with newspapers to sell her story and was under contract to one daily. She had mentioned Fairbanks's name because "I don't like him.” Rice-Davies denied she now bore any malice towards Ward. "I hope he is acquitted," she said. But they were no longer friends.

Denial By Fairbanks

(N.Z. Press Attn—Copyright) NEW YORK, July 23. Douglas Fairbanks, jun., today issued a vigorous denial of any sexual relationship with Marilyn RiceDavies, toe Associated Press reported. Mr Fairbanks used a New York spokesman because, he said, he was prevented under BriiUtei law from speaking directly from London. The statement made public in New York said: "I was shocked to hear a report about whst I remember was a perfectly innocuous acquaintanceship, My meeting with both Miss Kseier and Mias Rice-Diav.es occurred as a result at faeir winning an opportunity in films in which, as I was no longer producing. I could not reciliy assist them. I suggested agents and others they might contact “Whereas I at no time was involved in the mattar stated in court, and under English tew I am prevented from making a statement in lamdon until after the case ta completed. I can say I am not only astonished at the statement but vigorously deny it"

Meat Sales.—Argentina plans to intensify its drive to sell more meat to the Far East.—Hong Kong. July 25.