Huge offer for witness’s story if Thorpe guilty

Press, 15 June 1979, Page 5

Huge offer for witness’s story if Thorpe guilty

NZPA-Reuter London Peter Bessell’s “startling admission” that he was living on the proceeds of the Jeremy Thorpe trial made the scales of justice tremble, it has been said at the Old Bailey, the Central Criminal Court. Defence counsel, Mr John Mathew, Q.C., made the claim in a blistering attack on “tainted witnesses.” He said the former Bodmin M.P. had agreed he would make twice as much money from the case if a conviction was secured. “I wonder whether the scales of justice held by that figure on the dome at the top of this court are still trembling, having heard that startling admission,” said Mr Mathew.

Mr Mathew is defending Thorpe’s close friend, David

Holmes, in the murder-con-spiracy trial. ’ Thorpe, Holmes, George Deakin, and John Le Mesurier all plead not guilty to conspiring to murder a former male model, Norman Scott. The former Liberal Party leader also pleads not guilty to trying to persuade Holmes to kill Mr Scott. . The Crown alleges Holmes hired a “hit man,” Andrew Newton, to kill Mr Scott for $20,000. Mr Mathew, the first defence counsel to make his closing speech, dealt in detail with the evidence of Mr Bessell and Mr Newton. Both had a big financial interest not only in the case but in the outcome, he said. The “Sunday Telegraph” had agreed to advance $34,000 for the serialisation rights to Mr Bessell’s book. They would pay $50,000 if

Thorpe were acquitted, $lOO,OOO after a conviction. David Holmes, Mr Mathew said, stood accused on the evidence of two self-con-fessed liars or perjurers — people who accepted their behaviour in the case had been deceitful, devious, and dishonest.

In a speech that filled five hours of the trial’s twentyfourth day, he said the witnesses had been subjected to grave, improper, and scandalous pressures from outside agencies. He defended his client’s decision not to go into the witness box. “Perhaps it is unusual for a defendant not to give evidence,” he said. “But this is a very unusual case, brought on the evidence of very unusual witnesses. And you may think, therefore, that a very unusual course is justified.” He submitted there was

insufficient evidence for Holmes to answer.

He later said: “I concede there is evidence of conspiracy at least to frighten, to which David Holmes was a party. What we have to consider is whether there is any reliable evidence that there was a conspiracy to kill.”

Mr Mathews ended his speech by saying nobody could be accused of a coverup now the facts had come out and witnesses tested.

He told the jury: “This case can never have a happy ending whatever your verdict will be, because the scars are too deep and will remain.

“But there can be a just and fair ending to the agonies which, albeit brought on by himself, must have been suffered by Mr Holmes in recent times.”