Another voice
The first witness
Auberon Waugh
One of my many activities in life is to write a monthly medical column in the pharmaceutical trade press. As the deadline comes round every month, it is inevitable that the mind turns to medical matters. So it was at the opening of Mr Peter Bessell's evidence. He is the first prosecution witness and arguably the most important since it is on his testimony alone that the Crown relies — so far as we know — to establish a connection between Mr Thorpe and any alleged prior intention of incitement to murder the celebrated show jumper, male model and 'ex-public schoolboy' Norman Scott. Mr Bessell is not without medical interest. On first seeing him in Minehead I commented on his sallow, corpse-like appearance and compared the evidence which poured out of him in black, treacly tides with the adipocerous fluid given off by corpses in the process of decomposition. This was not, of course, intended as a comment on the substance of his testimony, merely on its form. In the course of his evidence at the Old Bailey he provided further insight into his medical history, revealing how he had suffered from a suspected coronary at the time of his disappearance. Later, we learned more. Although it was Mr Bessell's addiction to Mandrax — a hypnotic — which made the headlines I was more interested to learn that he suffered from emphysema, or irreversible lung damage. None of this explains his strange colour. The popular newspapers attribute it to Californian sun-tan, but I have never seen a sun-tan like it, not black, or brown, or grey but something in between. Comparable examples I can think of from my casebook are the late Mark Woodnutt, once Conservative MP for the Isle of Wight, affectionately known to his colleagues as 'Nigger' Woodnutt, and Mrs Thatcher's fascinating new Minister of State for relations with the trade unions, Lord Gowrie — whose fellow members of the House of Lords have cruelly nicknamed him 'Grey'. It is too late to establish the cause of Mr Woodnutt's strange pigmentation, although I heard the kidneys suggested. In Mr Bessell's case I should not be surprised to learn that it was simple tannin poison, from all the cups of tea he consumes. Where 'Grey' Gowrie is concerned we can only watch and wait and hope for the best. Readers may complain that I am dawdling. Mr Bessell has been described as the chief prosecution witness and there is no excuse for discussing his medical history at such length. The answer of course is that, like all the British press, I am reduced to a state of cringing terror by the conduct of Mr Thorpe's lawyers and the demeanour of the judge, who advises us to bring toothbrushes to court if we are contemplating any contempt. The trouble with contempt, as I learned to my cost recently, is that it is entirely a matter of judicial discretion what is contempt and what is not. Would it be contempt to say that at the end of the day I was rather impressed by the way Bessell had stood up to ten hours cross-examination, not least from the medical point of view?
Described at an early stage of the proceedings as 'a mixture between James Bond and Uriah Heap', Mr Bessell faced the abuse of Mr Mathew with fortitude. He is an admirable witness in nearly every respect — so far as clarity of diction, coherent arrangement of ideas and an apparently phenomenal memory are concerned — with only two weaknesses. The first, an occasional loquaciousness, was picked up by the judge in some of the funniest judicial interpretations I have ever heard. Once, in the middle of the cross-examination, Mr Justice Cantley looked at the clock and remarked disconcertingly: '[think we have time for one whopper'. (He meant 'alleged whopper', of course. Carman was leading Besse!l through his alleged whoppers.) On another occasion, when Besse!l was being questioned about how, as a Liberal MP, he had consulted both the Labour and Conservative Chief Whips with a view to changing party, the judge remarked that it was not the desire to change party which struck him as remarkable but the 'oscillation', suggesting helpfully that Mr Bessell was seeking conversion. For the rest, when he is not threatening us with toothbrushes, Mr Justice Cantley reminds me of nothing so much as the Muppet's Statler and Waldorf. I am almost sure that remark is not in contempt, as I find them an exceedingly amiable pair. The other weakness of Mr Bessell as a prosecution witness is a tendency to beat his breast. Mr Carman put his finger on this at an early stage. Bessell agreed that he had told lies, ergo that he was a liar. One longed to remind him that everyone except Abraham Lincoln has told one or two, and look what happened to Lincoln.
MR CARMAN: 'Would it be a fair assessment to say that you are a man capable of consummate deviousness in your business and personal activities?'
MR BESSELL: 'I have to reply . . . I have been guilty of deviousness, that I have been guilty of quite disgraceful behaviour.'
MR CARMAN: 'So you deserved to be put behind bars, did you, in January 1974?'
MR BESSELL: 'Yes. What I had done in respect of Mr Hayward was in my view totally unforgiveable, inexcusable and therefore deserving punishment.'
MR BESSELL: . . . I should not have allowed a disgraceful, inexcusable, totally damnable episode.' MR CARMAN: 'Mr Bessell, I do not wish you to use this witness box as a confessional. I just want to find out the truth of what you say . .
By this stage it seemed to many of the journalists present that Mr Carman Wa,S playing Bessell like a rather unwieldy mugcal instrument, plucking away at this theme of Bessell's self-hatred. Finally he led up the 64,000 dollar question.
MR CARMAN: `May I suggest that you have, reached the stage of being incapable 01 being believed by anyone else?'
After ten hours of relentless crossexamination Mr Bessell (57, possible coronary case — emphysema — suspected tannM poisoning —? resuscitate) paused, sunk lt! thought. The court held its breath. Was he going to agree that he was incapable bf, being believed? For a few seconds it lookee as though it hung in the balance, then the judge intervened. It was absurd to exPect Mr Bessell to agree to that, he said. It was a question to put to the jury. The court breathed again. Elements of the defence now begin t° emerge: where Thorpe is concerned, an, thing he might even have said about getting rid of Scott was plainly said in jest. For the rest, Bessell is a liar, inspired by the desire for money and/or revenge. Where .Mr Holmes is concerned, although there Inigh.t be a case to answer on the charge of consPt" racy to frighten, there was never a consPIracy to kill. We are invited to find the suggestion that a successful politician could ever engage 0,3 conspiracy to murder self-evidently absurci. But what interested me most in the defence questions was the suggestion that Mr Bessell might be inspired by desire for revenge.
MR CARMAN: 'I suggest that. . the tbingd which turned your tongue to venom an your mind to malice was that Mr Tbbrre had provided the Sunday Times with infermation about you. . 'I suggest that this is the genesis of Your revenge in this case: that and monetarY gain.'
Mr Bessell denies this but agrees that the4 particular issue of the Sunday Times 1. March 1976 — proved a watershed in 111 relationship with Thorpe. By coincidence; possess a copy. It creates the unmistakable impression of trying— however clumsily —t° help Thorpe and blackguard Scott as 3, witness in the Newton trial two days later. it should turn out that it was this it 0, the Sunday Times incompetent and bob!, ish as some might find it — which has Wale rectly resulted in Thorpe's appearance at, Old Bailey, what a paradox that would be: And what a lesson to us journalists not to trY and meddle with the course of justice!
Previous page
