A very English scandal - Jeremy Thorpe

[tim0409]

I'm really looking forward to this three part drama which starts on BBC on Sunday. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p065sk93

I'm currently reading a fantastic book on the scandal and I find it surreal that a party leader conspired to have his ex-gay lover murdered, paid for using misappropriated party funds, and then tried to brazen it out. I read a biography of Jeremy Thorpe a few years ago, and what interests me is that whilst this was a massive deal when it happened, yet so many people of my generation (born after the trial) are completely unaware of the case. I was telling a friend about the book recently and he thought it was making it up. The press would go into meltdown if it happened today.

Here is the link to the book -

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Very-English-Scandal-Murd...

[tim0409]

Derek Smith said:

Dr Jekyll said:

He was, although there was criticism afterwards of apparent bias shown by the judge. he judge's summing up was memorably satirised by Peter Cook.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U

Not far from the truth in some ways.

The judge was, many suggested at the time, out of his depth. The most important factor is that Thorpe hired Carmen. If that isn't a plea of guilty I don't know what is.

It wasn't just the summing up, it was his entire approach to the case, most notably his complete and utter disdain for the leading prosecution witnesses throughout the case, which must have had an impact on the jury. The consensus at the time was that the decision to choose him was suspect, although the person who appointed him was a friend of Thorpe...

I agree that Carmen very much swung the case in Thorpe's favour; he took the case on a reduced fee in the full knowledge that the publicity would be invaluable to his career prospects.

From what I read, David Steele had a tacit agreement that the party would not pursue Thorpe for the misappropriated party funds (used to pay Scott and the would be hitman Andrew Newton, donated legitimately by Jack Hayward) on the understanding the Thorpe would play no future role in public life, which is why they blocked any appointment to the HOL. In any case, notwithstanding the verdict, it was absolutely clear to those who followed the case (and the evidence) that Thorpe was guilty (not just conspiracy, but also fraud), and I'm not sure a peerage would have been entirely appropriate.

[tim0409]

Heads up - starts at 9pm

[tim0409]

techiedave said:

I came across this interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQbRcdQfMb0

such politeness and courtesy
Something missing from today

Good find, I watched this documentary and found it really interesting -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ck9hZGV59Q

[tim0409]

I really enjoyed that; an extremely well executed drama, and the actors were superb.

I'm recording the BBC 4 programme that follows, which should be interesting and contains unseen footage.

[tim0409]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Quite - it is enormously patronising to suggest that, just because of the flowery vocab in a judges summing up, a jury of 12 would be swayed

I've sat on a jury and it's very, very conceivable that a judge could influence a jury, which is why of course they are prohibited from doing exactly that. It was a bit more than flowery language; he described the main prosecution witnesses as a bunch of liars and reprobates, and held Thorpe up as some paragon of virtue, which he clearly was not.

Juries can and do get it wrong; Thorpe is innocent as far as the law is concerned but that doesn't preclude a close examination of all the evidence, both then and now, and reaching a different conclusion.