No new insight

Spectator, The, Oct 12, 1996 by Moore, Richard

Freeman appears to regret that the prosecution `had a duty to present the evidence against Thorpe and his co-defendants fairly and objectively, even if that undermined their own case'. So they informed the defence that Bessell, a self-confessed liar at the committal hearings, had been offered by the Sunday Telegraph 25,000 for his story and 50,000 if Thorpe was convicted. All who care for justice can only be grateful that the prosecution respected their duty, but to Freeman it seems lamentable that they did brief the defence on it, though they knew they were destroying one of their star witnesses'.

Freeman tries to make out that Thorpe betrayed his co-defendants Holmes and Le Mesurier by suggesting, through his lawyer, that there could have been a conspiracy to murder Scott without Thorpe's knowledge. Holmes and Le Mesurier are alleged to have been outraged. Yet, according to Freeman, when the verdict of not guilty was returned Le Mesurier gripped Thorpe's arm and soon after volunteered to the News of the World that `Thorpe did not know about the plot'. These are hardly the actions of a man betrayed.

But anything will do for Freeman to throw dirt at Thorpe and his friends. Thus he writes that David Holmes 'whinged' because after being 'a few hours in custody' he complained that he `had to have medical treatment for bed bugs'; while Thorpe is implicitly criticised for not liking `being stalked by camera-toting reporters who had no respect for English law, which said that a man was innocent until proven guilty'.

The presumption of innocence is apparently offensive to Freeman, but I can only recall with sadness the article in Le Figaro which expressed shock and disillusionment about the circus at the Minehead committal proceedings. English justice was once highly regarded on the Continent, but all the cheques for articles by witnesses and the guffaws in court of journalists mentioned approvingly by Freeman diminished this respect.

That the Old Bailey judge dismissed the evidence of Bessell, Scott and Newton as worthless shocks Freeman, but should reassure anybody who cares for justice. After all, as Freeman writes: `Scott [was] a vengeful hysteric, Bessell a self-confessed fraud and Newton a braggart who would say anything for money.'

But the perversity of the author of Rinkagate - incidentally Rinka, a dog, is several times described as being 'murdered', once as being 'executed'! - does not end at the Old Bailey.

In his epilogue he describes visiting Jeremy and Marion Thorpe at their home in Devon in 1995. He says he did not tell them 'a lie nor the whole truth' - which was that he was putting together his book. But he cannot resist giving a detailed, gloating account of Thorpe's physical decay, the result of Parkinson's disease. This is low even by Freeman's standards.

The book has found an appropriate level by being serialised in one of Murdoch's newspapers.

The author was Jeremy Thorpe's political secretary from January 1967 to January 1974.