Furthermore, Scott had to accept that having consistently told Penrose and Courtiour, two investigative journalists, and anyone else who was prepared to listen to him, that his sexual experience with me was after he called on me at the House of Commons some time later, he had now to admit that he had formerly been telling people that he had had a sexual relationship with me before the House of Commons visit. This was based solely upon a brief meeting in the presence of others, or if his timing was wrong, his timescale suggests that he was making the allegations before he had even met me! This was brought out when George Carman was cross-examining Scott:
Carman: ‘You met Mr Thorpe (at Van der Vater’s stables) and talked to him for five minutes or less. He hadn’t written you a single letter before you went to the House of Commons. Neither had you written a single letter to Mr Thorpe before that. Why did you say that Mr Thorpe was a friend of yours when all you had ever done was to speak to him for less than five minutes?’
Scott: ‘Because I had had the therapy at the hospital. I was going through a delusion, and I had had these letters. I was using them to say that I had a relationship with him already.
Carman: ‘You were saying you had a sexual relationship with Mr Thorpe before you went to the House of Commons?’
Scott: ‘Yes.’
Carman: ‘Quite obviously, that was not true?’
Scott: ‘No, it wasn’t.’
Carman: ‘You were suffering from a delusion?’
Scott: ‘Yes.’
Carman: ‘And you had suffered from other delusions, had you not?’
Scott: ‘Yes.’
As far as I know these exchanges were not reported in the press, nor were they given their full significance by the media.
Another example of the workings of Scott’s mind was that he informed me that his father had been killed in an air crash in South America. I suggested that he might be able to obtain some compensation. Accordingly I requested a solicitor friend to initiate some inquiries in this connection. In due course the solicitor reported that the story told by Scott was quite false. There had been no air crash in South America, and in fact his father was at that time a hospital porter living in Bexleyheath in Kent, where his mother also lived. Even the name Scott itself was a fantasy. Wishing to claim that he was a close relation of Lord Eldon, he adopted the family name Scott.
An investigation and prosecution had been mounted substantially on the allegations of Scott, Bessell and Newton (another Crown witness). They had destroyed their credibility and confessed to having fantasies. All three had further been destroyed in cross-examination, and the prosecution’s case at its close was shot through with lies, inaccuracies and admissions to such an extent that the defence decided not to give evidence.
To have done so would have prolonged the trial unnecessarily for at least another ten to fourteen days. The defence took the view that it was time to bring down the curtain, and as George Carman put it in his closing speech, the time had come for the Crown to: ‘Fold their tents like the Arabs and as silently steal away’. (Longfellow)
One of the more bizarre events of the trial was the intervention by Mr Peter Taylor, who led the prosecution; following the acquittal by the jury on all charges against all defendants, he volunteered the opinion that the police were to be congratulated on their work and that the prosecution had been properly brought. I thought to myself: ‘Methinks he doth protest too much’. George Carman, who for the first and last time I saw mystified, replied: ‘Very properly brought, but very properly concluded’. In one sense, the fact that the prosecution had been brought, and its consequent outcome, had largely silenced the campaign of rumour and innuendo that had gone on for three years. But apparently there still seems to be some money to be made by repeating the prosecution’s flawed case! Where congratulations were unquestionably due was to the staff of the Old Bailey for their consideration and courtesy towards all the defendants.
I was asked whether I was disturbed by the fact that the jury were out for two days. On the contrary, I felt they would be open to criticism if they had reached a decision more quickly than they did. There were four separate cases to be considered, and evidence to be gone through which had been given during the four weeks of the committal proceedings and the six weeks for the trial itself – in other words, material that covered almost two and a half months.
At the risk of sounding vindictive, if Bessell could have been shown to publish in the UK any of the major allegations which he was making, lie should have been prosecuted for criminal libel, if not by the Crown, by myself. The Crown would then have been able to make a better evaluation of the merits of the case, and the taxpayer might have been saved a great deal of expense.
As it was, I never had any doubt about the outcome of the case.
Bessell’s ‘double-your-money contract’ with the Sunday Telegraph gave rise to a heated debate in the House of Lords a few weeks later, on 16 July 1979. Lord Wigoder moved the second reading of the Dealings with Witnesses Bill and said:
The third instance was 13 October 1978, when the Daily Telegraph Ltd, and a company called Milbest Publications Incorporated, acting for another witness called Mr Bessell, entered into a contract, the effect of which was – and I stress ‘the effect of which was’ – that Mr Bessell would be paid £50,000 if there were a conviction for certain writings, and £25,000 if there were an acquittal, Let me say at once that, of course, the lawyers who drew up that contract did not indulge in crude language of that kind. It was disguised very simply in this way. In clause 1 of the contract it was stated that, in consideration of the sum of £50,000 sterling, the licensor granted to the publisher exclusive world rights to publish extracts from his book. Then in clause 4 it was stated: ‘If, on the advice of his legal advisers, the publisher is not able to publish the extracts, then instead the publisher will pay £25,000 for up to six articles.’
What that meant was what Mr Bessell understood it to mean, that in the event of an acquittal the book he was writing could not be published because of the laws of libel, and therefore, in effect, the substance of the contract was that Mr Bessell stood to gain very handsomely if there were a conviction. I should add in relation to that contract that it was entered into after Mr Bessell had made his statement to the police, That was a matter which Mr Justice Cantley referred to specifically in taking the view that it might not amount, therefore, to a contempt of court. In view of the evil that was created by this form of activity by various newspapers, which I shall come to in a moment, I am bound to say that it seems to me to be wholly irrelevant whether a contract of that nature is entered into before or after a witness makes his statement to the police.
Lord Hartwell (editor-in-chief of the Sunday Telegraph) replied:
The proposed deal raised two question. One was the propriety of the financial terms. The other was the propriety of agreeing to any such deal with a prospective witness, As to the first, we consulted our own legal adviser, who said that in the circumstances he thought the terms were unexceptionable. Bessell consulted his own London solicitor, who gave him similar advice, but went significantly further. He spoke to a senior official of the Director of Public Prosecutions and explained to him the nature of the proposed agreement, ‘Would the DPP’s Department’, he asked, ‘see anything objectionable in the precise financial terms outlined?’ The answer was that the Department would raise no objection and did not think it would prejudice the case.’
Lord Wigoder intervened:
My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, is that contained in a written communication from the Director of Public Prosecutions, or is that what Mr Bessell has said?
To which Lord Hartwell replied:
No, my Lords, it is not what Mr Bessell has said; it was his London solicitor, a man of standing, who, if necessary, is prepared to swear an affidavit to that effect. I know the name of the official, but I do not want to name him in this place.
This allegation, however, was flatly denied by the Lord C
hancellor, on behalf of the Attorney-General, two days later, on 18 July 1979, in a written answer to a Parliamentary Question tabled by Lord Wigoder.
Lord Wigoder asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether (as was asserted in the House on Monday 16 July), prior to the trial of Regina v. Deakin and others at the Central Criminal Court, the solicitor to the witness Mr Peter Bessell explained to a senior official of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions the nature of a proposed agreement between Mr Bessell and the Sunday Telegraph concerning a book, asked whether the Director of Public Prosecutions department would see anything objectionable in the precise financial terms, and received a reply that the department would raise no objection and did not think it would prejudice the case.
The Lord Chancellor:
I am informed by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General that the only approach made by Mr Bessell’s solicitor to the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning such a matter was on October 1978, when he had a telephone conversation, a note of which was made immediately after, with a principal assistant director. On that occasion, the solicitor said that Mr Bessell had received an offer (the terms of which he did not specify) from a national newspaper (which was not named) to serialise a book which, in part, dealt with the ‘Thorpe case’. The solicitor made it clear that such publication would be after the trial, so there was no question of possible prejudice (in the sense of contempt), but he thought the director should know of the proposal because of the ammunition it could afford the defence to discredit Mr Bessell.
The principal assistant director told the solicitor that his department would be concerned by anything which could be used to discredit Mr Bessell, financial or otherwise, but that he did not think it was for him to advise as to the offer.
The principal assistant director was not told any of the terms of the offer, much less that it involved a contingency payment, and it is clear from his contemporary note that he neither gave his approval to the course proposed or expressed the opinion that it would not prejudice the case.
Parkinson’s Disease
I was diagnosed as having Parkinson’s Disease in 1979, and had probably suffered from the complaint for at least two years previous to this. The first symptom, which sounds strange, was a difficulty in doing up shirt buttons, which brought on a feeling of nausea. At that early stage, tremor of hands and arms was minimal, but would gradually increase. Another early symptom was the progressive deterioration of my handwriting.
In the early nineteenth century, Dr James Parkinson had noticed from the window of his consulting room in Hoxton the shuffling gait of various people passing by, and by 1817 diagnosed this as one of the symptoms of a clearly definable disease, which was to bear his name. Other symptoms can be weakening of the vocal muscles, which can produce voice inaudibility. This is accentuated by the fact that although the average person swallows unconsciously up to 2,000 times a day, the Parkinson patient needs to make a special effort to clear saliva, and failure to do so can make him dribble like a dirty old man. Rigidity of the jaw accentuates the difficulties of speech. Very often there is a delay in the Parkinson patient replying in conversation, due to the building up of saliva which he has difficulty in swallowing before being able to speak. This leads the conversationalist to deduce that either the Parkinson sufferer is deaf or gaga or both, or suffering from cancer of the throat; hence, more often than not, he decides that the way out is to do what the average Englishman does when speaking to a foreigner – he shouts! Having done their best, the conversation is at an end. Another consequence of these difficulties is that there may be a problem over swallowing food, and in such cases it is necessary to prepare food to a pureed consistency in almost liquid form. The Parkinson sufferer can often be recognised by a rigidity of facial expression and a lack of blinking to moisten the eyes, which produces a staring look. Another aspect is a total ‘freeze-up’ of movement, accompanied by the sensation of feeling nailed to the floor. Fortunately the person’s intellect remains unimpaired. All in all, Parkinson’s makes the sufferer very tired during parts of the day.
One of the dangers connected with Parkinson’s is a loss of balance: this is particularly caused by turning too sharply, but it is also possible to lose balance for no apparent reason. I began to dread the crunch which follows a fall, since in all probability this represents a breakage: in my case, a fracture of the left femur, fracture of the right hip, and a hairline fracture of the little finger of my right hand on three separate occasions. The first two breaks resulted in a six-week and a two-week stay in hospital. On one occasion following a fall (without breakage) in the street, I hailed a taxi, who assumed I was drunk and needed reassurance! He brought me home, and although I had bled copiously over his floor, he refused to accept any money for the fare.
Parkinson’s is a disease which affects 100,000 people in the UK, and it is estimated that one out of every hundred over the age of sixty-five will develop it. The disease is not infectious, is probably not hereditary – and at present there is no known cure. However, let me qualify this bald statement: there is medication which can and does control the condition by a wise balance of drugs. The danger here is that too little medication has minimal effect, whilst a large dose can be more than the body can sustain, with unpleasant results such as clenching of the jaw and writhing of the limbs, which is known as dyskinesia. Each case needs different dosages and produces a wide variety of experiences. To complicate matters even further, each patient may have variations in their condition from day to day.
The cause of the disease has yet to be definitively established, but it is known that what is involved is an attack on what are known as the basal ganglia of the brain, particularly on the part known as the substantia nigra. The result is a reduction of the chemical dopamine, which controls muscular activity from the brain. This can in part he ameliorated by dopamine substitutes and other agents, but it is as yet not physically possible to make up the natural deficiency to produce a cure.
The mainstay of treatment for Parkinson’s Disease remains L-Dopa. However, it may be necessary to take a second agent in order to enhance the effects of the drug or modify some of the side effects such as dyskinesia. Anti-cholinergic drugs like Disipal block the chemical substance acetylcholine, thereby reducing tremor. Another class of drugs is the dopamine agonists, like Eldepryl. These have the advantage that they stimulate dopamine receptors directly and to an extent bypass the neurones which have become depleted as a result of Parkinson s Disease.
A further group of drugs (COMT) are emerging at the centre of research. These aim to prolong the action of L-Dopa by inhibiting the enzyme catechol-o-methyl transferase, and maintaining the blood levels for a longer period of time, resulting, it is hoped, in a smoother, more beneficial effect from each dose. Tolcapone is the most potent COMT inhibitor under trial at the present and is to be followed by others in the group.
Much research has been carried out, particularly in the field of experimental surgery. One such example is the implanting in the patient’s brain of dopamine-secreting tissue from an aborted foetus. This is an attempt to step up the supply of the chemical in which the patient is deficient, and it is hoped that the tissue will grow and reproduce. This treatment is bound to produce controversy and strong opposition on ethical grounds, although individual district ethics committees have reached agreement with various hospitals on a working pattern. In this country most of the experimental implants were performed by the late Professor Hitchcock at the Birmingham Centre for Neurology at Smethwick. I myself underwent the operation on the basis that I would never have forgiven myself if I didn’t try all reasonable cures on offer. The operation involved boring two holes in the skull in preparation for a bilateral implant. One’s head is put in a frame to control tremor, and the three-quarters-of-an-hour operation takes place under local anaesthetic. One remains conscious throughout, and the surgery is painless. The most incredible precision is called for
and the operation is preceded by a brain scan. For me this was the most unpleasant aspect: fans which cool the computer had broken down and with the well-established rule that computers take precedence over humans, the scanner fans were transferred to the computer, leaving the scanner itself with the qualities of the Black Hole of Calcutta! It produced in me claustrophobia, and when some days after the operation I was due to be scanned in a £1 million nuclear scanner, which (as before) involved being pushed in a capsule into the machine, I was unable to stay the course and had to be retrieved. Another incident was when in mid-operation the surgeon said ‘Damn, the clutch has gone’. The sensation I was experiencing at the time was as though a pneumatic drill was going through my head. I asked him what was the effect of the clutch going. ‘Oh’, came the reply, ‘I had to push harder!’ I did, however, gain immediate relief for a short period after the operation.
It would seem that the answer lies in the use of more and younger foetuses in each case. Ideally it is hoped that the patient’s own tissue from another part of the body can be engineered to act as a generator to increase the supply of dopamine from the brain to the body. This would remove any risk of rejection and hopefully would not meet with ethical opposition. It is also hoped that in the future, chemical engineering may produce an artificial substitute for the tissue.
Revival of interest has been shown in the operation known as pallidotomy. This involves the surgeon passing an electric probe into the globus pallidus area of the brain with the object of destroying those cells, or neurones, which, deprived of an adequate supply of dopamine, become overactive and result in the involuntary movements of Parkinson’s Disease.
In My Own Time Page 22