◆ SpookStack

: t noe ata fe aa rer . . . > ma wet Mew tent Des (i) The ‘Trial fs Held Withoet Christine Keeler 2777+" x — 152, On 14th March, 1963, John Edgecombe came up for trial at the “Central Criminal Court before. Mr. Justice Thesiger and a jury. The indictments contained five counts: Count I dealt with the ‘ slashing © It charged Edgecombe that on 27th October, 1962, he wounded Gordon with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, Counts 2 to $ dealt with the * shooting ’. They charged Edgecombe with these offences on 14th December, AL4. shanting Che nti 4 Pt H + 1962: shooting at Christine Keeler with intent to commit murder: shooting at her with intent to do grievous bodily harm: possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life: and having an offensive weapon without lawful authority. a mo 153. Both counsel for the prosecution and for the defence knew that Christine Keeler, a very important witness, had disappeared, but neither applied for an adjournment, and the trial proceeded without her evidence. Counsel for the prosecution simply said to the jury: “I am unable to call the principal witness, Miss Keeler, before you. As far as the police are concerned, she has disappeared. It is nothing to do with the defendant.” The tral did not finish on 14th March, 1963, but continued on to the . 45th March, 1963. In the result John Edgecombe was acquitted on the _ counts of shooting with intent to murder (Count 2} and shooting with £ intent to do grievous bodily harm (Count 3). He was also acquitted on the . count of wounding Gordon on 27th October, 1962 (Count 1). But he was convicted of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life (Count 4), (The Judge discharged the jury from giving a verdict on Count 5.) 154. After the verdict, evidence was given of John Edgecombe’s character. In 1951 he was convicted on two cases of stealing, in 1959 for living on immoral earnings, and in 1962 for unlawful possession of dangerous drugs. The Judge sentenced him to imprisonment for seven years, He appealed against his conviction and sentence but on 27th May, 1963, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal. 155. It seems plain that the absence of Christine Keeler had an important influence on the course of the case. As the Lord Chief Justice said, “ The fact that the Jury acquitted on the first two (shooting) charges seems to this Court natural in the absence of the girl”. I may perhaps add that the acquittal on the ‘slashing’ charge seems natural, also, in the absence of the girl over whom the men were quarrelling. {ii} The Attorney-General Makes Inquiries s 156. The Attorney-General, of course, had nothing to do & prosecution of John Edgecombe. The first he heard of the di of Christine Keeler was from the evening papers. Next day circulating round the Temple that an important witness had been got out of the way for political reasons and that some bargain had been made that - 49 ae