◆ SpookStack

' i oa ‘ f prosecution were party to no such bargain. Counsel for the : to the Attorney-General and explained how it was that proceeded without this witness. It was his decision alone aa reasons: (a) He thought there was sufficient evidence withomt. { witness; (5) John Edgecombe was in custody; and (c) the trial’ fad : been postponed once because of the illness of a witness, I woul not wish” to question these reasans—they are cogent—but I think that, in tho result, it was an unfortunate decision. It made it difficult for the prosecution to ask for a conviction of John Edgecombe on the charge of slashing ‘ Lucky ° Gordon on 27th October, 1962, and’ on the charges of shooting at Christine Keeler on 14th December, 1962, with intent to murder her or cause her gtievous bodily harm (John Edgecombe was not convicted on any of these ‘charges): and it made it possible for John Edgecombe to complain (as he complained to me) that he had no opportunity to cross-examine her as to her character and as to the fact that the gun was, as he said, her gun. (It is always a telling point for a defendant to say he had no opportunity to cross-examine the chief witness for the prosecution.) More important even than this, it heightened the suspicion that her disappearance was manocuvred for political reasons. It was thought to be in Mr. Profumo’s interést that she should disappear and, he was supposed to be at the back of it,” . _ 157,. The Attorney-General made immediate inquiries into the matter. He saw Mr. Profumo and asked him whether he had anything to do with the disappearance of the witness and Mr. Profumo assured the Attorney- General that neither he nor anyone on his behalf had had anything 1o do with the absence of Christine Keeler as a witness at the trial. oy to.