10 facts and why Christine should not haver been convicted
1. In June 1963, a jury took less than 15 minutes to find Lucky Gordon guilty of causing actual bodily harm to Christine.
2. The assault happened at 12.30am on 18 April 1963, just inside the entry door of the apartment block where Christine's friend, Paula Hamilton-Marshall, lived with her brother, John, on the first floor.
3. Paula testified at Gordon's trial that she saw the first punch by Gordon in Christine's face - and then she ran back to her flat to call the police.
4. Gordon admitted at the trial that he slapped Christine and chased her up the stairs. He alleged that she sustained her facial injuries by running into a door when trying to flee from him. He never tried to explain her abdominal, rib and buttock tenderness and bruising.
5. Gordon was acquitted on appeal. The Appeal Court said this was on the basis of statements to the police by unnamed individuals who hadn't been present at the First Instance trial.
6. However, both men - Fenton and Camacchio - ultimately testified that they had been present and saw Gordon's attack on Christine. Fenton stated Gordon hit Christine three times and kicked her when she was on the ground.
7. Christine was charged with perjury and obstructing justice as she had denied, at Gordon's First Instance trial, that Fenton and Camacchio had been there. She did this because neither man wanted to become involved in the matter. Incidentally, Fenton had seven previous convictions and, by July 63, Camacchio was jailed for living off his wife's immoral earnings
8. Christine's business manager falsely alleged that, on a tape, Christine had said there was no attack by Gordon. But the police confirmed in Court that on the tape Christine actually confirmed the Gordon attack.
9. It's a misconception that Christine was the girlfriend of Gordon. Her autobiography reveals he raped her at knifepoint soon after they met. After that she feared for her life. The police were called at least five times between March 62 and February 63 due to Gordon's violent conduct towards Christine.
10. Another misconception is that Paula's brother, John, caused the injuries. They had slapped each other a few hours before the attack, but this was nothing from a legal perspective. "De minimis" is the term used by the legal team drafting the application for the posthumous Pardon. In December 63, Christine pleaded guilty to the perjury and obstruction charges, fearful that she would not receive a fair trial and an understanding that her lie was non-material. Only a material lie amounts to perjury/obstruction.
2. The assault happened at 12.30am on 18 April 1963, just inside the entry door of the apartment block where Christine's friend, Paula Hamilton-Marshall, lived with her brother, John, on the first floor.
3. Paula testified at Gordon's trial that she saw the first punch by Gordon in Christine's face - and then she ran back to her flat to call the police.
4. Gordon admitted at the trial that he slapped Christine and chased her up the stairs. He alleged that she sustained her facial injuries by running into a door when trying to flee from him. He never tried to explain her abdominal, rib and buttock tenderness and bruising.
5. Gordon was acquitted on appeal. The Appeal Court said this was on the basis of statements to the police by unnamed individuals who hadn't been present at the First Instance trial.
6. However, both men - Fenton and Camacchio - ultimately testified that they had been present and saw Gordon's attack on Christine. Fenton stated Gordon hit Christine three times and kicked her when she was on the ground.
7. Christine was charged with perjury and obstructing justice as she had denied, at Gordon's First Instance trial, that Fenton and Camacchio had been there. She did this because neither man wanted to become involved in the matter. Incidentally, Fenton had seven previous convictions and, by July 63, Camacchio was jailed for living off his wife's immoral earnings
8. Christine's business manager falsely alleged that, on a tape, Christine had said there was no attack by Gordon. But the police confirmed in Court that on the tape Christine actually confirmed the Gordon attack.
9. It's a misconception that Christine was the girlfriend of Gordon. Her autobiography reveals he raped her at knifepoint soon after they met. After that she feared for her life. The police were called at least five times between March 62 and February 63 due to Gordon's violent conduct towards Christine.
10. Another misconception is that Paula's brother, John, caused the injuries. They had slapped each other a few hours before the attack, but this was nothing from a legal perspective. "De minimis" is the term used by the legal team drafting the application for the posthumous Pardon. In December 63, Christine pleaded guilty to the perjury and obstruction charges, fearful that she would not receive a fair trial and an understanding that her lie was non-material. Only a material lie amounts to perjury/obstruction.
Why she should her conviction be overturned
1. Christine had been the victim of ongoing systematic abuse and intimidation from Lucky Gordon over an 18 month period. She had been assaulted on a number of occasions and there is clear evidence of coercive control. Christine was the victim and today laws are in place that would have protected her. She had lived under constant fear of Lucky Gordon, he had already raped her twice, he was constantly calling her, stalking her, even attacking her in the street. The court transcripts imply the constant fear of threat she was subjected to by Lucky Gordon (page 15 to 25 of testimony).
2. Christine did not benefit from denying the two witnesses where present - If Christine had admited that the two men where there and they where called it would have made the case against Lucky Gordon stonger. Was this material to the outcome of the trial.
3. Christrine’s denial that two witnesses were present was was incidental to the crime itself - the crime still happened and she did sustain injuries from Lucky Gordon’s attack. It was not material to the outcome of proceedings.
4. The police would have been aware of the other witnesses soon after they had interviewed Lucky. The police had a number of motivations not to care about the precence of two other witnesses.
2. Christine did not benefit from denying the two witnesses where present - If Christine had admited that the two men where there and they where called it would have made the case against Lucky Gordon stonger. Was this material to the outcome of the trial.
3. Christrine’s denial that two witnesses were present was was incidental to the crime itself - the crime still happened and she did sustain injuries from Lucky Gordon’s attack. It was not material to the outcome of proceedings.
4. The police would have been aware of the other witnesses soon after they had interviewed Lucky. The police had a number of motivations not to care about the precence of two other witnesses.
|
A. As far as the police were concerned - there was a crime and they had their man.
B. The police had a standing relationship with Christine and she was an important witness in the upcoming Stephen Ward trial. C. Lucky Gordon had a history of assaults against woman and against Christine (Superintendent Axon is quoted - The police have been called on five occasions over the prior 18 months due to assaults and molestations against Christine Keeler by Lucky Gordon. D. Some people have argued that the police were hoping that the conviction against Lucky Gordon would make him a more pliable witness against Stephen Ward. - this is very difficult to prove. |
5. Lucky Gordon legal counsel advised against calling the two witnesses - likely because they would confirm Christine's account - which they both did at the later trial.
6. She did not have her own legal counsel - in the 1960s the police brought prosecutions and the victims of a crime were a witness for the police. This often lead to a conflict of interest, where the police, who wanted to secure a conviction were in a position to pressured a witness to lie on oath, for example Ronna Riccardo testimony in the Stephen Ward trial.
7. Christine was a national pariah and it felt she could not get a fair trial. Taking a deal and pleading guilty was the only option open to her.
6. She did not have her own legal counsel - in the 1960s the police brought prosecutions and the victims of a crime were a witness for the police. This often lead to a conflict of interest, where the police, who wanted to secure a conviction were in a position to pressured a witness to lie on oath, for example Ronna Riccardo testimony in the Stephen Ward trial.
7. Christine was a national pariah and it felt she could not get a fair trial. Taking a deal and pleading guilty was the only option open to her.
There is little doubt that if it had happened today she would not have gone to prison. We do more now today to protect the victims of crime and have a better understanding of sustained mental and physical abuse. The CPS would not have allowed the police to carry forward the case without the witnesses, Christine would have had council and the enormity of her decision to lie about the witnesses would have been made clear.
