“Cassandra" Denies Inference In Article (Press, 13 June 1959)

On 12 June 1959, the jury in the libel case brought by the famous American entertainer Liberace against the "Daily Mirror" was instructed by High Court Judge Mr Justice Salmon not to watch Liberace's scheduled television performance on "Sunday Night at the London Palladium." The judge expressed concern that viewing the programme could lead the jury to form a biased impression regarding the case. Liberace is suing the newspaper and its columnist "Cassandra," whose real name is William Connor, for damages over two articles written during Liberace's 1956 tour of England, which he claims libelled him by implying he was homosexual. Liberace has firmly denied these allegations. In court, Connor and the "Daily Mirror" defended their articles by stating that their assertions were true and their opinions were fair comment. During the day’s proceedings, Connor underwent an intense five-hour cross-examination from Liberace's legal representative, Mr Gilbert Beyfus QC. Connor, reportedly one of Fleet Street's highest-paid columnists, expressed his disdain for Liberace’s performances, calling them nauseating, but insisted that he never intended to suggest that Liberace was homosexual. He maintained that his critique was an honest opinion, focused more on what he perceived as theatrical excess rather than the entertainer's sexuality. Connor also objected to the portrayal of religious themes in Liberace's shows, particularly a performance where a woman dressed as a nun appeared in front of the Madonna, calling it a misuse of a sacred occasion. He noted that he found Liberace's appeal to audiences was unique, likening it to a totalitarian draw that could captivate diverse crowds, even in challenging venues like Madison Square Garden in New York. The court session delved into Connor's word choices, particularly regarding the use of slang terms. When questioned about the slang term "fruit," which is associated with homosexuality and had appeared in his writings, Connor responded that he had been unaware of its connotation in the United States, stating it had surprised him. He clarified that his remarks about Liberace being a "grimacing messiah" stemmed from his honest opinion rather than an intention to signal something derogatory regarding the entertainer's character. The proceedings highlight the intersection of public opinion, media portrayal, and the personal ramifications of such representations, with Liberace vehemently defending his reputation while Connor navigated the complexities of his journalistic expressions. The case reflects larger societal themes of the time regarding sexuality and the impact of media commentary. The court adjourned until the following morning.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand