Nominated BEST TRUE-CRIME PODCAST at The British Podcast Awards, 4th Best True Crime Podcast by The Week, The Telegraph's Top Five True-Crime Podcasts, The Guardian and TalkRadio's Podcast of the Week, Podcast Magazine's Hot 50 and iTunes Top 25.
17 Pembroke Court today
Welcome to the Murder Mile UK True-Crime Podcast and audio guided walk of London's most infamous and often forgotten murder cases, all set within and beyond the West End.
EPISODE ONE HUNDRED AND NINE-FOUR:
Off Edwardes Square in Kensington, W8 lies Pembroke Court, a six-storey art-deco apartment-block built in the 1920s. Back in 1962, the basement flat at 17 Pembroke Court was owned by George Brinham; a respected trade unionist and chairman of the Labour Party, who was hailed as a Prime Minister in the making. And yet, there is no blue plaque to George Brinham. Some might say this was down to his political affiliations, others might imply it was owing to his love life, but maybe it’s simply down to a scandal which on Saturday 17th November 1962, led to his murder. But why was George Brinham killed, and did a quirk of the law let his murderer go free?
CLICK HERE to download the Murder Mile podcast via iTunes and to receive the latest episodes, click "subscribe". You can listen to it by clicking PLAY on the embedded media player below.
THE LOCATION
As many photos of the case are copyright protected by greedy news organisations, to view them, take a peek at my entirely legal social media accounts - Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. SOURCES: This case was researched using some of the sources below. https://discovery.nationxalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C3756355 https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9438404 https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C4204182 https://www.britishpathe.com/video/VLVA4503G3IEM7WK6M9MFB5NTUQMW-UK-SCARBOROUGH-OPENING-DAY-OF-THE-LABOUR-PARTY-CONFERENCE/query/Scarborough
MUSIC:
UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT OF THE EPISODE: Welcome to Murder Mile. Today I’m standing in Edwardes Square in Kensington, W8; four roads north of the killing of Churchill’s super spy Krystyna Skarbek, a short walk east of the former school of the victim of The Beast (Katerina Koneva), a few streets west of the basement where the McSwan family were dissolved in acid, and just a few doors down from the killer who couldn’t say ‘goodbye’ - coming soon to Murder Mile. Hidden away off Kensington High Street, Edwardes Square is a posh little place; a manicured private garden surrounded by townhouses, mostly owned by stiff starchy chin-stroking twits who dawdle and drone through galleries about a piece’s “exquisite composition”, not realising they’re staring at a bin. Given its long history as the homes of the well-to-do, many buildings have blue plaques. Organised by a committee of old grey men, these plaques often celebrate a tenuous link to someone long dead and forgotten, half of whom make the bemused passers-by think and state “nope, never heard of him”. Off Edwardes Square lies Pembroke Court, a six-storey art-deco apartment-block built in the 1920s. Back in 1962, the basement flat at 17 Pembroke Court was owned by George Brinham; a respected trade unionist and chairman of the Labour Party, who was hailed as a Prime Minister in the making. He was a man who was making waves and a name, and yet, there is no blue plaque to George Brinham. Some might say this was down to his political affiliations, others might imply it was owing to his love life, but maybe it’s simply down to a scandal which on Saturday 17th November 1962, led to his murder. But why was George Brinham killed, and did a quirk of the law let his murderer go free? My name is Michael, I am your tour guide, and this is Murder Mile. Episode 194: The Gay Panic. On 5th July 1967 at 5:50am, the Sexual Offences Act passed in the House of Commons, a bill purported to decriminalise homosexuality and equalise a person’s legal status regardless of sexual orientation. As a gay man, George would die five years before this decriminalisation, and in an era where it was acceptable to use homophobia as a legal defence… …it is referred to as ‘the gay panic’. George Ivor Brinham was born on 31st January 1917 in Brixham, Devon, one of the smallest and most southerly towns in the south-west of England. Raised by Elijah a fisherman, and Annie a housewife, George was one of three siblings raised in a loving family, with his brother Harry and sister Charlotte. From his hard-working parents, at an early age, George learned the value of loyalty and love, but also how even a little lad from the back-end of nowhere could (and should) stand up for the rights of the average person. Unlike his contemporaries who ascended to the political elite having had mummy and daddy board them at posh public schools like Harrow or Eton, George left school aged 14 with a basic education, but bolstered his knowledge with evening classes and a wealth of personal experience. By living his life and learning from those around him, George became the man he would become. As a high-achiever who came from little, George made the most of every opportunity. In 1932, aged 15, he became an apprentice joiner at Bluebeer & Merchant in Brixham, staying for five years, learning new skills, becoming the shop steward and – already being politically active – the senior union rep. In 1933, aged just 16, as a slightly shy boy, he knocked on the door of politician Mrs F M Chudsey and stammered “would it be possible for me to join the Labour Party?”. And thus his political career began. Being well-dressed and softly spoken, he impressed his seniors. But regarded by some as a ‘scrapper’ and by others as ‘a trouble maker’ - mostly by those who never wanted any change to the status quo which benefitted managers and maligned the workers – George was young, smart and hungry. Aged 19, he became honorary secretary of the Torquay Labour Party. During war-time, he represented Torquay at the annual Labour Party conference, he formed the first local committee of Shipbuilding & Engineering unions, he was trade union rep on the Admiralty Shipyard Control Advisory Committee - all in his early-to-mid-twenties – and in 1944, he was appointed Justice of the Peace, the youngest at that time, and elected to Brixham Urban Council, where he served as counsellor for three years. In his spare-time, he studied economics and local government affairs, eventually becoming a tutor and fellow of the Royal Economic Society. In 1952, he was elected to the National Labour Party Executive, becoming its youngest member. In 1955, having joined the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, he became its youngest ever chairman and later its president. And by 1959, aged just 42, George Brinham - a young shy lad from a small fishing town – had become the youngest Chairman of the Labour Party. Physically, as a slim neat man with dark well-groomed hair and a sharp suit, he was not a formidable sight. But undeniably, he was a charismatic man who was devoted to the fight for worker’s rights. The stratospheric career of George Brinham was public and well documented. And yet his private life was not. As a gay man, in an era when it was a criminal offence to be gay; his private life was a dirty little secret known by few who kept it hidden including himself and (possibly) by his party… …until a seedy scandal led to his death. On paper, George did not have a criminal record for acts which - in the 1950s & 60s – were illegal. According to declassified police records; in 1956, a Naval Rating claimed he was picked up in Hyde Park and at the Tregaron Hotel in Bayswater, George paid him 10 shillings to engage in masturbation. George was questioned, he denied any indecency and he was released with no charges against him. In 1958, an unnamed guardsman alleged that George had attempted to commit buggery upon him at his flat at 17 Pembroke Court. The incident was investigated by the Special Investigation Branch of the Army, but with no corroborative evidence and George denying it took place, no charges were made. And in December 1961, an unnamed youth who had claimed he was paid £5 on several occasions for sex was arrested having broken into the flat. George denied knowing him and the case was closed. As a gay man, his options on how he could pick up men was limited to those which were illegal. Unlike others, with high-ranking friends in most government departments, it’s likely that these scandals were silenced for fear of ruining his career and the reputation of the party. But being so well-insulated, this protection is likely to have led to George being a lot less cautious about his illegal sexual activities. In May 1958, George moved into 17 Pembroke Court in Edwardes Square, W8. Although he had lived there for four years, few of his neighbours knew this shy quiet man… but they all knew he was gay. Lacking any discretion, often on weekends, George would drive a lew of handsome young men, some in uniform, in his Blue Ford Colsul from Soho and surrounding areas to his secluded flat in Kensington. Witnessing his homosexual shenanigans, Mrs Christina Ansell of Flat 14 gave an account to the Police. (Christina): “He’d not been living there long before I noticed that he was having a number of different young men call upon him in his flat. I remember a Saturday afternoon about 18 months ago, I was sitting in my bedroom with the windows open. I heard a young man’s voice shout “you’re hurting me” It sounded as if the young man was distressed. Then immediately afterwards I heard a struggle”. Informing Mrs Lucy Alcock the caretaker, this suspected assault was reported to the landlords, but as Mr Brinham was a good tenant, they simply asked him to be quieter from that point on. George had an appetite for young men, which was not dissuaded by nosey neighbours or a copper’s questions. Whatever went on in his private little flat – whether rough sex, or saddo masochism – it didn’t dampen his ardour for lusting after young men, he just made it less obvious to the sticky beaks who blabbed to the police. With the windows shut and the curtains closed, Christina would state “when I saw him bringing in young men, shortly after entering the flat, I would hear music being played very loudly”. Lucy recalled “…I heard screaming coming from the flat, and as the screams got louder, the volume of the music was turned up. It was always the same music, which would last about 15 minutes, then all would be quiet again. I would see him and a young man go out and get into his car and drive away”. It happened so often that the neighbours stopped reporting it. As Christina would state: “with all this activity, it was obvious to me that this man was a homosexual… but we just had to put up with it”. And yet, the lacklustre way in which George conducted his secret sex life also made him an easy target. In October 1962 - eleven months after an unnamed rent-boy was released having broken into George’s flat – either a different boy or the same boy had committed a burglary, stealing items from his home. A neighbour saw George repairing the broken window to his rear basement bedroom, and when he asked if he had informed the Police, George replied “no, it’s no good, they won’t do anything”. In 1962, with homosexuality illegal, and gays regarded as little more than sadistic sexual deviants who corrupted decent society with their ungodly ways, George knew he was an easy target; he had money, he was slightly built, and – having a flat filled with erotic art and gay porn – he was easy to blackmail. And as the punishment for homosexuality was more severe than it was for burglary, he knew his sexuality would most likely be used against him, and any public exposure would risk ruining his career. Even as a victim of crime, in this era, George would be seen in a court of law as culpable. And yet, barely three weeks later, he would be murdered in his own flat… …and the culprit’s defence would be ‘the gay panic’. Also known as Homosexual Panic Disorder, Psychiatrist Edward J. Kempf coined the term in 1920 to define "a panic due to the pressure of uncontrollable perverse sexual cravings". Accepted in British courts as a legal strategy, a defendant could claim to have been provoked into committing an act of violence, in self-defence, because of the unwanted sexual advances of a person of the same sex. In the UK, it has been known for decades as the ‘Portsmouth defence’ or the ‘guardsman's defence’. But was this solely a strategy used to defend the murderer of George Brinham… …or was George chosen as a victim of crime because the law made him an easy target? Saturday 17th November 1962 was George’s last day alive. He wouldn’t know that, and neither would his murderer, as both men seemingly went about their ordinary day. At roughly half-past-two, George met a young man called Laurence Somers, outside of a gunsmith near The Strand, by Covent Garden. Laurence would state: “this fellow just started talking to me. I didn’t know who he was. He offered me a cigarette”. George was a 45-year-old unionist, Laurence was a 16-year-old boy from a broken home. For whatever reason – whether kindness, boredom or seeing an opportunity to commit a minor crime – “we went into a few cafes, then he asked me back to his flat for a drink and we both had a couple of bottles of brown ale each”. According to Laurence, both men were strangers and he was not gay. Bottles of brown ale were found in the flat, with fingerprints corroborating his story. “Then we went to the pictures; it was the Coliseum you know”, a grand picture on St Martin's Lane, “Tarzan and Aladdin was on. We came out of the pictures and went round a few pubs. I had a good bit to drink. It would be getting on for ten o’clock at night and we went back to his flat for a drink”. Having heard George’s Blue Ford Consul pull-up on Edwardes Square, the neighbours at Pembroke Court paid no attention, as this middle-aged man led a scruffy young boy into his basement flat. And, as would often happen, the night would follow a very familiar routine of drink, sex and screams. As a predatory male with a penchant for young boys, George wanted Laurence. But why was Laurence there? Laurence Thomas Somers was born in Ireland on the 28th June 1946. As the eldest of five, to a battered mother and an abusive father described as ‘an aggressive psychopath’, his childhood was short and cruel. Being quick-tempered and emotionally cold, he lacked trust in others and struggled to cope. In 1957, five years prior to George’s murder, his parents had separated, his mother had sued his father on the grounds of cruelty, and they moved into a council house on the Hurst Farm Estate in Matlock. Affected by the family’s split, he began a spate of minor crimes; on 2nd January 1958, aged 11, he was discharged from Matlock Juvenile Court for stealing chocolate; on 27th January 1960, aged 13, he was given two years’ probation for stealing a motorbike in Derby, and on 23rd February 1961, aged 14, he received a further two years’ probation for the theft of a National Assistance book and £7 in cash. Laurence was little more than a lost youth lacking love and a male role model. A few months prior; he had moved into a lodging at 41 Winchester Street in Victoria which he shared with his psychotic father, he worked irregular hours as a pub cellarman, and had a rocky relationship with his current girlfriend. And now – for reasons unknown to anyone but him – he was in the flat of a predatory homosexual. But why? At 10pm - with the windows shut, the doors locked and the curtains closed - George began to entertain his young guest, as Laurence removed his coat and gloves. (Laurence): “This chap told me his name was George. We had a few more drinks, we talked and played records” (Music on) As always, with the same tune muffling every sound, the neighbours didn’t complain as they knew it wouldn’t last long. George’s flat was elegantly decorated with stylish furnishings, the radiogram was new and with the sideboard and walls covered in homo-erotic art of naked men wrestling, Laurence must have known that George was gay. Or, either he didn’t know, didn’t care, or just thought he was posh and cultured? From a heavy crystal decanter, George poured them both a few-fingers of finest brandy, as this man and boy sat chatting in the sitting room, supping boozy drinks, as the music enveloped every sound. Laurence: “he asked me to stay the night with him and I said I wouldn’t”. Nearby, a stash of gay porn lay in a drawer; with titles like Beau and Sir Gay, they depicted muscle-bound hunks in posing pouches engaged in passionate homoerotic postures with other naked men - it was clear what this was. Laurence shifted awkwardly on the sofa: “...the man made improper advances. He put his arms around me and said ‘give us a kiss’. Coming from a man, I thought that was improper”. Dressed in just a white vest and black trousers, at some point George loosened his braces, as they were later found undone. Unnerved, Laurence got up and stood across the other side of the room by the sideboard, but George followed him: “anyway he kept on at me, and he tried to take hold of my privates”. Panicked at being sexually assaulted by a male stranger, “I got the bottle from the side”, it was the heavy glass decanter, “I pushed him away”, but George came at him again, “I belted him a number of times over his head”. Smashed over his head three times with a two-kilo decanter, as the glass was intact, his skull fractured taking the full force, as rivers of blood streamed down his face, into his eyes and onto his white shirt. “He ran towards the door in the hall, but as he was trying to unfasten it, he collapsed”. Evidence shows that George was hit over the head, again in the hallway using the glass decanter. “I dragged him back into the living room”, where he lay unconscious, “and left him there on his back. I did not expect that kind of thing from a man. I hit him to get away. I didn’t mean to kill him”, Laurence would state. With the music still on, the neighbours heard nothing. Laurence: “I stood and thought what I was going to do. I was in a bit of a panic. I thought I would make it look like a burglary. I opened drawers and threw everything all over the place. After this I just ran out and slammed the door behind me”. Laurence had escaped a buggering, but it was only after he had left the flat that he remembered – in his panic to escape - he had left his coat and gloves on George’s bed. But by then, it was too late. The next morning, Laurence stole a van and fled to his mothers in Matlock. With the curtains closed, the lights on, the radiogram having silenced and with no witnesses to the murder, George’s flat looked occupied but quiet for the next few days. On Thursday 22nd November 1962, George was due to a meeting at the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, but as he didn’t arrive, the caretaker of the TUC alerted the fire-brigade, and at 3:15pm, his body was found. The investigation was simple; with nothing of any obvious value stolen, the flat had been ransacked to look like a burglary. But in his panic, the attacker had left his coat and gloves. Initially arrested for the theft of van stolen in Finchley one day after the murder, 16-year-old Laurence Thomas Somers was questioned, and his fingerprints matched those inside George’s flat and on the glass decanter. He was charged with unlawful killing and made no reply. But would ‘the gay panic’ be used solely a strategy to defend the murderer of George Brinham… …or was George chosen as a victim of crime because the law made him an easy target? The trial began at The Old Bailey on 18th December 1962, two weeks after George’s funeral. Presented before Mr Justice Paull, the timeline and evidence was clear, and neither the defence nor prosecution would query whether Laurence had smashed George over the head with a glass decanter. He had, and he had admitted it. The question was one of provocation – was this a wilful murder, or a manslaughter by self-defence, committed whilst being sexually assaulted by a man and in the grip of a ‘gay panic’? Unlike any other trial, the murderer was depicted as a young innocent boy who had fled an ungodly act, with the victim (now dead and defenceless) described as an old pervert who preyed on the young. With Laurence as the sole witness to the attack – this could have been the truth, a lie or an alibi - and yet, they did not question Laurence’s history, his sexuality or his motive. Four witnesses were called, none of whom seen or heard anything; Christine & Frederick Ansell of Flat 14 and Lucy Alcock of Flat 18 could only testify to the “screams” and the “indecent acts” George had committed upon vulnerable young men in the weeks and months prior. With a fourth witness, whose name was redacted, believed to be the unnamed Naval Rating who George had paid for sex. Disregarded as contradictory evidence of any credence; it wasn’t questioned why Laurence’s coat and gloves were on George’s bed, or why the blood spatter wasn’t predominantly found by the side-board (where he was allegedly hit) but by the door – this was taken as the boy’s confusion caused by panic. If provocation could be proven, then the judge decreed that murder had to be ruled out. Presented before the Judge were four key pieces of evidence; the glass decanter, the coat and gloves, and the two statements of Laurence Somers – as you would expect. But the other exhibits accepted into evidence were there to prove that the murder victim was a predatory homosexual. Many of the crime scene photos focussed – not on the body or the blood – but the homoerotic art and gay porn, which was listed in court of law - where everyone is innocent until proven guilty - as “a male pervert’s literature”. The magazines were called into evidence, but it could not be proven if they were used that night. In Laurence’s defence, Edward Clarke QC would state “there is still a plea of not guilty to manslaughter, because there is a defence that you are entitled to kill a man, if he is committing an atrocious crime against you” – suggesting that murder is acceptable if you deem a gay man’s advances as a threat. And yet, the worst evidence was presented by respected pathologist Dr Donald Teare. In his autopsy report, he would state “his genitals were rather small” (which served no purpose but to humiliate), “his anus admitted three fingers” (proving that George had been engaged in the illegal act of buggery), and – most bafflingly of all for a man of science – he stated it wasn’t the decanters toughness which fractured George’s skull, but that “death was due to a thinning skull and in my opinion, the condition was consistent with long-practiced homosexuality or self-inflicted perversion”. There was no medical examination of Laurence, to prove if he had defensive wounds, or had engaged in anal sex. (End) On the 21st January 1963, Mr Justice Paull directed the jury to ignore the charge of murder and said “I cannot see how any jury, properly directed on the evidence can fail to find there was provocation. There is the statement of the lad which shows quite clearly that this man attempted to make homosexual advances, and that in consequence Laurence Somers picked up a decanter and hit him on the head. I should think that is about a clear a case of provocation as it is possible to have”. Found not guilty of manslaughter, the Judge ordered Laurence Somers to be discharged and said to his mother “if possible, find him work in Matlock and take him home. There are dangers in London”. Declared an innocent man, he left The Old Bailey, and – as far as we know - never returned to London. Given the evidence, it’s easy to accept the facts that George’s death occurred they way it has been presented – as it’s likely that it was – but with so much focus on George’s “indecent sexual appetite”, there are a wealth of unanswered questions which weren’t answered. Most importantly; why did a young heterosexual boy agree to visit the secluded flat of a middle-aged homosexual stranger? Was he innocent of sex, of danger, and of gay men? Or was his age a convenient excuse? And if the ‘the gay panic’ was used as a useful alibi - knowing that George would never go to the police, even if he was attacked or burgled - did this failure of the law make him an easy target for a young thief? Laurence Thomas Somers died in Derby in 1999, taking the (possible) truth to his grave. The Murder Mile UK True Crime Podcast has been researched using the original declassified police investigation files, court records, press reports and as many authentic sources as possible, which are freely available in the public domain, including eye-witness testimony, confessions, autopsy reports, first-hand accounts and independent investigation, where possible. But these documents are only as accurate as those recounting them and recording them, and are always incomplete or full of opinion rather than fact, therefore mistakes and misrepresentations can be made. As stated at the beginning of each episode (and as is clear by the way it is presented) Murder Mile UK True Crime Podcast is a 'dramatisation' of the events and not a documentary, therefore a certain amount of dramatic licence, selective characterisation and story-telling (within logical reason and based on extensive research) has been taken to create a fuller picture. It is not a full and complete representation of the case, the people or the investigation, and therefore should not be taken as such. It is also often (for the sake of clarity, speed and the drama) presented from a single person's perspective, usually (but not exclusively) the victim's, and therefore it will contain a certain level of bias and opinion to get across this single perspective, which may not be the overall opinion of those involved or associated. Murder Mile is just one possible retelling of each case. Murder Mile does not set out to cause any harm or distress to those involved, and those who listen to the podcast or read the transcripts provided should be aware that by accessing anything created by Murder Mile (or any source related to any each) that they may discover some details about a person, an incident or the police investigation itself, that they were unaware of.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorMichael J Buchanan-Dunne is a crime writer, podcaster of Murder Mile UK True Crime and creator of true-crime TV series. 
Archives
December 2024
Subscribe to the Murder Mile true-crime podcast
Categories
All
Note: This blog contains only licence-free images or photos shot by myself in compliance with UK & EU copyright laws. If any image breaches these laws, blame Google Images.
|