Liberace v The Daily Mirror: The Libel Trial That Kept a Secret Hidden
In the late 1950s, Władziu Valentino Liberace, the flamboyant American pianist and entertainer known simply as “Liberace,” was at the height of his fame. With his ostentatious stage presence, elaborate costumes, and extravagant performances, he had captivated audiences across the world. His public persona was one of charm, excess, and old-world glamour, but beneath the rhinestones and candelabras, there was a carefully guarded secret—one that would lead to one of the most sensational libel trials in British legal history.
The Daily Mirror Article and the Libel Case
On 26 September 1956, the Daily Mirror published an article written by columnist William Connor, who wrote under the pseudonym “Cassandra.” The piece, titled “Piano Pounding Liberace,” did not explicitly accuse Liberace of being homosexual—something that, at the time, was illegal in the UK—but it strongly hinted at it. The passage that drew the most attention was a paragraph in which Connor described Liberace as:
“The summit of sex - the pinnacle of masculine, feminine and neuter. Everything that he, she and it can ever want… a deadly, winking, sniggering, snuggling, chromium-plated, scent-impregnated, luminous, quivering, giggling, fruit-flavoured, mincing, ice-covered heap of mother love.”
The article was laced with innuendo, and the phrase “fruit-flavoured” became central to the subsequent legal battle. In American slang, “fruit” was a derogatory term for a homosexual man. However, Connor later denied that he was aware of this connotation, arguing that his description of Liberace was meant only to highlight his excessive mannerisms and theatricality.
Liberace, who had built his career on a carefully constructed image of heterosexuality—albeit a camp and extravagant one—was outraged. At a time when accusations of homosexuality could end careers and lead to criminal prosecution, he took the bold step of suing the Daily Mirror for libel. The case was heard at the High Court in London in 1959.
Liberace v The Daily Mirror: in the Witness Box
The courtroom drama that followed was as theatrical as one of Liberace’s performances. On the stand, Liberace vehemently denied the implications of the article. Under cross-examination, he declared:
“I am against the practice because it offends convention and it offends society.”
The pianist, dressed immaculately and exuding his usual charm, painted a picture of himself as a wholesome, virtuous entertainer, beloved by mothers and grandmothers alike. He presented himself as a devout Catholic who upheld traditional values, playing on the sensibilities of the time.
The defence attempted to argue that Connor’s article was fair comment, but the judge and jury were not convinced. After an intense trial, Liberace emerged victorious. He was awarded £8,000 in damages (equivalent to around £235,000 in 2023), the largest libel settlement in British legal history at the time.
After the verdict, he famously quipped in a telegram, “I cried all the way to the bank.” It was a clever play on words—he had not only defended his reputation but had also profited handsomely from it.
Aftermath and Further Lawsuits
Liberace’s victory cemented his place in legal history, but the whispers about his private life never went away. He continued to present himself as a heterosexual man, occasionally implying that he was searching for the right woman to marry. However, his personal life told a different story.
In 1982, he was embroiled in another legal battle—this time in the United States. Scott Thorson, a 22-year-old former chauffeur and live-in companion, filed a $113 million palimony lawsuit against him. Thorson claimed that he had been in a romantic relationship with Liberace for five years and had been promised financial security for life. In court, Liberace again denied being homosexual, insisting that Thorson was merely an employee. The case was eventually settled out of court in 1986 for a fraction of the original demand.
Thorson was also involved in another event in Hollywood's past, the Laurel Canyon Murders in 1981, which involved late porn star John Holmes.
Thorson in 1989 testified in the trial of nightclub owner Eddie Nash, who had been accused of ordering the murders of four people - Ron Launius, William 'Billy' Deverell, Joy Miller and Barbara Richardson - in response to a home robbery Holmes had been linked to.
Thorson said in testimony that he had been at Nash's home buying drugs and saw Holmes being beaten and questioned about the robbery, two days before the July 1, 1981 murders.
The trial resulted in a hung jury and Nash died in 2014, never convicted in connection with the killings.
The Final Years and Secret Illness
By the mid-1980s, Liberace’s health began to decline. In 1986, rumours swirled that he was seriously ill, yet he publicly denied any health issues. His final performances were noticeably strained, and he appeared gaunt. Speculation intensified when he was hospitalised in late 1986, with official statements attributing his condition to a “watermelon diet” and the strain of his rigorous performance schedule.
On 4 February 1987, Liberace died at his Palm Springs home at the age of 67. The official cause of death was initially listed as heart failure, but an autopsy later confirmed that he had died from complications related to AIDS. His long-held secret was finally exposed, yet even in death, his closest associates attempted to downplay the revelation.
Liberace had spent his entire life denying his sexuality, largely out of necessity in an era when public acknowledgment could have led to disgrace and even criminal charges. Even as societal attitudes evolved, he remained steadfast in maintaining the image he had cultivated. He had successfully sued a major newspaper, fought legal battles with former partners, and carefully controlled his public narrative.
Legacy
The Liberace v The Daily Mirror case remains a landmark in British libel law, demonstrating how accusations—whether explicit or implied—could be financially devastating for the press. For Liberace, it was a strategic victory that allowed him to continue his career unscathed at a time when exposure could have ended it entirely.
Yet in retrospect, the case also serves as a reminder of the constraints placed on public figures in the mid-20th century. Liberace was forced to live a life of secrecy, even though his extravagant persona left little doubt in the minds of many. In a different era, he might have been able to embrace his true self without fear of scandal.