More on the MI6 guys coming out saying the MI6 had plans to assassinate a Balkans leader by crashing his car and using a flash:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by 8bitagent » Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:34 am
by antiaristo » Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:30 pm
sunny wrote:anti, have they brought up the suicide victim whose blood many suspect was substituted for Paul's? Have they brought up the fact that DNA testing has not been allowed on the sample? Can this court direct such testing to be done, and do you think it will?
(b) efforts would be made if not to get rid of her (be it some accident to her car such as pre-prepared brake failure or whatever) between now and then, then at least to see that she was so injured or damaged as to be declared "unbalanced". She was convinced that there was a conspiracy and that she and Camilla were to be "put aside".
When we get to January 2004, there is
2 a new development, which is the Paget Inquiry, and terms
3 of reference given to the main Commissioner Stevens.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now that was somewhat unusual, wasn't it?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Whose idea was it?
8 A. I am not privy to the details of those arrangements.
9 Those were between --
10 Q. I want to discover, if you can help, who decided there
11 should be an unusual police inquiry into the allegations
12 made by Mohamed Al Fayed as opposed to the allegations
13 being made by Diana which weren't so dissimilar in some
14 respect? Do you know who took that decision?
15 A. No, I don't.
16 Q. Did you go to any meetings with the coroner in the early
17 days?
18 A. No, I did not.
19 Q. Who was dealing with this side of it?
20 A. In the preparatory stage before Operation Paget --
21 Q. Before the opening of the inquest in January 2004 when
22 it was announced to the world that there would be
23 a Stevens Inquiry into these allegations, who was
24 dealing -- so in other words we are dealing with between
25 October 2003, with the publication of the note, and
140
1 January 2004.
2 A. I believe that was Commander Armand.
3 Q. Again, would there be records of these meetings as how
4 this developed into basically an inquiry into
5 Mohamed Al Fayed?
6 A. I think those are issues that I am not privy to and
7 I would not want to guess that -- they are, I think,
8 questions that you might find more helpful to seek
9 answers from Operation Paget.
4 Questions from MR MANSFIELD
5 MR MANSFIELD: Good morning, Lord Stevens. I represent
6 Mohamed Al Fayed. I think you know who I am, sir.
7 A. I certainly do.
8 Q. I am asking you questions within the very clear ambit of
9 the indications given by the learned Coroner this
10 morning.
11 So that it is very clear to you, the questions
12 I have relate to the very first two topics; that is, the
13 setting up the inquiry known as "Paget" and also
14 inter-related with that is the Mishcon note. For ease
15 of reference, it might be simpler if I begin at the end.
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. Do you agree that the Mishcon note was first of all
18 potentially relevant?
19 A. Potentially relevant.
20 Q. You may have read Mr Veness' evidence in which he
21 accepted that it was potentially relevant.
22 A. I have not seen his evidence.
23 Q. Well, I put the same question to him and he agreed that.
24 Do you also agree that bearing that in mind, there
25 is a -- it has been described as a "common law duty" to
24
1 disclose potentially relevant information to
2 the Coroner?
3 A. When the inquest starts, yes.
4 Q. Is that your understanding?
5 A. Indeed.
6 Q. Indeed. Well who told you that?
7 A. You are not going to disclose something to a coroner if
8 a coroner has not been appointed and the inquest has not
9 started.
10 Q. I am sorry, you are under a misapprehension and you may
11 be under other misapprehensions.
12 A. I doubt it.
13 Q. Please, Lord Stevens, I appreciate you had a lot of
14 responsibilities -- for all I know, you still have --
15 and you may have made certain assumptions.
16 I would like you to think very carefully about this
17 one: the obligation or duty to disclose to the Coroner
18 is not dependent about the Coroner having opened
19 the inquests, is it?
20 A. If the Coroner has not opened the inquest, no, it is
21 not, if it is relevant to that inquest, and there are
22 not other limitations on why you can disclose it, other
23 limitations.
24 Q. I will come to that.
25 As you have not read the examination here and
25
1 evidence of Mr Veness, then you will not have seen
2 a document that I put to him and I am going to have to
3 put it to you. Could we have [INQ0034968]?
4 This is a letter from the Coroner written in
5 October 2003, on the 28th. Have you seen this before?
6 It is to Mr Burrell.
7 A. No, I have not seen it before. Not in detail, I do not
8 remember it, no.
9 Q. We don't want the address, thank you. Others might,
10 I certainly don't.
11 A. I am sure that Mr Burrell wouldn't.
12 Q. I am sorry about that. It is a slight slip that
13 sometimes happens.
14 So that it is clear to you, this was a letter that
15 was written on 28th October within days of the Burrell
16 note or letter, as it has been known, and you will
17 appreciate what that means in this case --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- in other words, his possession of a letter or
20 memorandum or however it may be described, written by
21 Diana. Of course, you have seen that as part of your
22 inquiry, so you know what I am talking about.
23 A. I do.
24 Q. It was published -- and actually again, to save time,
25 I was going to put it on the screen -- but I think you
26
1 will agree it was published in the press on
2 20th October, amidst a great deal of fanfare, by the
3 Daily Mirror, wasn't it?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I am going to hold it up so that it can be seen:
6 "I will suffer brake failure and serious head
7 injuries."
8 It is that document. That is only part of it. Then
9 it goes on to talk about Diana's prediction and then it
10 goes on to publish the letter with redactions and so
11 forth. In fact, what happened in the days that followed
12 20th October were further revelations taken mostly from
13 his book on 21st, 22nd, 23rd October. So most of that
14 week pre-occupies that particular tabloid with those
15 particular revelations.
16 Now, what the Coroner does -- we say quite
17 properly -- and you will recall by this stage that the
18 inquests have not been opened. Do you follow?
19 A. (Witness nods)
20 Q. He points out in the first paragraph -- can we keep
21 the letter up, please -- who he is and what he is doing.
22 "In the meantime, it has been drawn to my attention
23 that you may have a letter which contains information
24 which may be relevant and germane to the inquest and the
25 manner of the death of the late Diana,
27
1 Princess of Wales. As I am sure you are aware, there is
2 a common law duty to provide the Coroner all and any
3 information relevant to a death which you may have in
4 your possession or is within your knowledge, even
5 without the Coroner specifically seeking this from you.
6 "Ultimately, it is up to me, as the Coroner, to
7 determine whether a document or a matter is relevant to
8 the inquests. I wish to have sight of that letter,
9 please, together with any other documents or writings
10 which may have a similar relevance. I will also need to
11 know the basis upon which the latter was written or
12 documents were created and/or came into your possession
13 because that then may place them into some sort of
14 context. The letter and/or other documents may need to
15 be examined forensically.
16 "I therefore ask you that you make the letter and
17 any other documents available to me and also assist me
18 further by providing a statement setting out those
19 matters to which I have referred, as well as all and any
20 other information. I will ask a police officer, who has
21 been seconded to me for the purposes of assisting me
22 with my pre-inquest inquiries, to take such a statement
23 from you."
24 Then over the page -- perhaps we will just complete
25 it. It is [INQ0034969].
28
1 "In making this request of you, I do not, in any
2 way, seek to interfere with whatever right you or others
3 may have in the letter and/or documents. If they are
4 found to be relevant, then I may be required to retain
5 them under statutory provisions requiring the Coroner to
6 retain exhibits.
7 "I would be grateful if you would please confirm to
8 me in writing ...", and so on.
9 So I am going to suggest to you that it was
10 perfectly clear that the Coroner was making pre-inquest
11 inquiries. You knew that, didn't you?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You must have known that because the very first policy
14 document set up after the crash related to that, didn't
15 it?
16 A. Going back to the letter --
17 Q. Well, wait a minute.
18 A. No, no. You have asked the question. Let me answer it
19 my way, please. What happened when The Mirror article
20 came out was there was a phone call from Lord Condon,
21 phone calls from Lord Mishcon. We then took legal
22 advice as to what we should do, bearing in mind
23 the confidentiality that Lord Mishcon quite rightly was
24 holding onto, and you have to see that letter in that
25 context.
29
1 Q. I understand. You have said that already. I am dealing
2 with this in sequence, if I may, in relation to a duty
3 to disclose; do you follow? You were indicating that
4 there was no duty to disclose before the inquests were
5 open. That is the point I am dealing with.
6 A. I see where you are going now.
7 Q. Would you be prepared to accept that you were wrong?
8 A. I would not be prepared to accept that I am wrong
9 because we took legal advice. I must go back to the
10 sequence of events and what we did. Remembering
11 the main issue for Lord Condon, amongst others -- but
12 one of them was the confidentiality issue with
13 Lord Mishcon, we -- actually I think obviously at some
14 stage someone has told the Coroner that there is
15 a letter, which is interesting, but that is another
16 matter --
17 Q. He has read it in the press.
18 A. A letter from us?
19 Q. No, no, no. A letter from Burrell.
20 A. We had the meetings with Lord Mishcon, we had our legal
21 advice and that is how the process went and that is why
22 the process took some time.
23 Q. No. You see, Lord Stevens, I am going to make the
24 suggestion very clear. I am going to suggest that this
25 Mishcon note was going to stay in a safe and the only
30
1 way in which you were forced in the end to reveal it was
2 because Mr Burrell -- and he has said as much himself --
3 he revealed the one that he had -- he did not know
4 anything about yours -- he went to the press with his
5 and the ball started rolling by Lord Mishcon ringing you
6 up. That is how it started, isn't it?
7 A. You are making the allegation here that this was never
8 going to be disclosed to the Coroner. That is wrong.
9 Q. That is why I am examining it very closely.
10 So you stick by your opinion, do you, that the duty
11 to disclose to the Coroner only arises once he opens
12 the inquests? Is that what you are sticking to?
13 A. No, I am talking about when the reality would come, in
14 the opening of the inquest, when we would disclose
15 the letter anyway. But bearing in mind the issues in
16 the letter and specifically Lord Mishcon's permission
17 that we had to get before doing it, those were
18 the issues that were uppermost in our mind.
19 Q. No --
20 A. Hang on, please. The legal advice -- remembering these
21 were complex issues, the legal advice was absolutely
22 paramount in where we went with this letter. You don't
23 these decisions straight off the top of your head, you
24 get the proper legal advice, and that is exactly what
25 we did.
31
1 Q. Well, we will come straight to that.
2 When did you first take legal advice about the duty
3 of disclosure to the Coroner of the -- not the Burrell
4 letter, because that is a separate issue, of the Mishcon
5 note?
6 A. The first time we did that was when we -- Dave Veness
7 came up and I called in David Hamilton, who was
8 the senior solicitor of the Metropolitan Police, and
9 said, "This is the context of this letter, David.
10 We want proper legal advice from yourself or others on
11 it".
12 Q. Sorry, what was the question?
13 A. I have given you the answer to the question.
14 Q. No, what was the question.
15 A. I have given you the answer to the question.
16 Look, Mr Mansfield, you are not going to get me to
17 say answers to questions --
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think he was asking you about
19 the date.
20 A. Oh, the date, okay, but you tend to go on a bit.
21 MR MANSFIELD: You do understand?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Don't, please, get too confrontational about this.
24 A. No, certainly not.
25 Q. I asked a simple question. Now, please listen.
32
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. When did you first seek advice, legal advice?
3 A. 23rd October 2003.
4 Q. Exactly. After the Burrell note has been published.
5 A. Which is on 20th October 2003.
6 Q. Yes, quite. The question I have is -- let's go back to
7 the beginning. It is in 2000, January, that the safe is
8 opened. Please understand, you have a lot of other
9 things.
10 A. Very much so.
11 Q. Commissioner designate. I am not suggesting to you that
12 at that stage --
13 A. No, at that stage -- are we talking about when we put
14 the letter into the safe or are we talking about
15 the Burrell letter in October 2003 when I was already
16 the Commissioner?
17 Q. Please understand, I am dealing with the Mishcon note in
18 2000. Right?
19 A. Right.
20 Q. I will go slowly.
21 A. Good.
22 Q. Now, the Mishcon note in the year 2000, you did not know
23 anything about it until it was revealed in the safe by
24 Lord Condon in the handover?
25 A. That is right.
33
1 Q. Now, what I am accepting is that at that stage you have
2 a lot on your plate in a new job --
3 A. Very much so, yes.
4 Q. -- and the significance perhaps of everything does not
5 immediately occur to you.
6 A. That is right.
7 Q. Is that fair?
8 A. That is right. I did have a look at the note.
9 Q. So --
10 A. But I did read the note, obviously.
11 Q. At that stage, with that caveat -- and I have been
12 prepared to accept for you that you would be busy and so
13 forth -- but when you read the note, did you ask
14 Lord Condon, "Why has this not been disclosed to the
15 Coroner under our duty of disclosure?"
16 A. No. I accepted Lord Condon's judgment on why he had not
17 done it and that was it.
18 Q. So you did not ask him why it had not been?
19 A. No. No.
20 Q. So between 2000, as matters, as it were, ticked on, were
21 there regular reviews being carried out in relation to
22 this issue by somebody; in other words, the disclosure,
23 the duty of disclosure of this note? Was somebody
24 reviewing it regularly?
25 A. Dave Veness had the overall responsibility of liaising,
34
1 so I suppose, at the end of the day, in the back of his
2 mind, he would have been reviewing it as to when it
3 should be disclosed.
4 Q. I do not want you to suppose anything. Was he or was he
5 not?
6 A. I think he must be, yes, he would have been.
7 Q. I want to ask you about -- we don't have any records of
8 any review meetings between 2000 and the first time you
9 seek legal advice. We don't have any records of review
10 meetings. Are there any?
11 A. Not that I know of, no.
12 Q. Why is that?
13 A. Because at that stage, in terms of reviews, those
14 reviews were being conducted, if they were being
15 conducted at all, by Sir David Veness, as he is now.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It would have been a case, would
17 it, of -- well, something would have to have happened
18 that would have triggered Sir David Veness' mind, "Oh
19 well, that note, we had better have another look at
20 that".
21 A. That is absolutely right. Mr Mansfield has been very
22 generous to acknowledge that there were an awful lot of
23 matters going on, let alone running an organisation of
24 45,000. It was exceptional reporting and that never did
25 take place. So that question must be asked of
35
1 David Veness. I presume you have asked him.
2 MR MANSFIELD: Yes, I have. So far we have no documentation
3 that relates to any occasion on which any consideration
4 was given to whether this information sitting in
5 the safe -- may I just clarify? In the safe, it was not
6 just the note itself, ie Lord Mishcon's original record
7 of the meeting, there was also, was there, a memorandum
8 relating to his meeting with the Metropolitan Police?
9 A. I think that is right, yes.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, until the Burrell note
11 surfaced, are you aware of anything that should have
12 triggered Sir David Veness to have caused a review to
13 take place of the note?
14 A. Absolutely not, sir, and that is the point I am making.
15 There was not.
16 MR MANSFIELD: Wasn't there?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Can we have [INQ0006342 - read out in court]? This is statement that
19 Sir David Veness made for the purposes of this inquest.
20 The number I am reading off -- [INQ0006341 - read out in court] is the first
21 page.
22 When was Operation Paget established?
23 A. It was originally called "Operation Paris" for liaison
24 purposes. Then, as is the system, that name was
25 changed, and as far as I can remember, Operation Paget
36
1 started in August, taking inquiries from -- that was
2 Jeff Rees.
3 Q. August of?
4 A. August of 2000. Then there were letters -- well, I do
5 not want to go into what took place between --
6 Q. Yes. Operation Paget began in 2000?
7 A. But not the Operation Paget that I took over control of
8 at the beginning of 2004.
9 Q. Because it appears --
10 A. There was toing and froing, assisting the French,
11 liaising, and I think you have had Jeff Rees in here as
12 well, haven't you?
13 Q. Yes. The reason I put to you a few minutes ago, were
14 you aware that the very first policy decision that was
15 taken after the crash on 1st September 1997 was a policy
16 decision to establish a police support group, call it
17 whatever you wish, at that stage, for the Coroner and
18 his inquiries? You knew that?
19 A. I think that is so, yes.
20 Q. So right from the beginning there has been a police
21 group there to assist the Coroner, and from 2000 onwards
22 there is a group of officers called "Paget". Who set
23 that up?
24 A. That was done in 1997. I do not know exactly who set
25 that up. That was when Jeff Rees commenced his liaison
37
1 role for Metropolitan Police Service. Some assistance
2 was again given by a man called Gargan.
3 Q. Yes. You see, I do not want to take a lot of time.
4 There is very little or no documentation that we have
5 been given. Inquiries were going on all the time by
6 the Coroner.
7 A. Not inquiries. It was a liaison. The decision was
8 made -- and I think this has to be reinforced because
9 it is -- the inquiries that we were doing were liaison
10 inquiries and the decision that was taken was that no
11 inquiries of import would be taken in the United Kingdom
12 until the French had finished their inquiries into the
13 incident in the tunnel. That is what the decision was
14 and that continued onwards until the Coroner re-opened
15 the inquest in January of 2004.
16 Q. It was not just --
17 A. So -- I am sorry to butt in -- it was not an inquiry,
18 it was liaison that took place between the two;
19 assistance of that nature.
20 Q. Wrong again, Lord Condon --
21 A. Lord stevens.
22 Q. I am making the same mistake. I do apologise.
23 Wrong again, if I may say so. Were you aware that
24 British police officers were going to France on behalf
25 of the Coroner and making inquiries on behalf of
38
1 the Coroner, in France, doing video trips -- we have
2 seen one of them here -- doing a video trip round Paris
3 in order to work out the route and all the rest of it?
4 Did you know that?
5 A. I have seen the video, but it was a matter of liaison.
6 It was not an investigation or inquiry in the policing
7 sense.
8 Q. Well, you did it on behalf the Coroner.
9 A. I did not do anything at that stage on behalf of
10 the Coroner.
11 Q. Sorry, the group did it on behalf of the Coroner. That
12 is what they claimed to the French they were doing,
13 didn't they?
14 A. They were liaising and acting as coroner's officers,
15 I suspect.
16 Q. Yes, as coroner's officers, doing investigations for
17 the Coroner.
18 A. Assisting the Coroner.
19 Q. All I am suggesting here is that right from
20 the beginning there were police officers assisting
21 the Coroner with his inquiries before he opened the
22 inquest, and nobody thought, at any stage prior to the
23 Burrell note coming into the public domain, to disclose
24 under the duty to disclose, did they?
25 A. They had not and we go back to the original reason
39
1 why -- I do not want to keep repeating myself --
2 the confidentiality, Lord Mishcon and all the rest of
3 it.
4 Q. May I deal with that?
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. You are aware, are you -- I mean -- sorry can I put it
7 the other way round: you are familiar with inquests?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I have to ask that because some police officers may not
10 be. But you are familiar with how they work?
11 A. More or less, yes.
12 Q. You are familiar with the fact that the Coroner has
13 considerable powers in relation to -- for example, as
14 Mr Burgess points out in his letter to Mr Burrell,
15 clearly questions of confidentiality can be entrusted to
16 the Coroner as this learned Coroner has been. If
17 documents are not to be disclosed, they are not
18 disclosed. If they are to be redacted, they are
19 redacted.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You recognise all of that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Did anyone explain to Lord Mishcon at any stage, "Look,
24 we can overcome the confidentiality because there is
25 a duty to disclose because we can ask the Coroner to
40
1 redact the parts of the Mishcon note that may not have
2 direct relevance or that may cause pain"? Do you follow
3 what I am putting?
4 A. I do.
5 Q. That was all utterly possible, wasn't it?
6 A. No one did it. It was not done at that stage.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think what Mr Mansfield is
8 ultimately getting at is that but for the Burrell note
9 surfacing, the Mishcon note might never have seen
10 the light of day at all. I would like to have your
11 comments on that.
12 A. Sir, it would have done. I keep saying that it would
13 have been disclosed, it was disclosed. We got over
14 the legal kind of problems that we had at some stage or
15 another with Lord Mishcon having his reservations and it
16 goes back. I think you did say this, Mr Mansfield, and
17 if I might just answer this: was there a deliberate
18 attempt -- this is what you are getting at this -- to
19 keep this away from the public? Of course there was
20 not.
21 MR MANSFIELD: I'm sorry, I won't take up much more time on
22 this, but I just want to refresh your memory because of
23 observations you have made today about the sequence of
24 events. After the Burrell note was published in
25 The Mirror, who took the first step to deal with
41
1 the note in the safe?
2 A. Lord Condon rang up and then Lord Mishcon rang up. They
3 started the ball rolling, if I remember rightly.
4 Q. I do not have any documentation relating to Lord Condon
5 so I leave that to one side.
6 What appears to be clear, do you agree -- and
7 I think you have the documents available. I am not
8 going asking for them to go up. It is just dates --
9 that in fact Lord Mishcon is really very concerned about
10 this note/letter or his note of the meeting being
11 disclosed? He rings on 27th October.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You are not available. He rings on the 29th, you are
14 not available. He then sees you on the 30th, and there
15 have been various versions of the meeting, notes of
16 the meeting, but what was clear was that you were
17 explaining in the note of the meeting on the 30th that
18 it was potentially relevant -- that is the Mishcon note,
19 all right?
20 A. Yes, that is what it said.
21 Q. -- and that in your view there was a duty to disclose
22 the note.
23 A. Providing Lord Mishcon's confidentiality issue -- I have
24 always said that there was a duty to disclose, but
25 we had the problem with Lord Mishcon, which I think
42
1 Lord Condon has explained to the inquest and the jury.
2 Q. Again, without taking time on it, Lord Mishcon, provided
3 that the parts that would cause pain to others were
4 either redacted or left out, he was quite happy for
5 this -- he, I suggest, has brought it up and he has
6 forced the pace.
7 A. He has brought it up, but he has not forced the pace.
8 Going back to the real issue, would this have been kept
9 away from the Coroner? It would not have been.
10 Q. Then I pass to the latter stage.
11 When was this note given to the Coroner?
12 A. I cannot remember. I do not remember.
13 Q. Well, I suggest that is perhaps the most important thing
14 since you have said it was always going to be.
15 You see, we have been given no indication of when
16 it was. I am wondering -- I hope this is a fair point
17 to you -- whether it ever was given to the Coroner.
18 A. I would have to look at that. I do not know. I am sure
19 he has seen the note. He must have seen the note.
20 MR MANSFIELD: Well, a date --
21 MR HORWELL: If I can help, Mr Mansfield. Mr Hodges took
22 the Mishcon note to the Coroner on 22nd December 2003.
23 MR MANSFIELD: Did you know that?
24 A. I did not know the date, but I would have been
25 absolutely astonished if that note had not been given to
43
1 Michael Burgess, the Coroner, at that time.
2 Q. Is it right that before that date, two days before, you
3 went to see Mr Jephson?
4 A. I did not see Mr Jephson.
5 Q. Sorry, I do not mean you. When I say "you", I mean --
6 A. Officers.
7 Q. Yes, officers went to see ...
8 A. I think that is right, yes.
9 Q. Why was it thought necessary to see Mr Jephson before
10 handing the note over on the 22nd?
11 A. I think it was because within the note we have Jephson
12 saying -- I am looking at the note and reminding myself:
13 "... surprisingly, he said he half-believed in its
14 accuracy".
15 So the advice was, which we agreed with: note, see
16 Jephson to make sure we have a full picture of what took
17 place.
18 Q. That is the only reason?
19 A. That I can remember, yes.
20 Q. A final question on this sequence is this: why did you
21 not take legal advice about this note before the Burrell
22 note -- the Burrell note -- was published in the papers?
23 A. Because I did not think there was any need to up to that
24 stage.
25 Q. In other words, it goes back to the fact that you did
44
1 not think you had to disclose it until the inquests
2 opened?
3 A. I did not think it would need to be disclosed until
4 the need came to disclose it. But the bottom line of
5 all this is this: it was always going to be disclosed.
6 There was no way that it was not.
7 MR MANSFIELD: Thank you.
Diana conspiracy theory unravels as Fayed's investigator tells of lies and lack of evidence
· Former detective makes admissions to inquest
· Stevens demands apology for criticisms of report
Stephen Bates
The Guardian, Friday February 15 2008 Article history · Contact us
After 69 days of evidence into events surrounding the death of Princess Diana, Mohamed Al Fayed's allegations of high-level conspiracies and cover-ups began to crumble in an extraordinary hour of cross examination yesterday as his former director of security at Harrods admitted he could not substantiate any of them.
John Macnamara, a former Scotland Yard detective chief superintendent who was in charge of Fayed's own investigation team for five years after the Paris crash in August 1997, grew increasingly uncomfortable at the inquest as he was repeatedly forced to acknowledge that he had no evidence, apart from what Fayed told him, that the princess had been engaged to Dodi Fayed, or had been pregnant at the time of their deaths.
The acknowledgments ran counter to the constant claims for more than a decade.
He went on to admit that, despite having made sworn police statements, he had no evidence of a criminal conspiracy on the part of the British and French security services, or the then British ambassador to Paris, or the Duke of Edinburgh to kill the couple, or that the princess's bodyguards had been paid by British intelligence to lie about the crash - again all allegations made by his former employer.
Macnamara conceded US intelligence had told him they had no material relating to the princess's death and had never kept her under surveillance, as the Fayed side have alleged. He also acknowledged that a police statement he had signed stating that he had identified Dodi's body on its return to England was false.
And he admitted he had lied when he told a television interviewer 10 days after the crash that there was no evidence that Henri Paul, the couple's chauffeur, had been drinking when he already knew there was a bar receipt showing that Paul had drunk two Ricard pastis spirits shortly before the fatal journey.
The devastating admissions came under cross-examination from Richard Horwell QC, representing the Metropolitan police, while Fayed, who will himself be called to give evidence to the inquest on Monday, sat watching grimly a few feet away.
They followed tense exchanges earlier in the day when Lord Stevens, the former Metropolitan police commissioner who conducted a three-year, £3.7m investigation into the crash, which resulted in an 832-page report in December 2006, repeatedly demanded an apology for "scurrilous" allegations by Fayed that the inquiry had been negligent.
Asked whether he had been got at by the establishment to doctor the report, Stevens - who previously conducted the shoot-to-kill investigations in Northern Ireland - said angrily: "That is not the case. The reason I wanted to do this investigation was because of my investigations in Northern Ireland, where my integrity was everything to me.
"To think that I would even contemplate taking 14 or 15 officers, the whole French investigation along with that is absolutely absurd and crazy.
"Allegations trip off people's tongues, it's just not right. The whole team, that's what I find so hurtful. That I could manipulate them into saying things and going down a criminal course of action, it's absolutely absurd and we want an apology."
When Macnamara was called to give evidence he agreed he had initially believed the crash was an accident, though he said that when he met his employer at Fulham mortuary on the afternoon after the crash Fayed was already saying the couple had been murdered and had told him: "They have done it at last. They have killed her."
Asked by the coroner, Lord Scott Baker, whether Fayed had said who "they" were, Macnamara replied: "No, he did not and I was quite surprised because I had never heard any suggestion of that myself."
Later the coroner intervened again to ask why Macnamara had not apologised to Trevor Rees-Jones, the bodyguard who survived the crash, for making allegations that he had been paid by the security services to say the crash was an accident. When he said he had not apologised, the coroner asked: "Why not?" Macnamara replied: "That was my belief at the time."
After lunch they clashed again when Macnamara admitted telling a US television interviewer that Paul had drunk only pineapple juice before the crash and had added "nothing else" even though he had seen the bar receipt. Scott Baker intervened to ask: "Was it the whole truth?" Macnamara: "No."
Scott Baker: "As a former chief superintendent surely you above anybody are aware of telling the truth in public ... a half truth is not good enough ... One of the problems for the jury is if you tell lies on some occasions, when can they tell you are telling the truth on other occasions?"
Macnamara answered: "I have come here to tell the truth."
The inquests continues.
by sunny » Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:57 pm
by Ben D » Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:29 pm
by antiaristo » Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:03 am
by winston smith » Mon Feb 18, 2008 10:28 am
by antiaristo » Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:27 pm
Burrell: I lied to Di inquest
by ElasticMan » Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:20 am
by antiaristo » Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:01 am
Paul Burrell refuses to return to Diana inquest
By Robyn Powell and agencies
Last Updated: 12:25pm GMT 06/03/2008
Paul Burrell has refused to return from the US to be questioned about whether he lied at the inquest of Diana, Princess of Wales.
All the latest news from the Diana inquest
The former butler was called back to the inquest to explain "discrepancies" in his evidence given during the three days he spent in the witness box.
Paul Burrell reportedly feared he would be humiliated in the witness box if he returned
The Coroner cannot legally force Mr Burrell to come back to Britain from his Florida home to explain whether he failed to tell the "whole truth" or introduced "red herrings" into his testimony.
Coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker told the hearing: "Mr Burrell is abroad and I have no power to compel a witness to attend to give evidence and he says that he is not going to be in the United Kingdom in the near future."
Mr Burrell had been offered the chance to give video evidence either in person or via video-link, from overseas.
Mr Burrell was reportedly nervous at the prospect of reappearing at the inquest and being humiliated in the witness box. There were fears he could be arrested for alleged perjury if he returned.
In the video, shot by The Sun newspaper, Mr Burrell sipped champagne as he apparently said: "I told the truth as far as I could but I did not tell the whole truth. Perjury is not a nice thing to have to contemplate."
In a statement, inquest officials said: "In these circumstances, the coroner has decided that further information from Mr Burrell should be read to the jury to ensure they have as complete a picture as possible.
"The coroner's purpose, in seeking to recall Mr Burrell, was for him to explain the alleged inconsistencies between what he said in evidence and what he said on the occasion referred to in The Sun.
"In light of Mr Burrell's refusal to give evidence, the coroner has taken the decision that further information from Mr Burrell should be read to the jury to ensure they have as much information as possible."
by antiaristo » Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:34 pm
Senior Camilla bodyguard 'shoots himself'
By Andrew Pierce
Last Updated: 7:18am GMT 11/03/2008
A senior bodyguard to the Duchess of Cornwall has been found dead after apparently shooting himself.
The body of Sgt Richard Fuller, 55, who was head of security at the Duchess's family home in Wiltshire, was found yesterday.
The Duchess and the Prince of Wales were informed of the death on Monday while on their 10-day tour of the Caribbean. The Duchess was described as "deeply shocked".
A spokesman for Clarence House said: "The Duchess of Cornwall was very saddened to hear of the death of Sgt Fuller."
Sgt Fuller, who was a trained armed response officer with Wiltshire police, is thought to have shot himself with his own shotgun and not with a force weapon.
He lived with his wife Jill, 45, and their three children Jennifer, 21, Daniel, 19, and Stephanie, 18, in a house near Calne, Wilts.
He was reportedly happy, without any obvious problems, but was coming up to retirement. In an exemplary 29-year career he had a commendation for bravery.
Since the Duchess's marriage to the Prince, Sgt Fuller had been in charge of security at Raymill House - the six-bedroom home the Duchess bought after her divorce from her first husband - though she rarely stays there.
Andy Marsh, an assistant chief constable of Wiltshire, said: "The officer was a highly regarded member of the force and will be sadly missed. Our thoughts go out to his family and friends at this time."
Sgt Fuller led a team of round-the-clock security officers at the house, which costs the taxpayer a reputed £2.6 million a year.
He ran the guardhouse, which has an office and meeting rooms for police officers. Staff were said to be "deeply distressed".
Sgt Fuller was Wiltshire police's chief firearms instructor at its headquarters in Devizes.
In 1995 he received a Crown Court Commendation for the successful arrest of a man armed with a shotgun who was threatening a colleague.
Then, in 2001, he received a long service and good conduct medal.
by Ben D » Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:13 pm
by between two lines » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:26 am
by antiaristo » Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:34 pm
by between two lines » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:49 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
