Dodi 'real target' in Diana tragedy

[antiaristo]

.

Ian. Yes of course.

Please check your messages.

[between two lines]

Thank you for the reply. Please check private messages

[antiaristo]

.





And just to tidy-up this loose end.
Some might remember this:

Quote:

Now it is my personal view that the Establishment cannot allow Burrell to record the words of Queen Elizabeth when under oath and in court.

This is an interesting test for my theory about the British Crown, no?

But they did

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... 423#160423


Turns out I was right first time.

But instead of prohibiting those words, the Windsors have chosen to badjacket them.

With the help of Rupert Murdoch. And probably with the knowing compliance of Paul Burrell himself (a la Jeffrey Archer).

Diana coroner attacks 'liar' Paul Burrell
By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter
Last Updated: 2:19am BST 02/04/2008

The coroner at the inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales has launched a devastating attack on Paul Burrell, suggesting he had lied in the witness box to protect his lucrative career as a reality TV star.

Lord Justice Scott Baker said it was "blindingly obvious" that the former Royal butler had lied to the jury, possibly because: "Whatever he said might have an impact on his future enterprises."

Describing Mr Burrell's behaviour as "pretty shabby", he suggested the jury should "proceed with caution" in considering his evidence, as it may have been that he "only told you what he wanted you to hear".

The relentless assault on Mr Burrell's character followed on from the coroner's comments on Monday that Mr Burrell and several other witnesses were "liars by their own admission".

As he began the second day of his summing up at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, the coroner referred to a tape recording, published in a national newspaper last month, in which Mr Burrell admitted to a friend he had included "red herrings" in his evidence to the inquest.

Lord Justice Scott Baker said: "You have heard him in the witness box and even without what he said subsequently in the hotel room in New York, it was blindingly obvious, wasn't it, that the evidence that he gave in this court was not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Mr Burrell, 49, refused to return to the inquest to explain the comments he made on the tape and could now face a perjury investigation.

Since Princess Diana died in a car crash in Paris in August 1997, Mr Burrell has written two books about his time working for her and appeared on reality TV shows including I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here and a US series called American Princess.

During his evidence in January he faced ridicule after referring to "secrets" about the Princess which he did not want to disclose, only for the coroner to discover that his "secrets" amounted to well-known facts about the Princess talking about living abroad.

Mr Burrell was also upbraided by the coroner for secretly copying Princess Diana's private correspondence before publishing it in his books.

He said: "All in all, you may think that Mr Burrell's behaviour has been pretty shabby. But beyond the extent to which it reflects his honesty, on whether other matters are true you may think this - it has no impact on the means by which those came their death."

Lord Justice Scott Baker also reminded the jury of the moment when one barrister mocked Mr Burrell's claim to have been the Princess's "rock", accusing him of being "a porous rock" because of the number of secrets he had leaked.

He said: "I advise you to proceed with caution especially if you are left with the impression that he only told you what he wanted you to hear.

"On the other hand he was close to Diana and was particularly well-placed to hear information that others were not.

"The fact that he has not told you the truth on some occasions does not mean you cannot accept anything he has told you but you should proceed with caution."

Mr Burrell told the inquest he had a private conversation with the Queen in December 1997 in which he claimed the monarch told him "there are powers at work in this country of which we have no knowledge".

The coroner told the jury that, assuming the words were said, it "stretches one's imagination to breaking point" to conclude they had anything to "do with a staged collision in a tunnel three and a half months before".

Commenting on one conspiracy theory, that the Princess was killed because of her anti-landmine campaign, Lord Justice Scott Baker added: "You may think even if her support was an embarrassment, any connection between this and her death is a bridge too far."

The jury was reminded how British policy towards landmines changed when Tony Blair's Government swept to power a few months before Diana's death.

The coroner added: "You may think it is a bit difficult to understand why the Establishment should have a motive for getting rid of Diana when her campaign was... to some extent in line with Government thinking."

The inquest was briefly halted yesterday when the coroner received an email from Paris referring to possible new evidence about samples taken from the body of Henri Paul, the driver of the Mercedes in which the Princess was fatally injured.

Mohamed Fayed has claimed blood samples were switched in a mortuary to make it seem as though Mr Paul had drunk more than he really had, so that he would be blamed for the crash instead of the MI6 spies Mr Fayed believes to have been responsible.

But the coroner - who has ruled out any possibility of a murder plot - said the eleventh-hour email did not contain anything new and the inquest resumed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ana401.xml


Methinks he doth protest too much.

Burrell first revealed that conversation in October 2002. Since that time Buckingham Palace has had no comment. Even when asked.

Then Burrell repeated the same, under oath.

Now the way to cast doubt on evidence is to allow contrary evidence by others involved.

But they do not want to call the Queen.

You will recall that the Burrell prosecution collapsed back in 2002 when the Queen "suddenly remembered" their conversation.

We are told that this occured in the car, when travelling with the Prince of Wales. It was communicated to the authorities by the prince. The Queen was unsullied.

So they get Burrell to contradict and discredit himself on videotape. That means that the only other party to the conversation can remain unsullied, and yet Burrell's evidence can still be challenged.

By the Coroner.


So we end, as we began.

With theatre.

[slimmouse]

So we end, as we began.

With theatre.

Well of course we did.

And just to be on the safe side, the "Judge" has instructed the jury as to the verdicts they can reach, which dont of course include the option that Diana was murdered.

I guess we all never predicted that one. Nullify the jury by the "judges" irrevocible instruction.

Imagine my shock.

Not to mention taking the piss out of the taxpayer who foots the bill.

[Byrne]

... the "Judge" has instructed the jury as to the verdicts they can reach, which dont of course include the option that Diana was murdered.

It was reported on the radio that the judge was NOT ALLOWED BY LAW to include the option that Diana's death was (unlawful) due to 'the state/Mi6/Prince Philip etc.

So the options open to the jury are :
1. Unlawful killing through gross negligence by her chauffeur Henri Paul
2. Unlawful killing through gross negligence by the "following vehicles" (Paparazzi)
3.Unlawful killing through gross negligence by both her chauffeur Henri Paul AND the "following vehicles" (Paparazzi)
4. Accidental Death
5. Open verdict (insufficient evidence to support any substantive verdict)

Note how the media have already tarred Option 5 with the Conspiracy Theories brush.