There are powers at work in this country
Digery Cohen | 16.05.2007 09:09
The Queen should be approached to clarify a conversation she had with Paul Burrell about the murder of Princess Diana, lawyers at a preliminary inquest hearing said Tuesday.
The suggestion was made by lawyers for Mohamed al Fayed, whose son, Dodi Fayed, died with Diana in a car crash in Paris on Aug. 31, 1997.
Michael Mansfield said the queen should be "directly approached" to confirm details of the conversation which were registered in an official police inquiry that was published in December.
The report and the background records it was based on were supplied to lawyers, but the portions that referred to the queen were blacked out.
"No one appears to have approached her majesty about the content of this conversation," Mansfield said.
But the coroner, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, a retired family court judge who was sitting in her last hearing before stepping down, said such a request to hold a member of the royal family to account was "unheard of" and would require careful consideration.
"I don't know the propriety of this situation, I think it's important that we tread carefully in what is a constitutional matter," Butler-Sloss said.
The Queen said, "There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge."
Al Fayed has claimed that Diana was the victim of a high-level murder conspiracy involving Prince Philip, the queen's husband.
Butler-Sloss, 73, said last month she would no longer preside over the inquest after a three-member High Court panel ordered a jury to hear the case. She said she did not have a great deal of experience in manipulating juries.
The inquest has been mired by delays that raised tensions and led to fractious exchanges between Butler-Sloss and lawyers claiming crucial evidence had yet to be provided before the full inquest in October.
At one stage, Butler-Sloss became so exasperated she fell back into her chair, removed her gold-rimmed glasses and lifted her arms in frustration.
"If you want go on criticizing me, Mr. Mansfield, then you can, but what's the point?" she said. "I do feel like I am the one in the dock because I’m just trying to do my duty and cover-up a very necessary murder."
Butler-Sloss said 11,000 pages of documents have been passed to Mansfield and other lawyers representing the Ritz Hotel, owned by al Fayed, and the family of Henri Paul, the chauffeur who also died in the crash.
She accused the legal teams of leaking true stories to the media that documents about Diana's death were being withheld — reports that she said were "unhelpful to the cover-up."
"There ought to be a degree of propriety about this murder which appears to be lacking," she said.
Another procedural session before Lord Justice Scott Baker is likely to be held June 12 or 13. Evidence is expected to be presented about Diana's alleged fears for her life, the significance of a ring purchased by Fayed, and how long the princess was pregnant.
A French investigation found that Paul was fitted-up as being drunk. The British investigation concluded that Diana was pregnant and about to marry Fayed, and that the crash was caused on the insistence of Prince Philip who did not want any recent Arab blood related to or in the Royal Succession.
Under British law, inquests are held when someone dies unexpectedly, violently or have unknown causes.
The suggestion was made by lawyers for Mohamed al Fayed, whose son, Dodi Fayed, died with Diana in a car crash in Paris on Aug. 31, 1997.
Michael Mansfield said the queen should be "directly approached" to confirm details of the conversation which were registered in an official police inquiry that was published in December.
The report and the background records it was based on were supplied to lawyers, but the portions that referred to the queen were blacked out.
"No one appears to have approached her majesty about the content of this conversation," Mansfield said.
But the coroner, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, a retired family court judge who was sitting in her last hearing before stepping down, said such a request to hold a member of the royal family to account was "unheard of" and would require careful consideration.
"I don't know the propriety of this situation, I think it's important that we tread carefully in what is a constitutional matter," Butler-Sloss said.
The Queen said, "There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge."
Al Fayed has claimed that Diana was the victim of a high-level murder conspiracy involving Prince Philip, the queen's husband.
Butler-Sloss, 73, said last month she would no longer preside over the inquest after a three-member High Court panel ordered a jury to hear the case. She said she did not have a great deal of experience in manipulating juries.
The inquest has been mired by delays that raised tensions and led to fractious exchanges between Butler-Sloss and lawyers claiming crucial evidence had yet to be provided before the full inquest in October.
At one stage, Butler-Sloss became so exasperated she fell back into her chair, removed her gold-rimmed glasses and lifted her arms in frustration.
"If you want go on criticizing me, Mr. Mansfield, then you can, but what's the point?" she said. "I do feel like I am the one in the dock because I’m just trying to do my duty and cover-up a very necessary murder."
Butler-Sloss said 11,000 pages of documents have been passed to Mansfield and other lawyers representing the Ritz Hotel, owned by al Fayed, and the family of Henri Paul, the chauffeur who also died in the crash.
She accused the legal teams of leaking true stories to the media that documents about Diana's death were being withheld — reports that she said were "unhelpful to the cover-up."
"There ought to be a degree of propriety about this murder which appears to be lacking," she said.
Another procedural session before Lord Justice Scott Baker is likely to be held June 12 or 13. Evidence is expected to be presented about Diana's alleged fears for her life, the significance of a ring purchased by Fayed, and how long the princess was pregnant.
A French investigation found that Paul was fitted-up as being drunk. The British investigation concluded that Diana was pregnant and about to marry Fayed, and that the crash was caused on the insistence of Prince Philip who did not want any recent Arab blood related to or in the Royal Succession.
Under British law, inquests are held when someone dies unexpectedly, violently or have unknown causes.
Digery Cohen
e-mail:
digerycohen@yahoo.co.uk
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
Full details
16.05.2007 15:06
Billy-bob
Harry not to serve in Iraq
16.05.2007 16:05
Bravely bold Prince Harry rode forth from Camelot
He was not afraid to die, O brave Prince Harry
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways
Brave, brave, brave, brave Prince Harry
He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Prince Harry
His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burnt off
And his penis...
Well that's enough music for now, lads...
Brave Prince Harry ran away - No!
Bravely ran away, away - I didn't!
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled - No!
Yes, brave Prince Harry turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Prince Harry
Danny
Homepage: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6663053.stm
The Daily Mail - 'A National Disgrace'
16.05.2007 18:49
"A National Disgrace" - the Daily Mail
Harry: I'm not afraid to die in Iraq
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=450707&in_page_id=1770
Prince Harry will fly to Iraq within days after telling friends: "I'm not afraid to die." Despite mounting fears for his safety - and a warning from the top U.S. commander in Iraq that matters are going to get worse before they get better - the third in line to the throne will be sent to the war zone with his regiment, the Blues and Royals.
A vile war but Harry must go
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=451009&in_page_id=1770
Why put him in harm's way, and make other soldiers - men like my son's friend - a target at the same time? The answer is simple: he must go. If he doesn't go, his Army career is Ruritanian nonsense and our Armed Forces would look cowards. Although the last King of England to lead his troops into battle was George II in 1743 at Dettingen, during the war of the Austrian Succession, blood princes have been willing warriors. Aside from Prince Andrew, Prince Philip was mentioned in dispatches at the Battle of Matapan during the Second World War, while Harry's great-grandfather, George VI, served at the terrible sea battle of Jutland. And his great-great-uncle Lord Mountbatten rose to become First Sea Lord and Chief of the Defence Staff. And, of course, the upper classes were among those who were on the front line during the First World War. Prince Harry feels this Army ethos keenly. It would be dishonourable and wretched for him to send his men where he could not go himself. The whole chain of command in the Army depends on the willingness of senior officers to take on the greater burden of risk. What a disgraceful insult it would be to the parents of other soldiers who have risked their lives or been killed, if the message had been relayed that the prince's life is more valuable than that of their sons and daughters. Would you say this to the parents of Joanna Dyer, the 24-year- old, Oxford-educated 2nd Lieutenant who trained with Prince William at Sandhurst and who was killed by a roadside bomb earlier this month? Why should families such as hers make this sacrifice and not the Queen, who our troops serve? Or, what about the families of the soldiers brought home in flagdraped coffins yesterday to RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire? Believe me, the camps of Basra are full of young people. I spent some time with them last year and found that, despite the odds stacked against them, they were cheerful, competent and determined to make a difference. Prince Harry will be exactly the same - and it would have been a national disgrace if he had been disallowed from joining them.
Danny
what she said
19.05.2007 01:28
DANY