 |
rigorousintuition.ca
What you don't know can't hurt them.
|
|
View previous topic ::
View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
antiaristo
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 1897
|
 Posted:
Tue Jan 23, 2007 7:39 am Post
subject: Pen Pals |
 |
|
.
I've had a response from Scotland Yard this morning. Postmarked
18 January
|
Quote: |
17th January 2007
Metropolitan Police Service
Room 589
Victoria Block
New Scotland Yard
Broadway
SW1H 0BG
John Cleary
C/Eusebio Navarro, 12
35003 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
Spain
Dear Mr Cleary,
Thank you for your letter dated 2nd January, addresed to
Sir Ian Blair, which has been forwarded to Lord Stevens'
office.
I am replying on his behalf. The issues that you raise
have been noted.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.
Yours sincerely,
David douglas
Detective Chief Superintendent. |
Some thoughts:
*I do not know whether Sir Ian Blair has seen what I wrote. I
certainly cannot use this as evidence to that effect.
*I wrote to the Commissioner about the Coroner's report, which
is in the charge of the Commissioner. It has nothing to do with
Lord Stevens. Why pass this on to a private individual when it
is clearly addressed to the Commissioner?
*We've been around this block before. If you look in Data Dump
in Second Batch you will see that I wrote to Stevens in January
2004. At that time I received the same sort of "acknowledgement"
- one that proves nothing at all.
*"I am replying on his behalf" is ambiguous, possibly
deliberately so. Does it refer to Blair or to Stevens? Has
either man asked Detective Douglas to reply "on his behalf"?
*"The issues that you raise have been noted". Again, the passive
voice: Noted by whom?
I suppose I'll have to go back to Duvall again. Any
comments/feedback out there? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
antiaristo
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted:
Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:34 pm Post
subject: It's a forgery |
|
|
.
Ian Blair does NOT want to send a reply.
This is deja vu all over again. Just the same as what happened
at Anglia Television.
Trying to induce me to accept a useless piece of paper.
At Anglia TV it was passing off the Malcolm Wall redundancy note
as genuine.
Here they are passing off the David Douglas acknowledgment as
genuine.
It's not. Sir Ian Blair can still claim plausible deniability in
months and years to come.
So I sent this today.
|
Quote: |
C/Eusebio Navarro, 12
35003 las Palmas de Gran Canaria
Spain
23 January 2007
Len Duvall AM
Metropolitan Police Authority
Inquest into the Death of Diana,
Princess of Wales
Dear Sir,
I write further to my letters of 2 and 15 January 2007
seeking a reply from Sir Ian Blair.
I have today received a reply and acknowledgment dated
17 and postmarked 18 January.
Regrettably, it is a forgery.
This falsification is written in the name of David
Douglas.
Unfortunately David Douglas has no phone number at
Scotland Yard. Nor an email address.
I will keep the evidence in a safe place pending any
enquiries which the police may wish to make in future.
I should also point out that I have received a reply
(authentic) from the Coroner. And the complaint was not
directed to Baroness Butler-Sloss.
This could become tiresome, so I have to ask you: Is
there some reason why Sir Ian Blair does not wish to
acknowledge my complaint?
RSVP
Yours faithfully,
John Cleary BSc MA MBA
cc Reshard Auladin
Elizabeth Howlet
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
antiaristo
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 26, 2007 2:28 pm Post
subject: |
|
|
.
This is interesting.
Look at the basis on which Al Fayed is challenging the Baroness:
|
Quote: |
Al Fayed for fight Diana ruling
Press Association
Friday January 26, 2007 6:43 PM
Lawyers for Mohamed al Fayed are challenging the
decision not to appoint a jury for the Diana, Princess
of Wales inquest.
They have issued an application for a judicial review of
decisions made by the coroner, Baroness Butler-Sloss,
who is to sit alone on the high-profile case.
"In particular, Mr al Fayed will challenge Lady
Butler-Sloss' decision to hear the inquests without the
aid of a jury of ordinary men and women," said a
spokesman for the Harrods boss, whose son Dodi was also
killed in the 1997 Paris car crash.
"In a case that is unique in the annals of English law,
Mr al Fayed believes the decision of the coroner not to
empanel a jury is perverse," the spokesman continued.
But Lady Butler-Sloss said in her ruling earlier this
month that only a coroner could give the "careful and
fully reasoned decision" Diana and Dodi's inquests
needed.
She wants the full inquests to start in May and has
appealed for any attempts to challenge her decision to
be made promptly.
The spokesman added: "Following the decision of Lady
Butler-Sloss to support publication of the findings of
Lord Stevens, in which
he set out his personal view that the crash was a
traffic accident, lawyers for Mr al Fayed will
argue that by her support of publication she has become
so closely associated
with Lord Stevens' opinion that she can no longer
be viewed as independent and impartial."
Mr al Fayed said: "If the public is to have confidence
in the verdicts that will eventually be reached, it is
essential that the public should be fully involved.
Unless there is a jury, which is allowed to hear all the
evidence themselves, I shall not accept the verdicts,
and I do not think any right-thinking person in this
country, or abroad, will do so either.
"I firmly believe that justice must be done and be seen
to be done. I am certain that they were murdered.
It is now firmly established that Princess Diana herself
feared for her safety and pointed the finger directly at
senior members of the Royal Family.
"How can a Coroner for the Royal Household,
appointed by the Queen and apparently in her employ,
instil any confidence in me and the public generally
that she will fearlessly and independently investigate
all the facts, and reach decisions which are impartial?"
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights
Reserved. |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6373329,00.html
Al fayed is linking the Coroner with the phoney ("personal
view", "Lord Stevens' opinion") Coroner's report.
And he is finally using the Burrell letter, written before Dodi
came onto the scene.
And he's having a dig at the privy council ("apparently in her
employ").
What say YOU, Sir Ian Blair?
How's the Coroner's report coming?
_____________________________
"And generally in all things I will do as a faithful and true
Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help me God."
Rt Hon the Baroness Butler-Sloss |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
antiaristo
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted:
Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:18 pm Post
subject: Next Move |
|
|
.
I intend to send this tomorrow.
|
Quote: |
C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12
35003 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
Spain
30 January 2007
Rt. Hon. the Baroness Butler-Sloss
Royal Courts of Justice
(Correos certificado 82586 6ES)
Inquest Into the Death of Diana,
Princess of Wales
Dear Lady Butler-Sloss,
Thank you for your courteous reply of 16 January.
You are alone of the three recipients. Neither
Commissioner Sir Ian Blair nor MPA Chair Len Duvall have
seen fit to write back to me, despite repeated requests
that these two public servants do exactly that. I'm not
sure if it's a question of gender, of simple education
or of something else.
The Commissioner has promised to deliver the Coroner's
report "this month". It is quite possible that Sir Ian
Blair will submit the report in ignorance of what I
wrote to him on 2 January 2007. After all, that is
exactly what Sir John Stevens did after I wrote to him
on 12 January 2004, is it not?
You should be aware, as Coroner, that
somebody is acting in bad faith here. I have
already been sent a forgery out of Scotland Yard. I do
not wish to make accusations here but I do, as is said
at the bridge table, wish to reserve my rights in this
matter.
Yours sincerely,
John Cleary BSc MA MBA
cc Mayor Ken Livingstone (with history) correos
certificado 82588 3ES
Mohammed Al Fayed
Reshard Auladin AM |
The referenced correspondence with Sir John Stevens can be found
in Second Batch, in Data Dump.
I do have an "acknowledgment" for that.
Added
on edit 15:00 GMT
Letter updated (with registration number) and sent. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
antiaristo
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:44 am Post
subject: |
|
|
The postman has called
again.
|
Quote: |
__________________METROPOLITAN
______________________POLICE
_____________Working together for a safer London
________Lord John A Stevens QPM DL LL.D M.Phil C/Mgt
Mr John Cleary_____________________Operation Paget
C/Eusebio Navarro, 12______________7th Floor Jubilee
House
35003 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria____230-232 Putney
Bridge Road
Spain____________________________London SW15 2PD
Dear Mr Cleary,
Thank you for your letter of 2 January to the
Commissioner regarding the Operation Paget report. You
raise many issues in it, particularly relating to the
lord Mishcon note and actions taken on receipt of it. As
you may be aware, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss is
currently holding pre-inquest hearings relating to the
deaths of the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed. I
believe it would be inappropriate for me at this stage
to enter into correspondence about matters that may or
may noty form part of the scope of the inquests. The
parameters of the inquest are for the Coroner alone to
decide. I note that you have copied Dame Elizabeth into
your leter sent to Sir Ian Blair and I am sure she will
take such account of your points as she feels necessary.
I have included the direct address of the Operation
Paget office in this response should you have any
further queries. I understand that there may have been
some delay caused previously by correspondence passing
between New Scotland Yard and here.
_________________Yours Sincerely.
________________{ pp D Douglas }
_________________Lord Stevens |
It's another forgery, of course.
Same as the last one - no phone, no fax, no email.
This is novel though. Not dated.
For some reason there is a deliberate "in yer face" error in the
"letterhead".
Stevens is a life peer, a baron. I was lectured at some length
by emad about the correct form of title for such persons, and
believe me, "Lord John A Stevens" is not one of them.
And surely even Stevens must have noticed that Butler-Sloss has
been "promoted" and is now a fellow life peer, and is therefore
referenced as The Baroness Butler Sloss, rather than Dame.
I intent to take no further action.
Stevens is nothing more than a lightning-rod for Sir Ian Blair.
Stevens has no standing in the inquest process.
It's all about the Commissioner of TODAY.
Sir Ian Blair.
As a coincidence the Independent police Complaints Commission
into the murder of Jean-Charles De Menezes by the Metropolitan
Police was partially leaked yesterday.
Apparently Sir Ian Blair "did not know" that his organization
had killed an innocent man until the following day.
So apparently he "did not know" that he was lying and cheating
about the dead man throughout that crucial day.
Doubtless Sir Ian Blair "does not know" about John Cleary and
his letter of 2 January, even as I write these words.
At least that is what I think Mr Douglas is trying to say to
posterity.
|
Quote: |
Met chief kept in dark over De Menezes
Senior officers criticised for failing to tell boss the
wrong man had been shot
Vikram Dodd
Monday February 19, 2007
The Guardian
An official report into Scotland Yard's killing of Jean
Charles de Menezes will strongly criticise the force,
branding as "incomprehensible"
the 24-hour delay in telling Sir Ian Blair, the
Metropolitan police's chief commissioner, that the wrong
man had been shot.
The Guardian has learned that the still-secret report by
the Independent Police Complaints Commission finds that
senior Scotland Yard staff feared within hours that an
innocent man had been shot but did not tell their boss,
Britain's most senior police officer. Mr de Menezes, a
Brazilian, was shot dead at 10am July 22 2005 after
officers mistook him for a terrorist.
Sir Ian has maintained
he had no inkling until the following morning,
some 24 hours after the shooting at Stockwell
underground station in south London.
The findings will raise questions about Sir Ian's
management of his force. Sources close to him fear
critics will use them to try and oust him from office.
The Guardian has also learned the report, which will not
be published until next month at the earliest, contains
some good news for Sir Ian. The IPCC concludes that
there is no evidence
to support the allegation that he lied about when he
knew that the shooting of Mr de Menezes had been
botched.
The IPCC finds that
several people at Scotland Yard on the day of the
shooting said information they received that the dead
man was a Brazilian national led them to fear the man
killed by police was innocent. A police operation
mounted outside the south London flat where Mr de
Menezes lived had been designed to track a male suspect
of east African origin.
One senior police source told the IPCC that by that
afternoon, top officers were working on the assumption
that "we got the wrong person ... we better plan around
this being a mistake".
Around midday on July 22, Sir Ian tried to block the
IPCC from investigating, writing to the Home
Office to say that he feared an independent inquiry
would hamper the hunt for bombers who had tried to
attack London's transport network.
Just after 3.30pm that day, Sir Ian made a
series of statements at a press conference about the
shooting which his staff already feared to be incorrect.
"This operation was directly linked to the ongoing
terrorist investigation ... the man was challenged and
refused to obey police instructions," Sir Ian said. That
led the family of Mr de Menezes to officially complain,
and also to allege the force had tried to malign the
name of their loved one.
The IPCC has sent more than 21 letters to Met employees
warning them that they face criticism or that their
accounts are challenged by other witnesses interviewed
as part of the inquiry. The IPCC was told by Brian
Paddick, deputy assistant commissioner, that members of
staff in the commissioner's office feared on July 22
that an innocent man had been shot.
Parts of his account are disputed.
A warning letter was sent to at least one Met employee
in the commissioner's office on the day of the killing:
Moir Stewart, then Sir Ian's staff officer.
The IPCC makes no recommendation that Sir Ian Blair
should face disciplinary action, and it has
found no evidence to support allegations that he
lied about what he knew and when he knew it.
The report appears to support the theory that
for some reason, which it describes as
"incomprehensible", those under Sir Ian did not tell him
about emerging clues pointing strongly to the fact that
the man who had been shot was innocent, and not a
suicide bomber about to attack London's transport
network. Over the last two months Sir Ian has tried to
pre-empt the report's impact by announcing it had
cleared him of knowingly not telling the truth, a
strategy some of his closest allies fear could backfire. |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2016280,00.html |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
antiaristo
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted:
Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:05 am Post
subject: Kudos |
|
|
|
Quote: |
Fayed wins Diana inquest victory
By John Aston and Cathy Gordon, PA
Published: 02 March 2007
The Harrods boss Mohamed al Fayed today won an
extraordinary High Court victory over the way the
inquests into the deaths of his son Dodi and Diana,
Princess of Wales are to be conducted.
In an unprecedented
legal action, Mr al Fayed won a ruling overturning
deputy royal coroner Baroness Butler-Sloss's decision
that she would sit alone without a jury.
Three senior judges ordered that the coroner
hearing the inquest "shall do so sitting with a jury".
The princess, 36, and Dodi Fayed, 42, died when their
Mercedes crashed in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel in Paris
in 1997 as they sped away from pursuing paparazzi.
Mr al Fayed says he is "certain" Diana and Dodi were
murdered.
Lady Justice Smith, sitting at London's High Court with
Mr Justice Collins and Mr Justice Silber, made clear
that Lady Butler-Sloss, if she continues hearing the
case, cannot sit as the royal coroner.
The judges said: "We
quash the decisions to conduct the inquests as deputy
coroner for the Queen's Household and without summoning
a jury."
The judges ruled that the coroner "shall
reconsider the district in which the inquest shall be
conducted in the light of the judgment".
A spokeswoman at the Royal Courts of Justice later
dismissed reports that Lady Butler-Sloss is to stand
down from the case as a result of today's decision.
She said: "We are intending that, as planned, part of
the pre-inquest hearing before Baroness Butler-Sloss
will take place on March
5."
She added that Lady Butler-Sloss will be sitting
as coroner of "some sort", although they are
still assessing the meaning of the ruling on her status
in the case.
Today's ruling was a victory for Mr al Fayed, the Ritz
Hotel Ltd and the parents of Henri Paul, the chauffeur
who also died.
All applied for High Court orders to prevent Lady
Butler-Sloss conducting the inquests alone in her role
as the Deputy Coroner of the Queen's Household.
But the judges rejected calls for Lady Butler-Sloss to
stand down from the case.
They said: "We repeat that, in our view, there is no
reason at all why Lady Butler-Sloss should not continue
to conduct these inquests."
The judges said their main reason for quashing Lady
Butler-Sloss's decision not to sit with a jury was that
the Diana case "occurred in circumstances the
continuance of which or possible recurrence of which is
prejudicial to the health or safety of the public, or
any section of the public".
In such cases the coroner, according to the law on
inquests, was obliged to summon a jury.
Lawyers for Mr al Fayed had argued that an inquest
without a jury would appear to "lack independence".
They pointed out that the deaths of Dodi Fayed and the
Princess had followed "hot pursuit" by the paparazzi and
argued that a jury was the appropriate body to make
recommendations for changes to the law to stop similar
harassment of royalty and celebrities in the future.
There was an "eerie similarity" between the paparazzi
pursuit of the Princess and their recent "hounding" of
her son Prince William's girlfriend Kate Middleton.
The "immense public interest" in the case worldwide
added to the necessity of a jury being appointed to
reassure the public that an open and fair investigation
was taking place.
Today the judges emphatically agreed.
They said: "During the hearing we were shown letters
written to the Press by Sir John Major and Sir
Christopher Meyer, chairman of the Press Complaints
Council, expressing concern about the harassment of Miss
Middleton and pointing out the similarity between her
treatment and that suffered by the Princess of Wales.
"They drew attention to the dangers of such behaviour
and called for new sanctions against the paparazzi.
"It is likely that there will be a recurrence of the
type of event in which the paparazzi on wheels pursued
the Princess and Dodi al Fayed.
"It is not only members of the Royal Family and their
friends who receive this unwelcome attention.
"Any celebrity is vulnerable. Not only is the safety of
the person pursued potentially put at risk but there may
well be a risk to bystanders.
"In our view, occurrences such as this are
prejudicial to the safety of a section of the public.
"It is possible that this danger could be prevented by
legislation or other means."
Empanelling a jury was also important because the Duke
of Edinburgh was being accused by Dodi's father of
"masterminding" the deaths.
Today the judges said: "The allegation is that
agents of the state have been involved in the deaths.
"If, when Lady Butler-Sloss determines the scope of the
inquests, she decides that Mr al Fayed's allegation must
be inquired into, the possible role of state agents
would be an important consideration material to her
discretionary decision whether to summon a jury.
"Indeed, we think that consideration might well be
determinative in favour of summoning a jury"."
Prince William and Prince Harry have written to the
coroner through their private secretary to say that they
wish the inquest to be prompt, fair and transparent.
It is due to start in May.
The Princess and Mr Fayed died while being pursued by
paparazzi photographers after leaving the Ritz Hotel for
Mr Fayed's apartment.
A three-year inquiry, led by former Met Police chief
Lord Stevens, found no evidence of a conspiracy to
murder the couple.
The inquiry report said Mr Paul was speeding and over
the legal drink-drive limit.
The police investigation was requested by Royal Coroner
Michael Burgess when the inquests were opened and
adjourned in January 2004.
Mr Burgess subsequently stepped down, blaming a heavy
workload.
Mr al Fayed has criticised the decision of Lady
Butler-Sloss to support publication of the findings of
Lord Stevens and described her decision to sit without a
jury as "perverse".
Mr al Fayed arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice after
the judgment was given.
His representatives said they had been told the ruling
was to be at 10.30am. It was delivered at 9.45am.
After being told the outcome of his case, Mr al Fayed
welcomed the ruling.
The Harrods chairman said: "This is not the end of the
road, but an important step.
"The jury must now be allowed to hear the entirety of
the evidence, but I fear there will be attempts to keep
it from them. If so, that will be yet another battle I
will have to fight."
He added: "I have already had to fight for almost 10
years to establish once and for all how they died, why
they died, who ordered their murders and who slaughtered
them with such awful brutality.
"This is my duty as a father. I shall not fail
Diana or Dodi, though the barriers erected against me
have been many and formidable." |
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2320991.ece
I expect we'll have to wait a while to get the truth.
But in the meantime,
WELL DONE MR AL FAYED!!!!!
 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
slimmouse
Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 1808
|
| Posted:
Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:24 am Post
subject: Re: Kudos |
|
|
[quote="antiaristo"] |
Quote: |
Fayed wins Diana inquest victory
By John Aston and Cathy Gordon, PA
Published: 02 March 2007
The Harrods boss Mohamed al Fayed today won an
extraordinary High Court victory over the way the
inquests into the deaths of his son Dodi and Diana,
Princess of Wales are to be conducted.
In an unprecedented
legal action, Mr al Fayed won a ruling overturning
deputy royal coroner Baroness Butler-Sloss's decision
that she would sit alone without a jury.
Three senior judges ordered that the coroner
hearing the inquest "shall do so sitting with a jury".
The princess, 36, and Dodi Fayed, 42, died when their
Mercedes crashed in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel in Paris
in 1997 as they sped away from pursuing paparazzi.
Mr al Fayed says he is "certain" Diana and Dodi were
murdered.
Lady Justice Smith, sitting at London's High Court with
Mr Justice Collins and Mr Justice Silber, made clear
that Lady Butler-Sloss, if she continues hearing the
case, cannot sit as the royal coroner.
The judges said: "We
quash the decisions to conduct the inquests as deputy
coroner for the Queen's Household and without summoning
a jury."
The judges ruled that the coroner "shall
reconsider the district in which the inquest shall be
conducted in the light of the judgment".
A spokeswoman at the Royal Courts of Justice later
dismissed reports that Lady Butler-Sloss is to stand
down from the case as a result of today's decision.
She said: "We are intending that, as planned, part of
the pre-inquest hearing before Baroness Butler-Sloss
will take place on March
5."
She added that Lady Butler-Sloss will be sitting
as coroner of "some sort", although they are
still assessing the meaning of the ruling on her status
in the case.
Today's ruling was a victory for Mr al Fayed, the Ritz
Hotel Ltd and the parents of Henri Paul, the chauffeur
who also died.
All applied for High Court orders to prevent Lady
Butler-Sloss conducting the inquests alone in her role
as the Deputy Coroner of the Queen's Household.
But the judges rejected calls for Lady Butler-Sloss to
stand down from the case.
They said: "We repeat that, in our view, there is no
reason at all why Lady Butler-Sloss should not continue
to conduct these inquests."
The judges said their main reason for quashing Lady
Butler-Sloss's decision not to sit with a jury was that
the Diana case "occurred in circumstances the
continuance of which or possible recurrence of which is
prejudicial to the health or safety of the public, or
any section of the public".
In such cases the coroner, according to the law on
inquests, was obliged to summon a jury.
Lawyers for Mr al Fayed had argued that an inquest
without a jury would appear to "lack independence".
They pointed out that the deaths of Dodi Fayed and the
Princess had followed "hot pursuit" by the paparazzi and
argued that a jury was the appropriate body to make
recommendations for changes to the law to stop similar
harassment of royalty and celebrities in the future.
There was an "eerie similarity" between the paparazzi
pursuit of the Princess and their recent "hounding" of
her son Prince William's girlfriend Kate Middleton.
The "immense public interest" in the case worldwide
added to the necessity of a jury being appointed to
reassure the public that an open and fair investigation
was taking place.
Today the judges emphatically agreed.
They said: "During the hearing we were shown letters
written to the Press by Sir John Major and Sir
Christopher Meyer, chairman of the Press Complaints
Council, expressing concern about the harassment of Miss
Middleton and pointing out the similarity between her
treatment and that suffered by the Princess of Wales.
"They drew attention to the dangers of such behaviour
and called for new sanctions against the paparazzi.
"It is likely that there will be a recurrence of the
type of event in which the paparazzi on wheels pursued
the Princess and Dodi al Fayed.
"It is not only members of the Royal Family and their
friends who receive this unwelcome attention.
"Any celebrity is vulnerable. Not only is the safety of
the person pursued potentially put at risk but there may
well be a risk to bystanders.
"In our view, occurrences such as this are
prejudicial to the safety of a section of the public.
"It is possible that this danger could be prevented by
legislation or other means."
Empanelling a jury was also important because the Duke
of Edinburgh was being accused by Dodi's father of
"masterminding" the deaths.
[b]Today the judges said: "The allegation is that agents
of the state have been involved in the deaths. |
Anyone up for a spot of jury service ?  |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
antiaristo
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted:
Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:22 am Post
subject: |
|
|
Some more.
Joshua Rozenberg is the law correspondent of many years standing
for both the Telegraph and the BBC.
He's pretty straight.
Which is why the angle he stresses here is interesting:
|
Quote: |
Fayed may quiz royals at Diana's inquest
By Caroline Davies and Joshua Rozenberg
Last Updated: 3:09am GMT 03/03/2007
Prince Philip and the Prince of Wales faced the
prospect of being personally cross-examined by Mohamed
Fayed after the Harrods owner won an
extraordinary and unprecedented legal battle yesterday
to have the inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess
of Wales and Mr Fayed's son Dodi heard before a jury.
In the High Court, three senior judges overturned a
decision by Deputy Coroner of the Queen's Household,
Baroness Butler-Sloss, to sit alone, ruling that a jury
would be mandatory
because the concurrent inquests might have to
investigate Mr Fayed's claims that Prince Philip had
"masterminded" the two deaths.
Mr Fayed's spokesman said the ruling was "greatly
encouraging". And his
legal advisers saw it as a clear signal to Lady
Butler-Sloss that she should explore claims that Diana
feared for her life as well as allegations that
security agents were responsible for the deaths.
An elated Mr Fayed will now redouble his efforts to
force Prince Philip and Prince Charles into the witness
box. If successful, as an "interested person"
he could insist on cross-examining the royal witnesses
himself - a truly mortifying prospect for the Royals.
The decision on which witnesses will be called still
lies with Lady Butler-Sloss, who is due to sit on Monday
to decide the scope of the inquest, due to start in May.
Prince Charles was interviewed by police during the
lengthy inquiry into the deaths by the former
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens. His
report, published in December, concluded that they were
a tragic accident. Prince Philip, however, ignored
requests to co-operate with the inquiry and has
refrained from publicly commenting on Mr Fayed's
allegations of conspiracy.
Prince William spoke to the police, but Lady
Butler-Sloss has already indicated that it is highly
unlikely he or Prince Harry, who are also interested
parties in the inquests, would have to give evidence.
Mr Fayed, who has claimed the couple were murdered by
secret agents on the orders of Prince Philip to prevent
the princess marrying a Muslim, welcomed the ruling.
"The jury must now be allowed to hear the entirety of
the evidence, but I fear
there will be attempts to keep it from them. If
so, that will be yet another battle I will have to
fight," he said in a statement.
In a less restrained outburst on the steps of the Royal
Courts of Justice, he said the country was "ruled by
donkeys", adding: "They are gangsters and murderers and
Nazi bastards who killed my son."
In their detailed judgment, Lady Justice Smith, sitting
with Mr Justice Collins and Mr Justice Silber, said: "In
order that there should be public confidence in the
outcome of the inquest, a jury should be summoned in
cases where the state, by its agents, may have had some
responsibility for the death".
They found that Lady Butler-Sloss was wrong to have
reached her decision not to call a jury
before the full scope of the inquests were determined.
She had also acted unlawfully in deciding to sit as
Deputy Coroner of the Queen's Household.
As a result, she will sit as assistant deputy coroner
for Westminster on Monday. |
http://tinyurl.com/2efeed
But when you look at the judgement it becomes clear that the
conspiracy allegations were a secondary reason for the decision:
|
Quote: |
46. Sections 8(3)(a) and (b) make it mandatory to summon
a jury in cases where the death occurred in prison or
while the deceased was in police custody or resulted
from an injury caused by a police officer in the
purported execution of his duty. The policy
consideration behind these provisions is clear; in order
that there should be public confidence in the outcome of
the inquest, a jury should be summoned in cases where
the state, by its agents, may have had some
responsibility for the death. As we have said, in the
present case, Mr Al Fayed has alleged that Duke of
Edinburgh and the Security Services conspired to kill
the Princess and Dodi Al Fayed. The allegation is that
agents of the state have been involved in the deaths.
If, when Lady Butler-Sloss determines the scope of the
inquests, she decides that Mr Al Fayed’s allegation must
be inquired into, the possible role of state agents
would be an important consideration material to her
discretionary decision whether to summon a jury. Indeed,
we think that that consideration might well be
determinative in favour of summoning a jury.
However, our decision to quash Lady
Butler-Sloss’s decision not to summon a jury is based on
our conclusion that the mandatory provision in section
8(3)(d) applies in the circumstances of this case. |
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/inquests_020307.pdf
section 8(3)(d) is the provision relating to public safety:-
that is there might be a repetition of the papparazzi
phenomenom, especially in the case of Kate Middleton.
THAT was the basis of the judgement.
Butler-Sloss, who has never before in her life heard a Coroner's
inquest, has now been appointed Coroner three times. She is the
deputy royal coroner: she is the deputy assistant coroner for
Surrey: and now she is the deputy assistant coroner for
Westminster.
The poor woman must be run ragged!
The three judges were careful to say nothing prejudicial about
her. There was no finding of bias on her part, and they made it
clear that there is no reason why she should not see the job
through.
But the inclusion of para 46 cited above was not necessary for
the judgement.
The fact that it was included will up the pressure on
Butler-Sloss and weaken her ability to carry out instructions.
What instructions?
To keep those three damning documents out of the public domain:
The Mishcon note
The Burrell letter
The Scotland Yard minute.
We will hear a great deal about "The scope of the inquests".
That's code.
Code for whether or not the jury will be allowed to have sight
of exactly those three documents.
From the Independent:
|
Quote: |
Welcoming today's victory, Mr al Fayed said: "This is
not the end of the road, but an important step.
"The jury must now be allowed to hear the entirety of
the evidence, but I fear there will be attempts to keep
it from them. If so, that will be yet another battle I
will have to fight."
He added: "I have already had to fight for almost 10
years to establish once and for all how they died, why
they died, who ordered their murders and who slaughtered
them with such awful brutality.
"This is my duty as a father. I shall not fail Diana or
Dodi, though the barriers erected against me have been
many and formidable.
"Now that the coroner is compelled to have a jury, and
provided that they are allowed to hear all the evidence,
it will become clear beyond doubt that murder was
committed.
"Diana herself knew just how much danger she was in.
Those malicious people who carried out the crime and
those who ordered them to do it will now finally be
exposed.
"I am encouraged by today's judgment and now hope that
justice can be done without further attempts to impair
the process."
He called for senior members of the royal family,
including Prince Philip and the Prince of Wales, to be
called to give evidence at the inquest.
........
A spokeswoman for Clarence House said: "We have no
comment to make about the ruling. It is a matter for the
courts."
But she added that people should refer to the letter
placed in court on behalf of Princes Harry and William
by their private secretary, Major Jamie
Lowther-Pinkerton, on January 8.
In particular, she read out the section saying: "The
Princes have asked me to indicate that it is their
desire that the inquest should not only be open, fair
and transparent but that it should move swiftly to a
conclusion." |
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2320991.ece
Those are the two positions:
Al Fayed - "Let the jury decide on ALL the evidence"
Princess Charlie - "Move swiftly to a conclusion" |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
blanc
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 746
|
| Posted:
Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:04 pm Post
subject: |
|
|
dodi's dad has stuck
spanners in the greasy wheels before - (ref. Aitken)
may he continue to enjoy good health. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
antiaristo
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted:
Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:00 pm Post
subject: |
|
|
I like this one from The
Observer.
AT LAST the MSM have picked-up on what I've been banging on
about for more than two months. Lord Mishcon.
|
Quote: |
Prince could face Diana jury
Jamie Doward, home affairs editor
Sunday March 4, 2007
The Observer
The Duke of Edinburgh could soon be forced to appoint
lawyers to defend himself against allegations that he
'masterminded' the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
A High Court ruling on Friday that the inquest into the
deaths of Diana and her lover, Dodi Fayed, should be
heard by a jury has made the prospect of Philip giving
evidence to the hearing more likely. He has refused to
get involved in the conspiracy theories surrounding
Diana and Dodi Fayed and turned down requests to be
interviewed by members of the Stevens inquiry
investigating their deaths.
Dodi's father, Mohamed al Fayed, is pushing for the
disclosure of confidential documents, including private
letters written by Philip to Diana. He also wants the
inquiry's coroner, Lady Butler-Sloss, to allow more than
18 witnesses who were in Paris on the day of Diana's
death to give evidence. These include a French family
who told French prosecutors they saw a large dark car
chasing Diana's Mercedes into the underpass in which she
died, and a number of MI6 agents, including the secret
service's deputy head. 'There were 18 eye-witnesses and
none of them has been seen, let alone interviewed,' said
a spokesman for Fayed.
Diana referred to Philip's letters as her 'crown jewels'
due to what she believed was the incendiary nature of
their contents. An investigation by the former
Metropolitan police chief, Lord Stevens, found that
Diana and Dodi died in an accident. Fayed insists the
pair were murdered.
This week he will launch proceedings in France against
the French police who investigated his son's death. His
lawyers will say they had a legal duty to consider all
the evidence. He
maintains this should have included an extensive
statement given by an influential confidant of Diana,
Lord Mischon, to a senior Metropolitan police officer
which detailed her concerns that the royal family were
going to murder her and make her death look like a car
crash.
Fayed's lawyers will also consider seeking a judicial
review if Butler-Sloss refuses to allow all the evidence
surrounding Diana's death to be heard at the inquest.
This would include hundreds of pages of evidence
collected by Stevens which have never been made public. |
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2026150,00.html
We are getting to the meat of "the scope of the inquiry".
The text is a bit confusing.
Is Al Fayed saying that the FRENCH should have followed-up on
the Mishcon note?
How could they?
Scotland Yard kept the very existence of the note secret, even
from the Coroner.
Stevens (then Commissioner) did not inform the Coroner until
after Paul Burrell had published his story in the Daily Mirror.
In October 2003.
And now that same Stevens is trying to take it upon himself to
keep that very same piece of evidence out of the inquest.
In 2007.
And what's with the deliberate misspelling - "Mischon"?
Designed to defeat the search engines? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
tal
Joined:
27 Jul 2005
Posts: 66
|
| Posted:
Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:51 am Post
subject: |
|
|
|
Quote: |
Is Al Fayed saying that the FRENCH should have
followed-up on the Mishcon note?
How could they?
Scotland Yard kept the very existence of the note
secret, even from the Coroner.
Stevens (then Commissioner) did not inform the Coroner
until after Paul Burrell had published his story in the
Daily Mirror.
In October 2003. |
This could just be Al Fayed's way of further publicizing the
information & ensuring the newspapers report it. The French will
have to answer the charge & the papers will have to publish the
answer.
To what does this refer, anti?
|
Quote: |
Diana referred to Philip's letters as her 'crown jewels' due to what she
believed was the incendiary nature of their contents. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
antiaristo
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted:
Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:58 pm Post
subject: |
|
|
.
tal,
Yes, you are probably correct.
There is the added consideration that France will elect a new
president in May.
Chirac was part of all this from the beginning; in fact they
could not have pulled it off without the old bastard.
Did you know he had €30 million squirrelled away in Korea?
The quote is a bit misleading.
Diana's "crown jewels" were the contents of a box which went
missing.
There were letters from Edinburgh (including one where he
allegedly called her a "whore"), but a lot else besides.
Including the so called "rape tape" of George Smith.
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=1912&highlight=george+smith
It is generally assumed that Paul Burrell has the box ("for
insurance"), though he denies this. I think that is what Al
Fayed refers to in the next excerpt.
This is what happened today.
The Mail has the best report.
|
Quote: |
Diana: Fayed challenged to prove it was murder
Last updated at 17:23pm on 5th March 2007
Comments (5
At a preliminary hearing at the High Court today Lady
Butler-Sloss, who is conducting the inquest, challenged
Mr Fayed to produce the evidence.
"There is not a shred of evidence given to me about any
of these allegations," she said.
"It's absolutely crucial that any evidence from
the al Fayed team to support these really serious
allegations is given to me if you want me to present
them to the jury. If there is no evidence to support
them I will not be able to present them to the jury."
But in a series of dramatic courtroom exchanges Mr
Fayed's QC, Michael Mansfield, said there were 18
witnesses who would claim the princess was in fear of
her life.
Mr Mansfield went on to say that he wanted answers from
both Prince Philip and Prince Charles about their
dealings with the police and
demanded to know the where abouts of key letters written
by and sent to Diana.
The QC said the police should disclose any notes they
had taken when interviewing the Prince of Wales and
reveal the reason his father Prince Philip had given for
refusing to speak to detectives about the princess's
death.
The court heard that Mr Fayed was told by Diana
that 'the secrets of her life' were held by her former
butler Paul Burrell.
Mr Mansfield wanted to know where a letter
written by the princess for the attention of Mr Burrell
was being held and where other letters, 'which
undoubtedly exist' and written by the Duke to her, were.
Today's hearing came three days after Mr Fayed's victory
in the Appeal Court which overturned Lady Butler-Sloss's
refusal to hold an inquest with a jury.
She now accepts that the inquest jury will hear evidence
on the questions:
• Was the princess in fear for her life when she died?
• Was she pregnant?
• Why was her body embalmed?
• How significant was the ring that Dodi acquired the
day before the crash?
There were further clashes over the date the full
inquest - now expected to last eight months - will
start.
Lady Butler-Sloss, now sitting as deputy coroner for
Inner West London and not in her previous role as part
of the Queen's Household,
insisted it must start in May.
But Mr Mansfield said there was such a mountain of new
evidence to consider the hearing could not begin until
October.
His request appeared to fly in the face of the wishes of
Princes William and Harry who want a 'prompt, fair and
transparent hearing'.
Such a postponement would take the date of the inquest
beyond the 10th anniversary of the deaths of the
princess and Dodi Fayed in the Pont d'Alma tunnel in
Paris in 1997.
Lady Butler-Sloss pointed out that putting the hearing
off for another six months 'does seem to be slow'.
But Mr Mansfield said such a delay was 'just a pebble on
the beach' compared with the delays of the past decade.
At the hearing at the High Court today Mr Mansfield also
demanded the inquest be moved to the Queen Elizabeth
Building or the Central Hall in Westminster.
But Lady Butler-Sloss retorted that the
specially-adapted court room -
where the Hutton inquiry was held three years ago
- was an ideal venue.
The clashes came after Mr Fayed's victory at the Appeal
Court over Lady Butler-Sloss's decision to hold the
inquests without a jury.
Today Lady Butler-Sloss accepted the rulings and
announced she had no plans to appeal against them.
Paparazzi who pursued Diana and Dodi might be persuaded
to give evidence at the inquest once they are guaranteed
freedom from criminal charges, the court heard.
French law states that no one can be charged 10 years
after an alleged crime.
The hearing continues. |
http://tinyurl.com/38sz69
It's all about those three documents, and Butler-Sloss doing her
damnest to keep them under wraps.
This was her opening statement today.
|
Quote: |
Rt Hon Baroness Elizabeth Butler Sloss, GBE
Deputy Coroner of the Inner West London
Opening statement for a Pre-Inquest Hearing
for the inquests into the deaths
of the late Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed
Court 73 Royal Courts of Justice
5th March 2007 at 10 am.
I wanted to start by telling you that I have been
appointed on Friday, the second Deputy Coroner for Inner
West London. I am about to be taken off the list of
assistant Deputy Coroners of Surrey and also as the
deputy in the Royal Household.
So from now on, these are inquests in Inner West London
and the transfers have been effected in respect both of
Diana Princess of Wales and also of Dodi Al Fayed and
both of their inquests are now to be held, at least for
the time being, in Inner West London.
I am of course going to be sitting with a jury. I have
no intention whatever of appealing the decision of the
administrative court, I accept entirely what the
administrative court has said.
I hope to sit and I emphasise hope, in this court, which
is being as you can see specially set up for this
inquest.
I wish to make it completely clear that the conclusions
in the Operation Paget report were those of the police
and that in relation to these two inquests nothing has
been decided. I shall of course be approaching all the
issues with a completely open mind, and all the relevant
issues will be open for determination by the jury.
Over the next few weeks, it will be necessary for us all
to have discussions and for me, as a result of those
discussions, to give decisions on which of the issues
are relevant.
I am very conscious of the position of the grieving
relatives. And I remember the wish expressed by the
Royal principles at the last hearing, that the inquest
should move swiftly to a conclusion.
Consequently, for the sake of all the interested
persons, I would be very sad if I was obliged to delay
the start of the main proceedings for another six
months. I feel that would be very, very hard on the
families.
Ends |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
antiaristo
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted:
Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:04 pm Post
subject: |
|
|
.
This will be a long post. I'm going to reproduce three reports
from The Mail, The Telegraph and The Independent. Each provides
slightly different pieces of information.
And the next hearing will not be until the end of the month.
To begin, the Mail.
This is noteworthy because for the first time her actual words
are reproduced in England (not counting the Mirror exclusive of
6 January 2004.
|
Quote: |
Diana and the vital questions the coroner has agreed to
consider
At a preliminary hearing yesterday, the Harrods tycoon
was told he must produce witnesses to back up his
extraordinary allegations.
Coroner Baroness Butler-Sloss said she had so far
received "not a shred of evidence" to support them.
But his lawyers revealed they want to call 18 witnesses
- including Philip and Prince Charles - to prove Diana
was "in fear of her life" when she died in a car crash
in a Paris underpass.
The dramatic developments look likely to prolong the
agony for Prince William and Prince Harry as they
approach the tenth anniversary of their mother's death.
Lawyers for Mr Al Fayed want to postpone the
much-delayed inquest until October at the earliest.
Claims that Diana was pregnant were dismissed by the
three-year Operation Paget report published last
December by former Metropolitan Police chief Lord
Stevens.
The £3.6 million inquiry concluded that the couple's
deaths were the result of a tragic accident with
chauffeur Henri Paul drunk and driving too fast when
their Mercedes entered the underpass.
The princess's close friends have also denied any
suggestion that she was carrying 42-year-old Dodi's baby
- or that the couple were about to become engaged.
But Lady Butler-Sloss has agreed to examine suggestions
that Diana, 36, was pregnant.
The coroner will also ask the jury to consider whether
the embalming of the princess's body in Paris may have
been carried out to mask her pregnancy.
Lady Butler-Sloss has indicated the inquest may also
consider claims that the accident was caused by a
mystery white Fiat Uno or a brilliant white strobe light
used to blind Mr Paul as he sped away from pursuing
paparazzi.
In court Lady Butler-Sloss said these were "all points
the jury should be asked to consider" but said people
must justify making "wild allegations".
She told Michael Mansfield, QC, representing Mr Al
Fayed: "At the moment there is not a shred of evidence
given to me about any of these allegations.
"For me to explore them it is absolutely crucial that I
have the evidence from the Al Fayed team to support
these really serious allegations that you want me to
present to the jury.
"If there's no evidence to support them I will not
present them to the jury."
Mr Mansfield said they wanted to call 18 witness to
prove Diana was in fear of her life in August 1997.
He said: "There are two witnesses we say are relevant to
this - neither will be a surprise.
"One is the Prince of Wales who was interviewed, we
understand (by Lord Stevens) but we don't know whether
notes were taken or statements taken, we don't know.
"And also the Duke of Edinburgh, responsible for letters
sent to Diana, refused to be interviewed and we would
like to know whether we can go beyond that - perhaps the
reasons he's given."
Mr Mansfield said Mr Al Fayed had already told
police what Diana had told him that summer about her
fears, and who held "the secrets of her life". According
to the QC, that person was ex-butler Paul Burrell.
The lawyer said Diana had told her solicitor Lord
Mishcon about her concerns. "She was not fantasising,"
said Mr Mansfield. "She told a number of people very
similar concerns.
"Nobody did anything about any of the complaints she
made until the accident or crash."
Lady Butler-Sloss said: "it is clear she did have
fears", but asked Mr Mansfield to produce a list of each
of the allegations, their evidence and witnesses.
Mr Mansfield also wants to see the original of a
letter Mr Burrell said Diana sent him in which she
wrote: "This particular phase of my life is the most
dangerous - my husband is planning 'an accident' in my
car, brake failure & serious head injury in order to
make the path clear for him to marry."
The Al Fayed team also want to see a letter Prince
Philip allegedly sent to Diana which the Harrods boss
says was derogatory about her and Dodi - but which
Buckingham Palace has insisted was supportive of Diana.
Charles and Philip can refuse Mr Al Fayed's request to
attend as witnesses. However, if the coroner then
decides they should appear at the inquest, technically
they must attend.
"She has the power to compel witnesses in England and
Wales to attend," said a spokesman for the Office of the
Lord Chief Justice.
Whether she would choose to do so is another matter, and
Clarence House yesterday refused to comment on the
possibility.
Lady Butler-Sloss, opening the hearing at the High
Court, voiced her concerns about any delay in the
inquest, originally planned to start in May.
"I am very conscious of the position of the grieving
relatives and I remember the wishes expressed by the
royal princes at the last hearing that the inquest
should move swiftly to a conclusion," she said.
But lawyers for Mr Al Fayed said they needed more time
to consider Lord Stevens's report.
The preliminary hearing will resume later this month. |
http://tinyurl.com/2nkzmj
|
Quote: | |
"This particular phase of my life is the most dangerous
- my husband is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake
failure & serious head injury in order to make the path
clear for him to marry." |
That's an accurate record of what she wrote. But it differs from
the Stevens/Paget report. See this thread
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=10038
So what of Stevens?
According to The Telegraph he's been disowned 
|
Quote: |
Coroner seeks evidence of Diana 'conspiracy'
By Caroline Davies
The inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales
will examine any evidence that she was pregnant on the
night she died along with other conspiracy theories
already allegedly demolished by the £3.69 million Lord
Stevens report, it emerged yesterday.
Among claims to be looked at are her alleged
fears for her life, said to have been expressed in a
letter to her butler Paul Burrell, and in conversations
with her lawyer Lord Mischon and friends.
The potential scope of the inquest was disclosed at a
pre-inquest hearing yesterday by Coroner Baroness
Butler-Sloss and lawyers representing interested parties
including the Harrods' owner Mohamed Fayed, whose son
Dodi died in the same Paris car crash 10 years ago.
Lady Butler-Sloss outlined the inquest's remit in a
letter read to the court stating: "It is very likely
that the inquests will have to inquire, to an extent at
least, into the following areas: the Princess of Wales's
alleged fears for her life; the suggestion that she was
pregnant; the embalming of her body and its purpose; and
the acquisition by Dodi Fayed of a ring on 30th August
1997.
"The inquest may also have to inquire further into such
areas as: the identity of the driver of the unidentified
white Fiat Uno; any cars which may have blocked the
route of the Mercedes; the cause or operation of any
'strobe light'."
Lady Butler-Sloss read her letter in front of a packed
courtroom that included the Princess's sister Lady Sarah
McCorquodale; Major Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton, the Private
Secretary to Princes William and Harry, and Mr Fayed.
Mr Fayed has claimed the couple were assassinated as
part of an "Establishment" plot involving the Duke of
Edinburgh and agents of the state. However, Lady
Butler-Sloss, 73, a former judge, told the hearing
yesterday she would only put these matters before a jury
if Mr Fayed's team produced evidence in support of the
allegations.
"At the moment there's not a shred of evidence given to
me about any of these allegations," she said.
"For me to explore them and for me to present them to
the jury I do need some evidence," she told Michael
Mansfield, QC, for Mr Fayed.
She later went on to tell Mr Mansfield: "It's very easy
to make wild allegations in respect of which there's not
a shred of evidence."
Mr Mansfield, QC, said there were "at least 18
witnesses" he wanted to call on the question of the
Princess's fears for her safety alone, including Prince
Charles and Prince Philip.
The Prince of Wales, he said, was interviewed by
Operation Paget, Lord Steven's inquiry, but Prince
Philip, whom he said was reported to have written
letters to the Princess which could be relevant, had
refused to contribute to the inquiry.
The Operation Paget report was commissioned by the
previous coroner, Michael Burgess, who opened concurrent
inquests on Diana and Dodi's deaths in 2004. It
concluded their deaths were a tragic accident and that M
Paul was driving too fast and under the influence of
alcohol, and that he was on prescription drugs.
Of the Operation Paget report, Lady Butler-Sloss
stressed for the purposes of the inquest: "I have, in
effect, disowned it."
Timing Lady Butler-Sloss wants the full inquests to open
in May. But lawyers for Mr Fayed and for the parents of
Henri Paul, the chauffeur, said this did not leave them
enough time to prepare and want it to be October.
Photographs Sensitive photographs of the crash will be
limited to lawyers and interested persons.
French witnesses One doctor who took samples from Henri
Paul's body and was asked to give evidence at the
inquest has refused, and another has not responded. Lady
Butler-Sloss said: "French
witnesses cannot be forced to give evidence, I cannot
compel them."
Venue She wants Court 73 in the High Court. Mr Fayed's
counsel argues that it is too small and has suggested
Central Hall in Westminster. |
http://tinyurl.com/3b6sox
|
Quote: |
Show evidence that Diana was murdered, Fayed told
By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor
Published: 06 March 2007
The Prince of Wales and the Duke of Edinburgh must give
evidence at the inquests into the deaths of Diana,
Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed, the High Court in
London was told yesterday.
Both members of the Royal Family were described as
"relevant witnesses" in respect to the circumstances
that led to the couple's deaths, now being investigated
by the retired senior judge, Baroness Butler-Sloss.
Michael Mansfield QC, acting for Mohamed Al Fayed, told
Lady Butler-Sloss that Prince Charles had already been
interviewed by police but only a summary of that
interview had ever been provided to the Harrods owner.
If the police officers had taken full notes then the
jury at the full inquest, which begins in May, should be
shown them, argued Mr Mansfield.
Prince Philip's evidence would also be of vital
importance, he said. "The Duke of Edinburgh was
responsible for letters sent to Princess Diana, but he
has refused to be interviewed. We would like to know
whether we can go beyond that."
Mr Mansfield suggested that Mr Fayed should be told the
reasons the Duke had given for his refusal.
Lady Butler-Sloss said that, if evidence were produced
of a plot, she would allow the jury to consider Mr
Fayed's claims about the Princess's death but she added:
"If there is no evidence to support them, I shall not
present them to the jury because it would be my duty not
to do so."
She said she had not been given "a shred of evidence"
about any of the serious allegations Mr Fayed has made
about the Princess's death.
But Mr Mansfield told her: "You have it already."
Mr Mansfield made clear that both the Prince of Wales
and the Duke of Edinburgh were "witnesses of relevance"
Mr Fayed wanted to see give evidence.
When challenged to support any allegations against
members of the Royal Family, the barrister said Mr Fayed
had co-operated fully with Lord Stevens's investigation
and had provided them with the evidence which the former
judge had been given.
He told her: "A starting point which will undoubtedly
come to light during the inquest is Princess Diana's
premonitions or fears." He added: "Mohamed Fayed gave a
statement to the police about this and what he had been
told by Princess Diana during the summer months, about
her concerns, her fears and so on. He has already
provided that."
Mr Mansfield added that Mr Fayed was aware that the
Princess had confided in her butler, Paul Burrell.
Mr Mansfield said there had been a lot of publicity over
a letter Diana wrote to Mr Burrell.
"We say it is extremely important because the
original does not appear to have been seen - certainly
it has not been seen by us."
The only thing that had been seen was an edited copy
that had appeared in the newspapers.
"We would want to see the original of that letter," said
Mr Mansfield.
Lady Butler-Sloss said one French doctor, whom she would
not identify, had been approached but had indicated he
would be prepared to talk to her on the phone - "but not
to give evidence". She said: "This is a serious matter,
but these are French
citizens with their own rights.
"I don't have power to require anyone to attend from
France."
She also accepted that members of the paparazzi who were
present on the night of the crash "might not be terribly
anxious to give evidence". |
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2332003.ece
Twin tracking.
Starve Al Fayed of information.
Put the burden of proof on him BEFORE a jury is even convened.
Al Fayed's only hope is the Burrell letter, and he and his team
have finally, belatedly come to realise this.
He has been badly advised up to now. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
antiaristo
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:27 pm Post
subject: Kremlinology |
|
|
.
Not really sure what is going on behind the scenes.
This went up on the inquest website yesterday
(http://www.butler-sloss-inquests.gov.uk/index.htm).
|
Quote: |
The Rt Hon Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, GBE,
sitting as Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner West
London,
in Court 73 of the Royal Courts of Justice
on 5th March 2007
Hereby directs that:
Those interested persons
other than the Metropolitan Police who have
documentary or witness statement evidence relevant to
any issues into which the inquest may inquire do produce
copies to the Coroner by 19th March 2007
Each interested person,
other than the Metropolitan Police, do specify in
writing to the coroner by 19th March 2007 details of any
further investigations beyond those in the Operation
Paget crime report, the Coroner's Report and the French
dossier that he/she wishes the coroner to undertake
Each interested person,
other than the Metropolitan Police, do identify
by the 12th March 2007 those experts he/she has
instructed, together with their disciplines
Each interested person,
other than the Metropolitan Police, do supply to
the Coroner by 12th March 2007 lists of the missing or
unclear material by
reference to the Coroner's Report
Each interested person,
other than the Metropolitan Police, do supply to
the coroner by 19th March 2007 lists of cross-references
and sources by references to the coroner's report
Written submissions on disclosure by Midday 14th March
2007
Hearing on the issue of disclosure to take place on 21st
and 22nd March 2007
Vacate 8th May 2007 date for the commencement of the
main inquests.
Adjourn main hearing of inquests to on or about 1st
October 2007.
The Rt Hon Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, GBE |
Having made the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis an
interested party, Butler-Sloss will spend the rest of the
process exempting them from her directives.
This serves to underline what a conflict of interest the Coroner
has created. The role of the Metropolitan Police in all this is
truly scandalous.
And it looks as though Sir Ian Blair has finally delivered the
Coroner's report!!
|
Quote: | |
Each interested person,
other than the Metropolitan Police, do supply to
the Coroner by 12th March 2007 lists of the missing or
unclear material by
reference to the Coroner's Report |
It would appear the Coroner's Report is not a public document.
That makes no sense because the inquest is a specifically public
process, rooted in the common law.
It must be really
embarassing!
Ayways, then this appeared in The Times.
|
Quote: |
From The Times
March 07, 2007
Al Fayed wins battle to delay Diana inquest
Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent
Mohamed Al Fayed won a fresh battle yesterday
over the inquest of Diana, Princess of Wales, after the
coroner agreed to delay proceedings by five months.
One of the biggest inquests in modern times will now not
start until October at the earliest, and is expected to
stretch into next year after Baroness Butler-Sloss
conceded that lawyers for the owner of Harrods needed
more time to examine evidence.
Lady Butler-Sloss had planned to start the inquests into
the death of the Princess and Dodi Fayed on May 8. At
preliminary hearings she said she wanted to begin as
soon as possible to reduce the pressure on the families
of the couple. But yesterday, after hearing arguments on
behalf of Mr Al Fayed and others, she agreed that the
inquests should start at the beginning of October.
The coroner, who is a former High Court judge, has
already conceded to Mr Al Fayed’s wish that preliminary
hearings should be held in public. Last week three
judges also agreed with him that she should sit with a
jury and could not act as a coroner for the Royal
Household.
Mr Al Fayed also wants the inquest to hear claims that
the couple were killed as a result of an establishment
plot involving the Duke of Edinburgh and MI6. Mr Al
Fayed wants the Duke and the Prince of Wales to be
called as witnesses before the jury.
Earlier this week Lady Butler-Sloss told counsel for Mr
Al Fayed that she had not received a shred of evidence
to support his allegations about how the couple died in
an underpass in Paris in 1997 during a high-speed drive
to avoid pursuing paparazzi. Michael Mansfield, QC, for
Mr Al Fayed, also argued that the inquests should be
moved from the High Court, where Lady Butler-Sloss wants
to hold them, to a bigger venue such as the Central
Hall, Westminster.
Two more days of preliminary hearings will be held later
this month and could be the scene for yet more clashes
before the start of an inquest now expected to take
months. During the next
hearing Lady Butler-Sloss will discuss the scope of the
inquest and which witnesses might be called.
Yesterday she asked for details of the documents and
potential witnesses that Mr Al Fayed and other
interested parties may want to call.
In an announcement posted on the inquest
website, she asked interested parties for details of any
further investigations they would like to see beyond
those undertaken in the Operation Paget crime report
prepared by Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, the former
Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, into
suggestions of a conspiracy to kill the Princess; the
police report on the crash itself; and the dossier
compiled by investigators in France. Lady
Butler-Sloss also wants to know which expert witnesses
could be called, lists of missing or unclear material,
and written submissions on disclosure of papers. |
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1480014.ece
Like I say, I've no idea what's going on behind the scenes. I
note simply that Lady Butler-Sloss's proposed timetable lasted
one day before collapsing in an ugly heap.
Maybe she's trying to show somebody how hard she is really
trying?
And notice how dear Rupert Murdoch propagates his subtle lies.
Rupert's version of reality:
|
Quote: | |
In an announcement posted on the inquest website,
she asked interested parties for details of any further
investigations they would like to see beyond those
undertaken in the Operation Paget crime report prepared
by Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, the former
Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, into
suggestions of a conspiracy to kill the Princess;
the police report on the crash itself; and the
dossier compiled by investigators in France. |
Reality's version of reality:
|
Quote: | |
Each interested person, other than the Metropolitan
Police, do specify in writing to the coroner by 19th
March 2007 details of any further investigations beyond
those in the Operation Paget crime report,
the Coroner's Report and the French dossier that
he/she wishes the coroner to undertake |
The Coroner's Report is a bit like Mr Rochester's wife, no? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
slimmouse
Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 1808
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:12 pm Post
subject: Re: Kremlinology |
|
|
I'll give Mansfield his
due for one thing.
After "Dame BS", suddenly wishes to bring this episode to a
speedy conclusion "in the interests of the Children" , he
pointed out, albeit in somewhat cryptic fashion just how
ridiculous the bs position is, given that an inquest into the
death of Member of the Royal family happened to take ten years
already.
PS. Keep yer head down Harry. I read yesterday that "Al Quaeda"
are after you !! |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You
cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts
in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You
cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Profile
Log
in to check your private messages | 
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups 
Log
in 
Register
