Sport2 mins ago
Is the loathsome Paul Burrell not completely discredited?
The coroner at the Princess Diana hearing Lord Justice Scott Baker has braneded Paul Burrell a Liar. He 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.
It is suggested that Burrell was being protective of his future earnings from the shabby trade in Diana secrets.
Can any British national newspaper pay money to Burrell after he has been so publicly 'outed' as a liar and fantasist?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml =/news/2008/04/01/ndiana201.xml
"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.
It is suggested that Burrell was being protective of his future earnings from the shabby trade in Diana secrets.
Can any British national newspaper pay money to Burrell after he has been so publicly 'outed' as a liar and fantasist?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml =/news/2008/04/01/ndiana201.xml
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Very mixed myself about this man.... My gut instingts are telling me that he is a waste of space!
But there is a part of me that thinks that Diana must have had some confidence in him as I don't think she was a stupid person and would have known who to trust by the end! There could be a side we just can't see....
... is it not possible that he is just doing what he said and keeping Dianas secrets? (the ones that matter!)
But there is a part of me that thinks that Diana must have had some confidence in him as I don't think she was a stupid person and would have known who to trust by the end! There could be a side we just can't see....
... is it not possible that he is just doing what he said and keeping Dianas secrets? (the ones that matter!)
Personally i think Paul Burrell has stunk since day one after the death of Diana to me it was obvious then as it is now, the man should learn when to shut his mouth, but his greed for money seems to have got to his head, and got him in trouble, maybe he will move to a warmer climate now and keep his head down..
Hope this helps make your mind up..
aberdeen nut
Hope this helps make your mind up..
aberdeen nut
I think Paul Burrell was genuinely proud to've worked for Princess Diana, but after her death, and with no such job ever reaching that standard again, he saw his way to continue making a good living by pretending to know more than he did. The papaers'll always pay for this type of thing, and, I suspect, will continue to.
What concerns me about this "independent" inquest is the fact that Lord Justice Scott Baker seems to be leading the jury too much, both in this matter, and Prince Phillip's and MI6's alleged involvement.
Surely he is there to steer the Jury regarding Legal matters, but should he be stating his own conclusions to the Jury? Surely it is for the Jury to listen to all of the evidence presented to them by the opposing Barristers, and then come to their own verdict of the case.
Surely he is there to steer the Jury regarding Legal matters, but should he be stating his own conclusions to the Jury? Surely it is for the Jury to listen to all of the evidence presented to them by the opposing Barristers, and then come to their own verdict of the case.
there is nothing the establishment fears so much as a butler who starts blabbing. No expense will be spared to destroy his reputation. I expect Prince Philip is polishing his guns in preparation for an unfortunate hunting accident even now.
AOG, I think it is ok in general for the judge to say there is no case to answer against someone. He has told the jury that some of Burrell's statements were lies but that others may not be, and that they must consider them with caution. Jurors are always free to disregard the judge's summing up as they please.
AOG, I think it is ok in general for the judge to say there is no case to answer against someone. He has told the jury that some of Burrell's statements were lies but that others may not be, and that they must consider them with caution. Jurors are always free to disregard the judge's summing up as they please.
I know what you're all saying and I do agree, but there must be things he really knows that went on (not talking about conspiracy!), but about the Royals!
I do think he has secrets and I think there are things we will never know about it all!
Only thing I really don't like is how he is making money from what he has spoken about... so for that reason I agree!
I do think he has secrets and I think there are things we will never know about it all!
Only thing I really don't like is how he is making money from what he has spoken about... so for that reason I agree!
1 to 12 of 12
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.