-Caveat Lector- >From http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/03/1036308206305.html
Print this article | Close this window Queen's silence prompts claims of conspiracy By Paul Daley, Herald Correspondent in London November 4 2002 Questions are being asked about the timing of the Queen's intervention in a trial in which a man to whom she was reportedly close was expected to air new details about the private lives of the House of Windsor. The trial of Paul Burrell, 44, Princess Diana's former butler who was charged with stealing her personal effects after her death, was abandoned on Friday after it emerged that the Queen supported part of his defence. The big question is why the Queen waited until Mr Burrell was about to give evidence - which his lawyers promised would be "long, detailed and extremely interesting" - before she revealed he had confided after Diana's death in 1997 that he was holding some of the princess's things for "safekeeping". MPs, the media and royal experts are speculating that the Queen headed a conspiracy to derail Mr Burrell's trial, fearing his evidence would embarrass the Windsors and hurt her grandsons, William and Harry. The Queen's biographer, Anthony Holden, said: "I think she should be charged with wasting police time, if not obstructing the course of justice." The Queen had known for five years that Mr Burrell held many of Diana's personal papers - including moving letters to and from her sons, trinkets from at least one lover, official documents relating to her divorce from Prince Charles and correspondence with other royals - at his house in rural England. The Queen, who used to have intimate chats with Mr Burrell while they fed her corgis together during the 10 years he was her personal footman, did not object. The police raided Mr Burrell's home in January last year and charged him with theft seven months later. The prosecution produced no evidence that he had sold any of Diana's goods or betrayed any confidences. What he knew would have been worth millions to the tabloid press. In his statement to police he said he performed delicate tasks "of a very personal nature, including late at night" and that Diana's relationships with other royals were "very strained". Mr Burrell witnessed the comings and goings of Camilla Parker Bowles while Charles and Diana were still living together and, after the separation, he knew about a succession of Diana's lovers. There has even been speculation that he knew of a plot by Diana to poison Camilla. The Queen could not have been unaware of the value of the corroboration she could offer when Mr Burrell's trial began on October17. Yet it was not until eight days later that the Queen - en route to a service at St Paul's for the British and Australian victims of the Bali bombings - told her husband, Prince Philip, and Charles about the conversation. The Queen's behaviour appears highly suspect: that Charles, not she, purportedly saw the relevance of the conversation with Mr Burrell raises questions about her judgement and enhances perceptions of royal detachment. But key questions also remain unanswered by Mr Burrell. Why did his counsel not know about the critical conversation with the Queen until Friday? Mr Burrell has claimed that the discretion demanded by employment in the royal households prevented him from revealing it. He has also told the BBC that he remained silent because he "never realised" that what he told the Queen could clear him. His relief when the case collapsed was clear. "The Queen has come through for me. The lady has come through for me," he said. He is reported to be considering legal action against the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/03/ 1036308206305.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A<>E<>R + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Forwarded as information only; I don't believe everything I read or send (but that doesn't stop me from considering it; obviously SOMEBODY thinks it's important) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." --- Ernest Hemingway <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/ <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
