Paul Burrell is facing a possible perjury trial after refusing to return to
the High Court to give evidence at the inquest into the death of his former
boss, Diana, Princess of Wales.
Coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker had requested that Burrell - who lives in Florida - make a further
appearance at the inquest following the emergence of a video in which the
former butler revealed he’d committed perjury during his two-and-a-half day appearance
at the inquest in January.
The video, details of which emerged in The Sun newspaper, was filmed in a New York hotel.
Burrell, who now primarily lives in Florida, was seen admitting: "I did not tell the whole truth."
"I was very naughty, and I laid a couple of red herrings."
Burrell now says of this revelation: "At the time of the secretly recorded conversation I was tired, depressed and had been drinking all evening."
"During the course of the conversationI was showing off. I am not proud of this, I was trying to impress him."
The 'him' to whom Burrell refers is believed to be a friend of approximately two years.
A spokesman for the coroner reiterated today that it is not in his remit to
investigate perjury and Lord Justice Scott Baker has no plans to do so.
However, such a move has not been categorically ruled out and the matter could
be re-opened if anybody lodges an official complaint to the police.
Comment: Addendum ==> "One must be a fox in order to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten off wolves." - Niccolo Machiavelli
Name: exploora
Comment: I was talking about the literal meaning of the word trap. The path to the resulting video, he had no idea was being taken...therefore he was trapped.
He was not under oath, he was trying to impress a guy, and he had no idea he was being taped. He was not being interviewed by a journalist, he was possibly lying about lying.
Name: anyacat
Comment: Exploora, I was simply offering a legal definition of entrapment as it applies in courts of law. As I said, entrapment in England does not automatically negate the prosecution's case. Entrapment in the United States does. But for there to be entrapment, a law enforcement official must have enticed or lead some individual into an illegal act (the defendant is enticed by law enforcement into buying drugs, for example). Paul Burrell was not led by any law enforcement official into an illegal act. If, as Burrell indicated, he purposely misled the inquest, which would mean that Burrell willingly committed perjury, then the inquest can either ignore his testimony, or it can recall Burrell, and ask him to explain his comments. It helps to understand the difference between legal systems in the United States and in other countries.
Name: exploora
Comment: I think that anyacat has the counter argument, I think the key point is Mr. Burrell was not under oath when he said those things, and if they try using his statement as evidence, which is what police are accused of doing, when accused of entrapping a person, he can say he did not what he was saying could be used against him in a court of law, or that he was being taped, and what he said was going to be taken seriously in a court of law.
He wasn't talking to a reporter, he was being taped secretly by a "friend", after a few drinks, and he was trying to impress him.
Even getting the facts wrong the way Anyacat has done can have the case thrown out of court due to prejudicing the "jury" and possibly lead to having Mr. Burrell's court costs paid for, who knows.
It could lead to another huge waste of money and could be seen as a frivolous case in many ways.
This has nothing to do with the accident, as far as I can see, it has more to do with whether Mr. Burrell excagerates to sell books and "make" friends, and the court appears to have discovered that this may be entirely possible.
Most people probably already realized his books are coloured and what does that have to do with the accident? I mean Prince Philip and HM probably always have alibies.
I think the big risk for Di was how everyone incited morbid curiosity about her so she was not given any private space, and that part could have been intentional, but probably fed more by the media than the RF, who probably would have been happy to leave her out of the loop and treat it as a private matter.
Name: anyacat
Comment: Entrapment in the legal sense is defined as the act of law enforcement that leads a person to commit a crime that he or she might not have done under other circumstances. In England, entrapment does not automatically negate the prosecution's case. But no law enforcement official was involved. Paul Burrell shot his mouth off in what he thought was a private conversation. How the law deals with his statements is an entirely different matter. Burrell did lead the reporter to understand that he purposely gave less than honest answers. I imagine at some point, Burrell may be asked to explain his statements.
Name: Monika
Comment: Exploora's comment: I think the enquiry possibly ruined the "magic" for Mr. Burrell's books. ----------- Exploora, as far as magicians are concerned, me thinks Paul Burrell choked his own rabbit.
Name: exploora
Comment: I think entrapment makes the "evidence" either inadmissible, or having a good chance of being thrown out of court, if the case went to court, well that is the way it is in this country, that is why a person's rights have to be read out, so he doesn't incriminate himself without knowledge.
I think the enquiry possibly ruined the "magic" for Mr. Burrell's books.
Name: M-M
Comment: Monika Comment:
Entrapment is a serious issue and I am not excusing it but, regardless of the reasons, Paul Burrell was a fool to say what he did—to ANYONE. _________________________
Burrell was a fool to act as he did at the Inquest - not just later on with a reporter .
What incredible arrogance to treat it as he did . I suppose having got away with it all in the past (' I am Diana's Rock , the only one who knows her secrets ' blah blah ) he thought he could just carry on as usual with a mixture of truth , lies , and bravado , then found that the Coroner was not at all amused and called his bluff
Name: Monika
Comment: Exploora, you are far too kind to suggest that he "appears" to flaunt his royal connections, etc. That is the understatement of the year. Lol!!
Entrapment is a serious issue and I am not excusing it but, regardless of the reasons, Paul Burrell was a fool to say what he did—to ANYONE.
Name: Emily Elizabeth Windsor-Cragg
Comment: QUOTE: "An Inquest is a factual inquiry to find out who has died, and how, when and where they died, together with information needed by the registrar of deaths, so that the death can be registered.An Inquest is not a trial. UNQUOTE
Oh, an exhibition of selected facts. I see.
Yes, we Americans are very familiar with THAT SORT of "exposition" that leaves accountability out of the picture.
Name: exploora
Comment: I don't think Mr. Burrell is the only man one cannot believe, after having a few drinks, especially if they are trying to impress. It is not like men have the same chance to dress to impress or cause a wardrobe malfunction, the way women are able to do.
Mr. Burrell was not under oath at the time, he had a few drinks, and someone was secretly videoing him which may be grounds for a good argument relating to entrapment.
Possibly Mr. Burrell has told everything he knows and in a private conversation, he was probably trying to repair the damage done to his pride.
The powers related to this inquest I think were described pretty accurately by Gill Webster. Though I guess if a person is actually caught lying under oath he probably could in theory be charged with perjury.
I think that tape gives us evidence that Mr. Burrell appears to flaunt his past Royal connections and inside knowledge when out and about having a few drinks, and possibly could be described as a bit of a drama Queen. So now we have evidence of such a fact which would not surprise most reasonable people even before we had such a fact. But to tape Mr. Burrell is probably more of an infringement of his privacy at best, entrapment at worse.
Name: Gill Webster
Comment: This has nothing to do with "beyond a shadow of doubt" - this is NOT a trial and no-one can be "acquitted" because no-one is on trial for anything at all. To quote from the official Inquest website: "An Inquest is a factual inquiry to find out who has died, and how, when and where they died, together with information needed by the registrar of deaths, so that the death can be registered.An Inquest is not a trial. It is a limited inquiry into the facts surrounding a death. It is not the job of the Coroner to blame anyone for the death, as a trial would do."
The jury is therefore NOT there to decide if anyone is "guilty" of anything at all. They are there to decide on the circumstances of death - that is all.Her Majesty doesn't have anything "looking bad" - no-one has yet produced any evidence that she, nor anyone else in the royal family, had any connection to what happened that night. I suggest you would do better reading the full transcripts than going on brief and highly edited "sound bites" (not yours Joanna - I mean in the tabloids ) since the full version has so much that the press choose not to report and the overall picture of that night is quite different from what certain "interested parties" would have us believe.
Name: Emily Elizabeth Windsor-Cragg
Comment: What this simply says is -- and I have felt it all along -- that the whole story is not being told.
Fortunately or unfortunately, the jury coming to the conclusion it's not getting all the facts will not vote for a summary acquittal because "beyond a shadow of a doubt" has not been satisfied.
That looks very bad for Her Majesty, and attacking the butler won't fix it.
EEWC
Name: Monika
Comment: Laura, you summed it up perfectly.
Name: Laura
Comment: For me this just highlights what a sad, pathetic man Paul Burrell has become. He has now said for himself, what I have believed for many years, that Paul Burrell is not to be trusted. Not a single word he utters should be believed.
) since the full version has so much that the press choose not to report and the overall picture of that night is quite different from what certain "interested parties" would have us believe.
