The First Editions: "Shabby Burrell" Returns To The Front Page
Written by Joanne Leyland
Tuesday, 01 April 2008
Page 2 of 2
The only other British newspaper to feature the Diana inquest on the front page this Wednesday is the Daily Express, a newspaper which until
recent months was seen to be obsessed with the conspiracy theories which
swirl around the Paris car crash.
A small banner incorporates Lord Justice Scott
Baker's description of the former royal aide: 'Coroner blasts 'shabby' Burrell'.
The Diana inquest taking up less coverage on the front page, the paper leads on attacking a new government policy
from Gordon Brown's administration, as well as the kind of personal and
downright unkind commentary against a female public figure, this time
Nigella Lawson: 'So has TV's yummy cook put a bit too much in her tummy?'
It's
possible that, like Diana before her - who as Prince William
recalled last year was distraught over newspaper coverage which
suggested she was suffering from cellulite - the TV chef may be
shedding a few tears when she
opens her morning newspaper.
Comment: If we only have Burrell's word, how can anyone be sure exactly what was or was not discussed? The only thing we know is that the Queen remembered the conversation at an 'interesting' point during Burrell's trial.
Name: anyacat
Comment: The conversation between the Queen and Mr. Burrell concerned Diana's estate. Burrell was acquitted of stealing items belonging to his former employer after it emerged that he had told the Queen of his intention to keep some papers. (This is all a matter of public record.) It was never explained why Burrell felt that he, rather than her Spencer family (who brought the charges) was a better person to safeguard Diana's possessions. In 2001, police remove items that belonged to Diana from Burrell's house (these included CDs, designer clothing and family photo albums). Only later, and in the public mind, has this morphed into a discussion during which the Queen unburdened herself to her former footman about Diana's death. We have only Burrell's repeated and veiled contention that the Queen confided in him information about Diana's death. But the much discussed conversation that lead to the collapse of Burrell's trial for theft had nothing to do with the inquest into Diana's death. Perhaps in retrospect, the theft trial should have gone forward and the public could have feasted on testimony of William and Harry, the only two member of the Royal Family who were really involved.
Name: exploora
Comment: Burrell was caught on tape saying things to impress, or it appears that way. And it appears he had no idea he was being taped.
It is possible he doesn't know much more, and he also possibly was a victim of not one but two dysfunctional families during a time when one of their "loved" ones had been unexpectantly killed in a car accident.
Lots of families fight over things and funeral arrangements and wills and stuff during such difficult circumstances. That kind of stuff happens even when a person is expected to die soon.
I am sure HM would never get as close to the hired help the way Di might have. I might be wrong, it is just my opinion. Members in one or both families may have made assumptions too quickly, and then had to find a way to get out of the mess somehow and possibly HM stepped in.
That must have been an awful week for all concerned.
And then HM had to consider her grandsons who were only 12 and 15 at the time. I mean HM had a lot on her plate.
I have no idea what the Pow and Camilla were doing at the time, that part wasn't really exposed in the movie but it seems like HM had a lot of issues to deal. I doubt anyone in such a situation could have handled all those issues at once perfectly. It is not like people get to practice before these things happen.
Name: Monika
Comment: M-M, I agree. I think he wants it to look as if he has more to offer than he actually does. If he wants to protect the royals, he should keep his mouth shut. Insinuation and mystery is not the way to go!
True, Christine. And wasn’t it the Queen’s sudden recollection of their conversation that ended the Burrell trial?
Name: exploora
Comment: I agree with Emily. It is not like Burrell was the only one whose evidence was warned about though I think he could possibly be one of the few people who could organize T5 at Heathrow airport, which I think would be a fit punishment if one needs to be suggested. I don't think it is a surprise that Burrell may have "sexed" up his books somewhat, I would have been more surprised if he hadn't. Of course this odd accident has elements either missing or don't sound right, but possibly because of the nature of the situation. I bet the jury will take a while to decide.
Name: Emily Elizabeth Windsor-Cragg
Comment: Burrell's insinuation that he didn't tell the whole story, and the last minute introduction of French evidence that the HPaul autopsy didn't give the whole story about that either ... could lead the jury to do something unthinkable ... to an Open Verdict expressing a judgment that there's something wrought-ing at the bottom of the pile, that hasn't come up yet.
Then what?
EEWC
Name: Christina
Comment: Anyacat, the Queen has already said that she did indeed have such a conversation with Burrell. She admitted it only at the last second, when he was on trial, so that her own family did not have to give evidence against him and they were left out of trial.
Name: M-M
Comment: Christina Comment: Has anyone thought that Burrell might just be protecting someone other than himself when he said he didn't tell the full truth? He's always said, he'd protect certain royals. His statements seem to have a "I will go as far as I can, but no further" kind of air. By telling all, he may just get someone besides himself into trouble. I think he knows this, and that "someone" should also know it, and they are leaving well enough alone.
Just my thoughts. I don't think we've heard the end of this story........yet __________________________
OTOH Burrell may just like to appear mysterious and 'in the know' . If he really had explosive secrets hidden , he wouldn't keep referring to them surely ?
Name: Monika
Comment: Exploora, another gem. Lol! And let's not forget all the products he can sell in the shops.
Name: exploora
Comment: I agree with Christine, and I think if at one point the judge does find Mr. Burell guilty of something maybe he could sentence him to work at T5 in Heathrow airport. I bet he could actually organize that place better than who ever is in charge of it now has been doing.
Name: anyacat
Comment: Paul Burrell would have us believe that HM The Queen after years of circumspection bares all to a former footman. Paul Burrell loves the fame and fortune that is attached to him by virtue of the fact that he was once the servant in a royal house and by his willingness to continually hint that he knows more than what he is saying. As long as there are those willing to accept that there is a conspiracy, Burrell will continue to prosper on the preposterous claim that the Queen confided in him.
Name: Christina
Comment: Has anyone thought that Burrell might just be protecting someone other than himself when he said he didn't tell the full truth? He's always said, he'd protect certain royals. His statements seem to have a "I will go as far as I can, but no further" kind of air. By telling all, he may just get someone besides himself into trouble. I think he knows this, and that "someone" should also know it, and they are leaving well enough alone.
Just my thoughts. I don't think we've heard the end of this story........yet.
Name: Monika
Comment: Considering Paul Burrell's trip to Bosnia, he may have a unique opportunity for redemption...he could back up Hillary's sniper fire scenario.
