The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008

[Jo of Palatine]

I believe Prince Philip did write the nasty letters to Diana, and I think that is no big deal. I can sure do the tarantula letters when I get upset, so I understand. However, it disturbs me when Prince Philip lies about this. It makes him look guilty.

But - the lawyer for the prince said he did not write nasty letters. Plus Simone Simmons has obviously told more than one version about who the letters looked like she allegedly saw:

From the inquest transcript: (Q: Mr. Horwell for the Metropolitan Police, A: Simone Simmons).

Q. When Mr Mansfield asked you the colour of the letters
4 from Prince Philip that you had seen, you told
5 Mr Mansfield that the letters were white?
6 A. Yes. Admittedly it's a long time ago.
7 Q. In the article in The Mail on Sunday, you described the
8 letters as being cream, and you know --
9 A. I can't -- yes.
10 Q. And you know that it has been pointed out, very soon
11 after that article was written, that the
12 Duke of Edinburgh's notepaper was in fact white?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. So it's cream coloured notepaper to The Mail on Sunday?
15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. And white to us?
17 A. They are the little details. I haven't been -- I have
18 been out of action for about two and a half years,
19 so ...
20 Q. And in The Mail on Sunday article, you described the
21 notepaper as being A5, and you know, don't you, it's
22 been said that Prince Philip's notepaper is A4?
23 A. One of the letters -- well, I don't know because I have
24 never seen Prince Philip's notepaper, but I take your
25 word for it.

91

1 Q. This morning you told Mr Mansfield one was small and one
2 was larger?
3 A. One was larger, yeah.
4 Q. Whereas to The Mail on Sunday, this was A5 sized
5 notepaper?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And to The Mail on Sunday you said that he signed his
8 letters "Philip"?
9 A. Yes. In fact I actually couldn't remember exactly how
10 they were signed.
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, why did you say they were
12 signed "Philip"?
13 A. The journalist at the time suggested they may have been
14 signed "Philip".
15 MR HORWELL: This is the article that The Mail on Sunday
16 printed:
17 "He signed off curtly as Philip."
18 That is what you told The Mail on Sunday?
19 A. Ah, it was -- as I said just now, it was suggested to me
20 that it was signed "Philip", and so I said "probably".
21 I couldn't remember exactly how it was signed.
22 Q. It was suggested to you by a reporter, you are telling
23 the reporter what you say you had seen?
24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. And a reporter suggests "Philip"?

92

1 A. Well, if I couldn't remember exactly --
2 Q. And you went along with that?
3 A. Erm --


Does that sound like a reliable source? Another quote from the inquest - about a call that Nicholas Soames is said to have made to Diana where he threatened her, Simmons says Diana had let her listen to it:

Q. If this call had been made, Ms Simmons, it was obviously
21 an important event in her life, was it not?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And may --
24 A. It wouldn't have been the first threat that was made to
25 her.

96

1 Q. -- be relevant to the reasons why she died?
2 A. Right.
3 Q. Now, there is not a single reference to that call in
4 your first book, is there?
5 A. No, as I said, that book was very heavily edited.
6 Q. Did you insist that this important event in her life be
7 recorded in the book?
8 A. I had no say in the editing of that book.
9 Q. The question I asked you was: did you insist that this
10 important event in her life be kept in the book?
11 A. As I said, with the first book I had no say whatsoever
12 in the editing.
13 Q. It surfaces for the first time, is that right, in the
14 second book which was published in 2005?

Simmons claims she had no say in what was put into her first book, what was edited and what was left out. So far my own experiences with publishing are different, completely different. If she had insisted, it surely would have been put into the book. But at the time her first book came out, nobody had the knowledge they have now, so IMHO she was not able to invent such a thing then, but now of course it sounds plausible.

As for knowing the brand of cosmetics of a person you had often talks for hours in her house, especially after the other person had asked you to go into every room of that apartment to do something psychic there... well, that's fairly easy.

In addition we learned that Diana always had help on writing responses to letters seh got, help with writing her speeches etc. Andrew Morton said that and Rosa Monckton as well. I think it's true, then. So where are the people who helped Diana with answering these nasty letters? Why don't they come forward? Simmons claim that Bashir had the originals in 1997 - why does he not come forward with them if they ever existed?

So IMHO even if Simmons knew Diana's brand of cosmetics, she makes up whatever helps her to sell stories about Diana.

 

[Fabulous Fake]

Also don't forget that Diana allegedly dumped Simone Simmons because Diana suspected that she was selling stories about her to the press.

 

[Christo's Girl]

Diana had wonderful qualities, but she trusted the wrong people with her most personal thoughts. I also think she told certain things to certain people, changing her stories so no one knew the real situation.

 

[zhontella]

But - the lawyer for the prince said he did not write nasty letters. Plus Simone Simmons has obviously told more than one version about what the letters looked like she allegedly saw:...............................................Does that sound like a reliable source?

I believe her about the letters since their existence was confirmed by 2 other separate sources -- by Paul Burrell in a Mirror Article in 2002 and in Andrew Morton's book. That just goes to show you how lawyers can take small details and twist them to make anyone look like they are lying, even when they aren't. This especially holds true for people who are..........well what I'd call scatter-brained. These are also the type of people who would let their book get edited beyond recognition.

"The Mirror: Paul Burrell Revelations: I know the pain Philip's letters caused Diana

Daily Mirror, The (London, England) - November 11, 2002
Author: JANE KERR, Royal Reporter

PAUL Burrell yesterday confirmed the deep distress Princess Diana felt after her father-in-law Prince Philip sent her a series of insulting letters .

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I believe her about the letters since their existence was confirmed by 2 other separate sources -- by Paul Burrell in a Mirror Article in 2002 and in Andrew Morton's book. That just goes to show you how lawyers can take small details and twist them to make anyone look like they are lying, even when they aren't. This especially holds true for people who are..........well what I'd call scatter-brained. These are also the type of people who would let their book get edited beyond recognition.

"The Mirror: Paul Burrell Revelations: I know the pain Philip's letters caused Diana

Daily Mirror, The (London, England) - November 11, 2002
Author: JANE KERR, Royal Reporter

PAUL Burrell yesterday confirmed the deep distress Princess Diana felt after her father-in-law Prince Philip sent her a series of insulting letters .

But do you believe Paul Burrell? Do you think he ever thought there would be an open inquest into the deaths were he is sworn in and has to say the truth - in public?

Maybe we can just agree to let this topic be off till we both could have read Burell's statements at court? Maybe then we have a much better basis for discussion?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I also think she told certain things to certain people, changing her stories so no one knew the real situation.

Why talking about it then at all?

 

[TheTruth]

Why talking about it then at all?

Well maybe their curiosity ? I mean, if you refuse to answer a question to one of your friends it may cause tensions because he/she will think you don't trust him/her. Tough situation ...

 

[zhontella]

But do you believe Paul Burrell?

You can certainly say Paul is an independent source since he and Simmons weren't the best of buds: HOCUS POCUS FROM AN EVIL WITCH - Mirror.co.uk)

Also I believe Diana told Andrew Morton she received such letters since he put it in her book "The True Story".

Maybe we can just agree to let this topic be off till we both could have read Burell's statements at court? Maybe then we have a much better basis for discussion?

They may never ask Burrell about this in court. There's too many details and 1000s of pages to expect them to keep on top of everything. Plus, the point of view of the inquest seems rather myopic at times.

At any rate, as I said, the letters are just Prince Philip being himself, and prove no harmful intent, at least on the part of Prince Philip, in my opinion. However, I can't say the same for whoever decided he should try to cover them up -- that's not Prince Philip's style.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

But - the lawyer for the prince said he did not write nasty letters. Plus Simone Simmons has obviously told more than one version about who the letters looked like she allegedly saw....

[....]

Does that sound like a reliable source? Another quote from the inquest - about a call that Nicholas Soames is said to have made to Diana where he threatened her, Simmons says Diana had let her listen to it:

[....]

Simmons claims she had no say in what was put into her first book, what was edited and what was left out. So far my own experiences with publishing are different, completely different. If she had insisted, it surely would have been put into the book. But at the time her first book came out, nobody had the knowledge they have now, so IMHO she was not able to invent such a thing then, but now of course it sounds plausible.

As for knowing the brand of cosmetics of a person you had often talks for hours in her house, especially after the other person had asked you to go into every room of that apartment to do something psychic there... well, that's fairly easy.

In addition we learned that Diana always had help on writing responses to letters seh got, help with writing her speeches etc. Andrew Morton said that and Rosa Monckton as well. I think it's true, then. So where are the people who helped Diana with answering these nasty letters? Why don't they come forward? Simmons claim that Bashir had the originals in 1997 - why does he not come forward with them if they ever existed?

So IMHO even if Simmons knew Diana's brand of cosmetics, she makes up whatever helps her to sell stories about Diana.

I also fail to see how any of Simmons's testimony will be helpful towards the jury's answering the questions of the Inquest.

The thing is, Simmons said she can't remember how the letters were signed, that she told the reporter they were "probably" signed "Philip" but she could not remember for sure. I think that she never saw any such letters at all, and she made up the story of Diana showing her letters. Why would Diana show this woman any letters from a member of the royal family? Even Diana was more careful than Simmons is implying. I believe Diana showed things like that to her close friends -- i.e. the Rosa Monckton, Lucia Flecha de Lima, the Mendham woman, ?Catherine Soames. These ladies I might be inclined to believe, but not this Simone Simmons, who could not even approximate how much money she made from her books about Diana.

 

[Lady-in-waiting25]

I hope the inquest can finally put closure to the whole sad situation of Diana's and Dodi's deaths!

I agree.... I hope after all this inquest business is over, I hope that they can finally rest in peace.

 

[Christo's Girl]

I was just reading online the interview with Dr. Hasnat Khan, I am quite surprised that he talked about Diana at all, even more surprised to read that he was married in 2006 and is already seperated from his wife. I think Diana could have been happy with him.

 

[Fabulous Fake]

Paul Burrell is promising explosive revelations tomorrow.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/31291/Burrell-promises-Diana-bombshell-

 

[Skydragon]

Paul Burrell is promising explosive revelations tomorrow.

Sunday Express: The World's Greatest Newspaper :: News / Showbiz :: Burrell promises Diana ‘bombshell’

Unfortunately he can get away with telling lie after lie, in his attempt at 'getting even' with everyone who didn't see him as their best friend or who ever doubted his rock status. With no comeback from a slander charge, he won't be able to resist inventing his version of the truth! I wonder if he will remember to tell the inquest how he frequently slept/hid in her room - weird

Hell hath no fury like a flower arranging/wine selling/ex servant scorned!

 

[ysbel]

You can certainly say Paul is an independent source since he and Simmons weren't the best of buds: HOCUS POCUS FROM AN EVIL WITCH - Mirror.co.uk)

Also I believe Diana told Andrew Morton she received such letters since he put it in her book "The True Story".

Well I don't believe Diana was 100% truthful from what she told Andrew Morton and Morton himself said that he did not see his role as an objective reporter but rather as Diana's champion or as he put it, her knight in shining armour. I think its fair to say that as early as 1989 Diana and Morton saw themselves at war with the royals and therefore saw the value of statements like this as ammunition in good service of the battle rather than as factual evidence of something that happened.

It doesn't mean that they made everything up of course but when it comes to Philip's letters, it can be a matter of interpretation. Philip being caustic may not have thought his remarks were that damaging to Diana whereas Diana being sensitive may have found them truly hurtful.

What I find interesting is how people are reacting to being put under oath in an inquest. I think the inquest is rather pointless but it is a legal proceeding so it is interesting to see if the fact that people are being put under oath is causing them to rethink some of their earlier statements in defense of their favorite party. That favorite party could either be Diana or al-fayed or the royals.

The prospect of facing jail time for perjury is serious enough to make someone think seriously about how wise it is to repeat some things that will not hold up to closer inspection. I would say that if this official pejured himself for Prince Philip, it was a very unwise thing to do because Philip will not go to jail; the official will.

 

[TheTruth]

Diana Inquest: Claim Government Behind Squidgygate Tapes |Sky News|World News
Diana's Squidgygate tapes 'leaked by GCHQ' - Telegraph
Diana's squidgygate chat 'was taped by GCHQ' - Times Online

 

[zhontella]

The prospect of facing jail time for perjury is serious enough to make someone think seriously about how wise it is to repeat some things that will not hold up to closer inspection. I would say that if this official pejured himself for Prince Philip, it was a very unwise thing to do because Philip will not go to jail; the official will.

The prospect of facing jail time for perjury is more like a toothless tiger.

 

[zhontella]

Diana Inquest: Claim Government Behind Squidgygate Tapes |Sky News|World News
Diana's Squidgygate tapes 'leaked by GCHQ' - Telegraph
Diana's squidgygate chat 'was taped by GCHQ' - Times Online

Who was suppose to have leaked the Camillagate tapes -- the same organization?

 

[TheTruth]

Who was suppose to have leaked the Camillagate tapes -- the same organization?

I really don't know but both were recorded a few years ago (Camillagate : December 18, 1989 ; Squidgygate : December 31, 1989) before being released almost at the same time (August 23, 1992 and end of 1992) so it wouldn't be surprising that they came from the same source.

 

[Skydragon]

The prospect of facing jail time for perjury is serious enough to make someone think seriously about how wise it is to repeat some things that will not hold up to closer inspection. I would say that if this official pejured himself for Prince Philip, it was a very unwise thing to do because Philip will not go to jail; the official will.

The problem is that unless someone is able to provide 'hard copy' evidence, people can get away with saying anything that takes their fancy or reinforces their version. Perjury has to be proven and if it is a case of Burrell saying Diana told him this or that, or Diana showed him a letter but then destroyed it, it comes down to who you want to believe.
The same applies to the variety of books written by a variety of authors, if they lie who is going to challenge them. How can you prove that Diana didn't say this or Charles didn't do that, you can't and so it is left to the individual to make up their own mind. Either from experience, common sense, common or personal knowledge. There will always be people willing to believe the worst of Charles/Camilla and best of Diana, based soley on the tabloid stories/books they have read.

 

[TheTruth]

The problem is that unless someone is able to provide 'hard copy' evidence, people can get away with saying anything that takes their fancy or reinforces their version. Perjury has to be proven and if it is a case of Burrell saying Diana told him this or that, or Diana showed him a letter but then destroyed it, it comes down to who you want to believe.
The same applies to the variety of books written by a variety of authors, if they lie who is going to challenge them. How can you prove that Diana didn't say this or Charles didn't do that, you can't and so it is left to the individual to make up their own mind. Either from experience, common sense, common or personal knowledge. There will always be people willing to believe the worst of Charles/Camilla and best of Diana, based soley on the tabloid stories/books they have read.

(my bolding)

And the other way round . Great post Skydragon ; you just need to read a pro-Camilla and a pro-Diana book and compare both to see how contradictory they are. And I rarely think the truth is in one and only version.

 

[Skydragon]

(my bolding)

And the other way round . Great post Skydragon ; you just need to read a pro-Camilla and a pro-Diana book and compare both to see how contradictory they are. And I rarely think the truth is in one and only version.

Thank You, with regards to the books, you are right there are segments of truth and complete lies in books about both parties, but I tend to rely on a 'been there, seen that, got the Tshirt' knowledge. I would however say that the only people who know what really goes on within a marriage are the people themselves.

 

[TheTruth]

Thank You, with regards to the books, you are right there are segments of truth and complete lies in books about both parties, but I tend to rely on a 'been there, seen that, got the Tshirt' knowledge. I would however say that the only people who know what really goes on within a marriage are the people themselves.

Absolutely. And I don't even know if I would believe Diana, Charles or Camilla on their "truth". Experiences, reactions, etc. depends immensely on each individual's subjectivity so it seems that we would have exactly the same problem.

 

[ysbel]

The problem is that unless someone is able to provide 'hard copy' evidence, people can get away with saying anything that takes their fancy or reinforces their version.

Its less and less easy when a court and public opinion have a vested interest in finding that someone lied about something under oath.

We're finding that out in America with some baseball stars who made some very creative testimony to Congress regarding use of steroids and the funny thing is that the evidence doesn't even conclusively point to their using steroids just to the point that they lied about something in front of Congress.

So I think if you lie in front of a jury and there is someone who has a motive for making you pay for it then they will find a way to see that you are brought on perjury charges.

I think perjury is rather an easy way to pursue a prosecution against someone because if someone gives detailed and lengthy testimony, there is always something that doesn't fit.

For Paul Burrell, it could be someone who tape recorded a conversation where Burrell said that he saw no letter from Phillip. With tiny tape recorders, its not that hard to catch someone in a lie if you suspect them and they fall into your trap.

For Prince Philip's official, it may be a bit harder but it can be some correspondence that showed the official knew of some damning communication from Philip to Diana.

 

[pinkie40]

I've been waiting the entire time of this inquest for what Paul Burrell was going to add...since we aren't going to hear from the French paps and the Vietnamese driver of the now red painted Fiat Uno....

 

[pinkie40]

As per Simone Simmons' tesitmony, even articulate people like her can be reduced to mumblings on the witness stand in the hands of a lawyer...Both Simone and Ingrid Seward (a royal biographer I have admired for decades) were reduced to ashes when they appeared together by Joy Behar on the American morning chat show "The View"...

 

[Polly]

The problem is that unless someone is able to provide 'hard copy' evidence, people can get away with saying anything that takes their fancy or reinforces their version. Perjury has to be proven and if it is a case of Burrell saying Diana told him this or that, or Diana showed him a letter but then destroyed it, it comes down to who you want to believe.
The same applies to the variety of books written by a variety of authors, if they lie who is going to challenge them. How can you prove that Diana didn't say this or Charles didn't do that, you can't and so it is left to the individual to make up their own mind. Either from experience, common sense, common or personal knowledge. There will always be people willing to believe the worst of Charles/Camilla and best of Diana, based soley on the tabloid stories/books they have read.

I think, Skydragon, that these days, it's not so easy to 'get away with saying anything'. Recent court actions by the Palace have demonstrated this.

You are right in saying that some will be willing to believe badly of Charles and Camilla and everything good about Diana, but the reverse is also true. Diana's reputation has taken a battering from many quarters, including, even, this Board, and she will never be able to respond. Alone, amongst them all, she, in law, cannot be slandered because she's dead! Me, I like(d) all protagonists and see much to admire in all three, though I perceived, what are to me, serious flaws in ethical standards, behaviour and character in each. Nonetheless, as I'm far from being a perfect human being myself, I incline towards the many positives which can be ascribed to all parties.

 

[Skydragon]

Its less and less easy when a court and public opinion have a vested interest in finding that someone lied about something under oath.

We're finding that out in America with some baseball stars who made some very creative testimony to Congress regarding use of steroids and the funny thing is that the evidence doesn't even conclusively point to their using steroids just to the point that they lied about something in front of Congress.

So I think if you lie in front of a jury and there is someone who has a motive for making you pay for it then they will find a way to see that you are brought on perjury charges.

I think perjury is rather an easy way to pursue a prosecution against someone because if someone gives detailed and lengthy testimony, there is always something that doesn't fit.

For Paul Burrell, it could be someone who tape recorded a conversation where Burrell said that he saw no letter from Phillip. With tiny tape recorders, its not that hard to catch someone in a lie if you suspect them and they fall into your trap.

For Prince Philip's official, it may be a bit harder but it can be some correspondence that showed the official knew of some damning communication from Philip to Diana.

It is so easy to say Diana told me this or Philip wrote that, but it is all just hearsay without backup. Burrell has a score to settle and I believe that he will use this opportunity. Burrell may be lacking in intelligence, but I can't see him admiting to anyone that he has lied or even his true relationship with Diana. It would have been wonderful if Charles had decided to attend, then we would see how much 'truth' Burrell would have spoken of then!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

It is so easy to say Diana told me this or Philip wrote that, but it is all just hearsay without backup. Burrell has a score to settle and I believe that he will use this opportunity. Burrell may be lacking in intelligence, but I can't see him admiting to anyone that he has lied or even his true relationship with Diana. It would have been wonderful if Charles had decided to attend, then we would see how much 'truth' Burrell would have spoken of then!

Well, after having read the transcripts of how Mansfield, Mo's lawyer, treats witnesses, I am not astonished that eg Dr. Khan decided not to give evidence. I'm looking forward to today's transcript.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I just read Lucia Flecha de Lima's statement that she had read the letter prince Philip wrote to Diana on June 18th and that it was a nice and helpful letter. he wrote it two days after the Morton book was published, so I guess if he was not nasty then, he never was. That much to the question of the prince's "nasty" letters.

 

[Chimene]

I think, Skydragon, that these days, it's not so easy to 'get away with saying anything'. Recent court actions by the Palace have demonstrated this.

You are right in saying that some will be willing to believe badly of Charles and Camilla and everything good about Diana, but the reverse is also true. Diana's reputation has taken a battering from many quarters, including, even, this Board, and she will never be able to respond. Alone, amongst them all, she, in law, cannot be slandered because she's dead! Me, I like(d) all protagonists and see much to admire in all three, though I perceived, what are to me, serious flaws in ethical standards, behaviour and character in each. Nonetheless, as I'm far from being a perfect human being myself, I incline towards the many positives which can be ascribed to all parties.

Your very thoughtful post has brought me full circle. I don’t like Diana, I never identified with her, nor did I ever admire her. I have been very clear on what I’ve thought of her actions, but here we are talking about someone who was flesh and blood. She paid the ultimate price for all the wrongs she’s done, when most of us get many chances, let’s say sadly it’s no one’s fault. It’s not my place to ask/say, but have mercy on her soul, she’s dead is that not enough? How depressing...