But why should he claim that the ring he brought with him from Paris was an engagement ring and that he had removed it from Diana's finger, that the ring was bloddied with Diana's blood, so a DNA-analysis could prove it really was hers - why that when it turned out that the ring had a perfectly understandible explanation which noone questions any further? Okay, Burrell is said to have claimed that in 2002 and the evidence of the ring only came out with the Paget-report, but still, why should he except to make himself appear more interesting?