The Trials Of Paul Burrell And Princess Diana
PAUL Burrell is in the newspapers.
“Burrell is recalled by judge,” says the Sun’s front page.
“NOW TELL THE TRUTH, BURRELL,” commands the Express on its cover.
The Diana inquest coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, has written to Burrell’s solicitor, asking him to return to London from Florida to explain himself and tell the truth.
The Express says that if found guilty of perjury could face up to 10 years in jail. “If” and “could” in the same line. Finally the Diana inquest is making progress.
In that tape, Burrell is heard to say: “I told the truth as far as I could but I didn’t tell the whole truth. Perjury is not a nice thing to have to contemplate. I was very naughty and I made a couple of red herrings, and I couldn’t help doing it.”
A spokesman for Lord Justice Scott Baker says he was still waiting for a formal response from Burrell. We learn: “The coroner has asked Mr Burrell to return to court to explain discrepancies between the evidence he gave to the inquests and the material which is contained in the transcripts of the recording.”
In the Mirror, Burrell’s solicitors say that he did not “conceal” anything or tell “untruths” in court, adding: “He held nothing back.”
And of the video? Well, as the Irish Independent notes: “Paul Burrell’s lawyers have said that he had been drinking when he appeared to admit he didn’t tell the whole truth at the Princess Diana inquest.”
But Burrell may not return to defend his good name. As the Express reports, he “cannot be compelled to give evidence unless he returns to the court’s jurisdiction in England and Wales”.
Can Burrell get a flight in time to save his reputation? Can he tell us what else he knows? Or will be be forced to explain himself in the book. Paul Burrell: My Trial?
Is it time for Burrell to stand before a mirror, take a deep breath, tilt his head, look himself in the eyes and say: “There’s another book in this.”
Posted: 23rd, February 2008 | In: Royal Family, Tabloids Comments (3) | TrackBack | Permalink
