027. Lord Justice Scott Baker; Inquest Into the Death of Diana and Dodi, March 31, 2008, pm, Quoting Michael Gibbins

8/8/2019 027. Lord Justice Scott Baker; Inquest Into the Death of Diana and Dodi, March 31, 2008, pm, Quoting Michael Gibb

1/21

Home

Public meetings,sitting days and witnesses

Hearing transcripts

Evidence

Directions and decisions

Interested persons and legalrepresentatives

Role of the Coroner

FAQ

Press notices

Biography

Costs

ContactsGeneral Inf ormation about the Inquests

Surrey Coroner's Court

Access keys

Privacy

Sitemap

Introduction

Biographie

FAQs

Rle du coroner

Contactez

Personnes intresses et leurs

reprsentants juridiquesInf ormation sur les Enquetes conduites parle Coroner

31 March 2008 - Afternoon session

19 (1.45 pm)20 (Jury present)

21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Members of the jury, embalming.22 Embalming can only conceivably be a relevant issue in23 these proceedings if Diana was pregnant when she died,24 for it was said that her body was unlawfully embalmed by25 the French on the instructions of the British

841 Establishment for the express purpose of covering up2 pregnancy. If you conclude that Diana was not pregnant,3 you can forget about the embalming aspect of the case.4 I shall deal with the evidence in broad outline very5 shortly. It is fairly clear.6 Maude Coujard was the deputy prosecutor on duty on7 the night of the crash. She told us that she was not8 involved at all in the decision to embalm Diana's body9 and her evidence was not challenged. Jean Monceau is

10 a qualified embalmer. He was called to the hospital to11 apply dry ice. The body was in an ordinary room and12 it was very hot. Monceau considered, in his13 professional judgment, that the body was not presentable14 with dry ice and there was a need to embalm. Embalming15 was performed at his suggestion and Keith Moss from16 the Embassy agreed. Embalming was required for two17 reasons: first, to prevent decomposition and, second,18 for the presentation of the body.19 Dr Eva Steiner gave evidence as to the position in20 French law. Two authorities are required.21 The authorisation of the Mayor had to be based either on22 a written expression of the last will of the deceased or23 a request by a person having authority to organise24 the funeral.25 Where, as here, someone has died on foreign soil,

851 a person like Moss from the Embassy would be appropriate2 to make their request and there would be no legal3 problem in Madame Monteil giving authorisation in lieu4 of the Prefect of Police.5 Monceau spoke to Madame Monteil, who was the head of6 the Brigade Criminelle, and when she was told7 Prince Charles and President Chirac were coming, she8 said she would do what was necessary and authorisation9 would be issued. The embalming process took about10 two hours and started at 2 pm.11 Moss said that the treatment of the body was urgent12 and had to be done, but he could not remember whom he13 had contacted who actually authorised. He said it was14 possible he gave Monceau authority to do the work

15 because of the difficulty of the situation. Neither Jay16 nor Coujard had any involvement in the decision, nor did17 Levertons, the English undertakers, who were sent to18 bring Diana's body home. They took embalmers with them19 just in case.20 Michael Gibbins, Diana's comptroller, says Tebbutt21 called him from the hospital several times -- Tebbutt22 was Diana's driver -- and said steps needed to be taken23 to make Diana's body presentable. He thinks that he24 says that if it was on the advice of the hospital, then25 it should be done. Tebbutt, you will recall, said that

861 the presentability of Diana's body became a very2 important issue to him and, he thought, to others.3 In Dr Steiner's view everything was done to comply4 with French law. Be that as it may, you may think that5 everyone concerned acted in good faith and did their6 best in unusually trying circumstances. There is simply7 no basis for concluding that embalming was performed in8 furtherance of a conspiracy to hide pregnancy. Although9 there was evidence that embalming can produce false10 positive results in chemical tests for pregnancy, you11 will remember Dr Chapman's evidence that embalming made

Related information

External links

Site information

Franais

Hearing transcripts
http://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/french/info_f.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/french/int_persons_f.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/french/role_coroner_f.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/french/faqs_f.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/privacy.htmhttp://www.surreycoroner.info/index.htmlhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/biography/index.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/index.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/french/info_f.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/french/int_persons_f.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/french/contacts_f.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/french/role_coroner_f.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/french/faqs_f.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/french/biography_f.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/french/index.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/sitemap.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/privacy.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/accesskeys.htmhttp://www.surreycoroner.info/index.htmlhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/info.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/contacts.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/costs.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/biography/index.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/press_notices/index.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/faq/index.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/role_coroner/index.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/int_persons.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/directions_decs/index.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/evidence/index.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/index.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/sitting_days/index.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/index.htmhttp://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/index.htm


2/21

12 no difference to whether evidence of pregnancy could be13 seen in the uterus.14 A word next, members of the jury, about previous15 relationships. You may think that the previous16 relationships of Diana with Hasnat Khan and Kelly Fisher17 with Dodi have very little, if any, bearing on18 the strength or nature of the relationship between Diana19 and Dodi.20 Also, many of the witnesses who spoke about their21 impression of the relationship between Dodi and Diana22 were, you may think, inevitably likely to be influenced23 by their own perspective or prejudices. Khan and24 Kelly Fisher were obviously most directly placed to25 speak about their own relationships, but even they may

871 be influenced on how they would like the world to see2 them.3 Khan declined to give evidence even by videolink,4 which was, of course, his legal entitlement. But this5 meant that nothing he had said could be tested, nor was6 it on oath. Kelly Fisher did give evidence and was7 cross-examined. It may be that some of those who spoke8 about the relationships in fact said more about9 the reliability of their own evidence than they did10 about either of the relationships.11 Both Khan and Kelly Fisher were on the scene at the12 time the relationship between Dodi and Diana started in13 July 1997. Khan had been going out with Diana for14 the best part of two years and there is considerable15 evidence of a strong bond between them. There was16 a conflict between his desire for a private life and17 commitment to his profession as a heart surgeon and18 the inevitable publicity surrounding Diana. The two19 were not compatible on a long-term basis and he was not20 prepared to give up his life, albeit he said a lot of21 people had told him that even a married man would leave22 his wife if he had the chance of being with Diana.23 Khan said Diana ended the relationship and neither24 party had ever proposed marriage, but does it really25 matter who ended it? The fact that Khan was a Pakistani

881 and a Muslim did not, on the evidence, concern anyone2 except possibly the late Mrs Shand Kydd. The real

3 stumbling block to a permanent relationship was4 the difference in lifestyle between an up and coming5 heart surgeon who had a professional and a very private6 life and the life of a woman who at that time was7 probably the best known and most photographed woman in8 the world. The fact that the arrival of Dodi on the9 scene precipitated the end of the relationship you may10 think tells us nothing about the permanence of Dodi's11 relationship with Diana.12 As to Kelly Fisher, you may think that her evidence13 does not advance the issues in the case much further14 either. She says that she met Dodi in June or early15 July 1996. She was doing well as a model. She said16 Dodi seemed to be moving the relationship forward very17 fast, showering her with presents and, by August or18 September, was talking about marriage.

19 She says she moved into his flat in Rue Arsene20 Houssaye, but there is some issue about that and about21 how much time she spent there. You were, incidentally,22 shown a series of photographs of various gifts of23 jewellery that he gave her and I hope it can now be24 shown on the screen.25 In November 1996, Dodi went to the United States of

891 America for Kelly's sister's wedding. Part of the2 reason for going was to tell her mother he wanted to3 marry her. She is said to have been delighted. She was4 given an engagement ring, but not until February 1997,5 at the Beverley Hills Hotel. It was so big that she was6 not very happy about wearing it in public and picked out7 a smaller one in Harrods, you remember, some time later.

8 She said that 9th August 1997 had been mentioned as9 a possible wedding day, but other than identifying10 a caterer, nothing seems to have been done towards any11 arrangements.12 You heard the tape of a conversation between Dodi13 and Kelly Fisher after Diana came on the scene. You may14 think it gave a rather different picture of her from15 the demure and reasonable person she had presented to


3/21

16 you when she gave evidence. That may have been17 the result of stress at the time. Be that as it may,18 there was obviously a disagreement between them about19 whether there had been or still was an engagement. But20 again, resolving that issue one way or the other really21 does not matter. Myriah Daniels said that Dodi had told22 her quite early on he was not going to marry Kelly.23 Melissa Henning said Dodi asked Kelly Fisher more than24 once to stop saying they were engaged. Dodi, she said,25 was dating other woman and told Melissa that he would

901 not be dating Kelly for much longer.2 Even if you think Dodi behaved badly towards3 Kelly Fisher, does it really help you about how he and4 Diana came by their deaths?5 Next, engagement. The two people who could tell us6 whether Dodi and Diana were engaged or were about to get7 engaged are Dodi and Diana. Sadly they cannot because8 they are no longer alive.9 What we have heard about engagement has been almost10 entirely speculation. I say "almost entirely" because11 you have heard evidence from Mohamed Al Fayed about12 a conversation he had with Dodi and Diana shortly before13 the crash on the Saturday night. Mohamed Al Fayed says14 that during that conversation, they told him that they15 were engaged and that they would announce it on the16 Monday morning once Diana had spoken to her sons.17 It was, of course, the same conversation in which he18 says pregnancy was mentioned. Dodi told his father that19 he had already proposed and that Diana had accepted. He20 had got the ring. You will have to decide whether21 Mohamed Al Fayed is telling the truth, that there was22 such a conversation and that both pregnancy and23 engagement were disclosed to him.24 There is a wealth of evidence from Diana's friends25 and others in which discussions with Diana are referred

911 to and opinions expressed about her relationship with2 Dodi. I shall come to it shortly. But before I come to3 it, let's pause and ask: what does the answer matter in4 the grand scheme of the case? You may think only to5 this extent. It is said that, along with pregnancy,6 engagement could have been -- and Mohamed Al Fayed says

7 it was -- the motive for murder. It was the coming to8 light of this information that precipitated the plan for9 a staged collision.10 You may readily conclude that Dodi had quickly11 become very fond of Diana and that, from his point of12 view at any rate, this was more than a summer romance.13 There is a good deal of evidence to support this view14 and it may be that he indeed planned to pop the question15 on the night of the collision, if he had not done so16 already. But you may think it is unlikely that Diana17 would have committed herself to marrying Dodi without18 having first discussed it pretty thoroughly with the two19 Princes.20 Those who have ventured an opinion on the permanence21 of the relationship are as follows. I summarise what22 they said. Richard Kay, the Daily Mail columnist and

23 close friend of Diana, says he spoke to her between 624 and 6.30 pm on the night of the crash. Diana did not25 say anything to him about getting engaged or married or

921 about a ring and he thinks she would have raised2 the subject, had it been relevant, because of a desire3 for his reaction. She was, however, as happy as he had4 ever known her. He said that they did speak earlier5 about marriage and her reply was, "Absolutely not.6 I have just got out of one marriage and I am not getting7 into another". Back in 1997, it was Kay's opinion that8 it was likely they would have married, but now he has9 changed his mind and thinks it more likely that they10 would not.11 Simone Simmons said that Diana could not keep

12 secrets; the implication being that if there were to be13 an announcement on the Monday, some at least of Diana's14 friends would have been told. On the other hand, you15 may think there is some substance in the suggestion that16 if she was going to marry Dodi, she would not have told17 anybody, just as she did not tell anybody about18 the Bashir Panorama interview.19 Michael Cole said Dodi told him there would never be


4/21

20 anyone other than Diana. Cole also said he knew they21 were going to get married but that they had not22 announced it. I will return to his evidence later.23 Burrell said that by mid-August, Diana's24 relationship with Dodi was, as he put it, "fresh, new25 and exciting", but he did not have the impression that

931 Dodi was "the one". He did not believe that they were2 engaged. He told us that Diana told him she was3 expecting to be given a ring and that he advised her to4 wear it on the fourth finger of her right hand, which5 she thought was a good idea. She told him she needed6 marriage like a bad rash.7 Diana mentioned nothing to him about an engagement8 ring. If she had been going to announce her engagement,9 she would have told friends and the boys, but, because10 the return from Paris had been put back by a day,11 the boys were not due back at Kensington Palace until12 mid-morning on the Monday.13 Devorik, the Argentinian, said that on the Wednesday14 or Thursday before she died, she spoke about15 the relationship and she said, "Come on, Roberto, you16 are Latin and you Latins know what a summer romance is17 all about". He did not think Diana would have married18 Dodi. At any rate it would have been discussed19 thoroughly with the boys before she did. She also, he20 said, told Elsa Bowker that Dodi was too generous and21 nice to her. Devorik said that Diana would not have22 announced her engagement on the Monday because23 the children were the cornerstone of her life.24 Diana told Rita Rogers she would never marry Dodi25 because of the religious problems it would cause.

941 Rita Rogers thinks that Diana would have told her if she2 had got engaged. Also, Rita Rogers had predicted3 the gift of a ring and Diana kept saying to her, "No4 ring yet". When Rita Rogers told her it would be an5 engagement ring, her reply was, "Oh dear, I hope not.6 What will I say?" Rita Rogers advised her to tell him7 that she would have to think about it.8 Sarah McCorquodale thought that there was a strong9 possibility that Diana might have married Hasnat Khan.10 She did not think that Diana really believed the

11 relationship had ended. She spoke to Diana on the12 afternoon of Friday 29th August, but there was no13 mention then of engagement or pregnancy. Her impression14 was that the relationship had not much longer to run.15 Any engagement would have been discussed first with16 William and Harry.17 Dodi phoned Benson on 29th August saying he could18 not really talk over the phone, but he and his friend19 (which was how he described Diana) had some very20 exciting news. He asked if Benson was around on Monday21 at lunchtime as this news would mean there were lots of22 issues to discuss. There was absolutely no doubt in23 Benson's mind that they were getting engaged. The only24 person he told was his partner, Fiona. No record of25 this telephone call was ever produced. Further,

951 the press release by Cole on Friday 5th September was2 wholly inconsistent with this alleged phone call.3 Benson is sure he mentioned the telephone call to4 Mohamed Al Fayed some weeks later, but was unable to say5 when.6 Barbara Broccoli, whose evidence you heard read to7 you very recently, received a similar phone call the8 same day as Benson. Dodi told her he had something very9 important to tell her that he could not tell her over10 the phone. She thought it related to his relationship11 with Diana. However, she was unable to speculate beyond12 that. He and Diana wanted to meet her on the Monday,13 which they agreed to do at Pinewood Studios, where14 a James Bond film was being made. You may think that15 they could not easily have combined that visit with

16 a major announcement of an engagement on that day.17 When considering Benson's evidence, you may wish to18 bear in mind the observations of Mr Justice Mann about19 Benson's evidence in another case involving20 Mohamed Al Fayed. He described him as a witness who was21 reluctant to give evidence that he calculated might be22 against Mohamed Al Fayed, yet capable of exaggeration if23 the case required it.


5/21

24 You may therefore wish to approach Benson's evidence25 with caution. You may remember he was asked about

961 a passage in his statement to the police in which he2 said he had friends and contacts in the security3 services who told him there would have been no doubt4 whatsoever that Diana's movements and calls would have5 been constantly monitored.6 He was cross-examined about this, the suggestion7 being that what he had said about friends and contacts8 was an overstatement and untrue. Counsel also suggested9 that this fitted in neatly with Mr Justice Mann's10 description. But, members of the jury, the bottom line11 is that it is a matter for you and not counsel what you12 make of Benson's evidence.13 Melissa Henning, Dodi's assistant in California,14 discussed the relationship with Dodi and her impression15 was that it was going well. Dodi mentioned the16 possibility of Diana staying in Malibu in September. On17 one occasion, when he telephoned from the Jonikal, he18 told Miss Henning that he would "ask the question" and19 that he and Diana might be spending some time together20 in the future. No reference, however, was made to an21 engagement.22 I should mention briefly Rene Delorm, the butler.23 On 30th August, when Diana was not in earshot, Dodi told24 him to have the champagne on ice when they returned25 later. He said he was going to propose to the Princess

971 and showed Delorm a ring.2 Delorm, you will recall, has written a book and3 there was something that he told the police that was not4 mentioned in the book. This was that he saw Dodi on his5 knee, with his hand on Diana's belly. Asked why he did6 not mention it in the book, he said he did not wish to7 take advantage of the situation. There was a rumour8 that Diana was pregnant and he said how could he,9 Delorm, tell whether she was.10 He then agreed that he had had no difficulty in11 giving that account to a film company. It was also put12 to him that he had said in the book that just before13 they were leaving the apartment, he made a signal to ask14 Dodi if he had proposed and Dodi shook his head

15 slightly.16 You may think that it is perfectly possible that17 Dodi was indeed intending to propose to Diana that night18 and that he had bought the 'Dis-Moi Oui' --19 Tell Me Yes -- ring in case he got a favourable answer,20 perhaps with the thought that the two of them might21 choose a more formal engagement ring later. You may22 think, however, that a proposal is one thing, an23 affirmative answer quite another.24 Raine Spencer said Diana felt Dodi was very special.25 The relationship was getting stronger and closer all

981 the time. She said she thought it likely they would get2 engaged and then married. It was not, in her opinion,3 a summer romance.

4 Rosa Monckton thought Raine Spencer's opinion was5 ill-informed. She also disagreed with Hasnat Khan,6 saying in her view that he had ended the relationship7 with Diana because he could not stand the publicity.8 Hasnat Khan's account was that he was given the push9 after Diana returned from the first holiday with10 the Al Fayeds.11 Rosa Monckton spoke to Diana on Wednesday12 27th August when Diana was just changing boats. She13 said it was bliss, but that she was looking forward to14 coming home to the boys and the gym. There was no15 indication of a forthcoming engagement and Rosa Monckton16 said Diana would have told her. She admits that she did17 not approve of the relationship with Dodi. It was18 suggested that her evidence was influenced by her19 attitude to the Al Fayed family. You will not overlook,

20 however, that Diana gave Dodi her cherished late21 father's cufflinks -- I think you have the letter in22 the bundle at tab 24 -- and the affectionate letters to23 Dodi that were produced.24 Then there was Lady Annabel Goldsmith. Diana phoned25 her around 24th or 25th August (probably on the 24th)

99


6/21

1 because there was some question of Dodi wanting to buy2 her late husband's aeroplane. In the course of3 the conversation, Annabel said to Diana, "You are not4 doing anything silly, are you?" Diana's response was5 that she needed marriage like a rash on her face, which6 is said to be very much a Diana expression; the same7 expression she used to Burrell. Lady Annabel said Diana8 was plainly having a good time, but said nothing about9 the depth or intensity of the relationship. Diana told10 her that Hasnat Khan had finished their relationship.11 Lucia Flecha de Lima spoke to Diana on the Wednesday12 before Diana died and asked Diana if she thought Dodi13 was the one. The response was, "Well, he might be14 because he is very kind to me". She thought Diana was15 infatuated with Dodi, but that it was not a serious16 relationship. Lucia Flecha de Lima thought that she17 would have been told if it was.18 Susan Kassem also used the word "infatuated". She19 spoke to Diana twice on Saturday 30th August. In20 the morning Diana told her she was looking forward to21 coming back to the boys and the gym and having her own22 space. The second call was at about 9 or 10 pm23 London-time. Susan Kassem wished her a safe flight and24 they agreed to meet on Monday. There was no mention of25 an engagement in either call.

1001 Lucia Flecha de Lima, like Hasnat Khan, says it was2 Diana who finished the relationship with him. The3 announcement that Diana was going to make was that she4 was going to step out of public life.5 Members of the jury, at the end of the day, does6 the precise state of the relationship between Dodi and7 Diana when they died really matter? The tabloid press8 were obviously going to speculate and the events of9 August 1997 had provided some basis for their doing so.10 If you think the issue of engagement has any11 relevance as a motive for murder, it may be that there12 is not much of a line to be drawn between an actual or13 an imminent engagement on the one hand and14 the perception that one was likely on the other.15 Having considered all the evidence, you may think it16 improbable that Diana was going to rush into an17 engagement, particularly bearing in mind her concern for18 the young Princes. On the other hand, Dodi and Diana

19 were obviously getting on very well together and who can20 tell what the future might have held? Perhaps Cole got21 it right on this occasion, when he said in Churchillian22 style on 5th September, and repeated on ITV on23 20th September 1997, that if the planet lasts for24 another thousand years, people would still be wondering25 about the significance of the ring. You may think it is

1011 difficult to believe he would have said that if Dodi and2 Diana had really told Mohamed Al Fayed on the night of3 the crash that they were engaged. The first public4 indication of engagement by anyone in5 the Mohamed Al Fayed team was when it was mentioned by6 Mohamed Al Fayed in an interview with Piers Morgan that7 was published in The Mirror on 12th February 1998.

8 The ring.9 There has been a vast amount of evidence about10 rings, but let's cut through it and try to see where it11 leads us. The gift of a ring may be relevant as12 evidence of an engagement or it may be relevant as13 evidence of the depth of feeling by one person for14 another. As to the latter, there is no doubt that Dodi15 was an extremely generous person. Witness, for example,16 the jewellery he gave to Kelly Fisher and, in17 particular, rings. Further, it cannot be in doubt that18 he had strong feelings of affection towards Diana.19 Given those factors, you may think that gifts of20 jewellery generally, whether it be rings, brooches,21 earrings or anything else, does not advance the case any22 further from what we already know.23 Let's concentrate therefore on an engagement ring.

24 The ring that has been identified is the 'Dis-Moi Oui'25 or Tell Me Yes ring, purchased from Repossi across

1021 the Place Vendome on the Saturday afternoon. The mere2 fact that it came from the 'Dis-Moi Oui' range does not3 necessarily mean that it was an engagement ring. You4 will recollect that Diana was not present in Repossi's


7/21

5 shop that afternoon. The ring only came to6 the forefront of events when Claude Roulet found it at7 Repossi, took it across to the Ritz and showed it to8 Dodi, who then jumped at it as being what he wanted.9 The ring was found at Rue Arsene Houssaye by10 Rene Delorm in a briefcase in the wardrobe on the day11 after Dodi and Diana died. You may think that suggests12 it never reached Diana. There is no evidence that Diana13 participated in choosing it, and if the true situation14 is that the ring was not purchased to reflect an already15 existing engagement, there are two other possibilities:16 either Dodi was going to propose that night, in the hope17 of getting an affirmative answer, or it was simply18 bought as a present for the Princess.19 It is a matter for you what you make of Repossi's20 evidence, but you may think you cannot rely on21 significant parts of it and that, in particular, his22 story about Dodi and Diana visiting a hotel in St Tropez23 and choosing a ring is unreliable. What could be better24 publicity for a jeweller than that he was the supplier25 of Princess Diana's engagement ring and closely involved

1031 in its selection? Despite promises to supply documents2 that would confirm his oral evidence, not a single piece3 of paper has been forthcoming from Repossi since he gave4 evidence.5 The cost of the ring was 115,000 francs or about6 11,500 sterling, with the exchange rate at the time,7 a lot by most people's standards, but was it the sort of8 ring that you would expect an Al Fayed to give as an9 engagement present to a Princess?10 You may think it was something that did not compare11 too favourably with some of the gifts to Kelly Fisher,12 who Mohamed Al Fayed said in evidence was never engaged13 to his son and was no more than a casual girlfriend.14 Interestingly, you may think, the price of the ring was15 omitted from the document that Mohamed Al Fayed allowed16 Repossi to show the press, but the price of the other17 ring, offered to Dodi and not selected, was there. You18 might see this on [INQ0006249]. One price is there and19 the other has been deleted.20 How, you may ask, did the price of 130,000 get into21 the newspapers? Mohamed Al Fayed's evidence was that22 Dodi told him on the Saturday night, when he spoke to

23 him, that he had bought the ring; this was the ring that24 he had seen in the window in Monte Carlo and then bought25 it in Paris that day.

1041 Now, it is established that the only days that Dodi2 and Diana were in Monte Carlo were 5th and3 23rd August 1997. Delorm says that on the first visit4 to Monte Carlo, Dodi and Diana spent 20 minutes in5 the jewellers while he stayed outside with the6 bodyguard. Although Delorm devoted three pages of his7 book to Monte Carlo, there is no mention of any visit to8 a jeweller.9 John Johnson was on the first Jonikal cruise and10 recollects going ashore in Monte Carlo for about an11 hour. It was, he said, a "stretch your legs

12 window-shopping trip". He did not remember Dodi and13 Diana going into a jewellers and it would have stuck in14 his mind if they had. Cross-examined by Mr Horwell, he15 said there was no possibility of their having gone into16 a jeweller on that cruise and they did not visit17 St Tropez.18 Wingfield and Rees-Jones were on the second Jonikal19 cruise. Dodi and Diana went ashore and the bodyguards20 went with them. This was when the boat put into21 Monte Carlo on 23rd August. Dodi and Diana went ashore22 with Wingfield, Delorm and Rees-Jones. Rees-Jones says23 they had a steady walk but did not go into any shop.24 The name of "Repossi" meant nothing to him.25 There was, however, some evidence from Ritz

105

1 employees about Dodi's interest in jewellery in2 Monte Carlo. Dodi telephoned Franck Klein,3 the president of the Ritz, around 18th or 19th August4 1997, saying he needed to buy some jewellery; he was5 getting engaged. Klein said he was sure Dodi was in6 Monte Carlo at the time, but other evidence tells us7 that Dodi was only there on 5th and 23rd August.8 Klein says he spoke to Madame Ray of Van Cleef in
http://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/evidence/docs/INQ0006249.pdf


8/21

9 Monte Carlo just before he left to go on holiday to10 Antibes. That inquiry does not seem to have come to11 anything, but Roulet said Dodi had told him he had seen12 a ring he liked which was in a window, near a platinum13 watch. Roulet thinks he probably asked Franco Mora, who14 speaks Italian, to make inquiries, and we have a fax15 addressed to Klein, dated 23rd August, which prices16 various items of jewellery at Repossi. Perhaps that can17 be put on screen. That would tie in with Dodi having18 seen something in Repossi's window when passing that19 day.20 Mora agrees he spoke to a saleswoman at Repossi. He21 never asked about 'Dis-Moi Oui' rings and was never22 asked to assist in getting an engagement ring. What his23 evidence amounts to is that Klein wanted him to call24 Repossi because somebody unnamed had seen something25 there and wanted to know exactly what they had. He said

1061 Klein would not have told him if it was Dodi. He could2 not remember Roulet being involved. After ten years you3 cannot expect everyone's memory to be identical.4 Roulet's account was that he received a phone call5 from Klein saying Dodi wanted a ring he had seen with6 Diana in Monte Carlo. This call was on 23rd August or7 the day before. He wanted the ring brought to Paris.8 He asked Mora to get in touch with Repossi. Mora came9 back to him and said Repossi did not know which ring was10 being referred to. Roulet called Klein and Klein said11 Roulet should ask Dodi, which he did. Dodi gave a very12 vague description, saying it was a simple ring in gold,13 close to a platinum watch. The fax was a list of what14 Mora was provided with. Mora made arrangements for the15 items to be available in Paris. There was no mention of16 any engagement ring.17 Incidentally, Roulet said that on 26th July 1997, he18 went with Dodi to another jeweller in Place Vendome19 looking for a watch. They looked at lots but purchased20 nothing. Diana was staying with Dodi in the Imperial21 Suite in the Ritz at the time and Dodi gave her a watch.22 Members of the jury, you have seen CCTV footage of23 the two visits on the Saturday afternoon to Repossi24 across the square. When Dodi and Diana arrived and25 Roulet took them up to the Imperial Suite, Dodi told him

1071 he would let him know when he was ready to go to2 Repossi. He marked the items on the Repossi brochure in3 which he was interested. You have the marked brochure4 in your bundle at section 3.5. I am not asking you to5 look at it at the moment.6 Dodi went with Roulet on the first visit, but no7 purchase was made and nothing was taken back to8 the Ritz. Five items were, however, set aside as9 possibilities. Roulet stayed and made an inventory of10 what Dodi had set aside, writing the prices on the back11 of Mora's fax. He returned to the hotel and went up to12 the Imperial Suite where he gave Dodi the prices. Dodi13 was interested in a discount. Roulet went back to14 Repossi to ask. At that point there was no settled view15 of which piece of jewellery Dodi would buy or indeed

16 whether it would be a ring or a bracelet.17 Roulet visited Repossi a second time, on this18 occasion without Dodi. You may remember Mrs Repossi19 showed him a ring she had previously forgotten to show20 him. It was on her finger and was from the 'Dis-Moi21 Oui' range.22 Roulet returned to the Ritz with the two items shown23 on [INQ0006248] which perhaps can be put up, and, he24 thought, two or three others. When he arrived at the25 Imperial Suite, Dodi told Roulet to keep his voice down

1081 and immediately said he would take the 'Dis-Moi Oui'2 ring. The others were put in the Ritz safe. The other3 ring shown on that piece of paper, the 60,000 ring4 which was not chosen by Dodi, went back to Repossi on

5 3rd September 1997. Roulet handed that ring and, he6 thought, others to Emanuele Gobbo, who was Repossi's7 employee. After the crash, the 'Dis-Moi Oui' ring was8 invoiced to Klein without, incidentally, any discount.9 Finally I remind you of what Mr Cole said on10 5th September at the press conference at Harrods. He11 said:12 "Incidentally, we did not leak the news of the ring


9/21

13 which Dodi gave to the Princess only hours before their14 deaths. What that ring meant we shall probably never15 know, and if the plant lasts for another thousand years,16 I am quite sure that people will continue to speculate17 about its significance."18 If Dodi did indeed give the 'Dis-Moi Oui' ring to19 Diana, one has to ask why it is that it ended up in20 Dodi's briefcase in the wardrobe. If it was given to21 Diana and if Mohamed Al Fayed was indeed told before22 the crash that his son had given Diana an engagement23 ring, why on earth was his trusted press spokesman24 saying what he did five days after the crash? You have25 heard the explanation given, that Cole was not fully

1091 informed. On the other hand, the one thing you may2 think a press spokesman would do before making a3 statement on behalf of his employer would be to make4 sure that what he was saying accorded with what his5 employer wanted.6 Before leaving the subject of rings, I should remind7 you that there was another ring, the Bulgari ring. That8 ring can be seen in some photographs and I ask for them9 to be put up now. Diana can be seen wearing it on10 the fourth finger of her right hand on her arrival in11 Paris.12 I thought we had a colour photograph, but it seems13 to have disappeared, members of the jury. There we are.14 We will have to make do with a black and white one. It15 does not look so good in black and white, I am afraid.16 There is no suggestion by anyone, except possibly17 Mr Faux, that this was an engagement ring. I will refer18 to it in a little more detail when I come to Burrell.19 Next topic: letters from Prince Philip.20 Letters from Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh,21 to Diana are said to be of importance because of what22 the Duke said. If they were nasty letters, it is said23 that they evidenced the Duke's attitude towards Diana24 and thus point to a wish on his part or others on his25 behalf to get rid of her.

1101 They were part of the so-called evidential planks on2 which Mohamed Al Fayed sought to implicate the Duke in3 a conspiracy to murder Diana and on which it is said

4 others may conceivably have acted on his behalf,5 believing it to be his wish to get rid of her. It was6 also suggested that because there were no letters from7 the Duke found amongst the possessions of Diana, that8 they could have been destroyed because of their9 inflammatory content. Let us examine the state of the10 evidence about the letters.11 Copies of some letters came to light when12 Rosa Monckton read about the inquests and realised that13 what she had might be of potential significance.14 Rosa Monckton, you will remember, met Diana through15 Lucia Flecha de Lima and got to know her from about16 February 1992. She says Mohamed Al Fayed's suggestion17 that she befriended Diana in order to pass on18 information to MI6 is absolute fantasy, although it is19 accepted that someone close to her is connected to

20 the Secret Intelligence Service. She says she does not21 think Diana knew of this.22 If you accept Rosa Monckton's evidence and that of23 others who knew them, she and Diana became close24 friends. In the spring and summer of 1992, the marriage25 of Prince Charles and Diana had hit very difficult

1111 times. Fortunately you do not have to explore2 the rights and wrongs of why it broke down, but you may3 think that the breakdown put Diana in a particularly4 difficult position, having previously been within the5 cocoon of the Royal Family but thereafter being on her6 own. Because of who she was, she was unable to break7 out and start a new life in the way she may have wanted.8 Maggie Rae, her solicitor, said that she thought Diana

9 lived in a very odd environment and was lonely. She10 felt like she was up against a big machine; she had11 a small staff.12 When the first letter arrived from the Duke in13 June 1992, Diana got in touch with Rosa Monckton and14 sought her help in drafting a reply. Rosa Monckton15 explained that she drafted replies to a number of16 letters from the Duke over that summer. She could see


10/21

17 how people might have got the wrong impression about the18 content of the letters because Diana's first reaction on19 receipt of a letter was generally to be upset, but they20 were in fact very supportive and trying to help, she21 said.22 Diana had faxed a number of letters to Rosa Monckton23 and she, in turn, provided me with copies of those24 faxes. She also provided copies of drafts she had25 compiled for Diana to use in answer and these she

1121 produced before you.2 Following receipt of what Rosa Monckton had in her3 possession, inquiries of the Palace revealed that the4 Duke of Edinburgh had copies of the letters he had5 written to Diana and also the original responses from6 Diana. So we have had what Sir Miles Hunt-Davis7 (the Duke's private secretary) tells us, on the strength8 of what the Duke has told him, is the complete9 correspondence between the Duke and Diana.10 It lasted between 18th June and 4th October 1992.11 My office asked for a complete set of correspondence and12 Hunt-Davis in turn asked the Duke. Copies of the13 letters from the Duke to Diana and the originals from14 Diana to the Duke were provided to me. Because of the15 personal nature of the letters and the fact that they16 are irrelevant to the issues that you have to decide,17 most of the contents have been redacted and you have18 just seen the beginnings and the ends of the letters,19 together with a few intermediate extracts. I say that20 the rest of the content was irrelevant because it21 provided no support whatsoever for the suggestion that22 the correspondence was nasty, vituperative or23 unpleasant.24 It is common ground that these were not nasty25 letters. Commander Jephson saw some of them and thought

1131 they were well intended. Paul Burrell saw them also.2 He described them as "At times blunt, frank and quite3 cutting, but they were nevertheless quite supportive".4 He emphasised that the Duke was not a nasty man.5 The question is whether there were any other letters6 that were nasty and disparaging of Diana. Rosa says she7 was not shown any other letters, and if there had been

8 any, she is sure that she would have been. And if, for9 example, there had been one after the Martin Bashir10 Panorama interview, Diana would have wanted her help to11 answer it.12 Burrell explained to you that correspondence between13 the two covered a short period. We have seen six14 letters from the Duke and five from Diana, and Burrell's15 recollection was of a exchange of that order, all taking16 place in 1992.17 You will remember also that he was asked about18 a quotation from one of them found in his book, which19 was identical with a section that you had seen.20 The suggestion that the Duke had written nasty letters21 to the Princess has surfaced from time to time in22 the press. Hunt-Davis explained that the normal23 approach of the Duke of Edinburgh to inaccurate or

24 defamatory press material is to ignore it. That, you25 may think, is a sensible approach for members of the

1141 Royal Family to adopt. They might otherwise be very2 busy endlessly putting out denials and corrections.3 But, uniquely, the Duke decided to put out a press4 statement on 23rd November 2002, which I think we can5 put up on the screen [INQ0058969]. He put this out6 because of the untrue and indeed hurtful and scurrilous7 allegations that were circulating.8 In that press statement, the Duke located9 the correspondence to 1992 (as have others who saw it)10 and denied any suggestion that its tone was unpleasant.11 But what has happened to the originals of those letters12 from the Duke?

13 Rosa Monckton said she did not know where Diana kept14 this very important correspondence, but she believed15 that Diana did keep it because she wanted history to16 know that she had tried to save her marriage.17 The striking reference, as you will recall, by the Duke,18 to his not being a marriage guidance counsellor gives19 the flavour of what the correspondence was about.20 There is some evidence of what happened to the


11/21

21 original letters from Prince Philip and indeed one from22 the Queen towards the end of 1992, saying there was now23 a need for Diana to get divorced. That letter from24 the Queen followed Diana's interview with Martin Bashir25 shown on Panorama. Diana gave the correspondence to

1151 Mishcon, who in turn gave it to Maggie Rae, who put2 the letters in her safe at home.3 Maggie Rae read the letters and recollects nothing4 unpleasant about them. They were more in sorrow than in5 anger. Diana asked for and was given the letters back6 in 1997, not long before she died. Thereafter we pick7 up the story with the wooden box, to which I shall come8 shortly, but that shortly will be after our break. So9 we will resume again at 5 past 3.10 (2.50 pm)11 (A short break)12 (3.07 pm)13 (Jury present)14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Members of the jury,15 a correction. I think I said the Queen's letter was in16 1992. It was after the Bashir interview. It was in17 1995, not 1992.18 Just before I come to the wooden box, what about19 other letters? Mr Mansfield says that it is astonishing20 that there is this small clip; there must have been21 others. Where are they?22 What evidence is there that there were any other23 letters anyway? You may think very little. The only24 person who claims to have seen any is Simone Simmons.25 You will have to decide whether Simone Simmons is an

1161 honest witness and, if she is, whether her evidence is2 reliable.3 You may think that Simone Simmons believed what she4 was telling you. Not everything she said supported5 a conspiracy theory, but you may think that some of what6 she described was rather weird or eccentric. Her7 evidence is important from the viewpoint of conspiracy8 theories and I shall deal with it in some detail in due9 course. But as to the letters, she told us that at the10 end of 1995, she and Diana were analysing handwriting11 with the aid of a book on graphology.

12 Diana had quite a few letters from the Duke. She13 drew Simone Simmons' attention to two that upset her.14 She said that one was dated 1994 and the other,15 probably, 1995. One was handwritten, one was typed.16 One was on larger paper. Diana read out one of them,17 mimicking Prince Philip's voice as she did so. Simone18 read the other one. The Duke, she said, made cruel and19 disparaging comments about the propriety of Diana's20 conduct.21 You did not hear the precise nature of the comments22 because that was not relevant and might cause distress.23 What is relevant is that if Simone Simmons' evidence is24 correct, the observations were exceedingly inflammatory25 and derogatory, cruel and disparaging, but there is no

117

1 suggestion that they contained a threat of any kind.2 Indeed, she went out of her way to emphasise to you that3 the Royal Family would have done nothing to hurt Diana.4 Simone does not know what happened to the letters5 thereafter. She says Diana told her she gave6 the originals to Bashir. It took a while to get them7 back, if she ever did. She handed them over,8 Simone Simmons explained, when her car was parked9 next to Bashir's Land Rover in a car park somewhere in10 the West End of London.11 We have not heard from Bashir in person, but his12 comments have been read to you. He has a vague13 recollection of seeing some letters from the Duke of14 Edinburgh. If there had been any strong language in15 them, it is likely he would have referred to them in his16 interview, he said, but he did not. He does not possess

17 and has not possessed any letters between current or18 former members of the Royal Family.19 Simone Simmons says she believes there was20 correspondence with the Duke before and after 1992, but21 that the derogatory letter was just one page.22 The handwritten letter was the one Diana read out;23 it was the smaller one, on headed paper. But, she says,24 she was not really interested in the Duke's letters.


12/21

25 It was, she said, Prince Charles's letters that were

1181 fascinating. What interested the two of them was what2 could be deduced from the handwriting.3 Simone Simmons also gave evidence that the4 Duchess of York had received nasty letters from5 the Duke. Simone Simmons said she did not see any of6 the nasty letters that Michael Cole claims Prince Philip7 wrote to Sarah, Duchess of York, yet we heard8 uncontroversial evidence from the Duchess of York that9 she had never received any such letters. When Simone10 was cross-examined by Mr Horwell, it was pointed out11 that there were differences in the account that she had12 given to the Mail and what she had said in the witness13 box. Whether those differences help you to decide14 whether she is truthful and accurate is a matter for15 you.16 You may think it is significant that, even on her17 account, there was no threat to kill or harm Diana in18 these letters. This evidence is said to go to motive,19 but saying nasty or disparaging things against someone20 is, you may think, some distance removed from a threat21 to kill or injure. Taking her evidence at its highest,22 does it really take the murder theory any further? But23 perhaps, most critically, it seems clear enough that24 Diana showed the correspondence both to her solicitors25 and to Bashir in 1995. She clearly thought the

1191 correspondence important and, having seen it, I can well2 understand why.3 Had there been any anything of the nature suggested,4 surely she would have been very keen that her solicitors5 should be aware of it. After all, they acted for her in6 connection with the formal separation in 1992 and then7 the divorce proceedings which were completed in8 the summer of 1996.9 Similarly, when planning the Panorama interview with10 Bashir, had there been any dynamite in the11 correspondence from the Duke, would she not have shown12 it to him? Although you may have difficulty with much13 of the evidence from Burrell, if the Duke had addressed14 nasty correspondence to Diana, is it not likely that she15 would have shown it to him?

16 I turn next to the wooden box. Burrell says Diana17 showed him Prince Philip's letters and her replies.18 They were kept in a wooden box in her sitting room. If19 that is true, she must have kept copies of her replies.20 Prince Philip's letters were received, he said, over21 four to five months in 1992, but he says he saw them in22 1993. They appear to have been typed on distinctive23 paper with an old-fashioned typewriter. They were24 signed "Pa" and were not nasty or disparaging although,25 as I have said, they contained what he described as

1201 constructive criticism.2 He was right that they were signed "Pa", and as3 I have indicated, there is an extract quoted in his book4 which is the same as a passage that you have seen.

5 Significantly, you may think that he was quite clear6 that the whole of the correspondence was completed in7 1992 and was emphatic that, had there been more, he8 would have seen it. He said that in the final years of9 her life, he saw all Diana's correspondence. Had there10 been anything of the sort described by Simone Simmons,11 he would have seen it and he did not.12 He also gave evidence that Diana herself had put out13 a press statement as to the absence of nastiness from14 Prince Philip. The statement said that the suggestion15 that the Queen and the Duke had been anything other than16 sympathetic and supportive was untrue.17 Burrell says that he did not keep copies of18 the Duke's correspondence or Diana's replies and does19 not have the originals. Diana kept letters from the20 Royal Family in a mahogany box. Burrell said he had not

21 seen the letters from the Duke since Diana's death.22 Burrell gave evidence to you that he laboriously copied23 out letters from the Duke and other members of the Royal24 Family during his years of service with the Princess and25 that is why he was able to quote from such material in

1211 his book.


13/21

2 You may remember that one of the quotations (not3 from a letter from the Duke) even contained an error4 which had apparently been faithfully copied by him. He5 denied taking the letters or photocopying them. He did6 tell you that he had burned what he had after he had7 completed the book. Additionally, Mr Faux told you that8 Burrell had burned correspondence from Buckingham Palace9 not long after the collapse of his trial.10 His apparent recollection, so many years after11 the event, of the typeface and crest on some of the12 letters is, you may think, fanciful, especially as he13 accepted that the thought was planted by Benson and14 Macnamara when they saw him before passing on his15 details to my office.16 It might be thought, however, that after that trial,17 Burrell was keen to get rid of anything that others18 might think he should not have. Whether it included19 the originals of the Duke's correspondence, perhaps we20 will never know for sure, but you may well find the21 suggestion of staying up late to copy out what were,22 after all, long letters rather hard to swallow.23 Burrell was at Kensington Palace with Lady Sarah24 McCorquodale when the box was discovered. They found25 the key in a tennis racket cover and opened the box.

1221 Detective Inspector Milburn's note suggests2 Prince Philip's letters were in the box. This is3 contradicted by Lady Sarah, but she cannot account for4 why Milburn recorded their existence in his note if she5 did not tell him they were there. Burrell and6 Lady Sarah put the box in the small service lift and he7 last saw it when Diana's belongings were packed up and8 sent to Althorp.9 Whilst Mrs Shand Kydd apparently shredded a lot of10 documents, it is said that she would not have destroyed11 anything of historical significance, like the Duke's12 letters. Any unshredded correspondence went to Althorp,13 the Spencer family home. This did not include any14 letters from the Duke of Edinburgh. Lady Sarah has15 recently been through all the papers held at Althorp16 and, apart from a letter of condolence to Diana on17 the death of their father, there is nothing from18 Prince Philip.19 Milburn was involved in the Burrell prosecution. On

20 20th November 2000, he went to Lincolnshire to see21 Lady Sarah because he wanted to establish ownership of22 a dhow believed to have been stolen. The police had23 information that Burrell had been seen at 3.00 am24 removing items from Kensington Palace, including, you25 will recall, a wooden box. Lady Sarah showed Milburn

1231 the box, but he did not look inside it. On Lady Sarah's2 account it was empty. He was looking for a dhow, not3 letters.4 Lady Sarah's evidence was that she had asked Burrell5 to look after the contents of the box for safe-keeping6 the day they opened it. She expected him to take7 the contents to his home, which was at that time only8 200 yards away. The opening of the box would have been

9 in March 1998 at the earliest. She never saw the10 contents of the box again, although she asked Burrell11 for their return on two or three occasions later in12 1998. He told her they were in packing boxes in13 Cheshire and he would get them to her, but he never did.14 When Milburn was in Lincolnshire in October 2000, he15 made a list of what Lady Sarah told him were16 the contents of the box and they included "Letters17 Prince Philip" and "Correspondence in box taken by18 Christmas". Lady Sarah said that she was 100 per cent19 confident that there were no letters in the box when20 it was opened and she did not tell Milburn there were21 letters from Prince Philip in it. She asked Milburn to22 ask Burrell for the contents of the box.23 Lady Sarah explained that she took the empty box24 home when the apartments were being cleared. It was in

25 the service lift and appeared to have been forgotten.

1241 It was a tiny lift and there was nothing except the box2 in it. Burrell told Milburn he did not know where the3 documents were and Lady Sarah had not asked for them4 back.5 So the question remains unsolved. What happened to


14/21


15/21

10 Devorik said he travelled with her a lot but never11 feared any irregularity, as he put it, or anything to12 make him feel uncomfortable. Once, when travelling to13 Italy, they were in the VIP lounge at the airport where14 there was a picture of the Queen and the Duke of15 Edinburgh. Diana looked at the picture of the Duke and16 said, "He really hates me and would like to see me17 disappear". But Devorik added that the Duke came in and18 out of her favour quite often.19 In the plane, she talked about being blown up and20 said that they were slowly taking her kids -- letting21 her know when she could have them. She said "They only22 need me for official functions; then they drop me in23 the darkness". He advised her to get legal advice.24 He said that once she mentioned a conspiracy to harm25 her to make way for Charles to marry Tiggy Legge-Bourke,

1281 but Devorik said that the description of these incidents2 did not in themselves give a fair reflection of his3 relationship with Diana and how she was.4 You may think that Devorik was an honest witness who5 knew Diana as well as most outside the family. You must6 ask yourselves if his is an accurate account of events.7 There is no obvious reason why they are not.8 You will have to ask yourselves whether these9 statements of Diana or some of them are a true account10 of the way she really felt, but you will also bear in11 mind Devorik's evidence that he never felt she was going12 to be killed. He never felt any sense that there was13 something wrong. Things were often said in14 a lighthearted way.15 He repeated three times in his evidence that he had16 never felt any danger at all. He also said that one of17 the things that really made Diana angry was that she18 felt the divorce decision was finally made by virtually19 everyone except herself: the Queen, Prince Charles,20 the Prime Minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury, for21 example.22 I turn next to what Mohamed Al Fayed had to say on23 this subject. One might have thought that if Diana had24 really feared for her life, she would have mentioned it25 to Mohamed Al Fayed at the time of the conversation with

129

1 him shortly before the crash, when he said she told him2 she was pregnant and engaged. Further, this, above all,3 would have been the time when, if Mohamed Al Fayed's4 contention is correct, Diana's security should have been5 stepped up. Yet you may recollect that Mohamed Al Fayed6 said in evidence that, when he told Klein, soon after7 the deaths, "they've killed him", he said that that8 conclusion was based entirely on what Diana had told him9 that summer.10 His evidence was that Diana had expressed fears to11 him during the summer. Those fears related to12 Prince Philip and Prince Charles. He went on to say13 that the two of them, in Balmoral, organised an14 assassination in Paris using MI6. It was, he said,15 Prince Philip who ruled the country behind the scenes.16 No doubt Diana did talk to Mohamed Al Fayed during

17 the time she was on holiday and you may think it is18 a fair inference that she said something about her19 relationship with the Royal Family. However, you have20 only got Mohamed Al Fayed's word that she expressed21 fears about Prince Philip and Prince Charles and it is22 for you to decide on the reliability of Mohamed23 Al Fayed's evidence. If he thought there was anything24 in the fears, why were there only two bodyguards25 provided by him?

1301 What did Burrell have to say about this topic? He2 claims to have been very close to Diana. He says not3 everyone knew everything, but he was pretty well4 informed. You will probably want to take with a pinch5 of salt many things that he said in evidence because of

6 the inconsistences and, you may think, lies in what he7 told you, but that does not mean that nothing that he8 said can be of any value.9 He said Diana and Prince Philip had a mutual10 understanding at the end of her life. She and Prince11 Charles were on very cordial terms at that stage too.12 We have documentary evidence of Diana's fears in13 the form of the Burrell note. Burrell has given


16/21

14 different accounts of how it came into his possession15 and there may be some doubt about its date, the document16 itself being undated, but the wording of the note is17 there for you to see.18 Burrell said he had conversations with Diana in19 which she expressed similar sentiments, although there20 were no other similar notes or letters. Burrell told21 you he had no knowledge of the Mishcon note. Diana told22 Burrell she was a problem and the Royal Family did not23 know what to do with her. Again you may think there is24 some truth in that.25 It was put to Burrell and he agreed -- and you may

1311 think there is a good deal of force in this too -- that2 if he had handed the Burrell note over to Buckingham3 Palace, the Princess's fears would never have been made4 public, not least because the Mishcon note would5 probably have never seen the light of day. But you do6 have evidence that Diana expressed fears to various7 people, and it is up to you to decide what to make of8 them.9 Finally, Burrell said that if he had taken Diana's10 note seriously, he would have taken steps to urge her to11 protect herself.12 Michael Gibbins, Diana's comptroller or private13 secretary, said that Diana never discussed private14 matters with him. Colin Tebbutt, her security driver,15 said he had never heard her express fears for her life.16 Rita Rogers, you may remember, say she passed on17 information and predictions she had received from18 the spirit world. It was suggested that she was19 responsible for putting ideas into Diana's head.20 Indeed, Rita said she was confident of the accuracy of21 the information she was passing on. It was she who22 raised the subject of Diana's brakes having been23 tampered with and she who was worried about the Audi.24 However, she said the subject of abdication, Tiggy and25 Camilla, mentioned in the Mishcon note, did not come

1321 from her and nor did the information in the Burrell2 note.3 Simone Simmons said Diana told her on many occasions4 that she was going to be bumped off. Once her brakes

5 failed in the rush hour and she was sure they had been6 tampered with. After that, she sent Simone Simmons7 a note saying, "If anything happens, MI5/MI6 will have8 done it". Her brakes were tested and, according to9 Simone Simmons, the problem was heavy wear.10 Simone Simmons destroyed the note.11 Simone also referred to a phone call Diana received12 at Kensington Palace. She, Simone, put her head against13 the receiver and listened for two or three minutes.14 Diana was being criticised for involvement in the15 landmine campaign. The caller said, "Accidents can16 happen" and Diana just said, "I am going". Diana said17 the caller was Nicholas Soames MP and she would sort it18 out in her own way. Soames denies any such19 conversation. Was Simone describing a threat or20 a criticism? Did such a conversation take place at all?

21 At any rate, there was no mention of the conversation in22 her first book.23 There are some weird features about Simone's24 evidence. She specialises in energy healing and says25 she cleaned Diana's flat of bad energy. She had many

1331 long telephone conversations with Diana -- one lasting2 for ten hours. Simone Simmons said she was still3 communicating with Diana. She had given her a lot of4 information, but it was difficult to talk about it.5 In November 1996, Simone had a premonition about6 a crash in a Mercedes. It was, she said, an accident7 that was not an accident. The Mercedes was dark blue8 and there were four people in it. She had a vision of9 a small explosion at the rear. She used to telephone

10 Diana saying something was going to happen. However,11 there was no contact between them after June 1997 as12 they were not speaking.13 Fears were never discussed with Rodney Turner,14 the director of Jack Barclays and a friend of Diana. He15 said the Burrell note came as a bombshell to him. Diana16 did, however, jokingly say to him, in 1996, "It is not17 the IRA after me, it is my husband".


17/21

18 Steve Davis was Diana's personal chauffeur until19 March or April 1997. She never expressed any fears to20 him about cars being tampered with. He did the normal21 checks anyway. He never heard of a brake failure nor22 was he asked to check the brakes.23 Colin trimming, who was one of Diana's protection24 officers, said she never spoke to him about fears, nor25 was he aware of any specific threat. On the other side

1341 of the coin, she wanted her protection removed,2 something that happened gradually with time and was3 strongly resisted by the Metropolitan Police.4 Ken Wharfe never saw any correspondence with5 the Duke of Edinburgh. Diana never made derogatory6 remarks about him and, indeed, thought he was quite7 a good father-in-law. She freely said he was8 surprisingly supportive of her. Wharfe said he thought9 Diana was viewed by the Palace as a serious and10 escalating problem. She outshone the rest of the Royal11 Family and irritated Prince Charles. Wharfe was12 sceptical of Diana seeing therapists. He thought this13 might be where she had got the idea of being killed on14 the road.15 The Mishcon note, which we will now put up and is16 anyway in your bundle, has been a central feature in17 the evidence. It arose out of a meeting at18 Kensington Palace on 30th October 1995. Mishcon is no19 longer alive and cannot throw any light on the issues20 that have arisen surrounding it, but you have heard from21 others.22 Present at the meeting, apart from Mishcon and23 Diana, were Maggie Rae, Sandra Davis and24 Patrick Jephson. You have the note and may like to look25 at it again at your leisure. Maggie Rae saw Diana

1351 subsequently. She had a pervasive belief that "they"2 wanted to put her aside, but she would not say who3 "they" were. She also said several times that the Crown4 should skip a generation.5 Maggie Rae saw Diana on a number of occasions in6 connection with the divorce, and it is pretty obvious7 that, in the autumn of 1995, Diana's feelings were8 running high. Maggie took the same view as

9 Lord Mishcon. There was no evidence and she did not see10 that what was worrying Diana was possible.11 While Diana was serious about her fears, they were12 something she would mention rather than a dominating13 theme of her conversation. Maggie Rae never asked Diana14 who she thought was going to kill her. Whilst she15 accepted that it was a possibility that there had been16 vitriolic letters from Prince Philip which Diana had not17 wanted to show her, Maggie thought Diana believed what18 she said, but that it was unrealistic. It was at19 a particularly low point in her life.20 Sandra Davis also attended the meeting on21 30th October 1995. The purpose of the meeting was to22 introduce Maggie Rae and Sandra Davis to Diana for23 continuity. She too said this was not the only occasion24 on which Diana spoke of Prince Charles not inheriting

25 the throne and Diana being got rid of. She did not say

1361 who was trying to get rid of her. Sandra was of2 the opinion that Diana was, as she put it, deadly3 serious about her fears, but she nevertheless never4 mentioned the source of her fears.5 Jephson was Diana's private secretary from 19906 until 1996. He said that Diana consulted astrologers7 and sometimes put faith in their predictions. It was an8 astrologer who had predicted that Charles would never be9 king and who also predicted a helicopter crash. He said10 that she saw plots everywhere and was also preoccupied11 with Tiggy Legge-Bourke whom she believed was pregnant.12 There is a conflict between Jephson's evidence and13 that of Davis. Jephson says that when Diana believed

14 that her brakes had been tampered with, he got Davis to15 check them but nothing was found.16 Jephson could not remember the meeting giving rise17 to the Mishcon note, but he did not dispute the note.18 He did remember a private word with Mishcon afterwards.19 He agreed he may have said that he half-believed Diana.20 He said he was more concerned with the fact that these21 things were being said than about their content. He


18/21

22 wished to know why she was saying them. By saying what23 she was, she was playing into the hands of the Royal24 Establishment, who were suggesting that she was mentally25 fragile and a liability to the Royal Family. An open

1371 expression of disbelief on his part might have prevented2 her sharing future concerns with him.3 He could not find any reliable evidence of her fears4 and was confident that her reactions were not those of5 someone who truly feared for her life. She gave no6 indication what her reliable sources were. She was7 a complex individual in a unique and difficult situation8 and he did not really know what was making her say these9 things.10 Lady Sarah McCorquodale says that Diana did not11 speak to her of her fears or of an accident or of Tiggy12 Legge-Bourke. Her true mood was not conveyed in13 the Mishcon note. You will remember that Lady Sarah14 drew our attention to a photograph from around the time15 of the note showing the three sisters sitting happily in16 the back of a car and laughing. Unlike Patrick Jephson,17 she did not even half-believe what Diana said. She18 pointed out that Diana had huge mood swings. Finally,19 on this topic, Fellowes said that he never saw any20 animosity on the part of the Duke of Edinburgh towards21 Diana.22 You will have to consider whether Diana did truly23 fear for her life, if she did, whether such fears were24 justified and, if they were justified, whether they25 amount to any evidence from which you can draw the

1381 inference that somebody may have wanted to kill or harm2 her.3 Bugging and surveillance.4 It is argued that the issue of bugging and5 surveillance is linked to Diana's fears about her6 physical security.7 There is no doubt that Diana believed her8 communications were being monitored, nor was she alone9 in this belief. Let's look at the evidence.10 Going back to 1989, it is established that a phone11 call between James Gilbey and Diana, who was at12 Sandringham, was intercepted. This has become known as

13 "Squidgygate". Who were responsible remains, to this14 day, unclear. We spent some time looking at15 the evidence. You heard in particular from Fellowes and16 Sir John Adye, the head of GCHQ at the time.17 Various documents were produced, including records18 of what was said by the Prime Minister in the House of19 Commons. You may think that all of the evidence that20 you have heard and read indicates that whoever it was21 that listened to the phone call, it was not the security22 services.23 There was a lot of time spent in our considering24 whether there was an investigation into this and, if25 not, why not. Although the call took place in 1989, it

1391 did not become public until the latter half of 1992 and

2 the documents we looked at related to the first months3 of 1993. There was also the interception, also in late4 1989, of a call between Prince Charles and5 Camilla Parker Bowles, which became public at the end of6 1992 or early 1993.7 You have heard about the various meetings that took8 place to consider what should be done. Mr Mansfield's9 point was that criminal offences had been committed and10 there should have been a criminal investigation at11 the very least, if not a criminal prosecution. But it12 had happened some years before and was it really in13 anyone's interests to go down that road?14 It was pointed out that the four participants in15 the telephone calls no doubt preferred that what had16 happened in the past should be allowed to rest and what17 was important was that something similar should not

18 recur. That certainly was the way Fellowes saw it.19 You will remember Prince Charles's reservations and20 the decision of the Home Secretary that there should be21 no criminal investigation. You may think that22 a detailed investigation now of what happened in 198923 and 1992 is of little assistance in assessing who was24 responsible for a crash in 1997.25 Among those witnesses who told us Diana believed her


19/21

1401 phones were bugged was Lady Sarah, whom she told that2 she had had her apartment swept twice. Grahame Harding3 was told by the Duchess of York that Diana thought she4 was being watched. Harding was asked for his assistance5 and he met Diana at Kensington Palace in 1994 and did,6 he said, four sweeps, which he described as four limited7 sweeps in four months. He was never asked again.8 His equipment detected an electronic signal9 indicating a possible bugging device behind the wall in10 Diana's bedroom. However, there was no disturbance in11 the wall and he did not know what was behind the wall.12 The wall divided Diana's room from a room occupied by13 Prince Charles. It could have been perfectly innocent,14 but he believed at the time that it was a device. A day15 or so later the signal had gone.16 Ken Wharfe was, for a time, Diana's bodyguard, and17 he told us that in May 1993 Kensington Palace was18 checked for bugs. Four people came to Kensington Palace19 under the guise of carpet cleaners for the purpose of20 debugging the premises. This had, he said, been21 arranged by the butler on the recommendation of22 the Duchess of York. The four men were arrested when23 they asked to see the mainframe computer of the24 communications network. Wharfe said that Diana told him25 on several occasions that she felt that she and others

1411 in the Royal Family were being monitored but he did not2 see the subject as a really serious issue.3 The carpet sweepers found nothing. Wharfe assumed4 there would have been an investigation into Squidgygate.5 Indeed, Diana told him that the Queen had asked for an6 investigation. He thought there was a possibility, but7 it was only his surmise, that GCHQ were involved in8 Squidgygate. Another possibility was the media, but he9 favoured the former.10 Wharfe was on the look-out for evidence to support11 allegations of bugging but he did not find any. He12 thought GCHQ would be monitoring members of the Royal13 Family because of heightened IRA activity. Well,14 members of the jury, again, assumption and belief is one15 thing: evidence is another. He said his information16 about conversations being routinely recorded came from

17 Diana and he assumed it to be correct.18 Then there was Jephson. He said he was "quite19 aware" Diana's communications might be monitored by20 the security services and shared Wharfe's belief that21 members of the Royal Family might be routinely22 monitored, but he had no specific evidence. It seemed,23 he said, quite sensible to advise her that her calls24 might be monitored by the security services among25 others. It was his assumption that they would be

1421 interested from the point of view of her protection. He2 did not believe there was any sinister plot with3 Squidgygate but thought her communications might be4 being monitored by the security services. He advised5 her that her calls might be overheard and you will

6 remember the evidence that she changed her mobile7 telephones regularly. Friends who were out of favour8 did not get the new number.9 Jephson was aware of her premises being swept, but10 was not officially notified. He learned about it11 unofficially. He said that Diana saw plots everywhere.12 She believed her brake lines were cut and also was13 preoccupied with Tiggy Legge-Bourke. She told him in14 December 1995 that she believed Tiggy was pregnant. At15 the conclusion of his evidence, Jephson summed the16 position up, saying that in advising Diana to be careful17 about what she said on the phone, he was thinking as18 much of casual eavesdroppers as of any organised19 monitoring scheme.20 Then there was Burrell. Diana believed she was21 being bugged and he believed it too. He thought it

22 highly likely that people were watching her and23 listening to her.24 Mr Benson, Mohamed Al Fayed's general counsel and25 legal adviser, said that he had no doubt whatsoever that

1431 Diana's movements and telephone calls would have been2 constantly monitored. This information, he said, came


20/21

3 from persons in or connected with the security services.4 You will remember that he was cross-examined about that.5 Raine Spencer said that Diana felt her phones were6 being bugged and, likewise, her home. She always seemed7 very conscious that she was being watched.8 On 18th October 1994, one of a series of meetings9 was held with Deputy Assistant Commissioner Meynell,10 the head of the Royalty Protection Group at the time.11 We have a note of the meeting. You may think it is very12 difficult to be confident of recollections about what13 happened over 13 years ago, but the note, which was14 counter-signed by Condon, having subsequently discussed15 the meeting with Meynell, records that Diana knew her16 phones were being tapped and she was certain the same17 applied to her vehicle.18 She had proof of tapping because she had set traps,19 she said, on four occasions and got what she described20 as "the necessary evidence". But the problem was that21 she would not let them have the evidence or agree to22 anything being done. There was a suggestion that this23 was a tease on the police and that her bluff was being24 called. It is pretty clear that she was something of an25 ongoing problem to the police, who wanted her to keep

1441 her protection whilst Diana wanted the freedom to be2 without it.3 There is a note of a meeting with Meynell back on4 13th September 1993, when she wanted the removal5 immediately of four protection officers. There was6 another meeting on 1st February 1994, the record of7 which says she valued her freedom and could not be8 persuaded to change her mind. Condon said that it was9 his wish that she had protection, and if she had had it10 in Paris, three lives would not have been tragically11 lost. It suited her not to have protection, but she was12 not prepared to give specific reasons.13 In 1994/1995 and in 1996, when the IRA ceasefire14 broke down, the police very stridently suggested that15 it was a good time to reintroduce her security. Condon16 suspected that she thought the police were not on her17 side. In late 1993 and early in 1994, Lord Condon and18 Fellowes were in almost daily touch about it.19 You may have detected some ongoing tension between20 Diana and the police. Meynell had a clear recollection,

21 and he was quite adamant about it, that he instructed22 a Polsa team, from the Palace of Westminster, to do23 a search at Kensington Palace. However, there is no24 surviving document to corroborate this and nor is there25 any real clarity when such a search may have been

1451 carried out.2 All this, you may think -- but it is a matter for3 you -- is hardly surprising bearing in mind the years4 that have passed, and anyway, where does it take you?5 After the October 1994 meeting, Condon briefed6 the Home Secretary, having talked the position through7 with Meynell. The position was clear, that Diana was8 not prepared to assist. The police could only help,9 Condon said, if she was prepared to let them. Finally,

10 the Metropolitan Police were not authorised, nor did11 Condon seek such an authorisation, to intrude into12 Diana's life.13 Hasnat Khan said in his statement to the14 Metropolitan Police that he did not believe his calls15 were being bugged and that he had no evidence that16 the authorities had any interest in him. He seems to17 have been the one person who did not jump to conclusions18 and make assumptions.19 Members of the jury, I think that is enough for20 today. Giving you some kind of progress report, I am21 very nearly halfway through what I have to say to you in22 summing-up, although there are parts of what we are23 going to go through tomorrow that will have to be taken24 rather more slowly because of the particular detail in25 them. That includes some of the toxicology evidence and

1461 also evidence with regard to the collision.2 I think I shall have finished, if my present3 estimate is accurate, pretty early on Wednesday morning4 and you will then be retiring to consider your verdicts.5 Would you please now retire? You can go home,6 obviously, but please bear in mind the warning that


21/21

2008 Judicial Communications Office | Privacy

7 I have given you. Be particularly careful not to talk8 to anybody about the case and bear in mind the warning9 that I have given to you about talking to each other in10 small numbers, other than the jury as a whole. We will11 continue tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.12 (4.00 pm)13 (The hearing was adjourned until 10.00 am14 on Tuesday, 1st April 2008)15

1471 INDEX23 Statement of MR MARTIN SMITH (read) .............. 345 Further statement of MR MARTIN SMITH ............. 56 (read)78 Further statement of MR MARTIN SMITH ............. 79 (read)1011 SUMMING-UP ....................................... 912

148

Documents

027. Lord Justice Scott Baker; Inquest Into the Death of Diana and Dodi, March 31, 2008, pm, Quoting Michael Gibbins