14 February 2008 - Afternoon session
14 (2.00 pm)
15 (Jury present)
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes, Mr Horwell.
17 Questions from MR HORWELL
18 MR HORWELL: Mr Macnamara, if we deal with these events in
19 chronological order please.
20 The conversation with Michael Burgess: he had
21 received a telephone call from someone at Scotland Yard
22 who had told him that the deaths were regarded as
23 suspicious. An important call, if it was made, and if
24 you are right, Mr Burgess could not have taken the name
25 of the police officer who spoke to him.
111
1 A. That is what he told me, yes.
2 Q. Which itself is extraordinary, isn't it, for a coroner
3 to be telephoned by somebody at Scotland Yard to report
4 that a death is suspicious, and for the Coroner not to
5 take the name of the police officer is fairly
6 extraordinary, isn't it?
7 A. I do not know if it is extraordinary. The fact is that
8 he did not. Why he did not, I do not know. It is
9 something that I would have obviously asked, but
10 obviously Mr Burgess did not.
11 Q. You don't have to be a coroner to appreciate the
12 importance of taking the name of the police officer who
13 makes such a statement, Mr Macnamara.
14 You know, because you set it out in your statement,
15 that Mr Burgess has written as follows:
16 "There was never any suggestion made to me by either
17 police force [by that he must mean French or British]
18 that the deaths were suspicious in the sense that
19 the deceased were deliberately killed."
20 So he is denying that that conversation ever took
21 place.
22 A. He has constantly denied it.
23 Q. Yes. Are we to understand from what you said this
24 morning that Mr Burgess is in the conspiracy too, to
25 cover up the circumstances of these deaths, just so that
112
1 we know, Mr Macnamara?
2 A. I did not say anything about Mr Burgess being in
3 a conspiracy. What I said was I was very, very
4 surprised that Mr Burgess denied the conversation that
5 did take place and I wondered why he denied it. Up
6 until then, I had not attached anything to it.
7 Q. What can be his motive for denying this conversation?
8 A. I don't know. All I am saying is that there must be
9 something more behind it if he denied it.
10 Q. What could that be, Mr Macnamara?
11 A. I do not know.
12 Q. Unless of course the conversation never took place?
13 A. It did take place. Mr -- you know, you say the
14 conversation did not take place; all I was interested in
15 at that time was getting Dodi Al Fayed's body back to
16 London. I had no reason to invent any sort of
17 conversation. Why would I? Anything that would delay
18 that body would be to our detriment. We wanted Dodi's
19 body back. I was as surprised as Mr Burgess.
20 Q. We will come to your motivation in a moment,
21 Mr Macnamara.
22 And the conversation with Mr Messenger to the effect
23 that the Coroner had told you that the deaths were
24 suspicious?
25 A. I repeated to Commander Messenger what Mr Burgess told
113
1 me, yes.
2 Q. You know that Commander Messenger denies having had such
3 a conversation with you.
4 A. That surprises me too.
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Two remarkable lapses of memory.
6 A. I do not know if they were lapses of memory. They have
7 just denied it. They denied it took place.
8 MR HORWELL: Mr Macnamara, you have given evidence about
9 a letter. The Metropolitan Police wrote to you on
10 25th June 2002 --
11 A. They did not write to me.
12 Q. They wrote to Lewis Silkin?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Solicitors for Mr Al Fayed?
15 A. That is right.
16 Q. I have not had time to have the letter copied. I will
17 read it in its entirety:
18 "Dear sirs,
19 "Re: Inquests into the deaths of Princess of Wales
20 and Dodi Al Fayed.
21 "Further to my fax of 20 June, I have now had an
22 opportunity to take instructions from
23 Commander Messenger in relation to your letter of
24 the 12th. I do not consider it appropriate for you to
25 interview Commander Messenger at this stage. At
114
1 the present time it has not been established whom
2 the coroners consider to be properly interested parties,
3 which witnesses will be called by the coroners and what
4 documents they would consider to be of relevance.
5 I would be happy to reconsider your request in due
6 course, once the appropriate arrangements for the
7 inquests have been made.
8 "In the meantime I can confirm that
9 Commander Messenger has advised me, 1, he was Gold
10 Commander on the day in question and he did speak with
11 Mr Macnamara more than once; 2, he has no recollection
12 of any conversation to the effect that the death was
13 regarded as suspicious, either involving himself or
14 between other persons."
15 You know, Mr Macnamara, that one of the Coroner's
16 officers, Mr Keith Brown, has said that you identified
17 the body of Dodi Al Fayed at the mortuary.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You have made a witness statement to that effect,
20 haven't you?
21 A. I know the statement you are referring to. It does not
22 refer to the identification of the body. It refers to
23 the identity of Dodi Al Fayed.
24 Q. Can I ask you to look, please, at the original? That
25 statement is signed by you, isn't it?
115
1 A. Yes, that is the statement I signed.
2 Q. Is the statement itself in your writing?
3 A. No, that is in the writing of Detective Sergeant Wall.
4 Q. That is, as you well know, very commonplace; a police
5 officer writes the statement and the witness signs it.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. The statement reads, does it not:
8 "On Sunday 31st August 1997, I attended Fulham
9 Mortuary where, just before 5.50 pm, I met the Coroner
10 for Surrey, Dr Burgess. At 5.50 pm I formally
11 identified the body [I will simply say for shorthand 'of
12 Dodi Al Fayed'] also known as 'Dodi' to Dr Burgess.
13 I had known Dodi for ten and a half years."
14 You have signed it.
15 A. That is right.
16 Q. A letter was sent on your behalf by Lewis Silkin on
17 8th February of this year, a matter of days ago, in
18 which it was suggested on your behalf that you had not
19 signed that statement.
20 A. That is right.
21 Q. But you have.
22 A. I have, and if you like, I can explain it to you.
23 Q. Well, of course, Mr Macnamara. I will give you every
24 opportunity to explain what has happened. I simply want
25 the jury to understand what has led up to these
116
1 questions that I am now asking you.
2 A letter was sent on 8th February in which it was
3 said:
4 "Attached please find a signed statement of
5 John Macnamara ..."
6 This is yet another statement that you made.
7 " ... concerning the issue of the identification of
8 the body of Dodi. In short, Mr Macnamara says that,
9 contrary to what is said in the statement of Mr Brown
10 and contrary to the statement [that I have just read],
11 he did not identify the body of Dodi Al Fayed, nor, it
12 follows, did he make the statement."
13 Last paragraph:
14 "We were entitled to assume that any typed statement
15 put forward in evidence in these statements had as its
16 source a handwritten signed statement which matched
17 the typed version word for word."
18 Attached to that letter is your statement of the
19 same date, 8th February, in which you say, referring to
20 the witness statement that I have just read of yours of
21 1st September 1997:
22 "It goes on to say that at 5.50 pm I formally
23 identified the body of Dodi Al Fayed to Dr Burgess. In
24 fact this statement is false, as I never made it."
25 You go on to say that you never saw Dodi's body and
117
1 that you never identified it. You say that you met
2 Mr Brown, the coroner's officer, but did not identify
3 the body.
4 So there are two separate issues here. First, that
5 you never identified his body and, secondly, that you
6 never made or signed the witness statement of
7 1st September. Now, that is the background,
8 Mr Macnamara. What is your explanation?
9 A. Okay, when we were at the mortuary, Dodi's body had been
10 brought in, and it was either Mr Burgess or Keith Brown,
11 the Coroner's officer, that said to me, "We only know
12 him as 'Dodi', 'Dodi Al Fayed'. Can you give us his
13 full name?", and I said "Yes". And I got Dodi's
14 passport, and I opened the passport and there was
15 a photograph of Dodi there, and again, it was either
16 Mr Burgess or Mr Brown said, "Is that Dodi?" and I said
17 "Yes", and they copied out the full name as appears in
18 this witness statement.
19 I had -- and I still have -- no recollection of
20 signing that statement. It is dated 1st September,
21 which was the Monday. I can assume that Sergeant Wall
22 must have come to Harrods to take that statement because
23 I was at Harrods all day that day. I had, and I still
24 have, no recollection of Sergeant Wall coming there with
25 that statement.
118
1 That being said, I had been up most of Sunday night,
2 I had got in again early on Monday morning, there was an
3 awful lot happening. How I cannot remember it, I do not
4 know. That is why I made that statement. But I would
5 say to you and I will say to this court: I never saw
6 Dodi's body at the mortuary, I never formally identified
7 the body and, had I done so, that statement would have
8 taken a different form because I would have said
9 something along the lines that I had seen a body and
10 I identified that body and so on and so forth. So that
11 is the explanation.
12 Q. The suggestion in the letter from Lewis Silkin is that
13 you could never have signed the statement of
14 1st September.
15 A. That was my belief. I could not remember signing that
16 statement. I have seen the typed version before, I have
17 seen the original and I accept I did. But I have no
18 recollection of it whatsoever.
19 Q. Well, having no recollection of signing a statement is
20 one thing, Mr Macnamara. Alleging that you had never
21 signed the statement is another, and that is the
22 allegation in the Lewis Silkin letter, is it not?
23 A. I had no recollection --
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Is that the allegation in the
25 Lewis Silkin letter? Would you answer the question?
119
1 A. Sorry?
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Is that the allegation in the
3 Lewis Silkin letter?
4 A. The allegation is yes, that I had never signed it.
5 MR HORWELL: Yes. What on earth are people doing making
6 such allegations, Mr Macnamara, without even having the
7 decency to check the evidence?
8 A. Well, I wanted sight of the original statement and I was
9 told that we would have to give a reason before I could
10 get sight of the statement.
11 Q. What on earth are you doing on 1st September 1997
12 signing a statement to the effect that you had formally
13 identified the body when you now say you had not?
14 A. I had not ever seen the body --
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Why did you sign the statement?
16 A. Because it says "formally identified". All I was
17 referring to there was what I had been shown by way
18 of -- I had shown them by way of a photograph and
19 the passport.
20 MR HORWELL: Mr Macnamara, in every murder investigation
21 there is a three-lined statement from the relative
22 saying "I formally identified the body". It is
23 police-speak, isn't it?
24 A. Yes, and it goes a bit further. It says, "I saw
25 the body of that person" or "I saw a lifeless body which
120
1 I identify as ..."
2 Q. So allegations are made without any regard to the
3 evidence whatsoever, and then, when the evidence is
4 seen, the allegation is withdrawn. Is that right?
5 A. No, no. We asked to see the statement so I could see
6 whether in fact it was right, and now I accept it is
7 right, but I have no recollection of it.
8 Q. So why not simply say that you have no recollection of
9 signing the statement? There is quite a difference
10 between the two approaches, Mr Macnamara.
11 A. Because we wanted sight of the original statement and
12 I was told we had to give a reason. I firmly believed
13 then that I had never signed such a statement.
14 Q. You had been a police officer for how many years?
15 A. 26.
16 Q. You were sent to Paris to carry out investigations on
17 behalf of Mr Al Fayed as to whether or not Henri Paul
18 had taken alcohol that night?
19 A. We were -- we went there to find out whether, in fact,
20 the claim that he was drunk as a pig was right.
21 Q. Yes, but no doubt being a police officer of such
22 experience, Mr Macnamara, the purpose of this
23 investigation was to see whether he had drunk alcohol
24 that night.
25 A. That follows, yes.
121
1 Q. And you went out there when?
2 A. On Tuesday 2nd September.
3 Q. And you stayed out there for how long?
4 A. I think until the Friday in the first instance, the 5th.
5 Q. No doubt money and time were not an object at all in
6 the course of this investigation?
7 A. No.
8 Q. The Ritz obviously gave you every help and all the
9 manpower that you needed?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You must have discovered very soon that Henri Paul had
12 drunk two Ricards in the Bar Vendome.
13 A. Yes, I think I discovered that on the Tuesday when
14 we went there.
15 Q. On the Tuesday. Because even the most cursory of
16 investigations would have discovered from the barmen,
17 Sebastien Trote, Philippe Doucin, that two Ricards had
18 been served to Henri Paul. Thierry Rocher spoke to him
19 that night and Henri Paul said, "I am going to finish my
20 Ricard with the Englishmen". Did you have the receipt
21 by the Tuesday too? You must have had it very early.
22 A. I think we had the receipt on the Tuesday, yes.
23 Q. Right. So by the Tuesday there was no doubt in your
24 mind that Henri Paul had drunk two Ricards in
25 the Bar Vendome?
122
1 A. That is right.
2 Q. No doubt that news was communicated to London?
3 A. No. What happened was I had heard from Kes Wingfield
4 that he believed that Henri Paul had been in the
5 Bar Vendome when they were there and that he had drunk
6 pineapple juice, and I asked Franck Klein whether it
7 would be possible to get any record of what was drunk or
8 otherwise by Henri Paul that night. He came back and
9 produced this receipt, where it said two Ricards.
10 I told Franck Klein that he had to keep that receipt in
11 a safe place and give it to the French police when they
12 arrived. I thought the French police would arrive quite
13 soon, but in fact they did not come to the Ritz until
14 ten days after the crash.
15 Q. No doubt in your mind that Henri Paul had drunk two
16 Ricards in the Bar Vendome by Tuesday 2nd September?
17 A. No doubt.
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: That is not quite right, that
19 they did not come to the Ritz until ten days after
20 the crash, is it, because we have heard about the search
21 of Henri Paul's office before that.
22 A. No, my recollection, sir, is that it was about ten days
23 before they actually came.
24 MR HORWELL: The records show a visit on 3rd September when
25 video tapes were taken by the Brigade Criminelle.
123
1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: And the office was searched for
2 the first time.
3 MR HORWELL: We have seen a press release from Harrods dated
4 2nd September in which reference is made to Mr Al Fayed
5 immediately dispatching his director of security,
6 a former detective chief superintendent of Scotland
7 Yard, and lawyers to Paris to make further inquiries;
8 a reference to your visit. There is reference in this
9 press release to the fruits of your investigation, so
10 there must have been communication between Paris and
11 London, must there not?
12 A. What fruits? What are you talking about, fruits of the
13 investigation?
14 Q. "In the hotel he spoke to a number of members of staff,
15 none of whom detected any smell of drink or any other
16 signs to suggest that he had been drinking."
17 A. Who said that?
18 Q. I will read the press release in its entirety.
19 A. Oh, it is a press release, sorry. I did not know it was
20 a press release.
21 Q. Mr Macnamara, so there is no misunderstanding:
22 "He immediately despatched his director of security,
23 a former detective chief superintendent at Scotland Yard
24 and lawyers to Paris to make further inquiries. They
25 learned that the driver was on duty at the hotel until
124
1 approximately 7.30. He went off duty, left the hotel at
2 that time, after it appeared that Princess Diana and
3 Mr Fayed had left the premises for the evening. When
4 the couple unexpectedly decided to return to the hotel
5 to dine there, Mr Henri Paul, as deputy director of
6 security for the hotel, was notified and he returned at
7 approximately 10.10. He was observed driving his own
8 car to the hotel, parking it in the normal way and
9 walking normally into the hotel. In the hotel he spoke
10 to a number of members of staff, none of whom detected
11 any smell of drink or any other signs to suggest that he
12 had been drinking."
13 Now, plainly there had been communication from Paris
14 to London.
15 A. I never spoke to any staff. Mr Klein would have spoken
16 to the staff, but I did not.
17 Q. I am asking you about communication between Paris and
18 London, Mr Macnamara.
19 A. There would have been communication, yes.
20 Q. And no doubt you were communicating with London?
21 A. I was talking to Mr Al Fayed, certainly.
22 Q. And no doubt you told Mr Al Fayed that Henri Paul had
23 had two Ricards in the Bar Vendome?
24 A. Whether I told him that or not, I don't know. I don't
25 remember.
125
1 Q. Why would you not have told him?
2 A. I do not know. There is no reason I would not have told
3 him. You are asking me whether, over ten years ago,
4 I mentioned a specific thing to Mr Al Fayed. I do not
5 remember whether I told him specifically about
6 the Ricards or not.
7 Q. You must have told London that in fact Henri Paul had
8 drunk two Ricards that night.
9 A. Why would I tell London that? I told Franck Klein to
10 keep that bar receipt secure, ready for the French
11 police.
12 Q. You knew London would be making releases, did you not?
13 A. No.
14 Q. You weren't unaware of press releases from Harrods, one
15 dated the 1st and one dated the 2nd?
16 A. That is something that Michael Cole --
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Nothing to do with you at all?
18 A. Not press releases, no.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So you were not concerned whether
20 they were accurate, truthful, inaccurate or whatever?
21 A. I would always hope that they would be accurate and
22 truthful, yes.
23 MR HORWELL: But you were the man to contact in Paris,
24 weren't you?
25 A. I was one of the men, yes.
126
1 Q. Well, the man; you were leading the investigation,
2 weren't you?
3 A. There was also Franck Klein in charge of the hotel.
4 Q. And Franck Klein knew all about the two Ricards in the
5 Bar Vendome, didn't he?
6 A. Well, he discovered the receipt, yes.
7 Q. And no doubt Dr Vanezis was told about the two Ricards.
8 A. Professor Vanezis? I cannot remember whether we told
9 Peter Vanezis or not.
10 Q. The pathologist who had been taken to Paris to help you
11 with the investigation and the pathologist who was
12 present at Friday 5th September at the press conference,
13 you did not tell him about the two Ricards?
14 A. I may have done. I have no specific recollection of
15 telling Professor Vanezis that, no.
16 Q. London must have known by the Friday of the two Ricards,
17 Mr Macnamara, surely.
18 A. Not necessarily.
19 Q. It was an important discovery, was it not?
20 A. It was a discovery that I thought may affect the French
21 police in their investigation. They were doing the
22 investigation.
23 Q. No, Mr Macnamara, it is an important discovery in
24 releasing to the public the truth.
25 A. This was an investigation being conducted by the French
127
1 police and I wanted the French police to be aware of
2 that.
3 Q. "In the hotel he spoke to a number of members of staff,
4 none of whom detected any smell of drink or any other
5 signs to suggest that he had been drinking."
6 A. I did not speak to the staff.
7 Q. That is a very incomplete statement, to put it mildly,
8 isn't it?
9 A. I did not speak to the staff.
10 Q. The press conference on Friday 5th September, comments
11 by Mr Cole, comments by Dr Vanezis, as to whether or not
12 Henri Paul had been drinking that night; no mention at
13 all of the discovery that he had had two Ricards in the
14 Bar Vendome.
15 A. Well, perhaps they were not aware.
16 Q. Did you not think it your duty to inform London?
17 A. I thought it was my duty to inform the French police who
18 were conducting the investigation.
19 Q. On 10th September 1997, you took part in an ABC
20 television programme, Primetime Live.
21 A. I do not remember the day, but I accept it, yes.
22 Q. Very soon after these events.
23 A. Yes, as did Kes Wingfield.
24 Q. One of the topics, perhaps the principal topic, in
25 the course of this investigation was Henri Paul and
128
1 drink. You were asked, Mr Macnamara, about Henri Paul
2 and drink, and you said that he had had a pineapple
3 juice; "Nothing else?", Cynthia McFadden,
4 the interviewer, asked you, and you said "Nothing else".
5 A. No, because that was the information that was relayed to
6 me from Kes Wingfield, and I was not about to go on
7 television discussing with them the evidence that I was
8 going to give to the French police.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Was it the whole truth, what you
10 said in that interview?
11 A. Well, I knew then, by then, that he had had two Ricards.
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, was it the whole truth,
13 what you said in the French interview?
14 A. It was the truth as to what Kes Wingfield had told me
15 at the time.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: But it was not the whole truth of
17 what you knew to be the position?
18 A. Well, I knew that he had two Ricards.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So it was not the whole truth.
20 A. No.
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: As a former detective chief
22 superintendent, surely you above anybody are aware of
23 the importance of telling the truth in public?
24 A. Yes. But, sir, I was there to assist as I could
25 the French police and I did not necessarily want to
129
1 share with them something that the French police --
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So a half truth is good enough?
3 A. Yes.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So the public can learn half
5 the truth but not the whole truth. I see.
6 MR HORWELL: Mr Macnamara, it was utterly misleading,
7 wasn't it?
8 A. It was not misleading as far as I was concerned. I have
9 given you --
10 Q. Mr Macnamara, I will take you through it again.
11 A. You can, but I have given you my explanation.
12 Q. "Question: Was he having something to drink?"
13 "Answer: He had a pineapple juice.
14 "Question: Pineapple juice?
15 "Answer: Yes.
16 "Question: And nothing else?
17 "Answer: Nothing else."
18 A. Yes, that is what I said.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So that was a lie?
20 A. Well, I was aware that he had had Ricards.
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: "Nothing else" was a lie?
22 A. Yes.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I see.
24 MR HORWELL: Why were you prepared to tell lies to the
25 public about a very important issue in this affair,
130
1 Mr Macnamara?
2 A. Mr Horwell, I have given you my explanation. I wasn't
3 prepared to share with the television interviewer stuff
4 that I was handing over to the French police.
5 Q. So rather than simply say "I cannot comment", you chose
6 to tell a lie?
7 A. Well, the expression to pineapple juice had come from
8 Kes Wingfield earlier.
9 Q. Mr Macnamara it was a lie, was it not?
10 A. It was a fact that he had had Ricard and -- well, I have
11 given you my explanation.
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: One of the problems for the jury
13 is if you tell lies on some occasions, how can they tell
14 if you are telling the truth on others?
15 A. I have come here to tell the truth.
16 MR HORWELL: Reference has been made to your witness
17 statement of 3rd July of 2006. In that witness
18 statement you not only accused Trevor Rees-Jones, as he
19 then was, of complicity with the security services, you
20 also accused Kes Wingfield of complicity with the
21 security services, didn't you?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. On absolutely no evidence whatsoever?
24 A. There was a sea change in attitude by them, and my
25 belief was -- and I explained it earlier this morning --
131
1 that they had been influenced then by the security
2 services to write a book.
3 Q. You are prepared to put into a witness statement
4 allegations of that severity and seriousness based on
5 assumption, are you?
6 A. That was my belief, yes.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Do you regret having put that in
8 your witness statement now?
9 A. I now know that it is not right, yes.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Do you regret it, having put it
11 in your witness statement? It is a very serious
12 allegation.
13 A. Had I known what I know now, I would not have put it.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: But I ask you again, do you
15 regret it?
16 A. Yes.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
18 MR HORWELL: In that same witness statement, and this is
19 the matter that Mr Burnett was asking you about this
20 morning, in that same witness statement, you were
21 prepared to say:
22 "I firmly believe that Princess Diana had telephoned
23 friends to tell them of her intended engagement to
24 Dodi", based on no evidence whatsoever?
25 A. I had no evidence of that, no.
132
1 Q. "I also believe from evidence which I will describe
2 later in this statement that Princess Diana was
3 pregnant."
4 And that is based on the embalming?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you continue in that statement to allege that
7 Lord Jay had ordered the embalming?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And presumably that Lord Jay was part of the conspiracy
10 to cover up what had happened?
11 A. That is what I had been informed. Yes.
12 Q. So you are prepared in this statement to accuse Lord Jay
13 of a criminal conspiracy to withhold the truth and
14 pervert justice on the basis of what, Mr Macnamara?
15 A. I was told quite categorically that Sir Michael Jay, as
16 he then was, had seen Madame Coujard and had ordered
17 the embalming.
18 Q. You now know that to be wrong?
19 A. Well, yes, because he has given evidence in court.
20 Q. He was not challenged.
21 A. No.
22 Q. And so, again, you are prepared to make very serious
23 allegations indeed without any real substance,
24 Mr Macnamara; is that right?
25 A. The substance was what I had been informed by which
133
1 I then believed was a responsible journalist that he had
2 had an interview with Madame Coujard.
3 Q. So you are prepared to make serious allegations on
4 the basis of what a journalist tells you, are you?
5 A. I believed what that journalist told me.
6 Q. You go on to say in this statement that:
7 "I have become convinced that they were murdered and
8 that the British and French security services were
9 complicit in their deaths."
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Yet another assumption that you are prepared to put into
12 a witness statement?
13 A. That was my belief, yes.
14 Q. Without any evidence?
15 A. Well, there was evidence of people like Richard
16 Tomlinson, for example.
17 Q. Just so that we are all aware of the extent and breadth
18 of this conspiracy, Mr Macnamara; the British and French
19 security services are involved?
20 A. Yes?
21 Q. The Duke of Edinburgh?
22 A. I have never mentioned the Duke of Edinburgh.
23 Q. But is he? Is he?
24 A. Not to my knowledge. I have never mentioned the Duke of
25 Edinburgh.
134
1 Q. The French medical services that treated Diana?
2 A. I haven't said they are part of it, no.
3 Q. Mr Burgess, is he involved?
4 A. No. I have never said that he is part of a conspiracy.
5 Q. Lord Condon?
6 A. No, certainly not.
7 MR HORWELL: Thank you, Mr Macnamara.
8 Further questions from MR BURNETT
9 MR BURNETT: Just a couple of short matters: Mr Horwell drew
10 to your attention the paragraph in your statement where
11 you said:
12 "I also believe from evidence which I will describe
13 later in this statement that Princess Diana was
14 pregnant..."
15 I am right in thinking, aren't I, that you don't
16 mention any conversation between the Princess and
17 Mr Al Fayed when describing the evidence on which you
18 rely?
19 A. No.
20 Q. My learned friend Mr Mansfield asked you one or two
21 questions about investigations that had been made in
22 America of the intelligence agencies there, it being
23 part of Mr Al Fayed's belief that the intelligence
24 agencies and community in the United States are also in
25 some way complicit in all of this?
135
1 A. I believe they have documents in the United States which
2 would relate to possible transcripts of Princess Diana's
3 phone calls and for some reason they say, on matters of
4 national security, they will not release them.
5 Q. But you mentioned that you had a meeting with Senator
6 George Mitchell?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And he, I think, had been retained to represent
9 Mr Al Fayed's interests in obtaining all the material
10 that was held by the intelligence agencies in the United
11 States?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And he arranged meetings between Mr Al Fayed's
14 representatives and also representatives of the United
15 States government, didn't he?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And that included a man called Robert Tyrer?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Who was Chief of Staff for the US Secretary of Defence?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So a very senior official?
22 A. He was, yes.
23 Q. And through the good offices of Senator George Mitchell,
24 it was arranged that Mr Tyrer would review all
25 the classified information to see whether there was
136
1 anything relevant pertaining to the crash and
2 the deaths, didn't he?
3 A. He arranged for it to be shown to him, yes.
4 Q. And Mr Tyrer carried out that review and he confirmed
5 that there was nothing, didn't he?
6 A. He said he had seen nothing whatsoever which would
7 relate to the deaths in Paris.
8 Q. And you are aware also, aren't you, that the United
9 States government through officials both of the CIA and
10 the National Security Agency have indicated that they
11 have nothing of any relevance at all?
12 A. That is what they have said, yes.
13 Q. And they have also confirmed, haven't they, that they
14 were not in any sense keeping Princess Diana under
15 surveillance?
16 A. That is what they have said, yes.
17 Q. And that the references to her in documents came about,
18 I now paraphrase, incidentally, as a result of other
19 activities that they were engaged in. That is right,
20 isn't it?
21 A. Sorry, what was the question?
22 Q. The question is: they say that the references to
23 Princess Diana in any of the material they have is
24 entirely incidental, as a result of
25 investigations/inquiries they were making into other
137
1 people?
2 A. That is what they have said, yes.
3 Q. And that they have declined to release the underlying
4 documents because of the damage they perceive it would
5 do to US national security?
6 A. They always declined on the grounds of US national
7 security, yes.
8 MR BURNETT: Thank you, those are my questions.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much,
10 Mr Macnamara. That will be all, unless -- Mr Keen looks
11 as if he has something that he wants to raise. No?
12 MR KEEN: I do not think so.
13 Perhaps it is just a look of surprise on my face at
14 how short my learned friend Mr Horwell was.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, members of the jury, that
16 is as far as we can go this afternoon. So you will have
17 an early day which will make up for some of the late
18 ones that we have had recently, and we resume on Monday
19 morning at 10 o'clock with Mr Al Fayed.
20 (2.45 pm)
21 (The hearing was adjourned until
22 10.00 am on Monday 18th February 2008)
23
24
25
138
1 INDEX
2
3 LORD JOHN STEVENS OF KIRKWHELPINGTON ............. 2
4 (sworn)
5
6 Questions from MR BURNETT ................. 2
7
8 Questions from MR MANSFIELD ............... 24
9
10 Questions from MR KEEN .................... 45
11
12 Questions from MR HORWELL ................. 68
13
14 MR JOHN MACNAMARA (sworn) ........................ 74
15
16 Questions from MR BURNETT ................. 74
17
18 Questions from MR MANSFIELD ............... 106
19
20 Questions from MR HORWELL ................. 111
21
22 Further questions from MR BURNETT ......... 135
23
24
25
139
Français