Excerpts – Sir David Veness

Sir David Veness

Veness chaired another meeting six years later in August 2003, saying that, ‘The purpose of this meeting was a stock take to ensure that everything that should be done was being done and in particular that the allegations that had been conveyed by Mr Mohamed Al Fayed’s solicitors were in the hands of the French authorities and that they had the opportunity to consider their own actions on the basis of those allegations.’

This is, of course, still minus the Mishcon note and Tomlinson’s disclosure that MI6 lied to the French authorities regarding the assassination plot for Milosevic.

Furthermore, Veness didn’t even accept that James Andanson, owner of a white Fiat Uno, was relevant and claimed he didn’t know who he was. He said ‘That name means nothing to me.’ He waffled that he understood this ‘in general terms’ but, if so, then why didn’t he investigate Andanson since by this tacit admission he clearly understood that Andanson was accused of being the driver of the Fiat Uno involved in an attack on Diana’s car? Anyone seeking justice would need to investigate this possibility before rejecting it out of hand.

Diana’s butler, Paul Burrell, disclosed a note of similar nuance to the Mishcon note that Diana had passed onto him as a failsafe, knowing the authorities would cover their tracks. Burrell released the note to the press on 20 October 2003 and the next day Lord Mishcon telephoned the police. Clearly, he was concerned whether the note he gave to police on 18 September 1997 would ever see the light of day.

Following a meeting between Veness and his ‘protection’ team on the same day, 21 October 2003, the Mishcon note appeared in the press on 23 October 2003. The Inquests were then opened in January 2004 (so the British police were not dependent on the French ‘investigation’ finishing before becoming involved, as they always claimed and it’s clear from the timing that they were forced into holding the Inquests).

Veness denied the lawyer’s suggestion that the Mishcon note would never have been released but for the Burrell note and delivered a somewhat predictable response: ‘I don’t think that is the position.’

Somewhat timidly, the police state that prior disclosure would have caused much hurt in the royal family, once more putting one family’s feelings above all others and ignoring basic justice. But, even though I believe this is a pathetic excuse, it is in any event a police admission that they broke the law since the royal family are supposed to be subject to the law of the land in ‘British Democracy’.