All round
Paul Burrell Sues Prince Harry for Defamation: Show Me the Evidence
Former butler of Princess Diana, Paul Burrell, has taken legal action against Prince Harry, accusing him of making false and defamatory claims.
Burrell, who served Princess Diana for ten years until her tragic death in 1997, appeared on Dunwooten Tonight on GB News to address the issue.
In his witness statement, Harry alleged that Burrell had sold his mother’s possessions, a claim that Burrell vehemently denies.
Burrell has written to Harry’s solicitors three times, seeking clarification on the basis of these allegations, but has yet to receive a response.
Expressing his frustration, Burrell stated, “I have the right to say that this is false.
Trending:
- Meghan Markle Steals the Spotlight Again: A Royal Engagement Gone Awry
- “Harry and Meghan’s Tense Moment: A Marriage Under Scrutiny”
- Tension Unveiled: Frances Marquez’s Discontent with Meghan Markle in Colombia
- Elton John’s Scathing Remarks Leave Meghan Markle in Tears at Music Awards
- Meghan Markle’s On-Set Outburst: A Diva in Disguise?
If this is untrue, what other parts of his witness statement are untrue?”
When asked if he would pursue legal action if Harry fails to retract his statements, Burrell responded, “I’m prepared to pursue this further because it’s my reputation at stake.”
Clearly, Burrell is determined to defend himself against these damaging accusations.
It is worth noting that Burrell faced charges in 2001 after some of Princess Diana’s belongings were found in his possession during a police search.
However, the case was ultimately dismissed when the Queen informed the court that Burrell had been holding onto the items for safekeeping.
Her support proved crucial in clearing Burrell’s name.
Meanwhile, Mr Justice Fancourt, presiding over Harry’s lawsuit against Mirror Group newspapers, has demanded concrete evidence from the Duke.
The judge instructed Harry’s lawyer, David Sherburn, to present substantiated proof rather than mere assertions.
Specifically, Fancourt requested two examples of particular evidence regarding a specific message mentioned in the articles.
In response, Sherburn referred to Harry’s witness statement, emphasizing that the Duke repeatedly mentioned private conversations as the basis for the articles.
However, Sherburn acknowledged the difficulty of recalling specific voicemails from two decades ago.
He argued that the claimants’ witness statements explain how the information discussed was contained within voicemails, not publicly disclosed.
One example cited by Sherburn was a 2003 People article involving a conversation between Prince Harry and his brother about Paul Burrell.
The Duke testified that a message referring to Burrell as a “two-faced you-know-what” could have been taken directly from a voicemail.
According to Harry, this article caused a rift between him and Prince William, as the latter had intended to meet Burrell, while Harry disagreed.
In light of these developments, it remains to be seen how the legal battle between Burrell and Harry will unfold.
Burrell’s determination to defend his reputation and Harry’s obligation to provide concrete evidence will shape the outcome of this case.
As the public eagerly awaits further updates, it is clear that this dispute has the potential to significantly impact the reputations of both individuals involved.