Per the story below why didn’t the Queen just stop his prosecution on Day one? Why did she wait until the 11th hour to tell the court her testimony acquitting him of the crime he was accused of?
What’s really going on?
The royal family didn’t want him spilling any beans on the stand re: Diana or other royals. And anything that comes out from the “loyal” retainer’s mouth might discredit the monarchy. At this point, QE2 and crew know that if they want to retain any sense of relevancy, they need to stay in the best light and out of the tabloid pages. Public trials would only drag them through the mud.
So do we all believe that Diana really gave him all that stuff (a house-full, from what I’ve read) for safekeeping? Most of it personal Royal stuff which is worth a fortune on the collector’s market?
I’m finding it difficult to believe Burrell is completely innocent of theft, and wondering exactly what the Queen didn’t want to come out at trial. Perhaps we’ll soon see anyway.
But as the linked article says (and as other reports have said) if the Queen derailed this case for her personal gain, it represents a serious constitutional crisis. If the Queen has any brains, Burrell must be innocent. Unless, of course, she is brainless. I can’t believe that.