Fayed s employees lied to help him escape prosecution for ordering three break ins

Document Sample
Fayed s employees lied to help him escape prosecution for ordering three break ins Powered By Docstoc
					This document is taken from Section Five of:


                      Jonathan Boyd Hunt’s first letter to Martin Bell

July 7, 1999

Martin Bell MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

Dear Martin,

Last week the Daily Mail carried extracts from Martin Gregory’s new book on the death of Diana, Princess
of Wales. Gregory has produced incontrovertible evidence to show that Fayed told one pack of lies after
another about Diana’s ‘last words’; Diana’s ‘engagement’; ‘Diana & Dodi’s plans to live together at the
Windsors’ villa,’ and other such tales. In each of these cases Fayed’s employees corroborated his outrageous
stories. You are aware that these are not the first times Fayed’s staff have lied on his behalf.

In 1998 Fayed’s employees lied to help him escape prosecution for ordering three break-ins of the safety-
deposit box belonging to his enemy, Tiny Rowland. In 1987 Fayed’s employees lied to the DTI Inspectors to
support his false stories about his background and as to where he got the cash to buy Harrods. As you know,
it was the DTI Inspectors’ damning report which stopped the Conservative government granting Fayed
British citizenship.

It was after Fayed failed to have the DTI report revoked that he then made bribery allegations against the two
Corporate Affairs ministers who had previous dealings with it: Michael Howard, who appointed the
Inspectors; and Neil Hamilton, who inherited responsibility for their report. Neil Hamilton contended that
Fayed made his (ever-changing) allegations against him out of spite because he hadn’t helped him by
withdrawing the report, but instead had delegated responsibility for it to another minister at the DTI.

When Sir Gordon Downey investigated Fayed’s allegations, Fayed’s staff gave evidence to support his
claims in both cases. But whereas Downey dismissed all allegations against Michael Howard after hearing
evidence from other witnesses, Downey found in favour of Fayed’s allegations against Neil Hamilton after
declining to hear evidence from nine other witnesses who all contested what Fayed and his staff alleged.

As you know, Downey examined all of Neil and Christine Hamilton’s: bank, building society, and credit card
accounts, yet found no material evidence of any cash payments or changes in spending patterns of credit
cards (which the acquisition of illicit cash invariably betrays). Downey’s ‘compelling evidence’ line was, in
fact, based wholly on Fayed’s and his employees’ evidence.

Fayed’s evidence-free allegations have devastated Neil Hamilton’s career and his and his wife’s lives, and it
would be true to say that your intervention in Tatton has exacerbated their ordeal enormously. But though
Neil Hamilton’s fight to clear his name continues to have its toll on him and his wife, their appearances on
TV invariably show a natural cheeriness, thus giving a different impression. But I want you to know that on
numerous occasions I have visited their home and witnessed Neil and Christine in deep depression, and
Christine in particular in terrible states of despair.

As more people acquire an understanding of the facts, they realise what a terrible injustice has been visited
upon Neil and Christine Hamilton. But many people will take your continued presence as MP for Tatton as
meaning that you still believe Neil Hamilton to be an unfit person to represent the constituency. In short,
your continuing actions add to the continuing injustice against a man whom the facts show is innocent.

You entered the general election initially as an ‘anti-corruption’ candidate, which most people would think
must mean you stood on Fayed’s ‘cash for questions’ allegations. You have since insisted that you only
stood on the Guardian’s ‘wrongdoing’ allegations, but this cannot be true. You didn’t learn these alleged
‘wrongdoings’ until the third day of your campaign, 9 April 1997, when Guardian journalist and Sleaze
author David Leigh briefed you at the Longview Hotel, Knutsford, after journeying from London specifically
for that purpose.

As you know from reading my book Trial by Conspiracy, this same journalist, David Leigh, has twice made
threats of legal action to try and dissuade me from publishing my findings into Fayed’s and the Guardian’s
allegations. When Leigh’s intimidation failed, his editor (and brother-in-law) Alan Rusbridger then had my
background investigated to discover something with which I could be discredited.

Though their inquiries turned up nothing of substance, David Leigh then twisted the facts about my career
(which I had freely given to him) for a smear piece which the Guardian printed on the day Trial by
Conspiracy was launched last year. Not content with smearing me, Leigh attended my book launch and
caused maximum disruption. I remind you that David Leigh is the very same person upon whom you relied
for advice about Neil Hamilton’s ‘wrongdoing.’

I have examined all the ‘wrongdoing’ allegations produced by David Leigh, and I cannot find any that hold
water, least of all any that warrant your intervention in the election. However, as these continue to provide
the basis for your tenure of the Tatton seat, I request that you put together an itemised, definitive list of what
you allege Neil Hamilton’s wrongdoings to be, so that they can be tested by the facts, and the people of
Tatton given the opportunity to appraise them for themselves.

For your reference, I enclose my letter to Sir Gordon Downey of November last year. You might consider
writing to Sir Gordon, to demand that he answers my questions concerning his handling of this affair.

I look forward to your early reply.

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Boyd Hunt

cc The People of Tatton for Justice

Shared By: