|
July 7, 1999
Martin Bell MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Dear Martin,
Last week the Daily Mail carried extracts from Martyn 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,
|
|
