|
(Continued from overleaf)
The flow of articles in the Press which were favourable to the Fayeds was generally more substantial than the small minority which questioned what they were saying... During our investigations we learned to distinguish the work of genuinely independent investigative journalists from the work of those who reproduce what they are told without much inquiry and sometimes with fanciful elaboration, or those who simply reproduce the content of press cuttings files. However, to the public, or to the Government official pulling down extracts from purportedly more responsible national newspapers, there would be no particular distinction, and to some extent the myths were accepted as fact because they were publicised by reputable journalists who had not themselves made any genuinely independent investigations or who had uncritically believed what they had been told...
Page 28, paragraph 3.1.16
This construction of acceptance upon assumption, derived without proper inquiry, followed by presumption based upon the
prescience of other names of repute, built a structure without foundation. It is in our opinion an issue which has emerged from our inquiry which has long term significance ...
Page 31, paragraph 3.1.25
Suffice to say for the purposes of this chapter, this unstructured process of acceptance without critical inquiry was the dominant feature of the events of the period between June 1984 and March 1985....
Page 31, paragraph 3.1.26
We have recorded Ali Fayed's evidence, which we have no hesitation in rejecting, because in our opinion it illustrates vividly the irrational way in which the Fayeds were disposed to attack witnesses who gave truthful evidence which they wished to discredit.
Page 65, paragraph 4.4.16
The Fayeds told us that it was true that their father had met and come to know the Sultan's father socially... We are satisfied that it was untrue that the Sultan's father had ever met Mohamed's father, whether at the Ritz Hotel Paris or anywhere else, let alone that their fathers had a long-standing relationship.
Page 178 paragraphs 10.2.12 & 10.2.13
In our judgement, this submission reveals the Fayeds' character very vividly. The evidence that they were telling lies to us was quite overwhelming. But they were still determined to counter-attack and try to pretend that they were the innocent victims of some gigantic conspiracy against them.
Page 179 paragraph 10.2.16
When we asked the Fayeds about their family they told us that it originated from an area on the banks of the Suez Canal where there is now a town called Fayed. Their family owned about 12,000acres (5,000 hectares) of land in this area.... They told us that their family had owned land and ships for very many years... The Fayeds told us that they had British nannies... Mohamed was educated at Victoria College, Alexandria... Their family had owned a yacht called "The Dodi" before they were born... Mohamed told us that the family owned about 20 companies, spread between Port Said, Suez, Ismailia, and Alexandria... At one time they told us that they owned two passenger vessels on which they shipped cargo and pilgrims around the Gulf...
We are both satisfied that the image they created between November 1984 and March 1985 of their wealthy Egyptian ancestry was completely bogus.
Pages 179-181, & 191; paragraphs 10.3.1; 10.3.2; 10.3.6; 10.3.7; 10.3.9; 10.3.11; & 10.4.38
One of the difficulties confronting anyone seeking to test the truth of the Fayeds' account of the generation of their wealth is that the story changes as different parts of it are demolished or discredited.
Page 194, paragraph 11.1.7
In a situation where more and more of the Fayeds' representations or stories turned out to be untrue or misleading, as will be evident from our report, it would have been difficult for anybody in our position not to feel increasingly sceptical about the merits of the new stories which later took their place.
Page 195, paragraph 11.1.8
His actual influence with the Ruler of Dubai was very different from what he claimed: the stories he told in 1984-85 about his role in the affairs of Dubai were either quite untrue or were exaggerated versions of the truth.
Page 205, paragraph 11.5.11
Mohamed's skill in exaggerating the truth before an audience whom he believes to be ignorant of the true facts was clearly apparent to us during our two-day questioning session of the Fayeds.
Page 209, paragraph 11.8.4
In the end the Fayeds relied on a story that they had an immense sum of money available to them in 1978, which grew steadily between 1978 and 1984 and which was supplemented by an additional $400 million from secret oil trading profits. This was not the story which they told in 1984-85 and the Fayeds have not put any supporting evidence of any kind before us to confirm the truth of what they are saying. In the total absence of any such evidence, and in the light of the unreliability of the Fayeds as witnesses of truth in other areas of our investigations, we reject this story more or less completely... It is one thing to say nothing. It is quite another thing to put forward an explanation which is manifestly untrue, and this is the view we hold about immense activities in secret oil trading.
Page 217-218, paragraph 11.12.8
|
|
