Burrell, who worked for Princess Diana for a decade until her tragic death in 1997, appeared on Don Wooten's show on GB News.
When asked if he was considering a legal case against the Duke of Sussex, Burrell confirmed that he wished Harry would get his witness statement correct. He disputed the claim that he had sold Princess Diana's possessions, calling it completely false.
Burrell revealed that he had written to Harry's solicitors three times seeking the basis for these claims but had yet to receive a response.
Expressing his frustration, Burrell emphasized his right to refute the false allegations. He demanded evidence from Harry to support his claims, asserting that he knows Harry doesn't possess any evidence. Burrell expressed his willingness to pursue the matter legally if Harry fails to retract his statements.
Burrell's reputation had previously been tarnished when he was charged with stealing some of Diana's possessions. However, the case was dismissed in 2001 after the Queen informed the court that Burrell had informed her he was holding the items for safekeeping, providing her support.
In a separate development, Mr. Justice Vancourt instructed the lawyer representing the Duke and other claimants to provide evidence instead of mere assertions in their lawsuit against Mirror Group Newspapers. The judge urged the barrister to present two concrete examples of evidence related to a specific message mentioned in Prince Harry's witness statement.
The legal proceedings came in the context of the Duke's crusade to reform the British media. Lawyers from MGN accused Harry of suing tabloid newspapers without supporting evidence. During the closing speech, the judge reminded the barrister of the opportunity to present specific examples of voicemail interception leading to articles about the Duke. One example mentioned was a conversation between Harry and his brother about Paul Burrell, which potentially stemmed from a voicemail.
It should be noted that due to the passage of time, recalling specific voicemails from 20 years ago may not be feasible. However, the claimants explained in their witness statements that the information discussed was communicated through voicemails but not publicly.
In reference to an article from 2003 cited by the barrister, which discussed potential voicemail interception, it focused on a conversation between Prince Harry and his brother concerning Paul Burrell.
Harry suggested that a message to his brother describing Burrell as "two-faced" might have been extracted from a voicemail he left. This article was identified as the starting point of a rift between the brothers, as Prince William wanted to meet Burrell while Harry disagreed.
In summary, Burrell is demanding evidence from Prince Harry to substantiate his claims, highlighting the importance of accuracy in witness statements. The legal proceedings are part of Harry's broader efforts to reform the British media landscape, with lawyers emphasizing the need for concrete evidence rather than unsupported assertions.
