ABC News Exclusive: Paul Burrell's Confidant Speaks Out as Royal Butler Testifies

LONDON, January 14, 2006 — -- The day Paul Burrell is due to take the stand ABC News posed a series of questions to Steve Dennis, a ghostwriter and friend of the Princess' former butler.

ABC News: Why is Paul Burrell's presence at the inquest significant?

Steve Dennis: The coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, has already described Paul Burrell as being in an 'unrivalled position' in regard to the life of Diana, Princess of Wales. He was the butler and friend, and someone who understood her thoughts and behavior better than most. He knew Diana the private woman, not so much Diana the public princess. She famously described him to other friends as "the only man she could trust." With that vantage point, his unique insight should be of great assistance to the inquest. Burrell's evidence has been eagerly anticipated by the British media since this inquest began in October last year.

ABC News: Is Paul looking forward to being a witness?

Dennis: I'm sure Paul is grateful for the opportunity to appear as a witness, and has agreed willingly to the coroner's request that he appears. No witness relishes such a prospect in these difficult circumstances, but I'm sure Paul's belief is that he is doing what is rightly expected of him. The inquest has set aside a full day to hear only his evidence, so I think that's a fair measure of how significant his evidence is being regarded.

ABC News: Why is he testifying? What prompted this decision? What does he hope to achieve?

Dennis: He is testifying because the coroner asked him to give evidence, and Paul is especially flying into Britain from America where he now spends most of his time. Paul is doing what he has always said he would do: Cooperating with the authorities who are trying to determine the truth surrounding events back in 1997. He wants to help achieve what everyone else is seeking - the truth.

ABC News: What is he expected to say about the princess' relationships with Prince Charles and the rest of the royal family? Especially with regard to the 1995/6 letter in Paul's possession stating her fears that Charles was trying to kill her?

Dennis: I cannot comment on what Paul might or might not say in his evidence. The note that was in his possession was from 1995/6 and it was first produced by him in October 2003. He produced it at a time when no inquest had been announced, and in the hope that it would lead to such a hearing. ABC News broadcast that note around America at the time, and I remember it shocked the world. You must remember that no one even knew about the existence of this note until the moment the royal butler showed his hand. That hand-written document has become known as 'the Burrell letter' at the inquest, and promises to form one of the most fascinating aspects of his evidence because there's a chance we will hear, for the first time, the details behind it, and the circumstances in which Diana wrote it.

ABC News: What are his feelings towards the royal family now, especially the princes who have been critical of his behaviour?

Dennis: Paul remains an ardent supporter of the monarch, and the Royal Family. It is evident from both his books that he is a staunch supporter of The Queen, and Princes William and Harry, and it saddened him when the boys referred to his first book as a 'cold and overt betrayal' because, when you read it, the content is nothing of the sort.

ABC News: What is he expected to say about the Princess' relationship with Dodi al-Fayed? Were they planning to marry?

Dennis: Once again, this question goes to the heart of the matters in question at the inquest, so I cannot comment on what Paul might or might not say.

Suffice to say that he knew everything there was to know about all Princess Diana's relationships. What he decides to impart about them is a matter for him, but it's a fair guess to say that the world's media will be hanging on his every word. 'What the butler saw' is now going to become 'What the butler said from the witness stand'

ABC News: What is his reaction to other "revelations" that have come out during the inquest?

Dennis:Paul has been busy working in Florida so I'm not sure he's been aware of the headlines concerning the inquest to date. But Paul long ago learned not to rely on newspaper headlines as an accurate portrayal of events, and he goes into this inquest aware only of his own knowledge.

Finally, I think it's important to stress that Paul is attending this inquest with the memory of the late princess in the forefront of his mind. In this country, he has wrongly attracted a reputation for being the "blabbermouth butler" when all he has ever said or written about Diana has been supportive and kind and in tribute to her.

People fail to realize that 50% of his knowledge will go to the grave with him. On this occasion, he is merely attending this inquest to assist the coroner with his vigorous and searching examination of everyone's evidence.

What the American people must understand is that this is not a trial but an inquest so it's not adversarial but inquisitorial, so the atmosphere is a lot softer than a criminal trial. There seems to have been a lot of hype that the butler will be grilled for the secrets he knows about Diana. But this hearing is not about examining the life and times of the princess. It is about her death in Paris, and the circumstances leading up to it, and the coroner is only allowing questions that he deems relevant to the issues at hand.

I think what puzzles Americans is why such an important hearing is taking place 10 years after the death. It's fair to say that has puzzled many Britons too! Memories have obviously faded but the rumors, suspicions and conspiracy theories haven't, so this inquest has had to be held in the public interest. The reasons for its delay are debatable but the main thing is that it is happening now, and some of the evidence has been enlightening.

I suppose it would be a bit like an inquest being held in 1973 into the 1963 death of JFK - you can imagine the fascination with such proceedings, regardless of the passage of time. And that's where the UK legal system and the British public currently find itself with this historic inquest.