Nepalese Royal Massacre : Dipendra Didn't Commit the Royal Massacre




Prince Dipendra

A Nepal Palace Guard has claimed to have witnessed the 2001 Royal massacre and says Crown Prince Dipendra - believed to be behind the killings - is innocent, turning the official version on its head and raking up a new controversy.

One of the guards at Kathmandu's Narayanhiti Palace said he saw the country's most high profile
assasination in recent history.

The 2001 royal massacre that almost wiped out the nearly quarter millenia monarchy is now ousted by the Maoists.

An official probe blamed Prince Dipendra - slain King Birendra's eldest son - saying in a drunken state Dipendra opened indiscriminate fire killing 9 royals.

But now guard Lal Bahadur Lamteri's claim to a Nepali newspaper 'Naya Patrika' turns the story upside down.

Lal Bahadur Lamteri said he saw a Dipendra look-alike wearing a mask opened fire killing Dipendra first even before turning the gun onto the other royals on that fateful night of June first at a dinner party in the Narayanhiti Palace.



This has raked up a new controversy into a painful and complicated episode of the fledgling democracy's history.

He said Dipendra was killed before the rest of his family - father King Birendra and mother
Aishwarya - on June first at the royal palace dinner party.

Lal Bahadur Lamteri, a junior army staff, deputed at the Narayanhiti Palace during the period, says Paras, son of ousted King Gyanendra and cousin Dipendra, came to the palace that night accompanied by a person wearing a Dipendra look-alike mask. He said the masked man shot dead Dipendra before shooting the other royals.

Lamteri said this to Nepali language newspaper 'Naya Patrika'. The paper questioned the official probe's report holding Dipendra responsible favouring the overwhelming sentiment in Nepal. Many believe the killings were a conspiracy to eliminate the royal family.

Lamteri claimed that he saw Dipendra, who got six bullet shots on his back and one on the left hand, in an inebriated state in his private room before the royal family was killed.



Lamteri said he along with some other security staff also sent an unnamed letter to the palace saying that Dipendra was innocent. But three months later, he was transferred to another battalion with a demotion and then sent to jail on a false murder charge of a businessman, the daily reported.

According to the controversial probe commission report, Dipendra, under the influence of alcohol, killed King Birendra, Queen Aishwarya and other members of the royal family before committing suicide.

In Kathmandu's paper stalls today, 'Naya Patrika' sold like a hot cake. Some 20,000 copies of the daily were sold within one hour, said a newspaper dealer.

****
---> www.freshnews.in/palace-massacre-now-eyewitness-claims-dipendra-w...

Palace massacre: now eyewitness claims Dipendra was killed first
By Indo-Asian News Service on Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Was crown prince Dipendra wrongly implicated for the 2001 palace massacre that wiped out the royal family to protect the real assassins?


A Nepali tabloid claimed to have found an eyewitness who was present in the Narayanhity royal palace in Kathmandu on the fateful night of June 1, 2001 when sudden gunfire in the tightly guarded palace resulted in the killing of the then king Birendra and nine more members of the royal family.

The Naya Patrika daily Wednesday carried an “eyewitness” account by Lal Bahadur Lamteri Magar, who said he had been deployed as an army havaldar at the palace on the day the tragedy occurred.

Magar reportedly told the daily that the first shootings were heard in the crown prince’s quarters, where Dipendra had gone to rest after being overcome by the drugs and drinks he had consumed.

According to his inference, Dipendra, the alleged perpetrator, was killed first, after which the assassin(s) went to the hall where the rest of the royal family had met for a usual Friday night get-together and let fly with guns.

Magar said he helped carry fatally shot king Birendra to the army hospital in Kathmandu. The king was still alive and moaning “It hurts, it hurts” on the way to the hospital, where he was declared dead.

Later, when Dipendra was accused of being the gunman who created the havoc, the soldier said he and other soldiers had submitted a petition at the palace, saying what they had heard and expressing their sorrow at the unjust allegation.

The result, the soldier said, was frightening. He was arrested by the army, blindfolded and kept in detention for a month.

After that, he was charged with a murder committed while he was under detention and found guilty by a district court, the soldier reportedly told the tabloid.

Magar is currently serving his sentence in Kathmandu valley’s Nakhu Jail.

This is the third time in a little over a month that the controversial palace massacre was revived in people’s minds.

Last month, after he handed over his throne, crown and sceptre to the government, Nepal’s last king Gyanendra held an unprecedented press conference in the palace, where he defended himself and his family against the muttered allegations that they had engineered the royal massacre.

Soon after his rejection of the allegations, the Maoists said they favoured a fresh investigation into the incident to clear all doubts.

However, now with the Maoists relinquishing their claim to the new government, it remains to be seen if a fresh investigation that could have laid all ghosts to rest will ever be conducted.

Nepal’s government has so said the massacres were committed by the then crown prince Dipendra, who finally turned the gun on himself in a frenzy induced by a lethal cocktail of drugs and drinks.

But the official explanation has few takers, even today, with various allegations surfacing regularly.

Many believe the murders were part of a conspiracy. The hatchers of the plot are believed to have hired a mercenary, who impersonated the crown prince by wearing similar army fatigues and a look-alike mask.

The media report came even as Nepal sought to remove the last vestige of its 239-year-old monarchy by appointing its first president.