Run-up to the inquest into Diana's death

[Jo of Palatine]

american ambulances carry telephone equipment where they can have access to speak to a doctor if needed and have that as well as good equipment. i did not say a doctor was in the ambulance, i said they had access for help from a doctor and by those means.

and her injuries still probably could have been dealt with sooner and that is what could have saved her life. there is no one questioning the time span and no one agreeing with it either. that is still room for speculation.

No, it isn't. In the report a French medical expert and reknown authority assisted by British experts says that the chance to survive a crash with this kind of internal bleeding is nil. The mere fact that she survived the arrival in hospital is the clear proof that she was very, in factly extremely well, taken care of. Which does not change the outcome but points to the way her medical treatment has to be assessed.

 

[blackdaisies]

Of course you can. Pastis? No problem, if you chew aniseseeds... And that's one of the real problems. To smell Cognac, eg you have to kiss that person! There are alot of alcoholic beverages who don't smell at all. Believe me - I'm into this business for more than 20 years, so should know.
Maybe it's difficult to understand for an American but the way alcoholic beverages are produced for the European and the American market is different. Americans tend to prefer lower percentages of alcohol in their drinks or mix the tasty stuff with neutral tasting alcohols (eg an "American Blended Whiskey " is a blend of whiskey with so called neutral spirits (tasteless, smellless) while a "Blended Scotch Whisky" is a blend of Malt and Grain whisky, both aromatic and "smelly". But strangely enough the more smelly the alcohol is on drinking it, the less you can recognize it later on.
So just believe me, okay? It is possible what the report says.

As for the report about the Fiat. The report is very clear about the fact that they could neither prove nor disprove it but that circumstancial evidence (eg the way the car was maintained, the fac that is was't destroyed but sold to a car seller who could provide the car for investigation etc.) pointed of the innocense of Mr. Andanson. Especially as the "new" repaint was certainly added before the accident took place. And that the car wasn't insured at the time of the accident, so it was dangerous to use it at all. And why should Andanson have used it in the first place? It was already a wreck, it was not reliable and it was traceble to him.... No man in his right mind working for the Secret Service would be sooo stupid! So many questions and they all point to the conclusion that this was not the car that was used.__________________

the smell of liquer could not be hidden when they pulled him out of the car and was there any record of this?

you can't tell me that you can justify that this car could not be the same one and ingore all the other possiblities by that you think he would be smarter than that? he might not have had access to take the car to a wrecker because they were looking for that, but he could sucker some fool into buying the vehicle quicker. a millionaire who doesn't pay insurance for a vehicle? he was a millionaire. that story wouldn't hold water unless somene wanted it to in a police investigation.

 

[blackdaisies]

Nonsense. There was no reason for speed at all, beyond Dodi's reckless encouragement and Henri Paul's even more reckless judgement. A camera is not a gun. They could have driven sedately to the apartment, smiled for the cameras, and walked inside without mishap. If Henri Paul had not speeded, the photographers would not have given chase. Henri Paul created the situation-a situation which he lost control of.

i thnk it is crazy to overlook them as equally responsible. the m16s thought it to be that when they raided every photographer in the areas home, work, and personal files for them after they kicked in their front doors. if it was that important to take the photos then in that manner, then taking the photos were equally as effective as using a gun.

 

[blackdaisies]

No, it isn't. In the report a French medical expert and reknown authority assisted by British experts says that the chance to survive a crash with this kind of internal bleeding is nil. The mere fact that she survived the arrival in hospital is the clear proof that she was very, in factly extremely well, taken care of. Which does not change the outcome but points to the way her medical treatment has to be assessed.

he could also lie for them so not to get his country accused of worse. that would be equally predictable and very likely.

 

[blackdaisies]

i'm going to quit for the day, but i don't believe it was an accident and i'm not going to spend my time trying to make you believe it wasn't. you can't prove it was from where you are and i can't prove it was from where i'm at, but there is evidence supporting both very effieciently. the suspicions can't be denied more believable than what was recorded as government facts.

 

[sassie]

and her injuries still probably could have been dealt with sooner and that is what could have saved her life. there is no one questioning the time span and no one agreeing with it either. that is still room for speculation.

No. They could not have. That is the whole point. With the internal bleeding that Diana was suffering from, the only possible way of saving her was for surgical intervention within the first 20 minutes after the crash. That was impossible, they could not have cut her free from the car that quickly. After 20 minutes, the patient is subject to major organ damage, brain damage, etc. Once the blood loss had reached a certain point, her heart developed dysarythmia, which led to the numerous cardiac arrests she suffered. It's to the credit of the efforts of the rescue workers and the French doctors that they were able to resucitate her at all. But, by the time they were able to place her in the ambulance, it was a foregone medical certainty that she would not have survived.

 

[sassie]

i thnk it is crazy to overlook them as equally responsible. the m16s thought it to be that when they raided every photographer in the areas home, work, and personal files for them after they kicked in their front doors. if it was that important to take the photos then in that manner, then taking the photos were equally as effective as using a gun.

Why would MI6 raid their homes when, according to you, all the photographers were allegedly working for them?

 

[sassie]

the smell of liquer could not be hidden when they pulled him out of the car and was there any record of this?

There are a lot of liquors that don't smell at all. Hence there would be no smell to be hidden. In addition, they would have had to smell the liquor on his breath, as you said earlier. When they pulled him from the car, Henri Paul was not breathing.

 

[ysbel]

Before this discussion gets too out of hand, starting now, no more speculation without evidence. If you admit you don't have evidence for a statement, please don't post the statement.

Everybody, its time to just stick to the facts that we know for now. That is facts backed up by evidence.

ysbel
British forums moderator

 

[Elspeth]

all ambulances have the same eqiupment.

No they don't. This is very well known fact for people who are interested in facts. Read the link I provided. SAMU vehicles are mobile emergency rooms. American ambulances are not.

 

[sassie]

he could also lie for them so not to get his country accused of worse. that would be equally predictable and very likely.

No, it absolutely would not. A person cannot bleed the entire volume of their body's blood into their chest cavity through a tear in the main artery of their heart and be expected to live without immediate surgical intervention to stop the bleeding. The evidence to support that can be found in any surgical textbook, and any doctor can supply you with reams of evidence to support that, as well. It can also be found just by applying logic.

 

[sassie]

but there is evidence supporting both very effieciently.

No. There isn't. That's the crux of the issue. The conspiracy theories are just that...theories. Based on rumor fueled by innuendo inflamed by speculation and fattened by gossip.

To believe that Lord Stevens' report is false, one would also have to believe that:

All the gendarme in Paris that night were paid to lie by whatever secret agency/terrorist faction/royal family member you believe was at the heart of the conspiracy;

All eye witnesses were paid to lie;

All the ambulance workers/rescue crew/doctors were paid to lie;

All the photographers were paid to lie;

Trevor Rees Jones was paid to lie;

All of Diana's friends, family members and associates, and Dodi's friends, family members, and associates, were paid to lie;

Mohammed Al Fayed, everyone connected to the Ritz, the jeweler; and Dodi's butler wwere paid to lie;

Prince Charles was coerced to lie;

Prince William and Harry are lying when they say they believe the results of the British investigation; and Prince William lied about his knowledge of the relationship between his mother and Dodi.

The courtiers were paid to lie, the British secret service was paid to lie, the Metropolitan Police were paid to lie, the undertaker, the autopsy doctors, the international media, the hospital staff, and so on and so forth.

Not to mention all the monies that had to have been spent paying the photographers/Henri Paul/the ambulance workers/assassins to kill the Princess as the result of an assassination plot that hinged on 100 different uncontrollable variables for success. And one very simple variable: If the Princess had been wearing her seatbelt, she likely would have survived.

It not only defies credibility, it defies credulity. And then some.

 

[sara1981]

No. There isn't. That's the crux of the issue. The conspiracy theories are just that...theories. Based on rumor fueled by innuendo inflamed by speculation and fattened by gossip.

To believe that Lord Stevens' report is false, one would also have to believe that:

All the gendarme in Paris that night were paid to lie by whatever secret agency/terrorist faction/royal family member you believe was at the heart of the conspiracy;

All eye witnesses were paid to lie;

All the ambulance workers/rescue crew/doctors were paid to lie;

All the photographers were paid to lie;

Trevor Rees Jones was paid to lie;

All of Diana's friends, family members and associates, and Dodi's friends, family members, and associates, were paid to lie;

Mohammed Al Fayed, everyone connected to the Ritz, the jeweler; and Dodi's butler wwere paid to lie;

Prince Charles was coerced to lie;

Prince William and Harry are lying when they say they believe the results of the British investigation; and Prince William lied about his knowledge of the relationship between his mother and Dodi.

The courtiers were paid to lie, the British secret service was paid to lie, the Metropolitan Police were paid to lie, the undertaker, the autopsy doctors, the international media, the hospital staff, and so on and so forth.

Not to mention all the monies that had to have been spent paying the photographers/Henri Paul/the ambulance workers/assassins to kill the Princess as the result of an assassination plot that hinged on 100 different uncontrollable variables for success. And one very simple variable: If the Princess had been wearing her seatbelt, she likely would have survived.

It not only defies credibility, it defies credulity. And then some.

oh my gosh! i dont know what you saying!

Princess Diana is have accident but nobody fault who did hit her

but im sure Prince William and Prince Harry is not fault for include of their mother's death and also member of Royals Family DONT include also get off-limits on Diana's accident cases.

after Diana's accident but we have work hard to close cases since 1997 but Mr.Fayeds Dodi's dad went court also because he very more upset on their accident about Dodi and Diana so Mr.Fayeds wanted Dodi and Diana staying at Ritz hotels they wont escape the paparazzi like that but its too late!

the paparazzi wanted fames of Princess Diana all the times for more lots of money like worth million or thousand dollars and France police caught paparazzi photographers for harassment of Princess Diana because Diana need to be alone with Dodi and Diana's brother makes statesment after she died to leave her alone and her family plus Prince William and Prince Harry dues her brother's respectives statesment.

after Diana's death but lord steven makes plans for late Diana,Princess of Wales's death cases since 1997-2006 but we have fight this case hardly!

im sure Prince William and Harry will have right for their mother's death and Prince William is heir he wanted knew what happened on their mother's death its so hard for the boys on mother's death without Diana its so pity!

 

[Elspeth]

Sassie is agreeing with you, Sara. She's just pointing out to blackdaisies that in order for Diana's death to be an assassination, far too many highly unlikely things would have had to happen all at once.

 

[sara1981]

Sassie is agreeing with you, Sara. She's just pointing out to blackdaisies that in order for Diana's death to be an assassination, far too many highly unlikely things would have had to happen all at once.

right

im

 

[Jo of Palatine]

he could also lie for them so not to get his country accused of worse. that would be equally predictable and very likely.

Okay, they could all be lying. But for what avail? Why should a reknown expert state things that are wrong in public and risk being exposed by his fellow collegues? For medical professors like the ones who did the expertises nothing is worse than loosing their professional reputation. And there are enough of them around to find the faults if indeed some exist. Any paper worth its price will have handed the report over to other experts for a second analysis - because finding faults will sell their paper. Did you read about any? No? Why?

 

[Warren]

If we all stick to discussing the report and the statements, evidence and conclusions presented therein, we have a greater chance of maintaining an interesting and rational discussion. The report contains a wealth of detail, some fascinating, some uncomfortable, and gives a few insights into the last year or two of Diana's life, courtesy of her closest confidantes.

To this end, the thread is not the place to peddle the more ridiculous and fantastic conspiracy theories which abound on the internet.
Members who wish to pursue the murderous medicos-Prince Philip-MI6-paparazzi-lethal syringe connections can do so at the appropriate websites, not here.

Thanks.

The British Royals moderating team,
Avalon, Elspeth, Warren & ysbel

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I just wanted to add to this thread that I think it's fascinating that the British report does not investigate the question that the French had already done: what happened that night? but starts from another end of the story: let's prove or disprove that the conspiracy theories of Mohamed al-Fayed are true.

Mohamed al-Fayed had close to 9 years to find evidence for his claims and the report shows that the investigators were very willing to listen to him and to go even further on using their governmental position. The report clearly indicates that they followed as much avenues of investigations as possible.

It's an interesting work of detective investigation, especially as at the same time numerous private investigators and journalist were doing the same. Yet still they didn't find real convincing evidence for the claims of Mohamed al-Fayed while proving that they tried hard and earnestly.

What was the most interesting for me was the question about a motive. We learn a lot about Diana which is in accordance to the information I got from the books by Burrelll and Ken Wharfe. Especially her love for her sons comes over as an established fact. So I was convinced there was no plot because there was no motive because there was not going to be an engagement once I read that prince William said that his mother did not tell him of an upcoming engagement. Just imagine: al-Fayed claims that Diana and Dodi told him that they would go public with their announcement on the monday - the day Diana planned to be back in London. Is it believable that she would inform the press before she had the proper time to talk to her sons about the change in her (and thus their) situation? Before she had the time to properly introduce the idea to them and further the acquaintance with Dodi? It's completely out of character, so IMHO it's not true. Full stop.

But if that's not true, you can skip the whole rest.

 

[Amina]

I for one am glad that they have had this investigation. Even though it tells us alot of what we already know.

I for one do not think that it will stop the conspiracy theories, sadly that has now become an industry.

 

[princess olga]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=424546&in_page_id=1770

Daily Mail claims to have found the second fiat uno driver: a second-generation Vietnamese immigrant. If this is true, the conspiracy theorists will have even less to hold on to.

 

[Australian]

I for one do not think that it will stop the conspiracy theories, sadly that has now become an industry.

There will always be conspiracy theories. It will never stop, just like the conspiracy theories of the deaths of Marilyn Munroe, Elvis etc hasn't stopped. I'm sure these Diana consipracy theories will still be going strong in 50 years time- which i don't have a problem with, as it challenges the status quo. Question everything.

 

[sara1981]

Princess Diana inquest to resume
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6221269.stm

 

[Iluvbertie]

Perhaps the RF needs rules to protect them from harassment, along the lines of those that we have about approaching whales and dolphins. Surfers and whale-watching boats are not allowed to approach within a certain distance. Perhaps similar rules should apply to journalists when their quarry is out and about doing ordinary things as opposed to attending official functions.

I've just finished reading Sarah Bradford's book about Diana. Some of the photos and descriptions in there are horrendous. No-one deserves to be hounded like that. If the journalists - and I use the word in its loosest sense - and photographers won't restrain themselves, perhaps they need external restraint.

Of course if people didn't buy the papers, magazines etc that publish these photos then there would be no demand for them.

Personally, and I know that I upset people when I say this, but everyone who ever bought, or even looked at a photo of Diana, taken when she wasn't at an official event, contributed to her death as the paparazzi wouldn't have been following the car if their wasn't a demand for photos and who created that demand - the people who buy the magazines, papers etc.


I claim some responsibility as I did buy the papers that had her photos in them, though rarely because she was in them, as I never liked her but I still did so and therefore believe that I am partly responsible for her death and the hounding that she suffered. But I also believe that most people here are also partly to blame.

If we truly want to criticise the media then we must look at why they publish what they do and take responsibility for the consequences of our actions in causing their actions.

 

[Madame Royale]

You have a particular way of looking at it. I wouldn't agree as such, but nonetheless your post exhibits an interesting point of view

 

[Iluvbertie]

You have a particular way of looking at it. I wouldn't agree as such, but nonetheless your post exhibits an interesting point of view

Just so I am clear - you believe that if there wasn't a demand for photos of Diana then the paparazzi would still have been following her the night she died? Why would they have been following her if there was no demand for their work?

In other words, you believe the paparazzi would have followed her and taken photos just for the heck of it.


No demand for photos = no money for the paparazzi

No money for the photos = no market for the paparazzi's photos.

No market for the paparazzi's photos = no need for the paparazzi to chase the car to get photos as there would have been no market for the photos

No chase = no need to speed

No speed = far greater chance of survival, if the car even crashed

Ergo - no demand for photos = no dead Diana

That is my argument.

Therefore anyone who looked at, bought etc those photos taken when the person, specifically Diana wasn't on duty, is responsible for those photos.

How can you not agree that the reason she died was because the paparazzi chased the car to get photos that people like you and me would looked at and therefore we are responsible for her death?

 

[Madame Royale]

Forgive me for not breaking out the cat of nine tales and giving myself 100 lashes in repentance j/k

No, your opinion is one I think to be very interesting and I really enjoy noting the many differences of opinion. You feel (?) you contributed to Diana's death by looking at photographs taken by the pap's, I do not and I shall not be made to feel as though I should either.

I largely blame Diana's passing on the alcohol levels of her chauffeur. Mix it with the speed of a car and those paid by whatever agency they work for to be intrusive (no one can deny this), and then we come to a conclusion that I believe correct.

Again, a very interesting post which I enjoyed reading.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Forgive me for not breaking out the cat of nine tales and giving myself 100 lashes in repentance

No, your opinion is one I think to be very interesting and I really enjoy noting the many differences of opinion. You feel (?) you contributed to Diana's death by looking at a photograph taken by the pap's, I do not and I shall not be made to feel as though I should either.

I largely blame Diana's passing on the alcohol levels of her chauffeur. Mix it wth the speed of a car and those paid by whatever agency they work for to be intrusive and then we come to a conclusion that I believe correct.

Again, a very interesting post which I enjoyed reading.

So you will continue to support the paparazzi who drove her to her death?

Fair enough if you won't accept that people who made it profitable for the paparazzi to take there photos by chasing a young mother as she went about her private business were responsible for her death.

That is your right, of course.

That I disagree will have to be accepted by us both.

You obviously don't blame the paparazzi for Diana's death in any way otherwise you would accept some of the responsibility for them doing what they did. An interesting viewpoint in itself - that the paparazzi weren't responsible for the speeding that contributed to the deaths that night. Why then were they speeding away from them, in your opinion, I wonder?

 

[Madame Royale]

So you will continue to support the paparazzi who drove her to her death?

Will I continue to purchase a magazine I wish to read? Yes.

Fair enough if you won't accept that people who made it profitable for the paparazzi to take there photos by chasing a young mother as she went about her private business were responsible for her death
That is your right, of course.

It certainly is. And yes, I don't blame the consumers.

That I disagree will have to be accepted by us both.

Absolutely. It does not bother me in any way that you disagree

You obviously don't blame the paparazzi for Diana's death in any way otherwise you would accept some of the responsibility for them doing what they did. An interesting viewpoint in itself - that the paparazzi weren't responsible for the speeding that contributed to the deaths that night. Why then were they speeding away from them, in your opinion, I wonder?

However, you're really in no position to place words in anyone elses mouth but your own. If you note, I did mention that the paparazzi along with excessive speed and alcohol where what caused the accident. I am not however, going to blame the consumer majority.

I guess even members of her own family would be at fault then also. Probably even her sons who I'm sure would have (and probably continue to) read magazines.

See, if you start blaming the consumer your pretty much damning the larger majority of the worlds population (where would it end really) and I'm in no position to do that.

I dont expect you to agree and the fact you don't is perfectly fine.

To the Moderators: Could this exchange please be movde to the Diana Inquest thread. Thank you

 

[Iluvbertie]

Will I continue to purchase a magazine I wish to read? Yes.



It certainly is. And yes, I don't blame the consumers.

I do - they provided the market for the paparazzi photos and therefore were the cause of the chase that night that led to her death - the consumers are responsible and in the long run no one else should be blamed but the consumers who had an insatiable demand for photos of this woman.

If you can't see that then we will have more people hounded like Diana.

I guess even members of her own family would be at fault then also. Probably even her sons who I'm sure would have (and probably continue to) read magazines.

If there reason for buying the magazines was to get the photos of Diana taken by the hounding then yes they are responsible.

See, if you start blaming the consumer your pretty much damning the larger majority of the worlds population (where would it end really) and I'm in no position to do that.

I am and do blame the consumers who bought the magazines etc with her photos as if there had been no demand for those photos there would have been no chase.

Even drunk drivers can successfully drive a distance without accident when not being chased by paparazzi who want to take photos of people in your car to sell to magazines and papers for consumers who want to see these photos.

I dont expect you to agree and the fact you don't is perfectly fine.

No I don't agree as I do believe in supply and demand economics - the demand, by the consumers, was there for these photos so the paparazzi set out to supply the photos to fulfil the demand of the consumers all over the world.

No demand by consumers for the photos no need for the paparazzi to chase the car to get the photos to fulfil the demands of the consumers therefore the consumers were directly responsible for her death.

To the Moderators: Could this exchange please be movde to the Diana Inquest thread. Thank you [/quote]

 

[Madame Royale]

I do - they provided the market for the paparazzi photos and therefore were the cause of the chase that night that led to her death - the consumers are responsible and in the long run no one else should be blamed but the consumers who had an insatiable demand for photos of this woman.

We established your opinion and so I don't feel going around in circles will benefit the discussion. Your point is made, as is mine. I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me

If you can't see that then we will have more people hounded like Diana.

I'm pretty certain people would be hounded whether I purchased magazines or not (infact it would take a great many to influence even the slightest change in tactics).

If there reason for buying the magazines was to get the photos of Diana taken by the hounding then yes they are responsible.

Here you have made (quite openly) the assumption that I myself have purchased a magazine, for the specific purpose of viewing pictures of the late mother of two. Your are very much incorrect.

May I also note that you said to me... 'So you will continue to support the paparazzi who drove her to her death?'

I said that I would continue to purchase magazines I wish to read and I also noted that Harry and Wiliam will probably do the same. No where before your last post did you sight persons being guilty of influencing the chase only if they purchased a magazine with intent of looking at photos of Diana, Princess of Wales. Again, I never purchased a magazine because of Diana so I categorically state that I am not and never have been to blame (I can't even imagine what fraction my supposed guilt would amass).

An interesting discussion and one I feel has run its course on my behalf so this is where I'll leave it.