Run-up to the inquest into Diana's death


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
A proper line of inquiry
Thursday 26 July 2007
The events surrounding the inquiry into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, have threatened to damage the inquest process, writes Andrew Cox

From the Law Gazette

LINK

In June, to little fanfare, Lord Justice Scott Baker became the fourth coroner to assume responsibility for the inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed. He did so at a critical time, with the final hearing due to begin in October. What is more, if his predecessor Dame Butler-Sloss’s opening statement at the pre-inquest hearing on 15 May was anything to go by, there was a very real risk of the inquest process being usurped for something altogether less desirable.

Her Ladyship then remarked: ‘An inquest is an inquisitorial process in which a coroner publicly investigates the circumstance of a death. There are no parties to inquest proceedings, and the rules of evidence which apply to adversarial litigation do not govern the proceedings. The tactics used in litigation often have no place in an inquest – a fact which lawyers can sometimes forget.’

Her comments cut little ice with Michael Mansfield QC, counsel for Dodi’s father, Mohamed Al Fayed, who promptly protested about delays in disclosure, the production of a schedule of experts and even the location of the court for the final hearing
 
Even if Henri Paul weren't drunk, it doesn't prevent him of feeling like superman and accelerate like a mad man on the road.
 
Just thought about something. If Dodi had to go to a meeting of somekind (for some people he wasn't going to the apartement just after leaving the Ritz, he had to go somewhere else before) and he was late, perhaps he could have asked Henri Paul to go faster. Trevor Rees-Jones can't say it's not true because as he said, he doesn't remember anything. Don't know what you think about that but if there weren't paparazzi behind the car and Henri Paul wasn't drunk then we could think of other possibilities. (And I think it's way more plausible than any conspiration theories)
 
Last edited:
French Firefighter To Offer 'New Evidence' At Diana Inquest
Written by Joanne Leyland
The Royalist - French Firefighter To Offer 'New Evidence' At Diana Inquest
Wednesday, 01 August 2007


A French fireman has said he has vital evidence which may prove that the death of Diana, Princess of Wales was not an accident.

Although not involved in the rescue efforts following the Paris crash, Christophe Pelat was called to a scene three years later in which a paparazzi photographer was found dead in a burnt out BMW in Montpellier in the French countryside.

James Andanson’s death has always been surrounded by some mystery, with the official line being that he committed suicide.

The owner of a white Fiat Uno, it’s believed the 54-year-old photographer may have been behind the wheel of the same model of car which clipped Diana’s Mercedes in the Paris tunnel moments before the fatal crash. That car was never found.

However, some close to the paparazzo have long said he wouldn’t have committed suicide and suspect foul play. This theory was backed up some time ago when it was claimed that Andanson’s remains showed that he’d been shot in the head.

Still on active service as a firefighter, Pelat is now believed to have given a TV interview, his first recalling the death of the photographer, in which he appears to back up the conspiracy theories that Andanson was murdered. The photographer had followed Diana's every move for several weeks before her death.

Recalling what he saw upon coming across the burnt body of James Andanson, Pelat reveals: "I saw him at close range and I'm absolutely convinced that he had been shot in the head, twice."
The firefighter says he wishes to give evidence at the inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed, saying:"Of course I will contribute to any inquiry of this nature. It is my job."

The inquests, which will run concurrent to each other, will get underway following many months of preliminary hearings on October 2nd 2007.


 
A French fireman has said he has vital evidence which may prove that the death of Diana, Princess of Wales was not an accident.

Although not involved in the rescue efforts following the Paris crash, Christophe Pelat was called to a scene three years later in which a paparazzi photographer was found dead in a burnt out BMW in Montpellier in the French countryside.

James Andanson’s death has always been surrounded by some mystery, with the official line being that he committed suicide.

The owner of a white Fiat Uno, it’s believed the 54-year-old photographer may have been behind the wheel of the same model of car which clipped Diana’s Mercedes in the Paris tunnel moments before the fatal crash. That car was never found.

However, some close to the paparazzo have long said he wouldn’t have committed suicide and suspect foul play. This theory was backed up some time ago when it was claimed that Andanson’s remains showed that he’d been shot in the head.

Still on active service as a firefighter, Pelat is now believed to have given a TV interview, his first recalling the death of the photographer, in which he appears to back up the conspiracy theories that Andanson was murdered. The photographer had followed Diana's every move for several weeks before her death.

Recalling what he saw upon coming across the burnt body of James Andanson, Pelat reveals: "I saw him at close range and I'm absolutely convinced that he had been shot in the head, twice."
The firefighter says he wishes to give evidence at the inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed, saying:"Of course I will contribute to any inquiry of this nature. It is my job."

The inquests, which will run concurrent to each other, will get underway following many months of preliminary hearings on October 2nd 2007.



Let's get a couple of facts:

1) He has a vital evidence to support Diana's death was not an accident, but:
  • He was not involved in the rescue efforts
  • he had no information whatsoever until 3 years later he was called for a totally different case
  • he had never seen, met Diana. He has never seen her Mercedec, nor has he any information about the actual crash
  • not being a doctor, he gives a confident answer for the cause of the death (when even professional doctors would never hasten to say something about a body in such conditions)
2) I love how the article throws away words like 'claimes', 'believed to', 'appears to'.

3) But most of all, I love how they say "...the 54-year-old photographer may have been behind the wheel of the same model of car which clipped Diana’s Mercedes in the Paris tunnel moments before the fatal crash..." as if it were a fact. :bang:
 
Last edited:
It's proven that there was a Fiat Uno in this tunnel and the mercedes touched this car. The white car was never found, nor the owner of it. The fact that Dodi Fayed wasn't used to the paparazzi attention and that it really annoyed him must be noticed. The speed was the only way to get out and if the person that picked the car had seen that the windows weren't dark perhaps it would have turned out alright. By the fear of Dodi for the paparazzi and the car which wasn't made for hiding the people inside, Henri Paul had no choice and if it's true, the alcohol didn't help.
 
Just watch a documentary and the presenter at the end of the show made those people who believe it was a conspiration sound so silly (and he was right to do so). My own reflection on this is that how could some agents who worked for the MI-6 or whatever group, officially known or not, would be so stupid to trick a car that could be photographed at anytime by a crowd of paparazzi. They would have taken the risk that some pictures could be made of the crash if the photographers had followed the car in the tunnel. It would have been an extremly difficult situation to try to kill Diana and/or Dodi on a trip that was perhaps the most mediatized of her life. If they wanted to kill her, they would have done it silently and not making up a car crash with doubt of letting someone staying alive like her bodyguard, for him to tell everyone.
 
Last edited:
Theres been soo many conspriacy theories surrounding her death. One of them I remember was that "Diana wasn't the intended target Dodi was." These theories go on and on.
 
Which is true, whether you believe in assassination theories or not. :neutral:

As a Dallasite, I've lived here in "conspiracy theory land" every day of my life for the past almost 44 years (come November). I never cease being amazed what new detail, what overlooked detail, what unexplained detail, pops up only to open another theory to "what really happened" on that sunny and bright, brisk November day when the innocence of America died on a Dallas street.

The problem I have with the death of Diana is the lack of certain notorious factions celebrating the death of a member of the House of Windsor....let alone the Crown Jewel.
 
It will be impossible for Mohammed Al-Fayed and his legal team to substantiate the conspiracy theory. The day Mohammed Al-Fayed proves his case may severely undermine the prestige of the British Royal family. It is understandable that Mr. Al-Fayed still grieves his son’s untimely death, but everything has got limits, especially accusations.
Even if the car crash were “a professional job”, it was perfectly executed so that no one could have found any accusatory evidence. At the same time, the possibility that the car crash might be just a chain of unlucky coincidences should not be excluded either.
 
The point is, when it's proved that Philip had nothing to do with it and the RF aren't murdering Nazis, will Mr Al-Fayed go down for slander as he should?
 
The conspiration teory only exist so that the press obtains to sell more periodicals.
 
For those in North America, MSNBC is showing a program right now (8pm Eastern/7pm central time) featuring the top five conspiracy theories of the death of Diana.
 
Geraldo had a program last night about the accident, and claimed to have a picture that was taken from the front of the car, moments before the crash. It showed a shocked-looking Henri Paul staring stright ahead, but it was too difficult to make out the other figures in the picture though they said Trevor Rees-Jones was looking in the rear view mirror and Diana was looking out the back window.

It seemed strange that nothing else was said about the picture or its source.
 
He also showed one of the photos of the dying Diana..much more clear than the one shown a few years ago in America.

What is the name of the American couple (from New York) who have been making the rounds of these sorts of shows because they were witnesses within seconds of the crash?
 
What is the name of the American couple (from New York) who have been making the rounds of these sorts of shows because they were witnesses within seconds of the crash?

I know who you are referring to -- Goldsmith or something? They said the police showed no interest in talking to them -- except the police were interested in whether or not they had taken any pictures.

It's clearly possible that professionals could have caused the accident -- and then finished off the job in the ambulance. A different car was brought around at the last minute -- and maybe the seat belts didn't work, and who knows what else might have malfxnd. A different driver was brought around at the last minute. It seems like too many last minute changes without a rational reason.

Moreover, Henri Paul acted like he was wacked out on something - apparently earlier in the day when he was driving other people according to reports. He could have taken / or been given drugs to alter his judgment and ability to function normally.

Additionally, the rush to mock and scoff any suspicion as coming from conspiracy nuts is also a little over done and only adds more suspicion.

If Diana was assassinated though, I doubt it had much to do with her Al Fayed association, which unfortunately acts as a smoke screen and diverts attention from the real motive.
 
Originally Posted by Skydragon
Al Fayed seeks Princess Di inquiry papers
Lawyers for Mohamed al Fayed asked a coroner Wednesday to order the Metropolitan Police to hand over all documents and interviews from the force's three-year investigation into the deaths of his son Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana.
Jo of Palatine said:
Al Fayed seeks Princess Di inquiry papers - Yahoo! News
That seems like a reasonable wish, IMHO - it's always better to review the material by oneself and one's legal advisors. Here in Germany it is standard procedure that your lawyer asks to be shown all documents including the transcripts of all police interrogations etc. Maybe that even puits an end to his suspicions.

The trouble is, the reason he really wants access to all the files, is to find out what Charles and the boys said in their statements. He also probably wants to check that all of his employees said exactly what it was suggested they said. :bang:

Fayed lawyers ask to see Charles' notes

Lawyers for Mohamed Fayed today sought access to notes from an interview with Prince Charles in connection with the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, which they suggested police had failed to disclose.

Fayed lawyers ask to see Charles' notes | Uk News | News | Telegraph

:rolleyes:

I have to agree with Jo that it seems reasonable to grant the inquiry papers to both sides of the inquest. First of all, the inquiry was done for the purpose of assisting the inquest. The lawyers as well as the coroner should have all-access to the inquiry papers, not only the published report.
I am no more a supporter of Fayed's claims than anyone else here. However, since the whole purpose of the inquiry was to help the inquest, it would make little sense to deny access to the papers to any side of the argument.
 
Just thought about something. If Dodi had to go to a meeting of somekind (for some people he wasn't going to the apartement just after leaving the Ritz, he had to go somewhere else before) and he was late, perhaps he could have asked Henri Paul to go faster. Trevor Rees-Jones can't say it's not true because as he said, he doesn't remember anything. Don't know what you think about that but if there weren't paparazzi behind the car and Henri Paul wasn't drunk then we could think of other possibilities. (And I think it's way more plausible than any conspiration theories)

A meeting at that time? Forgive my not recalling precisely, but it was something like 11-1130pm Paris time when they left the Ritz the final time wasn't it? I'm sure they just wanted to get the paparazzi off their tail. The whole thing was so stupid on their part. Why didn't they just stay the night at the Ritz? Locked up safely and cozily in their luxury suite, no photographers, no gawkers, no tragedy. :sad:
 
A meeting at that time? Forgive my not recalling precisely, but it was something like 11-1130pm Paris time when they left the Ritz the final time wasn't it? I'm sure they just wanted to get the paparazzi off their tail. The whole thing was so stupid on their part. Why didn't they just stay the night at the Ritz? Locked up safely and cozily in their luxury suite, no photographers, no gawkers, no tragedy. :sad:

Well it was said that he had a meeting with some people related to firearm traffic, but I don't know what to believe about that ...
Yes, according to Mohamed Al Fayed, his son had confirmed him on the phone that they would stay at the Ritz for the night. Although Dodi had an hesitating personality, he changed his plans every 2 seconds. He wasn't used to the paparazzi attention either. I think he panicked with the whole situation and took some risks that would lead him and Diana to their death.
 
Last edited:
It's clearly possible that professionals could have caused the accident -- and then finished off the job in the ambulance. A different car was brought around at the last minute -- and maybe the seat belts didn't work, and who knows what else might have malfxnd. A different driver was brought around at the last minute. It seems like too many last minute changes without a rational reason.
Leaving the ambulance out of it, who owned the cars? Mohamed Al Fayed. Who employed the drivers? Mohamed Al Fayed. Who employed the "security"? Mohamed Al Fayed. Who owns the Ritz Hotel? Mohamed Al Fayed. Who was responsible for approving the plans and the change of plans? Mohamed Al Fayed.

Pretty simple really. No smoking guns leading to mysterious secret agents or the Duke of Edinburgh here I'm afraid; instead the culpability for all (dis)arrangements can be laid squarely on Mr Al Fayed himself. Is it any wonder he is so determined to point the finger elsewhere?
 
I thought the car belonged to a hire company called Etoile Limousines, not to Mr Al Fayed.
 
I thought the car belonged to a hire company called Etoile Limousines, not to Mr Al Fayed.

The owner of Etoiles Limousine is Mr Musa (who has lost his marbles by the way. He wanted to put the wrecked car in a museum or sell it ... :rolleyes:). He rented the car to Mohamed Al Fayed. It was bought second-hand in 1996, which raised some doubts on the reliability of the security of the car.
 
Last edited:
Still, the responsibility for the car is traceable to al-Fayed because the lease must have been in possession by his hotel, right?
What on earth was his reasoning for approving the plan to send Diana and Dodi back to Dodi's apartment? the paparazzi were determined to follow them anywhere, so it would have been highly advisable to let them stay safely at the Ritz. The whole thing was so insane.
 
Still, the responsibility for the car is traceable to al-Fayed because the lease must have been in possession by his hotel, right?
What on earth was his reasoning for approving the plan to send Diana and Dodi back to Dodi's apartment? the paparazzi were determined to follow them anywhere, so it would have been highly advisable to let them stay safely at the Ritz. The whole thing was so insane.

I don't think he approved this decision. Dodi took the risk of going to the apartment. I remember hearing Al-Fayed saying he had had his son on the phone and he had convinced him of staying at the Ritz, but apparently Dodi decided otherwise ...
 
Why didn't they just stay the night at the Ritz? Locked up safely and cozily in their luxury suite, no photographers, no gawkers, no tragedy. :sad:

No, I could never understand why they didn't stay put. Equally, why not just come out, smile and wave and let them take a few snaps? There is nothing so terrible about being photographed, and they didn't seem to mind earlier. Two safe and simple ways of dealing with the situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom