The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #841  
Old 03-06-2007, 08:50 AM
Chiyo's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassie
That's a concern...but all 12 (or however many serve on the jury) would have to agree to it, which would be tougher. The Paget report offers some fairly compelling evidence against implicating Prince Philip, as well. Laid out step by step, it would be hard to ignore the logic in the report's conclusions.
Not if the inquest goes on for as long as eight months. Herd mentality could set in, not to mention cabin fever!
__________________

__________________
  #842  
Old 03-06-2007, 08:56 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Charleston, SC, United States
Posts: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine
A quote from this article: " But Mr Mansfield said there was such a mountain of new evidence to consider the hearing could not begin until October."

Where did they find all this new evidence? Why was this evidence not offered to the police for their investigation? It seems al-Fayed is trying to create a seperate state in the UK where he decides what to tell and not to tell with everyone being forced to play his puppets... I can't believe it!
My question would be, how much of this evidence is legitimate and how much of it was 'created' by al Fayed? Let's not forget his more presposterous claims, such as the 'pregnancy', the 'engagement', the alleged emergency room nurse to whom an unconscious Diana murmured her last words, and, of course, the omnipotent power of Prince Philip, who orders hits on family members just because he can.
__________________

__________________
  #843  
Old 03-06-2007, 09:25 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon
FAYED PUT ON SPOT OVER DI CLAIMS

A CORONER said yesterday there was not "a shred of evidence" that Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed were murdered in a plot involving the royal family.

Why they will be looking at Diana's fears for her life, I do not know. An inquest is supposed to be based on evidence, not on what the deceased person may or may not have written or said 'in a moment of madness'. (Meant only as a commonly used expression)
To be fair, the coroner can only say what condition the body was in and the physical cause of death. He/She would not be able to tell the cause of the crash (ie was it engineered). That would be established by outside evidence (witnesses, skid marks etc). It is quite a coincidence that she died in the exact way that she wrote about Prince x engineering for her 'to clear the way for Prince Charles to marry his lady'.
__________________
  #844  
Old 03-06-2007, 09:34 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
A couple of things to consider..
Note how al Fayed ups the ante at particular points in time: now that the inquest is about to start in earnest, the allegation is not the Duke of Edinburgh murdered Diana and Dodi, but that the Duke AND Prince Charles were involved. Will he accuse the Queen of being a co-conspirator when he feels the need for some extra media attention?

After al Fayed has campaigned for years for an inquest, and when the Coroner is about to commence proceedings, his lawyer requests a six months delay. Nine-plus years after the event, he "needs more time"? What's this about?

The request for a six-months delay may indicate his intent to drag this inquest out for years, if possible, so that he has a long-term stage from which to rail against "the Establishment" and members of the Royal Family at regular intervals. Endless legal wrangling also serves to delay any official finding that the deaths were caused by a speeding car with a drunk al Fayed employee at the wheel.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #845  
Old 03-06-2007, 09:43 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter
To be fair, the coroner can only say what condition the body was in and the physical cause of death. He/She would not be able to tell the cause of the crash (ie was it engineered). That would be established by outside evidence (witnesses, skid marks etc).
Which is why we have the Paget Report, all 832 pages of it, online and available for anyone and everyone to read.

Quote:
It is quite a coincidence that she died in the exact way that she wrote about Prince x engineering for her 'to clear the way for Prince Charles to marry his lady'.
It's also worth remembering that Diana claimed Charles was planning to bump off not just herself, but Camilla too, so that he could marry the third party [Tiggy Legge-Burke].
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #846  
Old 03-06-2007, 09:51 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter
To be fair, the coroner can only say what condition the body was in and the physical cause of death. He/She would not be able to tell the cause of the crash (ie was it engineered). That would be established by outside evidence (witnesses, skid marks etc). It is quite a coincidence that she died in the exact way that she wrote about Prince x engineering for her 'to clear the way for Prince Charles to marry his lady'.
Actually in an American Court of Law, Diana's letter would be considered hearsay because the authorities can not question her on the intent and meaning of her letter. As hearsay, it wouldn't be admissible in court as evidence. I think the British system may be similar.

The only way her letter could be introduced as evidence would be if the investigation uncovered evidence that validating the contents of her letter. So far the authorities have not found that confirming evidence.

scooter mentions the importance of the coincidence that Diana had a fatal accident after writing that her husband was trying to kill her in a car accident. That accident itself does not even come close to validating that what Diana wrote in her letter was true. Authorities would have to look at the situation surrounding Diana when she wrote the letter. Who she had contact with and what she said to others. They would also have to check the people, places, and things surrounding Diana's death in Paris and check against what they found for the time when she wrote her letter.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #847  
Old 03-06-2007, 10:42 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Charleston, SC, United States
Posts: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
Actually in an American Court of Law, Diana's letter would be considered hearsay because the authorities can not question her on the intent and meaning of her letter. As hearsay, it wouldn't be admissible in court as evidence. I think the British system may be similar.

The only way her letter could be introduced as evidence would be if the investigation uncovered evidence that validating the contents of her letter. So far the authorities have not found that confirming evidence.

scooter mentions the importance of the coincidence that Diana had a fatal accident after writing that her husband was trying to kill her in a car accident. That accident itself does not even come close to validating that what Diana wrote in her letter was true. Authorities would have to look at the situation surrounding Diana when she wrote the letter. Who she had contact with and what she said to others. They would also have to check the people, places, and things surrounding Diana's death in Paris and check against what they found for the time when she wrote her letter.
In the USA, the letter could be introduced by the defense (in the context of a criminal trial), but it would have little bearing without the supporting evidence that you speak of. Since the burden of proof would be on the prosecution, It would simply be 'showboating' on the behalf of the defense-something that we all know defense attorneys rarely do.
__________________
  #848  
Old 03-06-2007, 10:51 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Diana inquest delayed until October

The judge investigating the death of Princess Diana in a Paris car crash 10 years ago decided on Tuesday to postpone the opening of the inquest until October.

Diana inquest delayed until October - Yahoo! News UK

Is this judge a woman or a mouse, it is time she stood up to Fayeds unreasonable demands!

His was not the only loss!
__________________
  #849  
Old 03-06-2007, 10:58 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Charleston, SC, United States
Posts: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon
Diana inquest delayed until October

The judge investigating the death of Princess Diana in a Paris car crash 10 years ago decided on Tuesday to postpone the opening of the inquest until October.

Diana inquest delayed until October - Yahoo! News UK

Is this judge a woman or a mouse, it is time she stood up to Fayeds unreasonable demands!

His was not the only loss!
Appalling. Let me guess-in October, Fayed will come up with even more evidence that has to be investigated, and there will be yet another delay.

So much for her sympathy regarding the other family members.
__________________
  #850  
Old 03-06-2007, 12:05 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Those poor boys. Having waited for an inquest for a family member myself, I can only imagine what they're going through is 10x worse with all the set-backs and media circus surrounding it.
__________________
  #851  
Old 03-06-2007, 01:26 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
A couple of things to consider..
Note how al Fayed ups the ante at particular points in time: now that the inquest is about to start in earnest, the allegation is not the Duke of Edinburgh murdered Diana and Dodi, but that the Duke AND Prince Charles were involved. Will he accuse the Queen of being a co-conspirator when he feels the need for some extra media attention?

After al Fayed has campaigned for years for an inquest, and when the Coroner is about to commence proceedings, his lawyer requests a six months delay. Nine-plus years after the event, he "needs more time"? What's this about?

The request for a six-months delay may indicate his intent to drag this inquest out for years, if possible, so that he has a long-term stage from which to rail against "the Establishment" and members of the Royal Family at regular intervals. Endless legal wrangling also serves to delay any official finding that the deaths were caused by a speeding car with a drunk al Fayed employee at the wheel.
I wonder if there are any charges that could be levelled against him but whose statute of limitation runs out after 10 years. Maybe he's stalling so that he can get the maximum publicity with the minimum repercussions to himself if things don't go his way.

Or maybe he's trying to string it out until Prince Philip dies of old age so his questions will never get answered, at least by putting Philip on the stand. Bit strange that he's also included Charles in the equation if that's the case, though.
__________________
  #852  
Old 03-06-2007, 01:29 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon
Diana inquest delayed until October

The judge investigating the death of Princess Diana in a Paris car crash 10 years ago decided on Tuesday to postpone the opening of the inquest until October.

Diana inquest delayed until October - Yahoo! News UK

Is this judge a woman or a mouse, it is time she stood up to Fayeds unreasonable demands!

His was not the only loss!
She tried to stand up to him, and she got overruled on the question of the jury trial. She may just be thinking that if she gives in to all these demands, it may be quicker in the long run.

If this all turns out to be so much fiction on the part of Fayed, is he liable for any of the expenses incurred?
__________________
  #853  
Old 03-06-2007, 03:16 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
"Not a Shred of Evidence"!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon
FAYED PUT ON SPOT OVER DI CLAIMS

A CORONER said yesterday there was not "a shred of evidence" that Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed were murdered in a plot involving the royal family.
So much for being fair and impartial -- her mind is already made up. I can see why she should not have had the sole decision. I'll bet even then, Al Fayed was surprised to have finally had a court rule in his direction. I wouldn't be surprised if Princes William or Harry helped, since I'm sure they want to be much more clear on some details too.

But if Diana was assassinated, there will never be "a shred of evidence". Those who would be involved in this kind of action would be skilled enough to leave not a shred of evidence. The only problem might be if someone might have seen something or even had suggestive photos -- and that probability was minimized when they rounded up all the paparrazi and confiscated their cameras and threatened them with endless legal action. Next if any witnesses came forth claiming to have seen something or to know something, they would be ridiculed and mocked or worse, as needed, to discredit them.
__________________
  #854  
Old 03-06-2007, 03:30 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Oh I see. So she was murdered but we'll never know because the evidence has been gotten rid of? Sounds like, "Only the Messiah would deny his true divinity" to me.
__________________
  #855  
Old 03-06-2007, 03:36 PM
selrahc4's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella
So much for being fair and impartial -- her mind is already made up. I can see why she should not have had the sole decision. I'll bet even then, Al Fayed was surprised to have finally had a court rule in his direction. I wouldn't be surprised if Princes William or Harry helped, since I'm sure they want to be much more clear on some details too.

But if Diana was assassinated, there will never be "a shred of evidence". Those who would be involved in this kind of action would be skilled enough to leave not a shred of evidence. The only problem might be if someone might have seen something or even had suggestive photos -- and that probability was minimized when they rounded up all the paparrazi and confiscated their cameras and threatened them with endless legal action. Next if any witnesses came forth claiming to have seen something or to know something, they would be ridiculed and mocked or worse, as needed, to discredit them.
If you read her statement you'll see that she didn't say there necessarily WAS no evidence. She said that she hadn't seen any because none had been PRESENTED.
__________________
aka Janet on some other forums
  #856  
Old 03-06-2007, 03:46 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Oh I see. So she was murdered but we'll never know because the evidence has been gotten rid of? Sounds like, "Only the Messiah would deny his true divinity to me".
I'm not sure what you're trying to say -- is it ridicule?

Anyway, another thought of something that rings a bell as strange -- calling up more questions. Why is it considered a moral and ethical imperative to not show pictures of a dying Diana? Video of President Kennedy getting his brains blown out was played over and over, and I don't recall anyone saying that was immoral or even improper. Strange. But I can think of plenty of reasons that aren't so strange as to why assassins would not want photos of their immediate crime scene taken -- if they had any say about it.
__________________
  #857  
Old 03-06-2007, 03:57 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
In the film, "Life of Brian", the crowd ask Brian if he is the Messiah. He says no, to which a woman says, "Only the true Messiah would deny his divinity". Brian responds, "Well what chance does that give me? Alright then, I am the Messiah!" to which a joyous crowd celebrate. It's the same with this. If the courts decide Diana was murdered, the conspiracists will jump for joy. If the courts decide Diana wasn't, the conspiracists will also jump for joy. The conspiracists put forward evidence to prove she was killed but they also say that if there isn't any evidence to prove it, it was destroyed so that it could never be seen and therefore the murder thing never proved or disproved. And that gives us an endless conspiracy which in turn, lines the pockets of people who don't want to get a proper job.

As to watching Di's final moments, it's simple. Notice how we see JFK's autopsy pictures circulated but we never see Marilyn Monroe's autopsy pictures printed. The press build up a picture of a glamorous, hard done by woman who suffered and died at a young age for Marilyn and Diana. If they print a picture of their corpses, they immediately break that picture and the perception changes - and income goes down. People want to buy pictures of Di in a tiara, they don't want to buy pictures of her in her coffin. And that's partly the press, partly keeping the fairy tale alive but partly because of the way we deal with death in this country. Remember the pictures of Grace Kelly in her coffin? A car crash, a beautiful woman, a mother - but we saw her lying in state with an open coffin. We didn't see it with Diana because the British couldn't cope with that. It's too final and it threatens our stiff upper lip mentality.
__________________
  #858  
Old 03-06-2007, 04:01 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by selrahc4
If you read her statement you'll see that she didn't say there necessarily WAS no evidence. She said that she hadn't seen any because none had been PRESENTED.
Her court in this matter has not heard any evidence yet -- so she makes a moot statement that betrays her bias.

:::::::::::::::::::::::
__________________
  #859  
Old 03-06-2007, 04:05 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
She tried to stand up to him, and she got overruled on the question of the jury trial. She may just be thinking that if she gives in to all these demands, it may be quicker in the long run.

If this all turns out to be so much fiction on the part of Fayed, is he liable for any of the expenses incurred?
Sadly no!
__________________
  #860  
Old 03-06-2007, 04:09 PM
selrahc4's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella
Her court in this matter has not heard any evidence yet -- so she makes a moot statement that betrays her bias.

:::::::::::::::::::::::
She simply said that in order to present the allegations to the jury evidence was needed and that none had been provided. That's not necessarlily bias; more like a statement of fact.
__________________

__________________
aka Janet on some other forums
Closed Thread

Tags
diana princess of wales, diana's death and funeral, inquest, princess diana


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Did the Queen act appropriately in the days following Diana's death? Duchess Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 528 09-09-2011 10:49 AM
The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008 sirhon11234 Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 1611 04-08-2008 01:35 PM
New books marking the tenth anniversary of Diana's death Hendrik-Jan77 Royal Library 82 10-03-2007 11:12 AM
Well-run Royal Family Freedom Royal Life and Lifestyle 61 10-24-2006 05:38 AM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:34 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]