The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Russophile

Sorry, but that's just too much speculation. This is quite like the "Bush did it 9/11" speculation. There would be just TOO many witnesses, TOO many bodies and SOMEBODY would talk.
I don't buy. But then again, that's just me.

Okay, I respect your opinions but what do you want to do ? Make your own inquest ? I agree that there are still many things unsolved but 10 years have past. It's quite late to hope that one day we will know everything on this 'headaching' case. It's so thick now that I doubt anyone can give us the truth (if there is one to find ...).

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Okay, I respect your opinions but what do you want to do ? Make your own inquest ? I agree that there are still many things unsolved but 10 years have past. It's quite late to hope that one day we will know everything on this 'headaching' case. It's so thick now that I doubt anyone can give us the truth (if there is one to find ...).

Exactly. I believe it was just a terrible accident. Nothing more. Because she was "The People's Princess" and beautiful and glamourous makes it all the more intriguing. A simple accident just doesn't seem that exciting. And yet there it is.

[chrissy57]

Silver1 - my reply to two of your posts.

I have one question for everyone out there...If Mi6 were given orders to carry out and therefore everything should be covered up, then what is the point of this trial?. Surely the judge and all involved are part of the same masonic group.The one that prince philip is head of.

Some facts here would be useful for you – Prince Philip was initiated as a Mason in the late 40s at the insistence of his father-in-law. Once the king died he stopped attending his Lodge meetings.

He is not the head of any Masonic group. The Duke of Kent is the senior Mason in Britain and has been for many years. Royals being associated with Masonry is not new but Philip certainly isn’t an active Mason.

surely the outcome is already sorted out, but the inquest is just to please the public.

No – the inquest is being held because British LAW requires an inquest for all British citizens who die abroad in accidents or other unnatural causes e.g. they held one for those British citizens who died in the tsunami and for the fellow who disappeared in Central Australia. Neither of those inquests were held until all legal procedures had been completed in the country in which these events happened. That is exactly what has happened here. Until ALL legal actions had been completed in France and that took 7 years or so because Al Fayed kept appealing the British inquest couldn’t begin. Once it did the first major decision was to adjorn and have an inquiry – the Paget report (that is part of the process and not extra to it). Once that report had been completed a court inquest could begin.

And second thing is if the truth (if it is truth) that the accident was 'arranged' finally came out (but i really dont see how and who would go against the establishment in court/police/law or even church -as the queen is head of all that), then HOW WOULD THE PUBLIC REACT? i doubt that day would ever come, but just imagine IF THE VERDICT WAS MURDER then how would the british public accept prince philip or royal family anymore? It would be chaos on that day.

Why, if it was murder, does it have to be the RF? I personally think that Dodi and his family’s connections to armaments manufacture would be more than willing to kill Diana. I wonder if they will be investigating the reasons for Al Fayed pushing his son into this relationship when Dodi was engaged to be married. A conspiracy whereby the Khasoroggi family (Al Fayed’s in laws I believe) got him to put Diana in a position whereby they could kill her in an accident due to her work against Land Mines makes as much sense to me – Al Fayed would then be really angry that his son was also killed and wants to deflect any blame away from himself.

Originally Posted by silver1

have just read the point about the doctor and dodi...Hasnat Khan knew a relationship with Diana would bring disaster and so he ended it (im sure he valued his life and nobody would protect him), but dodi was different.

Diana visited his family in Pakistan and they weren’t too keen on the baggage she brought. Hasnat felt that he wouldn’t be able to stand the publicity and that it would affect his ability to do his job properly not that he feared for his life.

His fathers empire and money would be a wall around them and affer diana the security she needs (money, toys, homes,yachts, treated like she is used to) etc.

Have you seen the footage of the complete disaster of a security arrangements that evening? How can you say that Al Fayed was able to provide her with the security she needed. She certainly didn’t need his money. What she needed was a man who would love her for herself and not because of who she was – Dodi wasn’t that person. He was with her because ‘Daddy’ told him to.

And it was Moh'd al fayeds ambitions that pushed his son. He even bought the chateau in France that belonged to Mrs.simpson and Edward for his son and diana to live in, and in a way he was counting his chickens before they were hatched.

It was an apartment not a chateau.

You may think religion doesnt matter because Hasnat khan was muslim, but remember he ended it because he probably feared for his life and he has been silent since. Here it proves eductation to be valuable. he is a surgeon and was smart enough to know when to get out.

There has never been any suggestion, except from Al Fayed that religion mattered. It has never been mentioned with regard to Hasnet except from his family – they weren’t too keen on her because of her popularity and her religion.

Dont forget with the Fayeds, Mohammed -owner of Harrods, and pays God knows how much in tax- doesnt even have a British passport. Even the nobodys who have only been in uk for 5 or 6 years (and live off the government as they dont want to work)have passports. If after DECADES of being one of the richest businessmen in england, and well known to the royal family, they didnt give him a passport (one has to ask 'why didnt they'?) - DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM THE FUTURE KINGS MOTHER AS HIS DAUGHTER IN LAW?!!!! I rest my case.

The government knows far more about Al Fayed and his connections to know why they continually denied him a passport – he was deemed unsuitable a number of times before Diana was connected to his son.

Your case, that you are resting, is based on very flimsy and even incorrect evidence, lacking substance and knowledge of even the basic points in the situation.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by silver1

I am not a diana fan. I am a University lecturer. An eductated person who asks questions. Who sees things from all angles and i can say as a historian and as a person living in the west, i am not going to be spoonfed this story of a rather suspicious death being just an 'accident' and then have to act blind, deaf and dumb to all that is happening in this country. Why did we go into Iraq again after more than a million people demonstrated against it. where is the democracy in that? - just an example of the many).
Personally i believe that we all know what the verdict is going to be.It will be what they want it to be. Simple as that. And you ask the question 'since when has adultary led to death?' Look back in history, and see. One famous example is Henry viii even changed the religion of his country to suit his ways.beheaded his women.
I am not asking you to believe me - but i am just saying ask questions. We still have that right . The Royal families of Europe have conquered and taken by 'divide and conquer' rule of thumb. They murdered eachother, conspiricies and mysteries over the centuries have still not been solved and this has always been their way. Politics, money, power and human nature. The kind of humans with alot of power. not you and me. Its a whole differnt ball game. If Diana was a threat to them getting rid of her would be seen as a great benefit to the throne in the long run. And Camilla is the one who is laughing all the way to the throne. She waited a long time, and with Diana out of the way -she had the wedding she wanted. What poor taste Charles has. Have you heard of the cartoon Lady and the tramp? Well Diana was a Lady.

There's absolutely no problem with asking questions but what I'm saying is that for 10 years we've been asking the same ones. Just to remind, the Queen wasn't happy when Charles wanted to marry Camilla. She remained passive in this story, even when Diana asked her to talk to Charles about his affair. But what you're doing here, is that you're judging someone you don't know. Maybe you've met Camilla, I don't know, but it's not that fair to say those things on her.

[silver1]

Emotions to one side..I am talking facts. WHY WAS BODY EMBALMED? why no footage? AND THE WORST is why they took her to a far away hospital. THINGS like this dont point to 'just an accident'. Unless you believe that if you say 'it was just an accident' the good people of britain will believe it. Lucky then that Britain is multi cultural and people from eastern and southern europe, and the rest of the world are people who dont usually believe what they see on the news or read in the papers. They know who run that media. They usually ask their own questions and make their own assumptions.The Diana/Dodi accident has COVER UP written all over it. {insult to another poster deleted - Elspeth}

[sirhon11234]

And those questions have been answered: Pite Salpitire hospital was the best one to treat her massive chest injuries. Diana's ex-husband and two sisters were to view the Princess' body hours after her death the room she was in wasn't cool enough to keep her body from decomposing. So it was imperative for Diana's body to be embalmed

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by silver1

Emotions to one side..I am talking facts. WHY WAS BODY EMBALMED? why no footage? AND THE WORST is why they took her to a far away hospital. THINGS like this dont point to 'just an accident'. Unless you believe that if you say 'it was just an accident' the good people of britain will believe it. Lucky then that Britain is multi cultural and people from eastern and southern europe, and the rest of the world are people who dont usually believe what they see on the news or read in the papers. They know who run that media. They usually ask their own questions and make their own assumptions.The Diana/Dodi accident has COVER UP written all over it. {insult to another poster deleted}

{response to gratuitous insult deleted - Elspeth}

And yes I believe it was an accident for a huge number of reasons - mainly because of the difficulty of being sure that anyone would die in a car accident in the first place.

My brother rolled his car once and it was in a worse state than the Merceded in the pictures with the engine in the front seat with him. By some miracle he escaped with a few scratches. We don't know why. We simply thank God that he did. Everyone who has seen that car believes that he should be dead but he walked out of hospital later that same day after being under observation for a few hours.

There is no guarantee with a car accident in a tunnel, on a road. Had they gone over a cliff or down the side of a hill then a murder takes on greater possibility.

Why can't people accept that a somewhat pretty woman, who had multiple affairs and blatantly lied to the public and to her fiance about a number of issues, died in an accident. (Lies - told Charles that she loved outdoor things and Balmoral during courting period and then after married told him she hated the things he enjoyed doing, told the world there were three people in the marriage when there were quite a few more with Hewitt, Hoare etc, said she didn't want a divorce ever and then, conspired with her friends, to make divorce inevitable, which it was after the Morton book came out, told the world that Charles wasn't a good father when he clearly has done a good job with the boys who love him). No I am not a Diana fan and never was. I always thought she was wrong for Charles and said so to my friends and family in 1981.

[sirhon11234]

Why can't people accept that a somewhat pretty woman, who had multiple affairs and blatantly lied to the public and to her fiance about a number of issues, died in an accident.

Personal opinons of the Princess is irrelevant to this thread.

There is no evidence that supports any claims of conspiracy there is only speculation.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

Personal opinons of the Princess is irrelevant to this thread.

There is no evidence that supports any claims of conspiracy there is only speculation.

I don't believe that personal opinions are irrelevant because many people hold the view that because she was the iconic figure that she couldn't have died the way she did.

In other words they aren't looking at the facts but rather refusing to accept that their beloved Diana died like an ordinary person.

By putting my personal opinion of her there I am clearly showing one of my biases so that those who believe that pretty woman who live in the spotlight can't die in accidents can't accuse me of not stating my bias to begin with.

[sirhon11234]

Yes, Diana was an iconic figure who died in a car crash like an ordinary person but is what you said

Why can't people accept that a somewhat pretty woman, who had multiple affairs and blatantly lied to the public and to her fiance about a number of issues, died in an accident. (Lies - told Charles that she loved outdoor things and Balmoral during courting period and then after married told him she hated the things he enjoyed doing, told the world there were three people in the marriage when there were quite a few more with Hewitt, Hoare etc, said she didn't want a divorce ever and then, conspired with her friends, to make divorce inevitable, which it was after the Morton book came out, told the world that Charles wasn't a good father when he clearly has done a good job with the boys who love him).

necessary. Usually when you judge someone (which you shouldn't since you probably didn't know her) you judge them on positive and negative aspects of their life not on just the negative.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

And those questions have been answered: Pite Salpitire hospital was the best one to treat her massive chest injuries. Diana's ex-husband and two sisters were to view the Princess' body hours after her death the room she was in wasn't cool enough to keep her body from decomposing. So it was imperative for Diana's body to be embalmed

Well, there is one thing I must say based on many Doctors in the family, but most specifically my sister in law who is an Emergency Room Doctor at Bellevue in NYC, one of the 3 biggest class 1 trauma centers in the USA.Dr sister in law's posistion was that if Princess Diana has had that accident and injury in any major city in the US she might well have lived. The American system for ambulances is very different from what they have in France. In America they practice what they call' scoop and run', get the patient to the nearest trauma center as fast as possible. Very different from France's technique which is to try to stablilize the patient in the field, no matter how long this takes. The tear in the vena cava was excaserbated by the not only the delay getting to the hospital, but the closed chest CPR. The only thing keeping D from bleeding out was the clotting of blood in the lesion which was more than likely laying in a closed position when the accident occured. Banging on her chest in the field was decidedly unhelpful and might well have been contributory to her death. If they had 'scooped and run' they would have been able to perform diagnostics to establish what was helpful or deliterious. Just passing on 'expert opinion'.

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

{response to insult deleted - Elspeth}

And yes I believe it was an accident for a huge number of reasons - mainly because of the difficulty of being sure that anyone would die in a car accident in the first place.

My brother rolled his car once and it was in a worse state than the Merceded in the pictures with the engine in the front seat with him. By some miracle he escaped with a few scratches. We don't know why. We simply thank God that he did. Everyone who has seen that car believes that he should be dead but he walked out of hospital later that same day after being under observation for a few hours.

There is no guarantee with a car accident in a tunnel, on a road. Had they gone over a cliff or down the side of a hill then a murder takes on greater possibility.

Why can't people accept that a somewhat pretty woman, who had multiple affairs and blatantly lied to the public and to her fiance about a number of issues, died in an accident. (Lies - told Charles that she loved outdoor things and Balmoral during courting period and then after married told him she hated the things he enjoyed doing, told the world there were three people in the marriage when there were quite a few more with Hewitt, Hoare etc, said she didn't want a divorce ever and then, conspired with her friends, to make divorce inevitable, which it was after the Morton book came out, told the world that Charles wasn't a good father when he clearly has done a good job with the boys who love him). No I am not a Diana fan and never was. I always thought she was wrong for Charles and said so to my friends and family in 1981.

Poor Prince Charles ... A grown man was deceived by 19 year-old young woman. I think both parties could be found guilty of ruining each other's lives.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by scooter

Well, there is one thing I must say based on many Doctors in the family, but most specifically my sister in law who is an Emergency Room Doctor at Bellevue in NYC, one of the 3 biggest class 1 trauma centers in the USA.Dr sister in law's posistion was that if Princess Diana has had that accident and injury in any major city in the US she might well have lived. The American system for ambulances is very different from what they have in France. In America they practice what they call' scoop and run', get the patient to the nearest trauma center as fast as possible. Very different from France's technique which is to try to stablilize the patient in the field, no matter how long this takes. The tear in the vena cava was excaserbated by the not only the delay getting to the hospital, but the closed chest CPR. The only thing keeping D from bleeding out was the clotting of blood in the lesion which was more than likely laying in a closed position when the accident occured. Banging on her chest in the field was decidedly unhelpful and might well have been contributory to her death. If they had 'scooped and run' they would have been able to perform diagnostics to establish what was helpful or deliterious. Just passing on 'expert opinion'.

Diana's chest injuries were so massive, her heart was moved from the left position into right tearing her pulmonary vein. I thought she really didn't have a chance.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by silver1

I am talking facts. WHY WAS BODY EMBALMED?

My husband died in winter - not on a hot summer's night like Diana. still his body started to decompose very soon after his death, so we couldn't have had a public lay-out without embalming. The people at the British embassy knew that Diana would probably be layed-out in state and ordered the embalming to make this possible. I guess they could have deep-frozen her body instead but just imagine the public outcry if there had not been Diana's body in the coffin or a fairly decomposed one....

In this difficult case I try to use my common sense and ask myself what I would have done? I would have opted for embalming, no doubt about that.