The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008

[BeatrixFan]

Very true Ysbel and I think it depends on different individuals too. We know Mr Al Fayed drinks alcohol because he's been seen sipping champagne before. Muslims aren't allowed to drink alcohol but maybe he skips this like alot of Christians fall out with parents etc. The private views of the Al Fayeds would have determined Diana's behaviour but she'd always been respectful of foreign customs so even if they'd asked her to done a salwar and cover her head I dont think there would have been a problem.

 

[Russophile]

And the fact that we were discussing Mr. Mo and I am curious as to, with above comment from Pinkie if he will have libel charges filed against him. And what's up with Burrell??

 

[BeatrixFan]

Burrell has been reclaimed to court to explain why there are differences in his story in court and his various sell outs to the media. Also "The Sun" have a tape of him saying he lied in court. Mr Burrell hasn't contacted the court and the growing speculation is he's skipped the country to avoid perjury charges.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Let's face it, there will always be someone out there be commoner or royal who will always think there was a conspiracy surrounding Princess Diana's death. Someone out there will go to their death bed believing that this was planned and that they both were embarrassments to the crown. All I am saying is that if it was a conspiracy in time it will be brought into the light. And it might not need a half a million pound inquest to figure it out. There is always that one piece of evidence WHEN A CRIME IS COMMITTED that in time is found. It may take years but until the one piece of evidence that proves NOTHING happened and it was a simple DUI car crash then it will continue to be what it is a Tragic Death of Princess Diana.

Do I read that correctly? You believe it's enough to just sit and wait till (as spoken by the Lord via the bible) truth tells itself, till the whole of mankind recognises that "one piece of evidence" and what it tells about if and/or by whom a crime was being committed? Hm... obviously I haven't lived long enough yet because there are many outcomes of crime investigations that do not convince me yet.

 

[Elspeth]

Burrell has been reclaimed to court to explain why there are differences in his story in court and his various sell outs to the media. Also "The Sun" have a tape of him saying he lied in court. Mr Burrell hasn't contacted the court and the growing speculation is he's skipped the country to avoid perjury charges.

He's going to have to stay away for a while, then, because I assume perjury charges can be brought for a long time after the inquest closes. I wonder why he didn't have the sense to keep his trap shut about misleading the coroner until after the end of the inquest.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

But that's the essential worthlessness of this inquest - they can come up with all sorts of factual evidence pointing to an accident, and it'll make no difference whatever to people who need to believe that it wasn't an accident. They'll just say that evidence of murder wasn't found, or was suppressed, or was misunderstood or something. When people say that they just want to hear the truth, a lot of the time they feel they already know the truth, and that if the verdict is "accidental death," they won't have heard the truth.

I doubt that's what the inquest wants. IMHO it is aimed at securing a verdict that cannot be challenged in another lawsuit as all venues will have been properly explored and presented to the jury. Base on this verdict, the newspaper will have to stop to help spreading conspiracy theories while all those people who still believe in them are considered crazy. For a society like the British, this is quite a good result.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Very true Ysbel and I think it depends on different individuals too. We know Mr Al Fayed drinks alcohol because he's been seen sipping champagne before. Muslims aren't allowed to drink alcohol

Mohammed did not forbid the consumation of alcohol but warned against its dangers and said it was to be used only as medicine, not as a means to escape the realities of life. But it's up to the believer to decide when and against what he needs his "medicine". And I'M afraid I understand Mo Fayed needs quite some "medicine" at the moment, best administered in Bedlam or another institution specialised in cases like his.

 

[Skydragon]

Obvioulsy the inquest was an attempt to silence some very powerful voices and critics who were powerful enough to compell Her Majesty and her advisors the absolute need to make sure the immediate members of the current British Royal Family were not in any way whatsoever connected with the death of the Princess of Wales...

The inquest was nothing of the sort, an inquest has, by law, to be held for any member of the British public, dying abroad. The investigation and the prolonged inquest are to disprove Fayed and some people's allegations of murder.

I just have a hard time believing Diana would have met even a small scratch, let alone death, in the protection of Mr. Al-Fayed, though.

I think that is THE problem. One imagines with the finances at Fayeds disposal, that he would have been able to look after Diana, provide adequete security, privacy and driving standards.

I think Fayed got caught up in the excitement of being in the public eye, connected to the family he loves to hate. Fayed, like Diana, loved being the centre of attention and he would do everything in his power to encourage his son to ask Diana to marry him. He was probably under the delusion that presentation of a tacky ring in Dodi's apartment would do the trick, never realising that Diana, for all her (perceived) faults had much higher standards and thought for her son's feelings.

That is why, IMO, he is so vengeful now, he thought he was about to achieve his ultimate goal, only to have a snatched away by fate!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I think that is THE problem. One imagines with the finances at Fayeds disposal, that he would have been able to look after Diana, provide adequete security, privacy and driving standards.

The sad thing is that both Wingfield and Reece Jones claimed on oath that they told Old Fayed that two bodyguards were not enough considering the lifestyle Diana and Dodi chose during their time together. So it appears as if Old Fayed simply was too "austere" to invest enough in Diana's protection.

 

[BeatrixFan]

He's going to have to stay away for a while, then, because I assume perjury charges can be brought for a long time after the inquest closes. I wonder why he didn't have the sense to keep his trap shut about misleading the coroner until after the end of the inquest.

And of course there's always extradition depending where he's gone.

 

[pinkie40]

I say Paul was drunk on some if his own "Butler's Special" tipple when he was ranting about "red herrings"!!! He discredits himself then and there!

 

[TheTruth]

I say Paul was drunk on some if his own "Butler's Special" tipple when he was ranting about "red herrings"!!! He discredits himself then and there!

Burrell reminds me alot of Hewitt. Seriously, they both made some profit of their position in Diana's life and they both look silly, talking and answering about controversial issues. They are really thick and persevere in speaking their truth although, it's rare that it corresponds to what they had said 2 months earlier ...

Perhaps I'm the only one to see this similiarity but for me, they are so the same.

 

[pinkie40]

Can we add Simone Simmons to the group? Granted, all these people had the "inside scoop" and shared unique experiences with the princess but there should be a one book minimum on Diana, imo.

 

[TheTruth]

Can we add Simone Simmons to the group? Granted, all these people had the "inside scoop" and shared unique experiences with the princess but there should be a one book minimum on Diana, imo.

Definitely. I think she's the worst of the bunch. She really went too far when claiming that Diana had slept with John-John .

 

[Panicgrl]

Burrell reminds me alot of Hewitt. Seriously, they both made some profit of their position in Diana's life and they both look silly, talking and answering about controversial issues. They are really thick and persevere in speaking their truth although, it's rare that it corresponds to what they had said 2 months earlier ...

Perhaps I'm the only one to see this similiarity but for me, they are so the same.

I completely agree with you. One is no better than the other. That's what really makes me feel so sorry for the late Princess - so many were willing to sell her out for a buck.

Seeing Burrell's Youtube promo cracks me up. He was a Butler for goodness sake!

 

[PadThaiPrincess]

I completely agree with you. One is no better than the other. That's what really makes me feel so sorry for the late Princess - so many were willing to sell her out for a buck.

Seeing Burrell's Youtube promo cracks me up. He was a Butler for goodness sake!

Money changes things, doesn't it? I just wonder what Princess Diana would think of her "rock" now.

 

[TheTruth]

Money changes things, doesn't it? I just wonder what Princess Diana would think of her "rock" now.

She would probably throw him in the middle of a lake.

 

[pinkie40]

Not trying to stir up a hornet's nest here, but if they can keep Prince Harry's whereabouts secret for 10 weeks or so in this day and age, I wonder what was kept a royal secret in the days before we all had the internet in 1997....

I'm just sayin'........

 

[Skydragon]

Not trying to stir up a hornet's nest here, but if they can keep Prince Harry's whereabouts secret for 10 weeks or so in this day and age, I wonder what was kept a royal secret in the days before we all had the internet in 1997....

I'm just sayin'........

It wasn't kept secret from the media, they agreed to keep it quiet in exchange for photo and interview opportunities, that they agreed would NOT be published until after his return!

 

[pinkie40]

Perhaps a similar such agreement has been made with the French and the paparazzi regarding Diana and thus no cooperation with testimony in the inquest. Since most of the photos from in the tunnel were confiscated....

Some sort of "Getlemen's Agreement".....

 

[Skydragon]

Perhaps a similar such agreement has been made with the French and the paparazzi regarding Diana and thus no cooperation with testimony in the inquest. Since most of the photos from in the tunnel were confiscated....

Some sort of "Getlemen's Agreement".....

I think we have seen that most journalist are unable to keep a secret that could cause dozens of deaths now, do you really think every single one of them would have been able to say no to a scoop of that magnitude?

 

[pinkie40]

No, but I do think (in my conspiracy theory mindset) perhaps James Andeson's agency failed to "comply"...Some of the others like Arthur Edwards knew the magnitude and severity of the photos they were receiving electronically from Paris that they were almost immediately destroyed....

I also believe (again in my conspiracy theory mindset) the accident could have been "assisted" by a media outlet to "create" news, only to have the whole thing result in a mindblowing tragedy...

 

[Skydragon]

No, but I do think (in my conspiracy theory mindset) perhaps James Andeson's agency failed to "comply"...Some of the others like Arthur Edwards knew the magnitude and severity of the photos they were receiving electronically from Paris that they were almost immediately destroyed....

I also believe (again in my conspiracy theory mindset) the accident could have been "assisted" by a media outlet to "create" news, only to have the whole thing result in a mindblowing tragedy...

If Diana had not died, make no mistake, the authors have said they would have used the pictures, if she had hung on for a day or two, again they would have been used. Arthur Edwards was merely a photographer and would not have been involved, IMO, in any decision regarding the publication of the 'death photo's'. The moment it was announced that she was dead and that she had been hounded by photographers, the only safe thing for the editors to do, was to shred them, although I am reasonable sure that hard copies still exist in newspaper vaults. Your theory of an accident to create news is, to me, a bit wacky. Nobody can tell how much damage a car accident will do to the driver or passengers and an awful lot of people would have had to be involved! Again, at some point, one of those involved would need some extra cash and leak the story.

 

[TheTruth]

If Diana had not died, make no mistake, the authors have said they would have used the pictures, if she had hung on for a day or two, again they would have been used. Arthur Edwards was merely a photographer and would not have been involved, IMO, in any decision regarding the publication of the 'death photo's'. The moment it was announced that she was dead and that she had been hounded by photographers, the only safe thing for the editors to do, was to shred them, although I am reasonable sure that hard copies still exist in newspaper vaults. Your theory of an accident to create news is, to me, a bit wacky. Nobody can tell how much damage a car accident will do to the driver or passengers and an awful lot of people would have had to be involved! Again, at some point, one of those involved would need some extra cash and leak the story.

Oh yes, they were ready to publish them. Ken Lennox was one of the first who bought the pictures and received them via internet. He was very hesitant to delete them when he learnt that she had died and I still think he kept them somewhere. But imagine if she had survived ; she would be so sick to see that paparazzi sold pictures of her and her dead boyfriend and made them publish in the papers. What a disgusting world the gutter press ...

 

[Mermaid1962]

My amateur opinion is that he has some sort of pathological need to impress people by how close he was to the Princess and how much he knows. Perhaps he's beyond the point of being able to stop himself. He seems to have a compulsion to discuss his life with the Royals.

I wonder why he didn't have the sense to keep his trap shut about misleading the coroner until after the end of the inquest.

 

[normalil]

To see that this thread has reached 66 pages shows the obsession which is still attatched to Diana. I find it all a complete waste of time...(I do believe that she was murdered because she was such a dangerous woman, but that her murder was nothing to do with any member of the Royal Family.) I have a lot of sympathy with what al Fayhed says, because he must be heart broken over the loss of his son, and the realisation that he will now be forever an outcast of the British establishment.
Diana was a person in love with herself I think, and to spend all this time and money on an inquest which will never change the minds of any of us, no matter what we think, is such a waste of time and money.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

to spend all this time and money on an inquest which will never change the minds of any of us, no matter what we think, is such a waste of time and money.

Hm, okay, it didn't change my mind but what about yours?

 

[Skydragon]

Phone lines were tampered with at a house where Prince Charles is believed to have had secret liaisons with Camilla Parker Bowles while still married to Diana, it was revealed yesterday.

Charles and Camilla's lovenest was bugged, Diana inquest told| News | This is London

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Phone lines were tampered with at a house where Prince Charles is believed to have had secret liaisons with Camilla Parker Bowles while still married to Diana, it was revealed yesterday.

Charles and Camilla's lovenest was bugged, Diana inquest told| News | This is London

From this article:

Lord Fellowes, who was then the Queen's private secretary, told the gathering in April 1993: "Evidence had been found that the fixed telephone lines had been tampered with.
"It was almost certain that this was the location where the Prince of Wales had been staying on the night of the alleged conversation between him and Mrs Parker Bowles."

and:
"The inquest heard that Charles made the call to Camilla, who was at her home in Wiltshire, on a mobile phone, not a landline."



Sorry, but I don't get it. If the landlines at that house were bugged but Charles, who stayed there, used a mobile - how could his call have been intercepted? And how could they find out the lines were bugged when the fact that the call had been intercepted only became public three years later? Is it believable that Charles and/or Camilla have such good memories as to figure out where they were when this call was made - after three years? With the Squidgygate-call, it was easy to put a date on it but with Camillagate there is not much to indicate when and from where they phoned. Well, okay, that talk about an ambulance strike and Andrew Parker Bowles occupation with it might have helped. Still, it's strange.




Well, IMHO even if it had been the SIS who listened in against orders (and we have such an amount of proof from around the world that Secret Service members tend to lie occasionally to their political superiors against the rules layed out for them) I guess that behaviour stopped once there was this internal check on orders of the queen. So as long as we are only interested in the inquest, IMHO we have heard enough to realise that no Secret Service was involved in monitoring Diana.

 

[ghost_night554]

Mr. Fayed's new claim is worse then all of them put together. Now he says the MI6 put on a "scare" plan in order to cause the car to crash in very few hours. As if! It still doesn't add up properly. Ugh! I'm so sick of him. I understand he lost his son but this is just beyond ridiculous.