The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I'm afaid you misunderstood me TheTruth. Even if the courts had had irrefutable evidence that the papparazzi caused Henri Paul to accelerate that wouldn't make them legally liable for the crash. Now if the evidence had shown that they directly caused Henri Paul to crash into the pillar, then that would have been evidence that they were legally liable. Say for example, Henri Paul had swerved into the pillar to avoid hitting a papparazzi motorcycle - that would have made the motorcycle liable for the crash. But just because the motorcycles chased the car and caused it to speed doesn't make them liable for the crash if it occurred just because the car was going too fast into the tunnel.

That's the reason the mystery red Fiat was important. The paint on the car indicated that the car had had a collision with a red Fiat that that's what could have made them crash into the pole.

Oh okay, sorry I didn't understand it this way. Wasn't the Fiat white ? I remember the story and the Fiat Uno was never found but the guy who could have been a potential owner was found burned in a car that someone had put on fire.

[TheTruth]

Diana bodyguard felt pressured - Yahoo! News UK

Quote :

The former bodyguard, who suffered horrific facial injuries in the crash and still bears the scars, told the inquest into Dodi and Diana's deaths that while recuperating: "I felt the pressure to remember what had occurred."

"The fact that I could not frustrated myself and also obviously frustrated Mr al-Fayed," Rees told the court, concluding two days of dramatic testimony about the night that so nearly cost him his life.

[tinkerbell1948]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Oh okay, sorry I didn't understand it this way. Wasn't the Fiat white ? I remember the story and the Fiat Uno was never found but the guy who could have been a potential owner was found burned in a car that someone had put on fire.

Yes it was a white Fiat think there is footage of one when they were leaving the Ritz

[anbrida]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Diana paparazzi defend inquest no-show - Yahoo! News UK



How can they not be forced to go in court ?! As far as we know they are really likely to be the ones who created the crash.

Excellent point thetruth, that is exactly what I think for 10 years. If one really need to find someone to blame, paparosso come to the first in the list. Remember 10 years ago, people were still clear the paparosso and the press play a huge role leading to that accident. Actually, for half year after Diana died, the press dared not to use even one photo of Diana. I still remembered when they first used Diana's photo after the accident, it made a international headline.

I always suspected why the press toke such an active part in promoting the story Diana manipulated the press. Just look at the bbc article about how Diana sole well for the last ten years. Look how the press was grumbling of being used, and so it was a fair play for them continue to exploit Diana's privacy for their money. And they are so successful in spreading this thought, that a lot people believe Diana died because she was so crazy about attention that she courted the paparasso to chase her to death. That is why not even one paparassi was asked to the inquest.

This makes me think about Britney Spear. I am never a big fan of Spear. But it is very obvious that she is a patient now who need a quite environment to be took care. It is pathetic to look at her being used by those press. While they chased her, occasionally, the press will give some articles telling us how Britney was crazy about attention that without attention she will die. Another fair game, huh? I think they really think she will die soon, because I heard a press agency has already prepared her obituary.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by tinkerbell1948

Yes it was a white Fiat think there is footage of one when they were leaving the Ritz

No kidding ?! I never thought this allegation was verified and I didn't know they had actually captured a picture of the car !

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

No kidding ?! I never thought this allegation was verified and I didn't know they had actually captured a picture of the car !

From what I remember, there was a photographer (that followed Diana, Princess of Wales around that summer) who had a white fiat, but he proved he was not in Paris that night. He was found died in a burned car a few years later.

The fiat that probably hit the mercedes was owned by a person who was illegally living in France. He painted his fiat red right after he supposely hit the mercedes and he declined to go to the inquest.

[ysbel]

You are perhaps right, TheTruth, I thought the color of the Fiat was red but I am not sure.

Originally Posted by anbrida

I always suspected why the press toke such an active part in promoting the story Diana manipulated the press. .

Possibly because they used each other and then when things didn't work out they blamed each other. Diana complained about the press; the press complained about Diana but only when things weren't working their way. When things were working their way, the complaints about each other dried up.

[ghost_night554]

It's kinda funny actually Daily Mail summed up in an article what had been said about Henri Paul's samples but failed to mention that in the Inquiry it had been explained about the high monoxide levels. You know I'd LOVE just for the fun of it if they had any of his blood sample left to give it to his parents and let them take the DNA test in their own place where they feel they can trust the results and do an alcohol levels test at the same time since they don't seem to beleive any of this. I'm not blaming them I understand how crushed they must be still to this day but come on if they say they tested the samples with their DNA how can they be lying? Well actually that has gone through my head but ever since the new allegation about Mr. Fayed's cover up really seems to put for me in prespective that it was a total accident. Yes, you can flip the story but I don't for a second beleive Mr. Rees or Mr. Murrel are lying, especially Mr. Rees whose life has quite obviously been destroyed by the crash.

[anbrida]

Originally Posted by ysbel

You are perhaps right, TheTruth, I thought the color of the Fiat was red but I am not sure.



Possibly because they used each other and then when things didn't work out they blamed each other. Diana complained about the press; the press complained about Diana but only when things weren't working their way. When things were working their way, the complaints about each other dried up.

As I remembered, the press began to complain about Diana after she died. I didn't remember reading any Diana's manipulation stuff when she was alive. But Diana did complained a lot of the press, of course when she was alive.

[tinkerbell1948]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

No kidding ?! I never thought this allegation was verified and I didn't know they had actually captured a picture of the car !

Only speculation.........a white car is seen in some of the footage is it or isn't it the white Fiat kind of stuff, no proof

[tinkerbell1948]

Originally Posted by georgiea

From what I remember, there was a photographer (that followed Diana, Princess of Wales around that summer) who had a white fiat, but he proved he was not in Paris that night. He was found died in a burned car a few years later.

The fiat that probably hit the mercedes was owned by a person who was illegally living in France. He painted his fiat red right after he supposely hit the mercedes and he declined to go to the inquest.

I knew about the photographer being found dead think the conspiracy theorists had a field day with that one but not that they'd found the person who was actually driving the car that hit the Merc

Still can't understand why they can't be ordered to testify even if it isn't a trial but an inquest.

[ghost_night554]

Actually the car traces found on the Mercedes were found to be from a Fiat when they did testing on the paint.

[Fabulous Fake]

Originally Posted by tinkerbell1948

Still can't understand why they can't be ordered to testify even if it isn't a trial but an inquest.

You've answered your own question. Its not a trial and any testimony is purely voluntary at an inquest.

To be honest,having read some of the transcripts,I can understand a reluctance to attend.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by ghost_night554

Actually the car traces found on the Mercedes were found to be from a Fiat when they did testing on the paint.

That's right. But Operation Paget (the british police investigation) found out that the photographer was not in Paris that night (because he was travelling to Corsica from the West of France that morning) and that his white fiat hadn't a valdi registration number and had been used only to drive around the estate again far away from Paris before they removed two of the wheels soem weeks before the accident. So it's quite impülausible that it was this car which was used.

But they found another white fiat, whose owner fit the descriptions of eye witnesses, who had the required dogs and who had changed the colour of his fiat directly after the accident from white to red while doing some reparations on the car. Still, it was too late when the french police found the owner and he presented an alibi for that night, so there was nothing they could do to charge him. Charge him with what? Having been involved in an accident? It's not as if the white fiat actually crashed the mercedes, it's probably "just" that Henri Paul on speeding into the underpass with its rather steep decline saw the white fiat in front of him too late, touched the car and that was enough to send the mercedes crashing into the pillar. French and British police could not find evidence that the white fiat of whoever drove the car was responsible for the crash, only that it probably was involved. But when they traced the car they seem to think was it, it was too late and all proof was gone.

But it's quite unlikely that it was the white fiat of the photographer when compared to the information about that formerly white then red fiat from Paris, which in all probability does not exist anymore, given the time. And would you be willing to testify at the inquest when you are not forced to do so and tell Al-Fayed that it was your car which made the mercedes crash? Even though you're innocent? I'm convinced Al-Fayed would see to it that this man pays for that anyway.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by anbrida

As I remembered, the press began to complain about Diana after she died. I didn't remember reading any Diana's manipulation stuff when she was alive. But Diana did complained a lot of the press, of course when she was alive.

James Whitaker who was one of the first reporters to be in Diana's camp did an interview with PBS the year before she died when he talked about Diana's dealings with the press and spoke of how manipulative she was. He stated it rather matter of factly.

What I remember is that Diana only complained when the papparazzi approached her physically close when she wanted to be left alone. She didn't complain when they got too close to her and she wanted to talk to them and be photographed. Her rather famous statement about "You're going to be surprised at what I do next" was given to the papparazzi I believe and she wasn't angry when they approached her then.

The press began getting bad press from hounding Diana and so they started talking about Diana's relationship with them. That's when we heard about the reporters on the royal beat prepping the young Diana to be the ideal mate for Charles so he would propose and we heard about Diana's meetings with Richard Kay when she would give him information.

I think it was obvious that she was using the press as a tool and a weapon against Charles and the press was using her as a tool to bolster their sales. I think the lesson from all of this is that when you use someone else for your purposes, you lay yourself open for them to use you for theirs.

[Fabulous Fake]

Originally Posted by ysbel

> snip


I think it was obvious that she was using the press as a tool and a weapon against Charles and the press was using her as a tool to bolster their sales. I think the lesson from all of this is that when you use someone else for your purposes, you lay yourself open for them to use you for theirs.

Sorry for shortening your post ysbel.

Some words are just worth repeating,imho.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by ysbel

You are perhaps right, TheTruth, I thought the color of the Fiat was red but I am not sure.

The informations georgia gave in this post explain why we confused the specific color of the car.