The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008 - Page 6

sirhon11234 · #**101** 10-06-2007, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Of course we are allowed to talk about good and bad sides of the person (thank god !) but what is annoying, at least from my point of vue, is that some people "spit" (so to speak) on the memory of someone, by putting again some speculations on the front page not thinking that behind there's a person, dead now, who can't fight back those stupid stories. Leaving somebody at peace is letting him go and remembering but definitely not spreading rumours and unproven stuff.

I couldn't have said it better myself all these speculations should be put to an end.

selrahc4 · #**102** 10-06-2007, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Of course we are allowed to talk about good and bad sides of the person (thank god !) but what is annoying, at least from my point of vue, is that some people "spit" (so to speak) on the memory of someone, by putting again some speculations on the front page not thinking that behind there's a person, dead now, who can't fight back those stupid stories. Leaving somebody at peace is letting him go and remembering but definitely not spreading rumours and unproven stuff.

Oh, I agree. I can see why you find that annoying. I also find it annoying that when negative but true things are brought up there is a cry for resting in peace but not when positive but true things are brought up. To me letting something rest means letting it alone.

angela · #**103** 10-06-2007, 08:08 PM

There are legitimate concerns that Diana Princess of Wales' death was not accidental and thus I applaud Dodi's father in not letting this go. I am no expert but I have seen the cctv footage from the Ritz and a blind man can see that Henri Paul was not drunk. Also it has been medically proven that if the alcohol content from his corpse was accurate he would have been so blind drunk that it would have been inconceivable that his passengers would have allowed him to drive them. Thus I am not a so called "rest in peace" advocate as IMO there are enough grounds for this matter to be subject to much further investigation.

selrahc4 · #**104** 10-06-2007, 08:20 PM

It being an accident doesn't entirely hinge on him being drunk, though. Even without the alcohol factor, the car was being driven far too fast by a driver who was not used to driving that model car of that size and power. It seems to me the speeding was the major cause of the loss of control.

angela · #**105** 10-06-2007, 08:42 PM

But there is obviously something amiss when his blood tests show levels of alcohol that are not in keeping with footage of his behaviour on the night of the crash and the general consensus was that the crash was due to erratic driving due to the effects of excessive alcohol intake.

pinkie40 · #**106** 10-06-2007, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by selrahc4

What do most of us really mean when we want someone to be allowed to "rest in peace"? Does it mean that comments about the person are allowed, but only if they are complimentary? Does it mean that discussion should truly be put to rest and thoughts and memories about the person be kept private and internal? I tend toward the latter view, but think that if discussion is brought forward then all facets of the person's life should be allowed as topics...good or bad...factual or speculative (as long as that is made clear).

Even though his words, books and lectures have been looked upon as "betrayal", I admire Paul Burrell to be honest and open that he 1) admits making a living of the memories of the Princess, and 2) speaks of Diana in very respectful tones and 3) wants her memory to be seen for the person she was. He knew the "real" person and, good or bad, wants only for her to be honored with truth...

Then you have someone like James Hewitt or someone like Terrance Stamp to divulge initimate details (usually for extortion and profit) that should remain private between two loving people.

Diana deserves an inquest like any other average person who is entitled to one, especially since Lord Stevens found justified reasons to continue to investigate and to ask questions on her behalf and that of her adult sons.

pinkie40 · #**107** 10-06-2007, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by selrahc4

It being an accident doesn't entirely hinge on him being drunk, though. Even without the alcohol factor, the car was being driven far too fast by a driver who was not used to driving that model car of that size and power. It seems to me the speeding was the major cause of the loss of control.

What I now focus on and question is if Mr. Paul's driving was erratic and dangerous after he picked up Dodi, Diana and entourage from the airport early in the day of Aug 30th, why was he 1) not immediately sacked and 2) allowed to drive the couple as they left the Ritz and 3) can the absence of approximately 8 minutes of Mr. Paul not on cctv be explained upon cross examination of Ritz hotel employees or Al-Fayed security.

Duchess · #**108** 10-07-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkie40

What I now focus on and question is if Mr. Paul's driving was erratic and dangerous after he picked up Dodi, Diana and entourage from the airport early in the day of Aug 30th, why was he 1) not immediately sacked and 2) allowed to drive the couple as they left the Ritz and 3) can the absence of approximately 8 minutes of Mr. Paul not on cctv be explained upon cross examination of Ritz hotel employees or Al-Fayed security.

was he drunk when he picked them up at the airport? i wasn't aware of this bit.

**TheTruth** · #**109** 10-07-2007, 12:30 PM

One other detail has its place in the circumstances, Henri Paul didn't have the licence to drive such a car and even if he wasn't drunk, he overspeeded without a doubt and crashed the mercedes right in the tunnel. The choice of untanned windows was totally stupid too because paparazzi could take pictures from the inside of the car.

**TheTruth** · #**110** 10-07-2007, 12:48 PM

Inquest Jury to visit Paris.

Diana inquest jury to visit Paris crash site - Yahoo! News UK

Don't live in Paris so I won't be able to get some pictures for example but will do my best to post what will be said here

.

Boris · #**111** 10-07-2007, 02:02 PM

I feel myself agreeing with angela here. As much as I respect the wish of posters to just 'let Diana rest in peace', this inquest is an important and justified one in both a criminal and historic context. There are too many issues unresolved due to quite an astonishing number of inaccuracies, conflicting forensic evidence and unanswered questions.
So far, new evidence like the whole footage of the Ritz surveillanvce tapes and the latest paparazzi pics have only added more questions to the already existing ones. My main focus here wouldn't be on speculation about the Diana's private matters (yes, obviously there's a change of mood from late afternoon to early evening etc -) but on the fact that the whole course of events which lead up to the fateful ride into the tunnel remains a blurred, condradictory story to this very day.
This starts with the question what exactly the purpose of a less-than-24h-stay in Paris before going to Balmoral was and coninues from there on: What exactly took place during the first ride from the airport, what was the purpose of the couple's visit to the Duke of Windsor's house, why exactly did they keep going back and forth between Dodi's apartment, the Ritz, a restaurant and back to the Ritz within just five hours, and most importantly, what is the EXACT chronicle of their last ride:
# 1: The choice of route (which was not the closest to Dodi's apartment)
# 2: The reason for speeding (if the ride's destination was his apartment, paparazzi would have been waiting for the couple there anyway);
# 3: The number, the drivers, and the destiny of all other vehicles present and their exact position at which moment (including the paparazzi's motorcycles, the 'mystery' Fiat Uno which collided with their Mercedes, the Citroen driving in front of them)
# 4: Henri Paul's physical condition (He must have been a long-time alcoholic in order not to appear drunk that night, and no proof of this has ever been forthcoming);
# 5: The setbelt question (The amazing thing not so much that Diana & Dodi didn't wear one but that Rhees-Jones since a bodyguard is not supposed to never wear one in case he has to move quickly);
# 6: The medical decisions taken (the ambulance containing Diana driving at slow speed not to the closest possible hospital, her embalming);
# 7: The aftermath (the lack of road surveillance camera's footage, the fast cleaning and re-opening of the tunnel, the sloppy Paris investigation) -
unfortunately I could go on forever with more details but this is also the reason why the inquest will go on seemingly forever and why it's so important to get it right this time.
To anyone who is further interested, I can only recommend the 1998 book by Sancton & Mac Leod 'Death Of A Princess' (outdated, but a serious investigation of all facts known at the time) and the coroner's official link to the inquest thankfully posted here already by GillW:
Inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Mr Dodi Al Fayed
I am not a follower of conspiracy theories and I don't believe for a moment that the Royal Family was involved in any kind of assassination attempt. But the more I learn about dry forensic facts here, the more disturbed I am about lacking consistency, missing evidence and the lack of proof.

**TheTruth** · #**112** 10-07-2007, 02:33 PM

Well for the fact 2, Henri Paul could have been totally sain but wanted to play the "super driver". He could have also followed Dodi's orders to go faster. As for the fact 7, it was explained that hospitals take turns for the night. That August 31, the Pitié Salpétrière was in charge of the serious accidents. The slowliness ambulance can be justified by the state of the person inside. If you drive to fast, you can disturbe the doctor or even worsen the fragile health of the patient. But I still agree with you that this whole situation is far from being clear.

pinkie40 · #**113** 10-07-2007, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duchess

was he drunk when he picked them up at the airport? i wasn't aware of this bit.

Who knows if Mr. Paul was drunk or not when he picked them all up from the airport. He was, according to Dodi's massage therapist, driving erratically, and dangerously avoiding or trying to avoid the paps who had followed them from the airport en route to their first Paris destination. Dodi's massage therapist was "rattled" over Mr. Paul's extreme driving and had regrets she didn't "speak up" about it...

What about the photographer and the man of Asian descent who are not going to be giving testimony? Also, I am anxious for Paul Burrell and his testimony.

I apologize for posting a 3rd consecutive post but for the past few days I have been noticing the tires and tire rims/axle of the Mercedes death car do not seem to be damaged as I would think they would be for such an impact. Is there any link to the detailed description of the damages to this car?

gfg02 · #**114** 10-07-2007, 05:20 PM

Diana Inquest, And A Bevy Of Conspiracies

Diana Inquest, And A Bevy Of Conspiracies, Despite A Service Aimed At Resting Her Memory In Peace, Diana's Tragic Death Is Again At The Fore - CBS News

Boris · #**115** 10-08-2007, 06:10 AM

Regarding the question of the speeding and an analysis of the 'last photos', a commentator on CNN made a very interesting point:
The 'last photos' were taken ca. 2 minutes before the crash which is important: That means the mercedes was still well outside the tunnel, with a paparazzi on a motorcycle already in front of it, and both of them driving at slow speed - otherwise, the photos would not be so clear and in focus.
Now the question was: If you as a driver had to decide which was more dangerous, to drive at normal speed at night constantly blinded by flashlights coming from a motorcycle right in front of you, or to speed up and overtake the motorcycle in order to avoid those flashlights, what would you do? Answer: It would seem safer to speed up. Makes perfect sense to me

Al_bina · #**116** 10-08-2007, 02:23 PM

I agree with those members, who believe that the untimely death of Princess Diana requires a closer investigation because of “an astonishing number of inaccuracies, conflicting forensic evidence, and unanswered questions” (Boris, post #174). It is Mr. Al-Fayed’s right to know all circumstance about his eldest son’s death. It is truly sad that Mr. Henri Paul will be forever labeled as a drunk driver, whose actions contributed to the accident.
However, this inquest will likely to reveal nothing to substantiate Mr. Al-Fayed’s accusations. Let's assume... The jury concludes that the accident was “a professional job”. How are the British authorities going to determine and duly punish the parties involved? Who will take responsibility for the accident? Is it the British Royal Family or Muslim extremists or local extremists, who would like to harm the Royal family?
Given the above, it is fair to presume that the death of Princess Diana and Dody Al-Fayed is doomed to remain open to all kinds of interpretations.

Avalon · #**117** 10-08-2007, 03:27 PM

The thing is, most of those inaccuracies and unanswered questions (if not all) have been answered in the Operation Paget. It is long, of course, but if one wishes to speak about the questions in the late Princess's death (whether they believed it was a murder, a form of suicide or a kidnap by the aliens), they should be ready to have the facts.

For example, all of the questions Boris posted have been explained and answered in the Paget Report. The only question that remained slightly unclear for me, is the question of Rhees-Jones's seatbelt.