The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Well many people admired her work and were ready to help her in any of her charities and campaigns. Landmines is a very serious matter for countries like the US and if she had really wanted to stop it, she could have. In fact, she did post-mortem so the theory of her being killed because of her engagement against landmines is illogical.

I think she gave the world more awareness and help make more countries vote for the ban that probably won't have. I still think it is logical because it was a very serious matter for a lot of countries to keep them. She made ememies in high places.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by georgiea

The United States and I believe Great Britian protested the ban on landmines. I know the United States made money making these weapons. I don't know if the United States or Great Britain when the countries voted on banning landmines even voted for the ban. So you see Diana, Princess of Wales did not know the can of worms that she open when she championed the landmines ban. And as we know the ban on landmines was dedicated to her work. Just a thought- She could have gotten governments watching her and wanting to silence her.

Do we really know from the way the car looked that if Diana was wearing a seat belt that she wouldn't be deformed from the accident? Silence so to say. Look at Trever Reys-Jones(?) an he wore a seat belt.

I think it is real interesting that the MP want the inquest to be stopped. Are they afraid of something?

The Ottawa Treaty (Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction) came into force on March1st 1999. The treaty was the result of the leadership of the Government of Canada working with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, launched in 1992. The campaign and its leader, Jody Williams, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for its efforts.

So, although Diana became a supporter, as she was not a 'driving force' within the campaign, it would have made no difference to the campaign or it's leaders, to kill Diana. So in answer to your first point, she simply wasn't important enough. The ban is called the OTTAWA TREATY, not the Diana treaty. The UK signed up to it, the US did not.

Diana was sat in the back, if she had worn her seatbelt, almost all the 'experts' agree that she would probably have survived. TRJ was in the front and because he had a seatbelt on, he is able to lead a normal life after recovering from his injuries.

There is no THEY, it was one MP speaking out, like a great many ordinary Brits because he believes it has been a total waste of taxpayers money, investigating the ravings of Fayed, a man who is clearly in need of psychiatric treatment.

Coroner's Warning To Princess Diana Inquest Media |Sky News|UK News

[judith14011]

Al Fayed sounds like nothing less than a paranoid lunatic in the testimony. I read the transcripts and wondered why he was not questioned about his lies about Diana's deathbed conversation with him? As it was later explained by the medical authoritites, Diana never regained conciousness, much less talked to Al Fayed. If confronted about this, would he have lied again, making the staff of the French hospital part of the conspiracy as well?

[ghost_night554]

Clearly he lied because suddenly he I think changed his story with Diana talking to him at the hospital I think it was over the pregnancy issue, he clearly changed it to her calling him at 10 that night, along with telling him about the engagement. Skydragon thank you very much for reply to my question, it makes alot more sense in my head thinking about it.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

So, although Diana became a supporter, as she was not a 'driving force' within the campaign, it would have made no difference to the campaign or it's leaders, to kill Diana. So in answer to your first point, she simply wasn't important enough. The ban is called the OTTAWA TREATY, not the Diana treaty. The UK signed up to it, the US did not.

Diana was sat in the back, if she had worn her seatbelt, almost all the 'experts' agree that she would probably have survived. TRJ was in the front and because he had a seatbelt on, he is able to lead a normal life after recovering from his injuries.

There is no THEY, it was one MP speaking out, like a great many ordinary Brits because he believes it has been a total waste of taxpayers money, investigating the ravings of Fayed, a man who is clearly in need of psychiatric treatment.

Coroner's Warning To Princess Diana Inquest Media |Sky News|UK News

I thought the inquest stated that no one in the car had their seatbelts on?

[MARG]

I listen and read the news reports of the excesses in this Inquest and I wonder...... Is it not illegal to commit purgery, attempt to pervert the course of justice and trying to subourn witnesses?

Mr Al Fayed seems to be very publicly guilty on all accounts, and yet nothing is said.

Is the Coroner perhaps hoping that they can just ignore him and finish the inquest as soon as possible

Surely he knows that Mr Al Fayed will not just go back to his corner and drool on the memorial to his son and Princess Diana. The man's public ravings are a embarassment to British Law, and as British Law has made no attempts to publicly silence him, I se no end in sight.

When is it time to say 'Enough!', and charge him? Are there two standards in Britsh law, one for Mr Al Fayed and another for everyone else? Is he not in contempt? If it were anyone else but Princess Diana involved wouldn't the case be down and well dusted after all this time.

I truely do not understand why unsupported suppositions regarding the nature of the couple's relationship/engagement/pregnancy are any more acceptable in a court of law than Mr Al Fayed's wild and vicious allegations against the BRF, Prince's Phillip and Charles in particular.

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

So, although Diana became a supporter, as she was not a 'driving force' within the campaign, it would have made no difference to the campaign or it's leaders, to kill Diana. So in answer to your first point, she simply wasn't important enough. The ban is called the OTTAWA TREATY, not the Diana treaty. The UK signed up to it, the US did not.

Diana was sat in the back, if she had worn her seatbelt, almost all the 'experts' agree that she would probably have survived. TRJ was in the front and because he had a seatbelt on, he is able to lead a normal life after recovering from his injuries.

There is no THEY, it was one MP speaking out, like a great many ordinary Brits because he believes it has been a total waste of taxpayers money, investigating the ravings of Fayed, a man who is clearly in need of psychiatric treatment.

Coroner's Warning To Princess Diana Inquest Media |Sky News|UK News

Thank you Skydragon and you are right on with your points. As for landmines, the military uses a different type now. I don't remember all the details and am too lazy to do the research again.
Regardless, no government would have wasted the time or the money to murder Diana because she campaigned against landminds. That is about as ridiculous as the theory that JFK was actually alive on a Greek island. Diana died because she was in a car that was being driven at a high rate of speed and there was an ACCIDENT. The fact that she was not wearing her seatbelt sealed her fate.
I can understand why some might feel that all of this is a huge waste of money. But no matter the results of the inquest, there will be those who will continue to look for monsters under the bed.
Lexi

[ghost_night554]

Ok one more question man I must be getting annoying...do you guys think given what Frank Klein said a few months ago in the inquest the MI6 would have gone through with anything had they only heard him mentioning the word "engagement" and that he needed jewellery...like do you know what I mean? They didn't even know at that point if she would go to Paris with him. so what would they plot all that out for nothing..do you know what I mean? I still doubt it though cause what they woulda followed them all day to see where they went had they had enough time to plot everything but considering the fact the decision was last minute....the idea sounds weird to me so I doubt it....sorry my mind has been playing around this for a few days now.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ghost_night554

Ok one more question man I must be getting annoying- SNIPPED.

I can only answer you with the facts that have been presented and my opinion.

Diana's decision to go back to Paris was not planned from what we have heard. The engagement seems to have been a figment of Fayed's imagination, his greatest hope, a chance to get back at the Royal Family that he hates but wants desperately to be a part of. Would anyone have taken an engagement to Dodi seriously, after all they had been seeing each other for such a short time, most people would I think, have sat back and waited for this relationship to fizzle out.

What difference would it have made to TRF or government, IF Diana had married Dodi? None.
Would it have mattered IF she married a muslim, NO. The only 'damage', if any would have been to Diana's image.
Would it have mattered IF after such a short 'relationship', Diana had been pregnant, again only to Diana's image.

These are the reasons that Fayed states why, in his opinion, they were 'murdered'.

The security services couldn't have known that they would leave the Ritz at a given time, because it hadn't been decided. They couldn't have known which door Dodi would use, they couldn't know that the paparazzi would not be right there, behind the car, they couldn't know that there wouldn't be a huge stream of traffic going through the tunnel.

The main point though is that it wouldn't have mattered to anyone who Diana decided to have a relationship with.

[sirhon11234]

Call to end Diana inquest as claims spook spies
Call to end Diana inquest as claims spook spies - World - theage.com.au

[Mermaid1962]

I honestly think that the Royal Family probably wanted Diana to move on with her life and just leave them alone. She had signed a "gag order", and so there wouldn't have been anymore revelations from her.

[BeatrixFan]

Paul Burrell has been recalled to the inquest. The reason? What he said in court and what he's said in various media outlets doesn't add up and the Court requires clarification. The saying, "Chickens coming home to roost" has never been so perfect. He could face charges of perjury.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

She had signed a "gag order", and so there wouldn't have been anymore revelations from her.

Had she???

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Paul Burrell has been recalled to the inquest. The reason? What he said in court and what he's said in various media outlets doesn't add up and the Court requires clarification. The saying, "Chickens coming home to roost" has never been so perfect. He could face charges of perjury.

I wonder whatever possessed him to go blabbing to the media about not telling the whole truth at the inquest and introducing red herrings. He seems to have forgotten that it's the Queen who's above the law, not Diana's butler.

[BeatrixFan]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I wonder whatever possessed him to go blabbing to the media about not telling the whole truth at the inquest and introducing red herrings. He seems to have forgotten that it's the Queen who's above the law, not Diana's butler.

Money. Pounds. Cash. He's been swanning about taking huge cheques for trade secrets and telling people what they wanted to hear. Now it's come back and bitten him on the ass and I couldn't be happier. It'll be a joyous day when they send that old queen down.

[Skydragon]

Princess Diana's former butler Paul Burrell has been asked to return to her inquest after newspaper claims that his evidence was not the whole truth.

Diana Princess Of Wales Inquest: Paul Burrell Told To Return |Sky News|UK News

[ghost_night554]

Originally Posted by