The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008

[sirhon11234]

But why wouldn't the verdict be "accidental death"? The car crash was an accident and their deaths were a result of high speed, drunk driving, and not wearing seat-belts.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

I hope he'll use use words like "excessive speed", "alcohol" and "not wearing seat-belt", rather than "accident".

I firmly believe it was a tragic accident.

Many people have driven, over the limit at high speed without a seatbelt and not been involved in a crash.

[GillW]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I firmly believe it was a tragic accident.

Many people have driven, over the limit at high speed without a seatbelt and not been involved in a crash.

For the legal instructions on what choices are open to the Jury see:

http://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.u...ndout_jury.pdf

[pinkie40]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

As has already been stated, there is no warrant out for Burrells arrest, (although I live in hope), therefore no reason for him not to return here. So far there has not even been an investigation into a possible charge of perjury.

Mr Burrell clearly, IMO, lied when giving testimony, especially over the 'secret' note Diana wrote for him that he was unable to reveal.

He was made to look a complete ass and by saying "I was very naughty and I made a couple of red herrings, and I couldn't help doing it", was hoping to keep himself saleable to the Tabloids and especially the US market.

It just went to show his intelligence that he couldn't even use the correct saying!

I suspect we still haven't heard the last from Paul. Along with Al-Fayed, it was Paul going to the media with the "letter" in which Diana wrote about Charles alledgely tampering with her brakes which was another factor for the "need" for the inquest.

Paul has a group of friends and associates that promote his little cottage businesses and skim off their cream off the top. He has agents to handle his speaking enagagements and has made fast friends with some people like Dominic Dunne.

So I don't doubt Paul will write yet another book. He is the keeper to many secrets...not just about Diana, I'm afraid.

I hope the verdict is soon.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by pinkie40

So I don't doubt Paul will write yet another book. He is the keeper to many secrets...not just about Diana, I'm afraid.

While he may like people to believe he is the keeper of secrets, I very much doubt he has very many secrets and even less that he can prove. I have to admit I never liked the ingratiating chuff but with his appearance at the inquest and the video, he really has made a complete ass of himself.

[jcbcode99]

Accidental death--I still do not completely understand why the rantings of Al-Fayed were even taken seriously. It was tragic that she died so horrifically, it was tragic Dodi died in the same manner. But, let's end this thing. THat being said, is there an end in sight any time soon?

[pinkie40]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

Accidental death--I still do not completely understand why the rantings of Al-Fayed were even taken seriously. It was tragic that she died so horrifically, it was tragic Dodi died in the same manner. But, let's end this thing. THat being said, is there an end in sight any time soon?

No matter what the mess Mr. Al-Fayed finds himself in, he has some sort of pyschological need to be seen with out blemish. This was made clear to me in an article at salon.com when a writer for Vanity Fair set out to write a positive piece on him and ended up digging up all sorts of secrets and plots that could be traced back to his involvement...some major and some minor.

Some of us forget Mr. Al-Fayed was involved in a major scandal prior to the election of May 1997 in England; so he "felt victimized"....and, I am sure some of that victimization led him to invite the Princess on holiday as sort of a way to thumb his nose back at the Establishment.

Having his son and the most famous woman in the world die under his security detail surely put the old man over the edge in many ways...so thus his campaign to vilify the royals (who weren't too happy having their crests hanging over the sign at Harrod's...but that's another cup of tea for another day) by accusing them of an act of double murder(I don't think Al-Fayed cared one bit about Henri Paul).... It's merely a back and forth slug fest and if certain groups can tarnish the Princess' name to make certain others look "better" or make a few quid off Diana's lovelife then all the better...

It's never going to be over with Al-Fayed or Burrell in the picture...I'm afraid.

My hope would be for a verdict which would allow Prince William and Prince Harry to sue Al-Fayed for wrongful death by not providing their mother with adequate security as she was riding in a car hired by the Ritz and driven by a Ritz employee...At least the could recoup some money their agents had to spend to close Diana's estate..and for pain and suffering......

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by pinkie40

No matter what the mess Mr. Al-Fayed finds himself in, he has some sort of pyschological need to be seen with out blemish. This was made clear to me in an article at salon.com when a writer for Vanity Fair set out to write a positive piece on him and ended up digging up all sorts of secrets and plots that could be traced back to his involvement...some major and some minor.

Some of us forget Mr. Al-Fayed was involved in a major scandal prior to the election of May 1997 in England; so he "felt victimized"....and, I am sure some of that victimization led him to invite the Princess on holiday as sort of a way to thumb his nose back at the Establishment.

Having his son and the most famous woman in the world die under his security detail surely put the old man over the edge in many ways...so thus his campaign to vilify the royals (who weren't too happy having their crests hanging over the sign at Harrod's...but that's another cup of tea for another day) by accusing them of an act of double murder(I don't think Al-Fayed cared one bit about Henri Paul).... It's merely a back and forth slug fest and if certain groups can tarnish the Princess' name to make certain others look "better" or make a few quid off Diana's lovelife then all the better...

It's never going to be over with Al-Fayed or Burrell in the picture...I'm afraid.

My hope would be for a verdict which would allow Prince William and Prince Harry to sue Al-Fayed for wrongful death by not providing their mother with adequate security as she was riding in a car hired by the Ritz and driven by a Ritz employee...At least the could recoup some money their agents had to spend to close Diana's estate..and for pain and suffering......

Pinkie--you have raised a point I have never even considered--the ability of hte Princes to sue the Ritz--I mean, they could win that easily. The driver was intoxicated, didn't have the proper training for dealing with the paparazzi in this type of situation, etc....Whether they do it or not is another question, but I think they should consider it. Unless the statute of limitations has run out--

[Little_star]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

Accidental death--I still do not completely understand why the rantings of Al-Fayed were even taken seriously. It was tragic that she died so horrifically, it was tragic Dodi died in the same manner. But, let's end this thing. THat being said, is there an end in sight any time soon?

It is a legal requirement for there to be an inquest after an individual's death.

Perhaps if the authorities had had the good sense to do this 10 years ago, we wouldn't be seeing the kind of shambles and farce that this event has turned into.

[Mermaid1962]

I'd be surprised if they sued the Ritz, because that would bring all this back into the public sphere again. All the testimony would have to be gone thru again about Henri Paul and who decided to have him drive, etc., etc. We'd all be doing this:

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

Pinkie--you have raised a point I have never even considered--the ability of hte Princes to sue the Ritz--I mean, they could win that easily. The driver was intoxicated, didn't have the proper training for dealing with the paparazzi in this type of situation, etc....Whether they do it or not is another question, but I think they should consider it. Unless the statute of limitations has run out--

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

Accidental death--I still do not completely understand why the rantings of Al-Fayed were even taken seriously. It was tragic that she died so horrifically, it was tragic Dodi died in the same manner. But, let's end this thing. That being said, is there an end in sight any time soon?

Under normal circumstances the inquest would have been based on the report from France, but once Fayed and the Di Express started to accuse the Duke and MI6, it was deemed in the best interests of all concerned to hold a full investigation, followed by this very prolonged inquest. If there had been no accusations about the Royal Family, the inquest would have been based solely on the manner of her death, not the months and years leading up to it. I didn't like the woman, but I find it very sad that many of her involvements, faults and neurosis have been aired for all to hear, including her sons.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Little_star

It is a legal requirement for there to be an inquest after an individual's death.

Perhaps if the authorities had had the good sense to do this 10 years ago, we wouldn't be seeing the kind of shambles and farce that this event has turned into.

The legal requirement is that an inquest is held for every Briton who dies abroad, but not for every person who dies in the UK.

The inquest here could not start until after the French investigation and all legal matters there had been concluded, which caused a significant delay. The inquest here could not start until after the full investigation of all allegations being leveled against the Duke, Charles etc. Therefore good sense had nothing to do with the delay.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Under normal circumstances the inquest would have been based on the report from France, but once Fayed and the Di Express started to accuse the Duke and MI6, it was deemed in the best interests of all concerned to hold a full investigation, followed by this very prolonged inquest. If there had been no accusations about the Royal Family, the inquest would have been based solely on the manner of her death, not the months and years leading up to it. I didn't like the woman, but I find it very sad that many of her involvements, faults and neurosis have been aired for all to hear, including her sons.

Indeed!
I respected Diana for everything she did but I wasn't keen on her myself. It is too bad that Fayed and crew made it into such a circus. Can they get it behind them now? Or is he going to rear his ugly head up yet again?

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by judith14011

"During al-Fayed's testimony, he was asked if he was prepared to accept the verdict of the jury. Under oath al-Fayed stated that he would accept whatever the verdict the jury came up with. The Coroner in his summing up made sure he the jury were reminded, he told the jury that Mohammed al-Fayed had stated under oath that he would accept the verdict of the jury."


Yeah, right. Like that's going to happen. He will never believe it was an accident, because that would make him and his dim-witted son responsible for the death of Diana. He will charge "cover up" loudly and incessantly until he dies. And because he is so paranoid, any attempt to quash his rantings will (in his sick mind) be one more indication that Diana and Dodi were murdered, they are trying to silence him, they don't want the truth, etc. etc. etc., ad nauseam.

I agree that al Fayed is unlikely to go quietly but the fact that he on oath has stated that he will accept the ruling of the inquest. (To get him to say yes took the lawyer asking him a number of times, the lawyer was persistent) means that if al Fayed does complain and continue to persue his vendetta then he could also be liable for perjury charges. He lied under oath that he would accept the ruling of the inquest. Legal avenues have now been set up to persue him. That's also why the coroner made a point in his summing up of stating that what al Fayed had said under oath.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

I agree that al Fayed is unlikely to go quietly but the fact that he on oath has stated that he will accept the ruling of the inquest. (To get him to say yes took the lawyer asking him a number of times, the lawyer was persistent) means that if al Fayed does complain and continue to persue his vendetta then he could also be liable for perjury charges. He lied under oath that he would accept the ruling of the inquest. Legal avenues have now been set up to persue him. That's also why the coroner made a point in his summing up of stating that what al Fayed had said under oath.

O, come on. As if that would stop Mo Fayed. He will simply claim to have got another bit of information pointing to murder and say that this changes the situation completely. I only wonder if the media will write about it. Probably yes - and there are so many people out there who don't care one bit about the basics of this case and are too lazy to get more information - they are bound to believe that the whole inquest was in vain because of that one piece of info Fayed will come up with. Believe me.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by GillW

For the legal instructions on what choices are open to the Jury see:

http://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.u...ndout_jury.pdf

Thank you for posting that link, GillW. I believe that the circumstances warrant a finding of unlawful killing due to grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes. There is no doubt Paul owed a duty of care to his passengers, and breached that duty, and I believe his driving was a significant cause of the crash and deaths. I believe his conduct went beyond mere negligence; I believe he drove with reckless indifference to an obvious risk of death to his passengers.

I suspect, however, that the finding will be accidental death.