The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008

[TheTruth]

Sorry, but that's just too much speculation. This is quite like the "Bush did it 9/11" speculation. There would be just TOO many witnesses, TOO many bodies and SOMEBODY would talk.
I don't buy. But then again, that's just me.

Okay, I respect your opinions but what do you want to do ? Make your own inquest ? I agree that there are still many things unsolved but 10 years have past. It's quite late to hope that one day we will know everything on this 'headaching' case. It's so thick now that I doubt anyone can give us the truth (if there is one to find ...).

 

[Russophile]

Okay, I respect your opinions but what do you want to do ? Make your own inquest ? I agree that there are still many things unsolved but 10 years have past. It's quite late to hope that one day we will know everything on this 'headaching' case. It's so thick now that I doubt anyone can give us the truth (if there is one to find ...).

Exactly. I believe it was just a terrible accident. Nothing more. Because she was "The People's Princess" and beautiful and glamourous makes it all the more intriguing. A simple accident just doesn't seem that exciting. And yet there it is.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Silver1 - my reply to two of your posts.

I have one question for everyone out there...If Mi6 were given orders to carry out and therefore everything should be covered up, then what is the point of this trial?. Surely the judge and all involved are part of the same masonic group.The one that prince philip is head of.

Some facts here would be useful for you – Prince Philip was initiated as a Mason in the late 40s at the insistence of his father-in-law. Once the king died he stopped attending his Lodge meetings.

He is not the head of any Masonic group. The Duke of Kent is the senior Mason in Britain and has been for many years. Royals being associated with Masonry is not new but Philip certainly isn’t an active Mason.

surely the outcome is already sorted out, but the inquest is just to please the public.

No – the inquest is being held because British LAW requires an inquest for all British citizens who die abroad in accidents or other unnatural causes e.g. they held one for those British citizens who died in the tsunami and for the fellow who disappeared in Central Australia. Neither of those inquests were held until all legal procedures had been completed in the country in which these events happened. That is exactly what has happened here. Until ALL legal actions had been completed in France and that took 7 years or so because Al Fayed kept appealing the British inquest couldn’t begin. Once it did the first major decision was to adjorn and have an inquiry – the Paget report (that is part of the process and not extra to it). Once that report had been completed a court inquest could begin.

And second thing is if the truth (if it is truth) that the accident was 'arranged' finally came out (but i really dont see how and who would go against the establishment in court/police/law or even church -as the queen is head of all that), then HOW WOULD THE PUBLIC REACT? i doubt that day would ever come, but just imagine IF THE VERDICT WAS MURDER then how would the british public accept prince philip or royal family anymore? It would be chaos on that day.

Why, if it was murder, does it have to be the RF? I personally think that Dodi and his family’s connections to armaments manufacture would be more than willing to kill Diana. I wonder if they will be investigating the reasons for Al Fayed pushing his son into this relationship when Dodi was engaged to be married. A conspiracy whereby the Khasoroggi family (Al Fayed’s in laws I believe) got him to put Diana in a position whereby they could kill her in an accident due to her work against Land Mines makes as much sense to me – Al Fayed would then be really angry that his son was also killed and wants to deflect any blame away from himself.

have just read the point about the doctor and dodi...Hasnat Khan knew a relationship with Diana would bring disaster and so he ended it (im sure he valued his life and nobody would protect him), but dodi was different.

Diana visited his family in Pakistan and they weren’t too keen on the baggage she brought. Hasnat felt that he wouldn’t be able to stand the publicity and that it would affect his ability to do his job properly not that he feared for his life.

His fathers empire and money would be a wall around them and affer diana the security she needs (money, toys, homes,yachts, treated like she is used to) etc.

Have you seen the footage of the complete disaster of a security arrangements that evening? How can you say that Al Fayed was able to provide her with the security she needed. She certainly didn’t need his money. What she needed was a man who would love her for herself and not because of who she was – Dodi wasn’t that person. He was with her because ‘Daddy’ told him to.

And it was Moh'd al fayeds ambitions that pushed his son. He even bought the chateau in France that belonged to Mrs.simpson and Edward for his son and diana to live in, and in a way he was counting his chickens before they were hatched.

It was an apartment not a chateau.

You may think religion doesnt matter because Hasnat khan was muslim, but remember he ended it because he probably feared for his life and he has been silent since. Here it proves eductation to be valuable. he is a surgeon and was smart enough to know when to get out.

There has never been any suggestion, except from Al Fayed that religion mattered. It has never been mentioned with regard to Hasnet except from his family – they weren’t too keen on her because of her popularity and her religion.

Dont forget with the Fayeds, Mohammed -owner of Harrods, and pays God knows how much in tax- doesnt even have a British passport. Even the nobodys who have only been in uk for 5 or 6 years (and live off the government as they dont want to work)have passports. If after DECADES of being one of the richest businessmen in england, and well known to the royal family, they didnt give him a passport (one has to ask 'why didnt they'?) - DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM THE FUTURE KINGS MOTHER AS HIS DAUGHTER IN LAW?!!!! I rest my case.

The government knows far more about Al Fayed and his connections to know why they continually denied him a passport – he was deemed unsuitable a number of times before Diana was connected to his son.

Your case, that you are resting, is based on very flimsy and even incorrect evidence, lacking substance and knowledge of even the basic points in the situation.

 

[TheTruth]

I am not a diana fan. I am a University lecturer. An eductated person who asks questions. Who sees things from all angles and i can say as a historian and as a person living in the west, i am not going to be spoonfed this story of a rather suspicious death being just an 'accident' and then have to act blind, deaf and dumb to all that is happening in this country. Why did we go into Iraq again after more than a million people demonstrated against it. where is the democracy in that? - just an example of the many).
Personally i believe that we all know what the verdict is going to be.It will be what they want it to be. Simple as that. And you ask the question 'since when has adultary led to death?' Look back in history, and see. One famous example is Henry viii even changed the religion of his country to suit his ways.beheaded his women.
I am not asking you to believe me - but i am just saying ask questions. We still have that right . The Royal families of Europe have conquered and taken by 'divide and conquer' rule of thumb. They murdered eachother, conspiricies and mysteries over the centuries have still not been solved and this has always been their way. Politics, money, power and human nature. The kind of humans with alot of power. not you and me. Its a whole differnt ball game. If Diana was a threat to them getting rid of her would be seen as a great benefit to the throne in the long run. And Camilla is the one who is laughing all the way to the throne. She waited a long time, and with Diana out of the way -she had the wedding she wanted. What poor taste Charles has. Have you heard of the cartoon Lady and the tramp? Well Diana was a Lady.

There's absolutely no problem with asking questions but what I'm saying is that for 10 years we've been asking the same ones. Just to remind, the Queen wasn't happy when Charles wanted to marry Camilla. She remained passive in this story, even when Diana asked her to talk to Charles about his affair. But what you're doing here, is that you're judging someone you don't know. Maybe you've met Camilla, I don't know, but it's not that fair to say those things on her.

 

[silver1]

Emotions to one side..I am talking facts. WHY WAS BODY EMBALMED? why no footage? AND THE WORST is why they took her to a far away hospital. THINGS like this dont point to 'just an accident'. Unless you believe that if you say 'it was just an accident' the good people of britain will believe it. Lucky then that Britain is multi cultural and people from eastern and southern europe, and the rest of the world are people who dont usually believe what they see on the news or read in the papers. They know who run that media. They usually ask their own questions and make their own assumptions.The Diana/Dodi accident has COVER UP written all over it. {insult to another poster deleted - Elspeth}

 

[sirhon11234]

And those questions have been answered: Pite Salpitire hospital was the best one to treat her massive chest injuries. Diana's ex-husband and two sisters were to view the Princess' body hours after her death the room she was in wasn't cool enough to keep her body from decomposing. So it was imperative for Diana's body to be embalmed

 

[Iluvbertie]

Emotions to one side..I am talking facts. WHY WAS BODY EMBALMED? why no footage? AND THE WORST is why they took her to a far away hospital. THINGS like this dont point to 'just an accident'. Unless you believe that if you say 'it was just an accident' the good people of britain will believe it. Lucky then that Britain is multi cultural and people from eastern and southern europe, and the rest of the world are people who dont usually believe what they see on the news or read in the papers. They know who run that media. They usually ask their own questions and make their own assumptions.The Diana/Dodi accident has COVER UP written all over it. {insult to another poster deleted}

{response to gratuitous insult deleted - Elspeth}

And yes I believe it was an accident for a huge number of reasons - mainly because of the difficulty of being sure that anyone would die in a car accident in the first place.

My brother rolled his car once and it was in a worse state than the Merceded in the pictures with the engine in the front seat with him. By some miracle he escaped with a few scratches. We don't know why. We simply thank God that he did. Everyone who has seen that car believes that he should be dead but he walked out of hospital later that same day after being under observation for a few hours.

There is no guarantee with a car accident in a tunnel, on a road. Had they gone over a cliff or down the side of a hill then a murder takes on greater possibility.

Why can't people accept that a somewhat pretty woman, who had multiple affairs and blatantly lied to the public and to her fiance about a number of issues, died in an accident. (Lies - told Charles that she loved outdoor things and Balmoral during courting period and then after married told him she hated the things he enjoyed doing, told the world there were three people in the marriage when there were quite a few more with Hewitt, Hoare etc, said she didn't want a divorce ever and then, conspired with her friends, to make divorce inevitable, which it was after the Morton book came out, told the world that Charles wasn't a good father when he clearly has done a good job with the boys who love him). No I am not a Diana fan and never was. I always thought she was wrong for Charles and said so to my friends and family in 1981.

 

[sirhon11234]

Why can't people accept that a somewhat pretty woman, who had multiple affairs and blatantly lied to the public and to her fiance about a number of issues, died in an accident.

Personal opinons of the Princess is irrelevant to this thread.

There is no evidence that supports any claims of conspiracy there is only speculation.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Personal opinons of the Princess is irrelevant to this thread.

There is no evidence that supports any claims of conspiracy there is only speculation.

I don't believe that personal opinions are irrelevant because many people hold the view that because she was the iconic figure that she couldn't have died the way she did.

In other words they aren't looking at the facts but rather refusing to accept that their beloved Diana died like an ordinary person.

By putting my personal opinion of her there I am clearly showing one of my biases so that those who believe that pretty woman who live in the spotlight can't die in accidents can't accuse me of not stating my bias to begin with.

 

[sirhon11234]

Yes, Diana was an iconic figure who died in a car crash like an ordinary person but is what you said

Why can't people accept that a somewhat pretty woman, who had multiple affairs and blatantly lied to the public and to her fiance about a number of issues, died in an accident. (Lies - told Charles that she loved outdoor things and Balmoral during courting period and then after married told him she hated the things he enjoyed doing, told the world there were three people in the marriage when there were quite a few more with Hewitt, Hoare etc, said she didn't want a divorce ever and then, conspired with her friends, to make divorce inevitable, which it was after the Morton book came out, told the world that Charles wasn't a good father when he clearly has done a good job with the boys who love him).

necessary. Usually when you judge someone (which you shouldn't since you probably didn't know her) you judge them on positive and negative aspects of their life not on just the negative.

 

[scooter]

And those questions have been answered: Pite Salpitire hospital was the best one to treat her massive chest injuries. Diana's ex-husband and two sisters were to view the Princess' body hours after her death the room she was in wasn't cool enough to keep her body from decomposing. So it was imperative for Diana's body to be embalmed

Well, there is one thing I must say based on many Doctors in the family, but most specifically my sister in law who is an Emergency Room Doctor at Bellevue in NYC, one of the 3 biggest class 1 trauma centers in the USA.Dr sister in law's posistion was that if Princess Diana has had that accident and injury in any major city in the US she might well have lived. The American system for ambulances is very different from what they have in France. In America they practice what they call' scoop and run', get the patient to the nearest trauma center as fast as possible. Very different from France's technique which is to try to stablilize the patient in the field, no matter how long this takes. The tear in the vena cava was excaserbated by the not only the delay getting to the hospital, but the closed chest CPR. The only thing keeping D from bleeding out was the clotting of blood in the lesion which was more than likely laying in a closed position when the accident occured. Banging on her chest in the field was decidedly unhelpful and might well have been contributory to her death. If they had 'scooped and run' they would have been able to perform diagnostics to establish what was helpful or deliterious. Just passing on 'expert opinion'.

 

[Al_bina]

{response to insult deleted - Elspeth}

And yes I believe it was an accident for a huge number of reasons - mainly because of the difficulty of being sure that anyone would die in a car accident in the first place.

My brother rolled his car once and it was in a worse state than the Merceded in the pictures with the engine in the front seat with him. By some miracle he escaped with a few scratches. We don't know why. We simply thank God that he did. Everyone who has seen that car believes that he should be dead but he walked out of hospital later that same day after being under observation for a few hours.

There is no guarantee with a car accident in a tunnel, on a road. Had they gone over a cliff or down the side of a hill then a murder takes on greater possibility.

Why can't people accept that a somewhat pretty woman, who had multiple affairs and blatantly lied to the public and to her fiance about a number of issues, died in an accident. (Lies - told Charles that she loved outdoor things and Balmoral during courting period and then after married told him she hated the things he enjoyed doing, told the world there were three people in the marriage when there were quite a few more with Hewitt, Hoare etc, said she didn't want a divorce ever and then, conspired with her friends, to make divorce inevitable, which it was after the Morton book came out, told the world that Charles wasn't a good father when he clearly has done a good job with the boys who love him). No I am not a Diana fan and never was. I always thought she was wrong for Charles and said so to my friends and family in 1981.

Poor Prince Charles ... A grown man was deceived by 19 year-old young woman. I think both parties could be found guilty of ruining each other's lives.

 

[sirhon11234]

And those questions have been answered: Pite Salpitire hospital was the best one to treat her massive chest injuries. Diana's ex-husband and two sisters were to view the Princess' body hours after her death the room she was in wasn't cool enough to keep her body from decomposing. So it was imperative for Diana's body to be embalmed

Well, there is one thing I must say based on many Doctors in the family, but most specifically my sister in law who is an Emergency Room Doctor at Bellevue in NYC, one of the 3 biggest class 1 trauma centers in the USA.Dr sister in law's posistion was that if Princess Diana has had that accident and injury in any major city in the US she might well have lived. The American system for ambulances is very different from what they have in France. In America they practice what they call' scoop and run', get the patient to the nearest trauma center as fast as possible. Very different from France's technique which is to try to stablilize the patient in the field, no matter how long this takes. The tear in the vena cava was excaserbated by the not only the delay getting to the hospital, but the closed chest CPR. The only thing keeping D from bleeding out was the clotting of blood in the lesion which was more than likely laying in a closed position when the accident occured. Banging on her chest in the field was decidedly unhelpful and might well have been contributory to her death. If they had 'scooped and run' they would have been able to perform diagnostics to establish what was helpful or deliterious. Just passing on 'expert opinion'.

Diana's chest injuries were so massive, her heart was moved from the left position into right tearing her pulmonary vein. I thought she really didn't have a chance.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I am talking facts. WHY WAS BODY EMBALMED?

My husband died in winter - not on a hot summer's night like Diana. still his body started to decompose very soon after his death, so we couldn't have had a public lay-out without embalming. The people at the British embassy knew that Diana would probably be layed-out in state and ordered the embalming to make this possible. I guess they could have deep-frozen her body instead but just imagine the public outcry if there had not been Diana's body in the coffin or a fairly decomposed one....

In this difficult case I try to use my common sense and ask myself what I would have done? I would have opted for embalming, no doubt about that.

 

[scooter]

Diana's chest injuries were so massive, her heart was moved from the left position into right tearing her pulmonary vein. I thought she really didn't have a chance.

In Dr. SIL's opinion, Diana's best chance of survival lay in getting her to an Operating room asap to open the chest and repair the damage. Closed chest CPR only made the problem worse and frittered away precious time.

 

[Myriam]

Why are they getting such long time (10 years!) to give a final decision about what really happened to Diana?

 

[TheTruth]

Poor Elspeth, deleting insults ... There's no point using bad words to express thoughts. I agree that there are speculations, facts, etc. but please people, there's a way to say things nicely and don't forget there's a person behind the screen ...

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why are they getting such long time (10 years!) to give a final decision about what really happened to Diana?

There is a simple explanation to that:

The British inquest couldn't begin until ALL the French investigation had finished. First of all there were investigations in France before the inquest could start in France. Secondly Al Fayed appealed the French decision. Thirdly some of the paparazzi were charged with offences relating to that evening and that case had to be heard. Al Fayed also appealed those decisions. By this time about 7 years had elapsed. Then the British inquest was opened and adjourned to have a full British inquiry (as is normal - an inquiry to report findings to the inquest). That resulted in the Paget Report of last December. Then this year the inquest could finally begin but again Al Fayed kept delaying things with appeals against some of the decisions originally made for the format of the inquest.

Due to the allegations that Al Fayed has been making the inquest has to consider a lot of factors which is why this is going to take months (I do feel sorry for the jurors - my boss would be horrified if I had to miss 8 months of work).

A lot of the reasons why this is taking so long is that Al Fayed has continually appealed every decision with which he doesn't agree, as is his right by law in the two countries.

Even when this inquest is finalised, if the decision goes against Al Fayed he will appeal that decision as well in all likelihood.

After this decision no doubt some civil proceedings will then take place such as either the princes suing Al Fayed's Ritz hotel or the car rental company, or Al Fayed suing the RF or something else (these are all speculation on my part and may not happen of course).

I wouldn't be surprised if this continues for another ten years!!!

 

[sthreats]

the inquest diana

[I have read many books and "internet" conspiracy therories about Princess Diana's death. One that seems plausible is that there was an attempt by the "government" (and this may have been a joint effort by more than one government) to rid the Crown of the embarassment and constitutional crisis caused by the PUBLIC presence of Diana and Camilla. Camilla had a "car accident" in which she was blinded by lights just two months before Diana's "car accident".
Camilla is not some all powerful person. She was played by "the man" (not Charles) just like Diana. The fact that she is still here and married to the POW means that her presence is now an advantage to the Powers that be.
I do agree that dating two non-white, Muslim persons in a row was not a smart move by Diana.
In the end this was a tragic car accident. We will probably never know how many people were involved in causing it.

quote=silver1;682805]I am not a diana fan. I am a University lecturer. An eductated person who asks questions. Who sees things from all angles and i can say as a historian and as a person living in the west, i am not going to be spoonfed this story of a rather suspicious death being just an 'accident' and then have to act blind, deaf and dumb to all that is happening in this country. Why did we go into Iraq again after more than a million people demonstrated against it. where is the democracy in that? - just an example of the many).
Personally i believe that we all know what the verdict is going to be.It will be what they want it to be. Simple as that. And you ask the question 'since when has adultary led to death?' Look back in history, and see. One famous example is Henry viii even changed the religion of his country to suit his ways.beheaded his women.
I am not asking you to believe me - but i am just saying ask questions. We still have that right . The Royal families of Europe have conquered and taken by 'divide and conquer' rule of thumb. They murdered eachother, conspiricies and mysteries over the centuries have still not been solved and this has always been their way. Politics, money, power and human nature. The kind of humans with alot of power. not you and me. Its a whole differnt ball game. If Diana was a threat to them getting rid of her would be seen as a great benefit to the throne in the long run. And Camilla is the one who is laughing all the way to the throne. She waited a long time, and with Diana out of the way -she had the wedding she wanted. {personal insult deleted - Elspeth}

[/QUOTE]

 

[Russophile]

Silver1 - my reply to two of your posts...
Your case, that you are resting, is based on very flimsy and even incorrect evidence, lacking substance and knowledge of even the basic points in the situation.

Excellent post.

 

[MARG]

Excellent post.

I absolutely concur.

There is way too much hysterical hypothesising and "conspiracy theories" being presented in part or in total as "TRUTH!" Definitive and unequivical.

I think most of us have realised that whilst we were horrified at such an horrific end to the "People's Princess", the fact remains that ten years on we have grown and matured and the ugly truth is that it was just a plain old stupid, irresponsible accident, the culmination of a night out on the town that so many of us have seen or experienced either first or second hand.

It is never easy to let those we love go, and we wonder "why them". Worse, while we are watching the never-ending enquires etc. that have taken TEN years to get to a British Inquest, how much worse it must be for her siblings and her sons to never be able to grieve, mourn, and move on like to rest of us. Instead they get to go through another Eight Months (at the least) of vincictive accusations against what is left of their family.

They fact that William and Harry appear to be relatively well-balanced in spite of all this is a tribute especially to the very people Muhommed Al Fayed has declared over and over are murderers (not to put too fine a point on it).

It's going to be a long and painful Eight months ahead of them.

 

[Skydragon]

I do agree that dating two non-white, Muslim persons in a row was not a smart move by Diana.
In the end this was a tragic car accident. We will probably never know how many people were involved in causing it.

Diana had already done all the damage to the monarchy, I would have thought, so it would have been a little late in the day for the government to 'step in' and remove the problem.

Camilla's accident was nothing to do with 'bright lights', it was the mundane narrow road and both of them in a hurry and cutting a little off a minor corner scenario.

Would someone please explain what the supposed problem was with Diana dating or marrying a muslim?

 

[Roslyn]

Would someone please explain what the supposed problem was with Diana dating or marrying a muslim?

Simple racial prejudice, is my guess.

 

[Russophile]

Would someone please explain what the supposed problem was with Diana dating or marrying a muslim?

Mountains out of molehills.

 

[pinkie40]

Even Diana's mother was horrified Diana would even spend time with a "mere" heart surgeon/cardiologist in the persona of Hasnat Khan. I would think any mother would be proud for their daughter to be in the company of such a educated man. But such is the premium placed upon "position" and "class" within the upper echelons of British aristocracy.

 

[Skydragon]

It can't just be racial prejudice, Fayed, for instance, cites this as a reason for the UK government and the BRF, to have her killed. I think I should have phrased my question in a different way.

What difference could it have made, to the government or the BRF, if Diana married a muslim, to the extent that one or other of them would feel the need to eliminate her.

Throughout the affairs (on both sides), the BRF just stuck it out, after the Morton book, the interviews etc, HM and the rest of them just carried on, doing what they had always done.

The government didn't get it's policies from Diana, with their integration/multi cultural policy, they would surely have welcomed the union. It would have been in everyones interest if Diana remarried - whether to a muslim or not.

 

[Skydragon]

Even Diana's mother was horrified Diana would even spend time with a "mere" heart surgeon/cardiologist in the persona of Hasnat Khan. I would think any mother would be proud for their daughter to be in the company of such a educated man. But such is the premium placed upon "position" and "class" within the upper echelons of British aristocracy.

Do you have a link to your source that Frances felt a heart surgeon wasn't good enough?

 

[Lady Karen]

I have been a long-time reader and rarely post, but I feel that this whole thread lacks one very important point of view. Before any nasty replies are posted, please be aware that this post is not meant as a reply to anyone, it is just something that I have held inside for awhile and need to get off my chest. These thoughts may have been brought out before by other posters, but I just wanted to put in my two cents worth.

Many times I have asked myself if this is a quest for al Fayed to have the facts come out or to simply get what he wants. The saddest part about this entire inquest is that the only person that will gain anything is Mr. al Fayed. In other words, if this inquest does not produce the results HE believes to be the truth, he has the money and resources to ensure that this investigation/inquest/conspiracy theory never ends. Everyone else will have to go along for the ride whether you want to or not. His name will be forever linked to Diana simply because he has the money to do so.

Scenario #1 – if the inquest rules that this was a tragic accident, he will NEVER stop until he either runs out of money or dies. The results are not what he believes to be the truth, and therefore must be incorrect. Even if we had moment by moment video footage from inside and outside the Mercedes that determined it was an accident, it would not be good enough for al Fayed.

Scenario #2 – if the inquest rules that she was murdered, but that the BRF had nothing to do with it, he will continue to fight because the end result was only one-half of what he wanted, not the entire thing.

The important thing to remember here is that he is fighting as hard and as long as he can to have some sort of link with the BRF and/or the government that has denied him citizenship for so long. I firmly believe that if he had any evidence that another force (terrorist group, any Muslim group that did not want them to marry, if they were to marry, etc.) was responsible, he would not do anything, because he has nothing to gain.

If the inquest decides that she was murdered, be prepared for al Fayed to continue fighting until the final documents have every comma, period, and question mark exactly where he wants them. In other words, this will never end, even at the pleading of Diana’s children and family, until al Fayed gets exactly what he wants, regardless of the cost, emotional pain, and the best interest of the British public.

Another point that is important to remember is that if the inquest determines that this was an accident and not murder, it could result in multiple lawsuits being filed against al Fayed due to lack of security, employee drunkenness, etc. He has much to lose if it is ever determined that this was in fact an accident that was caused by an employee of the Ritz.

Now before anyone lashes out, I am not saying that he did/does not love his son or that the inquest is not necessary; that is not the point of this post. The point is to state that for those who believe she was murdered, you should understand that even if the results of the inquest meets your own personal approval, and the approval of the British public, this will never end until it reaches the approval of al Fayed. That, my friends, is not justice. It is using all of your power, money, and influence to get exactly what you want regardless of the affect it has on other people or proven facts.

I have said my peace...I hope I have not offended anyone!

 

[pinkie40]

Diana really could have been used to great advantage by the British government/secret services had she lived and continued her relationship with Dodi by creating a direct conduit to Mohammed Al-Fayed's doorstep. She was worth more to the British government alive. But she could have become an even bigger embarrassment for the Royal Family...who are not known for tolerating much out of their comfort zone when it comes to the spouses of the members of the RF, especially a mother to the future king....

 

[pinkie40]

Do you have a link to your source that Frances felt a heart surgeon wasn't good enough?

"A Royal Duty" by Paul Burrell.

According to Paul Burrell in his book, Frances called Diana sometime in May 1997 inebriated and slurring her speech saying Diana should not go out with Hasnat 1) because he was a "mere surgeon" 2) he was a Pakistani/Muslim.

Frances, according to Paul, also sent Diana letters that Diana returned to her mother unopened after this telephone call.

Diana was not on speaking terms with her mother after this particular phone call, according to Burrell, and never mended their relationship.