The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
At most, I believe Diana and Dodi were probably going to move into together in Malibu..... Paul knows what were Diana's intentions, will he ever tell? Will he ever come back to UK?
 
At most, I believe Diana and Dodi were probably going to move into together in Malibu..... Paul knows what were Diana's intentions, will he ever tell? Will he ever come back to UK?
I don't think Diana told him everything, even though he likes to give the impression that she did. He was probably in yet another compartment.

Even moving in together in Malibu would probably have involved discussions with the children and HM, before any announcement.
 
Even moving in together in Malibu would probably have involved discussions with the children and HM, before any announcement.

I still believe the announcement had something to do with the Diana Hospices that Fayed planned to finance. I can imagine that Fayed is not interested in telling if in fact that was what the announcement would be about. Because he prefers the engagement idea and he did not spend any money as promised after Diana was dead and does not plan to.

As for the visit on the Bond-set: at that time Bond was probably the biggest movie project of the Uk. Dodi was still trying to impress Diana and probably working on convincing her to move with him to Malibu. I guess taking her to the Bond-set was some sort of dangling the carrot "Malibu = Hollywood" in front of her nose. In order to interest Barbara Broccoli (she on shooting a film surely is selective with her appointments) Dodi made her curious and was dangling the carrot "Diana - announcement at your set - publicity!" in front of her nose.

All other explanations sound unbelievable considering that Diana did not talk to her children and the queen about any real change. I even recall having read somewhere that William was very upset because of the Dodi-story and called her - a call which ended in a fight and Diana did not take any phone calls from William before she died. Okay, I don't know how reliable that is, but it would fit Diana's character as far as I understand it from the various statements at the inquest. Poor William if it is true.
 
I don't think it's true she loved her children too much to turn them away.

As it was said earlier if the Princess wanted to marry Dodi, she would have discussed the subject with the queen and the boys.
 
I doubt Diana refused to take any calls from William at any time. Whatever else she may or may not have been or done, Diana always put her children first. She was a devoted mother to her two boys. That is one reason I find the engagement story so unbelievable. She would never have done anything of the sort without first talking to her sons. And giving them only a day or two to absorb such a massive change in their lives before the press feeding frenzy began simply doesn't wash.

Cat
 
At most, I believe Diana and Dodi were probably going to move into together in Malibu..... Paul knows what were Diana's intentions, will he ever tell? Will he ever come back to UK?
Again it all comes back to her children. I think the fling with Dodi had pretty much run its course by Paris. She simply needed something to fill her time while William and Harry were at Balmoral and Dodi was tapped. If her sister's testimony is to be believed, Diana couldn't talk to Dodi about the campaign to ban land mines and the press she was getting for that. I believe when Sarah suggested Diana talk to Dodi about it Diana's response was something along the lines of -- Fat lot of good that would do. If she didn't feel she could talk to him about the most basic of things I doubt she would have agreed to live with him in Malibu, much less marry him. Of course, Mo Fayed has probably put Sarah's testimony down as "baloney stuff".

And Paul probably had no idea what Diana was doing, she never told one person everything. It's pretty certain
Diana had him comparmentalized as well regarding what she did and did not want him to know.

Cat
 
And Paul probably had no idea what Diana was doing, she never told one person everything. It's pretty certain
Diana had him comparmentalized as well regarding what she did and did not want him to know.

Cat

Hm.., I think Paul knew at least about the plans for South Africa and Malibu, it sounds pretty believable what he told. From Dr. Khan's statement we know that Diana in fact checked South Africa as a possibility for them to move to and even went there to see if she could live there. She then decided it was not going to work.

As for Malibu: as I said before I believe Dodi dangled Hollywood in front of Diana and she considered it. She obviously had these brochures about the house Fayed had acquired for Dodi (and Kelly Fisher) and I wouldn't wonder if she planned to check Malibu out. Not necessarily with Dodi, but as a starting point for a move to the US. There was this American millionaire she had in petto as well, remember? Theodore Frost or Forst or something like that?

She must have realised if Dr. Khan is to be believed that she needed a wealthy husband, one who would pay a high price for the daughter of an earl, former future queen and mother of a future king. I believe she was not yet sure what to make of these thoughts, otherwise she wouldn't have told Rosa Monckton that Dr. Khan had deserted her, not vice versa. But I think that was where she was headed. And thus she asked Burrell if he would come with her in case she moved abroad. She knew that her sons would be grown-up men soon and then would not need her so much. As grown-ups they could in addition travel to visit her, no matter where she lived. She was used to having her sons only for visits and holidays, so that wouldn't change so much. Well, that's what I think she was looking forward to, but not a marriage to the first rich man who might offer for her. Especially as she, better than others, must have realised what it meant to be married to the heir, not the souverain.... And Dodi was just the son, not the patriarch ot hte Fayeds.
 
Harry was still quite young - just 12 or 13 when she died. And I don't think Diana would have married Dodi for his money or his high profile as she had received a quite hefty divorce settlement and she had a much higher profile than he did any way. I think with Dr. Kahn Diana knew the fantasy could never become reality no matter how much they loved each other. And while I by no means wish to call the good doctor a liar, I wonder if perhaps he tempered the truth just a bit when he stated it was Diana who ended things after she began seeing Dodi. Others have stated Diana began seeing Dodi after things ended with Hasnat Kahn. Over the course of 10 years he might have convinced himself this was the case or he may have decided to spare Diana's memory the insult of having been dumped by him. Alas, as with many things, we will never know.

As for Paul Burrell, he is just so much hot air, IMO. I don't think he had a clue what Diana was going to do, mainly because Diana didn't have any idea herself. She may have told him of her dreams of leaving England and leading a "normal" life, but that doesn't mean she believed it was going to happen, at least not for several years. And Diana new her life was never going to be normal. Any chance of leading a normal life died upon her walk down the aisle to marry Prince Charles.

Diana may have moved abroad once Harry had reached 17 or 18 but not while he was in the throes of adolescence. She may have dreamed of escaping England and the specter of Charles and Camilla but her ties there were too strong. In any case, she would have discussed it with her sons, the Queen and Prince Charles before she did anything, IMO.

Cat
 
I could see this being his secret but anyways it's not the ring everyone claims was supposed to be the engagement ring. Is she wearing it on her marriage hand, with greeks it's on the opposte hand then with everyone else don't ask me why so I could never figure out which hand is the one for us and which is for everyone else that's why I'm asking.
 
I could see this being his secret but anyways it's not the ring everyone claims was supposed to be the engagement ring. Is she wearing it on her marriage hand, with greeks it's on the opposte hand then with everyone else don't ask me why so I could never figure out which hand is the one for us and which is for everyone else that's why I'm asking.
An engagement ring or wedding band is worn on the third finger of the left hand. It looks to be a simple dress ring. :flowers:
 
For me, there's one and only ring bought in Repossi and even if it was supposed to be an engagement ring, I doubt Diana would have said yes.
But I can't figure out why Burrell would take this ring away. This man gives me the creeps ...
 
For me, there's one and only ring bought in Repossi and even if it was supposed to be an engagement ring, I doubt Diana would have said yes.
But I can't figure out why Burrell would take this ring away. This man gives me the creeps ...
I just can't see Diana accepting a ring that was 'one of a range' available in a variety of their shops. She would at the least have wanted an exclusive, IMO.

If Burrell did steal a ring from Diana's body, along with the other items he was 'looking after', (but hid at a neighbours), it casts further doubt on his honesty, IMO.
 
An engagement ring or wedding band is worn on the third finger of the left hand. It looks to be a simple dress ring. :flowers:

That rng was discussed at length at the inquest - it's part of a set by Bulgari (including a watch and a bracelet) which was given to Diana by Dodi during their trip. Paul Burrell took the ring with him back to London where it was stored in Diana's apartment at Kensington Place till her sister Lady Sarah took it with her to Althorp to be kept for the princes.

The ring was identified on pictures of Diana landing in Le Bourget after her trip to Sardinia by Burrell and by her sister, so there is no doubt that this was not an engagement ring but just part of a set which was, while expensive, nowhere near the value of an engagement ring.
 
Ah! that makes sense, thanks for clearing that up^ Ok I'm about to go a tad bit off topic here but I spent my morning staring at pics of Diana in St. Tropez and I just can't help but wondering am I right to assume her small "bulge"that they claim is her pregnancy bump was from her being on birth control. I know in the past when she wore swimsuits like that nothing ever really showed, and she was always very fit so I'm taking that from what we know it was most likely caused by the birth control she was on? I know recently studies have said weight gain or w/e is not caused by birth control but I personally gained weight very quickly when I went on it. And back then it was 1997 so it wasn't as advanced as now. Ok wow now I'm blabbing. Is it fair to assume it was from that. In case anyone is wondering I'm not trying to criticize Diana in any way with what I said, lordy I know if I was her I would never be able to look that fabulous.
 
and I'm sure we can all help out with the bail

Is there no justice in the world. I sincerely hope I never meet Burrell 'cos it'd be so worth the assault charge.

;) and friends here would put up the bail for you especially if you got good video of that smackdown
 
Ah! that makes sense, thanks for clearing that up^ Ok I'm about to go a tad bit off topic here but I spent my morning staring at pics of Diana in St. Tropez and I just can't help but wondering am I right to assume her small "bulge"that they claim is her pregnancy bump was from her being on birth control. I know in the past when she wore swimsuits like that nothing ever really showed, and she was always very fit so I'm taking that from what we know it was most likely caused by the birth control she was on? I know recently studies have said weight gain or w/e is not caused by birth control but I personally gained weight very quickly when I went on it. And back then it was 1997 so it wasn't as advanced as now. Ok wow now I'm blabbing. Is it fair to assume it was from that. In case anyone is wondering I'm not trying to criticize Diana in any way with what I said, lordy I know if I was her I would never be able to look that fabulous.
If you look closely at pictures of Diana in form fitting dresses you will notice that "bump" has been there since after the birth of Prince Harry. Sometimes women have a hard time losing that post baby bulge.

Some of these photos show it quite well.

Getty Images - Unsupported browser detected#

Cat
 
Some have suspected that she was taking The Pill in 1987 because she gained some weight that year. Her face looked fuller.

Ah! that makes sense, thanks for clearing that up^ Ok I'm about to go a tad bit off topic here but I spent my morning staring at pics of Diana in St. Tropez and I just can't help but wondering am I right to assume her small "bulge"that they claim is her pregnancy bump was from her being on birth control. .
 
Had she worn the ring on the middle finger of the right hand that would have been different than her wearing the ring on the ring finger of the right hand, imo. The ring finger of the right hand is traditionally the wedding ring finger in the Orthodox Church and Diana knew that...
 
I really have the impression that the inquest is speeding up now due to activity by Fayed. Of course it was to be expected as we all know form American jury dramas that it's the last impressions that count more than the first. Probably Fayed has some more information waiting to be introduced to the inquest. Just like the phone list just recently supplied by the Ritz which his lawyer used to reverberate the credibility of a former employee at the Ritz. Or the Broccoli statement.

Now it turns out that the former bodyguard of Paul Burrell who made really interesting observations while claiming he didn't want to breach a confidentality agreement had still talked to Harrods' lawyers before contacting the inquest. I bet this whole talk about this agreement is used to signal to others to come forward if they have something to tell and not to be afraid. Yes, there is IMHO a probability that Burrell had lots of papers from Diana in his possession and kept them with a confidante during his trial and that he destroyed this evidence once he was acquitted.

But why should he claim that the ring he brought with him from Paris was an engagement ring and that he had removed it from Diana's finger, that the ring was bloddied with Diana's blood, so a DNA-analysis could prove it really was hers - why that when it turned out that the ring had a perfectly understandible explanation which noone questions any further? Okay, Burrell is said to have claimed that in 2002 and the evidence of the ring only came out with the Paget-report, but still, why should he except to make himself appear more interesting?
 
But why should he claim that the ring he brought with him from Paris was an engagement ring and that he had removed it from Diana's finger, that the ring was bloddied with Diana's blood, so a DNA-analysis could prove it really was hers - why that when it turned out that the ring had a perfectly understandible explanation which noone questions any further? Okay, Burrell is said to have claimed that in 2002 and the evidence of the ring only came out with the Paget-report, but still, why should he except to make himself appear more interesting?
As we have heard from editors and various witnesses, there was very little blood from Diana and the few pictures I saw on the Ch4 programme would back that up, so even that leads you to question the truth of Burrells claims.
 
Had she worn the ring on the middle finger of the right hand that would have been different than her wearing the ring on the ring finger of the right hand, imo. The ring finger of the right hand is traditionally the wedding ring finger in the Orthodox Church and Diana knew that...
On what do you base the assumption that Diana would have known about any traditions of the Orthodox church and of course which one, Greek, Antioch, Russian, etc? I am genuinly curious. :flowers:
 
As we have heard from editors and various witnesses, there was very little blood from Diana and the few pictures I saw on the Ch4 programme would back that up, so even that leads you to question the truth of Burrells claims.

These are not actually Burrells' claims but rather those of his former body guard who just testified at the inquest. He claims this is what Burrell told him. A statement from Burrell refutes all that the former body guard claims.
The body guard's testimony isn't all that reliable as it came out that he's been trying to sell his story to the media but is bound by a confidentiality agreement that he signed. If he testifies at the inquest he is no longer bound by the confidentiality agreement ( the information is in the public domain) and then the body guard is free to sell his story.
 
On what do you base the assumption that Diana would have known about any traditions of the Orthodox church and of course which one, Greek, Antioch, Russian, etc? I am genuinly curious.

Well Charles has always been enamoured with Orthodoxy. The Greek/Russian thing is a matter of location AFAIK. For example, the Serbian Orthodox Church is an autocephalous branch of Orthodoxy which will be culturally Serb but religiously Orthodox. It's the culture part that denotes which finger the wedding ring is worn on and that varies between Orthodox believers depending on where the jurisdiction is based. Traditionally, Orthodox Christians will wear their rings on the right but this is more Eastern European influence than religious symbolism. So congregants of the British Orthodox Church might wear their wedding rings on a different hand to congregants of the Greek Orthodox Church but they're still both Orthodox and have had Orthodox weddings. Diana could always have copied from Queen Anne-Marie whom she spent time with but I doubt that Diana would be leaning towards Orthodoxy at all.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know what this is referring to? Evidently Mo Fayed gave false testimony as pointed out at the close of the inquest yesterday by Mr. Phillips.

17 MR PHILLIPS: Sir, may I say a word?
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
19 MR PHILLIPS: I am referring to the statement of
20 Mr Martin Smith which was read just now by
21 Mr Ian Burnett.
22 I was present in court when Mr Al Fayed gave his
23 evidence and I was struck by it. It now turns out that
24 it was completely untrue and I would like to know how it
25 came about that this pack of lies was not corrected

156

1 sooner.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Mansfield?
3 MR MANSFIELD: Well, sir, I was not in a position since
4 I was not involved in that case. There have been
5 enquiries made, as you know, up until last Friday.
6 I was not aware of the upshot of those. There was
7 a question of an embargo and so forth.
8 I will obviously take instructions and give a full
9 explanation if required but, certainly, I am not at the
10 moment in possession of the relevant material.
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Hopefully by tomorrow you
12 might be.
13 MR MANSFIELD: Yes, certainly.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
15 Half past 9 then, tomorrow, members of the jury.
16 (3.30 pm)
17 (The hearing was adjourned until 9.30 am
 
If it were an engagement ring, Diana wouldn't have worn it on the right hand. By going out with Dodi she wanted to shock and attract attention on her. Wearing a ring on the left hand would have create a great tabloid news and she would have had the certitude of reigning on the front pages for a long time. This ring was, for me, just a friendship ring that she wore to please Dodi who gave it to her.
 
As we have heard from editors and various witnesses, there was very little blood from Diana and the few pictures I saw on the Ch4 programme would back that up, so even that leads you to question the truth of Burrells claims.

If he made these claims at all. The questioning of this bodyguard named Faux (sic!) is interesting as it can be read that he was "encouraged" by the Fayed-people to claim things he didn't actually witnessed. He obviously made a statement to police in March 2007 and only after he had talked to the Fayed-people (including MacNamara who had obviously lied to the police before according to the inquest data) he included the bit of the "engagement ring" and the "type-writer written letters". He even acknowledged that the people at Harrods informed him of the significance of this "observation". Later he said that he was willing to sell his story, so who says he did not already sell his witness statement of Fayed. The Coroner was rather displeased that a witness had first talked to an interested party and been briefed by them before he could be interviewed at the inquest.

Ah, and I found out that I had gotten it wrong: the Bulgari "friendship" ring which Burrell said he had left in the pantry at Kensington Palace after his return from Paris has not been found by Lady Sarah but has disappeared. So IMHO there could be a bit of truth in the fact that Burrell still had the ring in 2002/2003 but got rid of it, but that Faux, who knew that Burrell had a ring, changed his story to back up Fayed's claims.

I think the Coroner and his team is doing a really good job on trying to figure out what is the truth and what is "doubtable credibility" of some witnesses. I have the impression that the only person who is willing to spend money for lies is Fayed, that the solicitors for Henri Paul's parents try to shift blame away from Henri Paul and that all other parties involved are trying to figure out the truth as well as they are able to do.

I got quite a good picture of what really happened, what is absolutely clear and what is still diffuse but according to my views the jury will come to the verdict that it was an accident.
 
I am in total agreement with Jo of Palatine. Credibility is always key and if we can figure out who is credible and who is not, the jury should have no problems in that regard as well. I think, despite his best efforts to shift the blame and re-write events, Mo Fayed is not going to like what the jury concludes at the end of the day. Burrell is hardly credible, the jeweler from whom the ring was purchased is suspect, Fayed lacks any credibility at all and certain witnesses are suspicious. Frankly, there just isn't any evidence that this was anything but a tragic accident that could have been avoided had certain people not gone to such lengths to avoid the unavoidable paparazzi.

Cat
 
Well Charles has always been enamoured with Orthodoxy. The Greek/Russian thing is a matter of location AFAIK.
I did a google search and it appears to be different traditions within the various sects, there appear to be a number of 'orthodox' churches within just London. Of course it is only rumour that Charles leans towards orthodoxy in the past and I don't recall Diana being overly religious. :flowers:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom