The Verdict of the Diana Inquest, April 2008, and Aftermath


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I doubt it. As long as there are high profile people stating opinions like this, conspiracy stories will make the news. If the people in M. al Fayed's circle don't blame mysterious forces for that accident, the blame will seen to be with the Fayeds. Granted, Diana got into that car without a seatbelt. But the set-up of the security and the car and the plans for that evening were in the hands of Dodi and his father. What father could handle the knowledge that he was responsible--directly or indirectly--for his son-and-heir's death?:ermm:

muriel said:
More ridiculous stories. Wonder if the conspiracy theorists would ever stop??
Click to expand...
 
While I am completely against the conspiracy theories this is the only one that so far has seemed somewhat realistic, though I still believe it was just a regular car crash. Though anyone who knows me knows that before studying this case for months I was a strong believer of conspiracy theories, but that's a different story.
 
Last edited:
I do not agree with the verdict because as I have stated before on this forum I do believe that Diana could have solved her paparazzi problem having used a helicopter like Jackie O did in Athens and New York-Yes she was perpetually hounded but had she used a helicopter or been advised that this was an option none of this would have happened.Neither Diana nor her advisors thought of this as an option. What were they thinking then?And then Dodi did not think of it. The razzi chasing Jackie who I saw with my own eyes were about three hundred at a time but she would alight from the roof of a building in a helicopter and they would be left standing behind outsmarted.
 
The conspiracy theories don't come to much given the speeding and drink driving that fateful evening.
 
Jaya said:
I do not agree with the verdict because as I have stated before on this forum I do believe that Diana could have solved her paparazzi problem having used a helicopter like Jackie O did in Athens and New York-Yes she was perpetually hounded but had she used a helicopter or been advised that this was an option none of this would have happened.Neither Diana nor her advisors thought of this as an option. What were they thinking then?And then Dodi did not think of it. The razzi chasing Jackie who I saw with my own eyes were about three hundred at a time but she would alight from the roof of a building in a helicopter and they would be left standing behind outsmarted.
Click to expand...

The nearerst helipad to the hotel is nearly a mile away so they would still have to get there.

Not all buildings have helicopter access on the roof and this is one of them.

You say you don't agree with the verdict and then waffle on about the potential use of helicopters.

I don't get the link.

If the verdict of a drunken driver at high speed and lack of seatbelt didn't kill her, being chased by the paparrzzi could you tell us what you think happened and not tell us how you think it could have been avoided.
 
Honestly I've never read any of this author' books has anyone here seen what so called " reliable information" this guy has provided because trust me I spent about two years untangling this mystery and yes I will say there are some things that are still a bit unclear but I definitely know alot more about it then I did back when I first started reading up on it and I'm pretty convinced there's no cover up and trust me if you really wanted me to I could list the reasons why but I won't
 
I don't know why I'm surprised this made the cover....
 
Good god I have had enough of this author maybe I should go ahead and make my own book about how it was NOT a murder but then again that's not what the public wants to hear now is it?
 
And of course M al F is quoted. He said that he would accept the decision of the inquest. Some of us predicted that he would come back supporting new allegations, and we were right. As I understand it, the inquest was held in England because Diana was a citizen of the UK. The Express seems to be in M al F's pocket. I think they're the only London tabloid that continues to run these stories.

gfg02 said:
diana: ‘her chauffeur was framed as a drunk driver’

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Diana: ‘Her chauffeur was framed as a drunk driver’-
Click to expand...
 
I must add also about the photographs which is the only thing that caught me off guard when I first read the article. I went and looked it up in the transcripts and it talks about photos of his post mortem examination on the January 22nd session. I dunno how far down it is though sorry! From what I read there are quite a few though I'm not sure which one Mr. Morgan is reffering to. As for the CCTV camera footage as it's been mentioned before you can be drunk and still tie your shoelaces.(trust me my mom could tell you a thing or two not that she's proud of it!) It all depends on how much your body can take. It's never been said he was an alcoholic just merely that he could have more drinks then normal and would show no signs of intoxication

Okay why am I blabbing on at this point it's going to get moved into the inquest thread haha Anyways my point is I still can't believe they're releasing books and selling well has no one done their research on this sheesh the inquiry and inquest were made public for a reason!
 
Last edited:
Another ridiculous story dragging up the past.
This sentence explains everything.

Michael Mansfield QC, who represented Mohamed al-Fayed
Click to expand...
 
Now the Daily Mail's picked up on Mr. Mansfield.:sad: I find this remark telling: "Mr Mansfield said he believed the car crash in Paris in 1997 was 'more than a mere accident' when he first heard about it."

Surely Mr. Mansfield should know that a "belief" or a "feeling" isn't evidence. And there's the empty box with--basically--guesses as to what was in it that might support his/MaF's theory. Even if Diana was planning to expose people or setting up an institution to help people harmed by landmines, that doesn't mean she was murdered.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1282907/Princess-Diana-killed-planning-expose-senior-Brits-involved-land-trade.html#ixzz0pYRF7ZLc

gfg02 said:
Princess Diana 'was killed for planning to expose senior Brits involved in the land mine trade'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1282907/Princess-Diana-killed-planning-expose-senior-Brits-involved-land-trade.html#ixzz0pXUUdvf6
Click to expand...
 
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view...d-says-QC-as-he-tells-of-unanswered-questionshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1282907/Princess-Diana-killed-planning-expose-senior-Brits-involved

Here's the proof. What more does anyone need?

quotes:
"A large number of land mines had been manufactured by the British and I think, and a witness who knew her well claimed, that she had an exposure diary in which she was going to expose the people most closely involved in the British arms trade."

"...there is a missing box of papers which could contain crucial information. He said: 'Nobody really knows what was in it. The box exists but when it was opened there was nothing in it and everybody has forgotten what was in it. 'I don't know what was in it. It is said there were papers in there."

to summarise:
"I think...a witness claimed...missing box...could contain...Nobody really knows...nothing in it...everybody has forgotten...I don't know what was in it...it is said..."

Surely this is all proof positive that she was killed because of her land mines activity!

Hold on, wasn't it claimed previously that Diana was killed because she was going to marry Dodi and have Islamic babies?
Or that she was killed because she was an embarrassment to the Royal Family?
Then there was Diana's claim that Charles wanted to kill her so he could marry Tiggy Legge-Bourke.

It all sounds so much more mysterious and intriguing and sinister than merely a tragic and needless death at the hands of a speeding drunk driver.
.
 
Last edited:
BINGO!, Warren. A beautiful princess isn't allowed to die accidentally. It's "unfair."

Warren said:
It all sounds so much more mysterious and intriguing and sinister than merely a tragic and needless death at the hands of a speeding drunk driver.
.
Click to expand...
 
Tragic and needless death at the hands of a speeding drunk driver......and because she wasn't wearing a seat belt.

As someone who was a personal injury lawyer for many years, and who is very well aware of how often these circumstances combine to cause life-shattering trauma and pain and disability and/or death, and what happens to fragile, unrestrained human bodies in the circumstances in which Diana died, I am angry that the lessons that could be drawn from Diana's needless death to help teach the motoring public and hopefully prevent at least some similar occurrences, have been overlooked, or ignored, yet these ridiculous conspiracy theories prosper and are given publicity.
 
What difference does the inquest make? Diana is gone and nothing will bring her back.
 
agogo said:
What difference does the inquest make? Diana is gone and nothing will bring her back.
Click to expand...

The inquest is not trying to bring her back, it's trying to find the truth as to why she died.
An inquest makes a lot of difference, to the people who want answers.
 
IMO this lawyer is a minion of Mr. Al Fayed. A well-educated minion, but a minion none the less. This is the third newspaper article to appear recently, and perhaps it's not coincidence that he has a book to sell.:ermm:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mermaid, I think it is to sell more books, because anything with Diana, Princess of Wales' name sells. Another thing, I don't remember this lawyer of Mr Al Fayed the anything to the press to contradict the inquest verdict. I know Mr. Al Fayed voiced his opinion about the inquest's verdict being wrong. :ermm:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The inquest basically said that Diana's car crash was an accident. It ruled out conspiracy, which is what Mr. Mansfield is suggesting was actually behind the crash. He doesn't come right out and say that Diana was murdered, but he uses terms like "the hidden hand."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not only does Mr Mansfield suggest that there was a conspiracy he even says, according to this article, that that was what the inquest determined. However that isn't the way I remember the inquest's verdict - which was accidental death resulting from being chased by the paparazzi.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

iceflower
  • Sticky
The Royal Family of Brunei: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
Replies
4
Views
859
Biri
B
Somebody
The Princess of Orange, News and Events Part 2 (Jan 2024 - present)
2
Replies
59
Views
11K
Somebody
Somebody
J
Diana closed casket?
Replies
0
Views
673
Jamesy
J
Marengo
Princess Alexandra of Luxembourg and Nicolas Bagory: 22 and 29 April 2023
4 5 6
Replies
169
Views
32K
claypoint2
claypoint2
iceflower
The Princess of Wales's Daytime Fashion Part 3: July 2023 -
7 8 9
Replies
241
Views
26K
Susan D
S

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom