Run-up to the inquest into Diana's death


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that Mohammed Al-Fayed will generally now be regarded as just someone who can't accept the truth - that the negligence of his employees killed his son and his son's girlfriend. Al-Fayed has run out of options. I think the best thing he could do would be to sell Harrods and slip out gracefully.
 
Can someone clarify something for me ? The report that will be released tomorrow, is that the final step ? Or could there be some sort of other inquiry, I remember hearing about something happening in the spring that might be public but if the inquiry is done tomorrow.....

anyways I'm confused
 
This is pretty much it. Once this inquest happens and the report is released - we have the answers. The questions have been answered. The book can be closed. And that's going to be very hard for some people because this is very much the end. My grandfather died recently and there's got to be an inquest. Whilst we wait for that, there's a kind of "he hasn't gone" element. But we know that after that inquest - it's over. It's finally real and we'll have the answers we need. And thats the same in every case - waiting for the inquest, you get the chance to convince yourself that it isn't real. When it's over, it is real and thats when its hard.

So cutting through my waffle - yes, it's the final step.
 
This is truly confusing and I have to honestly say - I don't know what on earth they're up to.
 
To clarify:

Inquest: 1.a legal or judicial inquiry, usually before a jury, esp. an investigation made by a coroner into the cause of a death.

Lord Stevens and Michael Burgess have headed up the compilation of the investigation report for the inquest. Lady Butler Sloss will adjudicate the inquest, which will present the findings of Lord Stevens and Michael Burgess to a jury and the jury will rule on those findings, witness testimony, etc.

If the jury rules in agreement with Lord Stevens' findings (almost virtually certain, but not guaranteed) then the matter will be closed.

Think of it like the building of a house: Lord Stevens has now laid the foundation, and the jury inquest will complete the building.
 
Last edited:
Lord Stephen's report is not the end at all. The inquest/s are still to take place to make the official ruling on the cause of death on the two British citizens killed in France. (British law requires an inquest into the death of any British citizen who dies overseas in additional to any local ruling which is why this procedure is taking place at all).

Lord Stephen's report of the investigation is like the police report that is given to an inquest following a car accident or any other 'suspicious death'. The police usually investigate any of these sorts of deaths and make their reports.

The report is NOT the end of the situation.

The inquest/s (they could have separate ones for Diana and Dodi and reach different results with different juries by the way) still have to take place.

In most situations the inquest simply rubber stamps the police investigation, unless one of the interested parties is able to convince the judge and/or jury that the police investigation isn't complete or accurate. The inquest could call any or all of the people who have made statements to the Lord Stephens investigation and have them verbally give evidence 'under oath'. The statements are not made 'under oath' and therefore not subject to 'perjury' charges if proven to be lying whereas at the inquest any evidence presented will be 'under oath'.

In the unlikely event that the inquest finds differently to the police investigation then further work will need to be done.

If the inquest rules that if was murder (or any cause other than accident) and not an accident as determined by the French investigation and allegedly at this stage by the Lord Stephens report, then the French will have to be informed that the British have made a conclusion of unlawful death and ask them to co-operate in making arrests and having criminal trials which will then take place in France under French law. Before that could happen, of course, the French would have to re-open their own inquiry and change their ruling (according to my father who admits that his knowledge of international law regarding the EU is a little fuzzy since he retired a number of years ago but back in the 80s he is sure that that was the case).

As I expect that the inquest/s will rule accident then this step won't happen.

If the inquest/s aren't held at the same time they could return different results. My father was a lawyer here in Oz and has told me that under normal considerations two or more inquests are held with car accidents only if one is for the driver and another for any passengers if the police investigation concludes that the driver/or the passenger caused the deaths. In other words if the police believe that one of the deceased was responsible for the deaths of others in the vehicle two or more inquests can be ordered. He explained to me that if there are two separate inquests for Diana and Dodi and they reach different conclusions it won't affect the ruling of the other death - so one could rule that Diana's death was accidental and another inquest rule that Dodi died as a result of deliberate actions of person or persons unknown. In that case both rulings would stand unless the interested persons related to one or the other wanted to bring in the ruling of the other inquest into a new inquest.

As there is no need for an inquest in Britain for the driver (as he was a French citizen and these inquests are only for the British citizens) there really is no need for two inquests as far as I can ascertain - unless the report suggests that either Dodi or Diana was responsible for the death of the other person.

The inquest/s could take a couple of days or could, if they call all the witnesses, including the experts who have already given statements, and/or if they decide to take the jury to the scene of the evening's events, literally take months.

All interested parties will be able to have legal representation and each of these people will be able to question any witness and can add witnesses to the list if they wish.

I would be surprised, with Al Fayed's attitude, if the inquest didn't take quite some time, particularly now that it appears to be going to have its hearings in public. He will milk that for all it's worth.
 
BeatrixFan said:
I think that Mohammed Al-Fayed will generally now be regarded as just someone who can't accept the truth.
Click to expand...

I have compassion for Al Fayed. To lose a child is a horrendous thing. I think, in his pain and his grief, he's convinced himself that his son and Diana were murdered. He really believes it to be true. It's not uncommon for people, when they have suffered a life-altering emotional trauma, to lose touch with reality. I think that is the case with Al-Fayed.

It's very sad, and I hope he finds some measure of peace in the years to come.
 
sassie said:
I have compassion for Al Fayed. To lose a child is a horrendous thing. I think, in his pain and his grief, he's convinced himself that his son and Diana were murdered. He really believes it to be true. It's not uncommon for people, when they have suffered a life-altering emotional trauma, to lose touch with reality. I think that is the case with Al-Fayed.

It's very sad, and I hope he finds some measure of peace in the years to come.
Click to expand...

I agree, sassie.

And in his 'blindness', I believe he cannot see the measure of hurt and distress he brings upon others by continuing to insist that Diana and his son were murdered. His searching for an answer that he want's to believe in, something that gives his sons death more meanning I guess.

I think he has lost touch with reality, yes.
 
Last edited:
On another note: one reason the inquest may have taken so long was that the British investigation couldn't start until al-Fayed's court cases against the French authorities had been handled.

Long wait for crash report
 
"There was no conspiracy to murder any of the occupants of that car," Lord Stevens said.
Click to expand...
And now maybe we can move on and this will be an end to wild claims and endless poorly made documentaries.
 
I started to scan some of the documents and then this caught my eye I can't figure out how to copy and paste but on pages 103-104 it states that "the letter" in which Diana suggests that her brakes will be tampered with so Charles can marry, the letter that the public saw never mentioned a name but according to the report it was not Camilla and Charles has indentified her as a family friend.

Also on page 104 it states that at one time Diana lawyer stated that she told him that both she and Camilla would be 'put aside'

Link to the full investigation http://www1.sky.com/news/OperationPagetReport.pdf
 
Oppie said:
I started to scan some of the documents and then this caught my eye I can't figure out how to copy and paste but on pages 103-104 it states that "the letter" in which Diana suggests that her brakes will be tampered with so Charles can marry, the letter that the public saw never mentioned a name but according to the report it was not Camilla and Charles has indentified her as a family friend.

Also on page 104 it states that at one time Diana lawyer stated that she told him that both she and Camilla would be 'put aside'

Link to the full investigation http://www1.sky.com/news/OperationPagetReport.pdf
Click to expand...

Thank you for the link. Now that is really interesting: Diana thought in 1995/1996 that Charles was going to marry another lady, not Camilla? A lady Charles identified as a "family friend" only? Does anyone have an idea who this mysterious lady could be? And why Diana would be thinking that she was Charles' mistress and a potential wife to boot? :ermm:
 
After reading the report, I think that the comments made by Diana were obviously the ramblings of a very desperate lady unsure of her new role in life.
 
I don't know if she thought that this third women, was a mistress or that someone wanted that person to be Charles wife and would get rid of her and Camilla

Whoever it is though I feel sorry for them, it is going to be a witch hunt to figure out who she is.
 
Jo of Palatine said:
Thank you for the link. Now that is really interesting: Diana thought in 1995/1996 that Charles was going to marry another lady, not Camilla? A lady Charles identified as a "family friend" only? Does anyone have an idea who this mysterious lady could be? And why Diana would be thinking that she was Charles' mistress and a potential wife to boot? :ermm:
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information. My idea is that Diana was really serious suspecious. I think the family friend Diana meant was Tiggy, Prince William and Prince Harry's nanny.Please recall the accusation of her being aborted the child of Prince Charles? And Tiggy is a family friend and she is unmarried, she is young and able to have more children for Prince Charles. And Diana knew that Charles always wanted a daughter of his own to dote. I have Simon Simmone's book and I remebered in a chapter that the auther wrote that Diana told her that she wanted to warn Camilla about the existence of "Tiggy" as Charles's the other mistress.
Moreover, it is always in the drama that the nanny of the children will marry the father of children. I suspect that this is another example of Diana's dramation.Anyway, Charles seems to be really very very faithful to Camilla and he certainly knows the relationships between friends and the woman he truly loves.
 
Last edited:
If they exist at all Oppie. Who's to say that Diana didn't write the letter to give to Paul Burrell to leak (whether she was alive or dead) to stir up trouble?
 
Your right Beatrix Fan, and there are several people that question how authentic the note is and one person out rights suggests that Paul wrote it.

I just think that those two points if true at that time in Diana frame of mind she was not blaming Camilla which is the part I find interesting. In fact Camilla is barley mentioned even with all the evidence, notes ect. I think it sheds new light on what Diana thought of Camilla post-seperation.

ETA : No I don't think that Tiggy would fit at all. You shouldn't just read our posts but actually read the report. I have provided a link and wrote the page numbers. You can also click on Find in your internet broweser and do a name serach. But I think that if you are going to comment or throw out names you should read the report as well.
 
Last edited:
The thing is - if Paul Burrell did write the letters, surely he'll be jailed for perjury?
 
BeatrixFan said:
If they exist at all Oppie. Who's to say that Diana didn't write the letter to give to Paul Burrell to leak (whether she was alive or dead) to stir up trouble?
Click to expand...
Or Burrell wrote the note (as some of Diana's friends pointed out as a possibility) and published it after her death in order to stir up trouble for Charles and Camilla?

I simply can't believe that Diana didn't know her ex-husband better than that. If all that has been claimed about the Charles/Camilla/Diana-triangle is true, then Diana must have known that the love and need Charles feels for Camilla doesn't leave any space. There was no space for her - how could there have been space for yet another woman? And even if she thought Charles was a promiscuous as herself, then she should have known better than to believe a Prince of Wales has to "do away" (or what was the wording used?) with a mistress... his wife, yes, that's one thing. But to end things with Camilla Charles would only have had to send her a gift and say farewell.

It's so weird in a way - if Diana really wrote that note and meant was is written there, then I at least believe she had lost contact to reality. Which is understandible but still not good for all people concerned. Come to think of it: Charles marrying yet another lady... how could that have happened? How? Impossible! It was difficult enough with Camilla. The idea that Charles marries his children's nanny is so way beyond anything imaginable... A princess from somewhere else... maybe. But a nanny? Geeshhhh
 
Last edited:
BeatrixFan said:
If they exist at all Oppie. Who's to say that Diana didn't write the letter to give to Paul Burrell to leak (whether she was alive or dead) to stir up trouble?
Click to expand...
It's quite possible. It's equally as possible that this was something Paul Burrell was not intended to be privy to. It was not a "letter" - there was no salutation at the beginning-just a few pages of notes. Burrell claims that the notes were written in 1996, but the nature of them suggest that they were, in fact, written in 1995, at the height of Diana's paranoia. Since the pages are undated, it's anyone's guess, but it seems unlikely that Diana would have been writing about Charles' desire to be free after the divorce.

For all we know, these were idle, paranoid doodles that Paul Burrell 'rescued' from Diana's wastebasket and claimed to have been written in 1996 in order to get more $$ for the book in which they appeared. For a publishing hook, narrowing the time between the writing of these notes and the accident heightened the sensationalism, which raised the ante on the serial rights.
 
Last edited:
BeatrixFan said:
The thing is - if Paul Burrell did write the letters, surely he'll be jailed for perjury?
Click to expand...

Especially as this note/letter costs the taxpayer millions....
 
The way I read it is that someone wanted Diana and Camilla dead so that Charles was free to marry this third person. I don't think Charles was ever in love or had any romantic connection to her.

The questioning about the note there are a few different thoughts 1) Paul wrote it 2) Diana wrote it but it was never suppose to go to Paul 3)Diana wrote it and gave it to Paul.

If it was written by Diana the evidence suggests that it was written in October 1995.

lovecc. If you read the reports then Simone Simmons is discredited many times, I don't think she is a crediable author (not that I ever thought that)

What I want to know about the letter is who knew that was another women's name. When the letter was published was that specifically left out because it would be more interesting if it was left to suggest it was Camilla. Did Paul edit out the name because he knew if people saw the name they would take it less serisouly.
 
Last edited:
BeatrixFan said:
The thing is - if Paul Burrell did write the letters, surely he'll be jailed for perjury?
Click to expand...

Yes, since he claimed that Diana wrote them under oath and he could be charged with fraud, as well, since he represented them as Diana's writing, and received money in exchange for allowing the abridged version to be published in that context.

But, of course, it would have to be proven that he wrote the notes. Easier said than done. And the published photostats of the notes do appear to be Diana's handwriting, which would be hard to duplicate exactly.

Short of spending a million pounds more to prove/disprove he wrote them, there's no way to know.
 
I'm still reading parts of the report.

If the letter was written in October 1995, it was written at a time when Diana psyhic (sp?) Rita Rogers told Diana that she had a dream in which Diana breaks were tampered with. It was the belief of the cornor that this effected her mental state and that may be the reason for the note.

Also Paul Burell claimed to have recived the letter in October 1996 and claimed that was when it was written, however there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that it was written in October 1995 and Paul Burell now supports October 1995.

from the report page 138
 
reports finds Princess Diana death a 'tragic accident'
http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2006/12/14/princess-diana-crash/

British Police: Diana's Death a 'Tragic Accident'
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20004254,00.html

Diana death a 'tragic accident'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6179275.stm

Di: No murder, no cover-up
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2006580172,00.html

Fayed could have saved Diana
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006580130,00.html

Fayed's fury at 'mental' Stevens

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006580175,00.html

Diana report: Claims and conclusions

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PBWTQTKXFYDP3QFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/12/15/ndiana15.xml

Princes:End Speculations
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1244101,00.html

Diana: No murder, no pregnancy
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/12/14/diana.report/index.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Prince Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta (1900-1948) and Princess Irene of Greece and Denmark (1904-1974), King and Queen of Croatia
Replies
2
Views
300
maria-olivia
maria-olivia
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
488
Tatiana Maria
T
LadyFinn
Crown Princess Couple's Visit to Finland: September 20-21, 2023
Replies
11
Views
3K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn
Marengo
Diana, Princess of Wales: Statue Unveiling - July 1st 2021
7 8 9
Replies
258
Views
27K
Denville
D
M
Orders and Decorations of the Prince and Princess of Wales
Replies
8
Views
329
Somebody
Somebody

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom