Run-up to the inquest into Diana's death

[Madame Royale]

That's quite simple Madame Royale.

Wiliam and Harry either/or/all of the below:
a. are part of the conspiracy-cover up;
b. are being blackmailed by the secret services;
c. have been threatened by agents with lethal syringes.

I'm sure these facts can be found on the internet somewhere. If not, they are now here.

Particularly the last one!!!

Thank you, Warren. A good laugh is never declined.

 

[Roslyn]

Er, no we don't! It's still all speculation, there's no definite fact as to who it was.

I think the last film I watched about it said it was a vampire. Or was it just someone pretending to be a vampire? Oh dear. I've forgotten.

 

[MARG]

I think the last film I watched about it said it was a vampire. Or was it just someone pretending to be a vampire? Oh dear. I've forgotten.

There, there. You just sit back and have a long G & T, I'm sure if it does't come back to you soon there will be more than a few that will be only too honoured and thrilled to come to your aid.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

That's quite simple Madame Royale.

Wiliam and Harry either/or/all of the below:
a. are part of the conspiracy-cover up;
b. are being blackmailed by the secret services;
c. have been threatened by agents with lethal syringes.

I'm sure these facts can be found on the internet somewhere. If not, they are now here.

But once William is king, he can:

- stop being part of the conspiracy cover-up.
- order the secret services to dissolve
- threaten the agents with a syringe, even kill them without ever be prosecuted as the monarch is immune to prosecution (or isn't he?).

So just wait and see what really gorgeous kind of drama will unfold once William is able to take revenge!!

LOL!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Just a short remark:

Having read the report (at least partly) I stopped wondering why Paul Burrell published his latest book on Diana - first why he did it at all and secondly why he didn't wait for the 10th anniversary. Of course slimy Paul realised that all his "secrets" would be out in the open for free anyway as soon as the report was going to get published and wanted to cash in on them as long as he could. Poor Diana! There are many sad revelations about her, but this surely is one of the worst.

 

[MARG]

But once William is king, he can:

- stop being part of the conspiracy cover-up.
- order the secret services to dissolve
- threaten the agents with a syringe, even kill them without ever be prosecuted as the monarch is immune to prosecution (or isn't he?).

So just wait and see what really gorgeous kind of drama will unfold once William is able to take revenge!!

LOL!

And when he's done all that, he'll tap his comminicator and say "Beam me up Scotty. I'm in deep **** here!"

 

[Skydragon]

Now, now. You know that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

True, but it is such fun waiting for the holier than thou responses! (not aimed at anyone).

 

[selrahc4]

I've read the report and have the tired eyes to prove it.

It was very interesting to read a document like this instead of the bits and pieces, rumors, and speculation that had previously made it to the media.

I hope that everyone who undertakes to read it does not skip anything, for that will leave you with an incomplete impression of what it contains. I certainly can see the fallacy of discussing this report based on second-hand summaries and internet opinion rather that from reading the report itself in full.

Whether or not you have pre-concieved opinions either way about the conclusions reached in the report, it is a must-read for "both sides" in order to give substance to discussing your point of view in the future.

 

[MARG]

True, but it is such fun waiting for the holier than thou responses! (not aimed at anyone).

Indeed Skydragon! Not only is it the lowest form of wit, it is also the highest form of intelligence!:whistling (not aimed at anyone).

 

[blackdaisies]

operation paget inquiry

before i read this 800 page report that took me a half an hour to download almost, please tell me if this report is valid for the current investigation. as i recall there was a second investigation due to new information. so am i reading the correct report for the current information or is this report outdated?

and i know, not directed an anyone, that a lot of royal followers are mostly housewify people who live in their own world where nothing bad ever happens, no crimes are ever committed, and the sun shines all day where you can bask in bathing suits and suntan oil in the arctic, so my point is that some peoloe like to live through fantasies like following the royal family around like they are saints, so not purposesly trying to offend them, but i think people caught up in a dream world of fantasy should not keep passing off the investigation like it's lies when there is legitimate proof enough that they recalled another investigation, not for public request for one, but for legitimate proof. i could be wrong, but i know this can't be a complete report because it was written in 2004 before new information has been recorded and investigated due in 2008.

does any one have another link to the report you are speaking of and to a link of what has changed from the 2004 report to what will be in the 2008 report?

 

[sassie]

before i read this 800 page report that took me a half an hour to download almost, please tell me if this report is valid for the current investigation. as i recall there was a second investigation due to new information. so am i reading the correct report for the current information or is this report outdated?

and i know, not directed an anyone, that a lot of royal followers are mostly housewify people who live in their own world where nothing bad ever happens, no crimes are ever committed, and the sun shines all day where you can bask in bathing suits and suntan oil in the arctic, so my point is that some peoloe like to live through fantasies like following the royal family around like they are saints, so not purposesly trying to offend them, but i think people caught up in a dream world of fantasy should not keep passing off the investigation like it's lies when there is legitimate proof enough that they recalled another investigation, not for public request for one, but for legitimate proof. i could be wrong, but i know this can't be a complete report because it was written in 2004 before new information has been recorded and investigated due in 2008.

does any one have another link to the report you are speaking of and to a link of what has changed from the 2004 report to what will be in the 2008 report?

Know your facts. The report published in 2004 was by the French police, investigating an accident which occured on their soil. The most recent report, published last week, was according to the laws that require a British inquest on behalf of any British citizen who dies on foreign soil. ANY British citizen. It was a routine procedure. They did not 'call' for a British investigation because the French one was faulty-it was always intended, according to law, that a British inquest would take place.

 

[blackdaisies]

didn't like french investigation one either

well, i'll search for it, but yet didn't find it. the french one concluded none of the people were wearing seatbelts, which was not true, so there is even a little proof they didn't know what they were doing. i got to page 10 on that and all they gave on the first pages was an overview of where dodi and diana were, not the photographers that followed them, the surveilance that was used on them, and i don't know if had any information yet on if there were any suspicuous people hanging around the tunnel before or after the accident on that day or before that day.

 

[Elspeth]

Apparently it was true that none of them were wearing their seat belts.

 

[blackdaisies]

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_12_06_diana_report.pdf

this is the one that says it was printed in december 2006 and on the first page is it says none of them were wearing seat belts. not only does it say they aren't wearing seat belts, but uses bad grammar in the sentence saying "was" instead of "were". i know i have the correct file now.

 

[sassie]

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_12_06_diana_report.pdf

this is the one that says it was printed in december 2006 and on the first page is it says none of them were wearing seat belts. not only does it say they aren't wearing seat belts, but uses bad grammar in the sentence saying "was" instead of "were". i know i have the correct file now.

That's correct, none of them were wearing seatbelts. The French investigation concluded that, and so did the British. Trevor Rees Jones has already said that no one was wearing a seatbelt. What is your point?

 

[Iluvbertie]

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_12_06_diana_report.pdf

this is the one that says it was printed in december 2006 and on the first page is it says none of them were wearing seat belts. not only does it say they aren't wearing seat belts, but uses bad grammar in the sentence saying "was" instead of "were". i know i have the correct file now.

None of the occupants of the car was wearing a seat belt at the time of the impact.

Actually this is perfectly correct grammar - the subject of the verb is 'none of the occupants' which is singular and therefore 'was' is the correct verb not 'were'.

This is a common error, particularly among younger people, who think that the subject in this sentence is 'occupants' whereas, in fact it is 'none of the occupants' with 'none' being the operative word for determining the 'verb'. It means 'not ONE of the occupants' equalling a singular subject.

 

[Warren]

and i know...that a lot of royal followers are mostly housewify people who live in their own world....

Speaking on my own behalf, I've never thought of myself as particularly "housewify".

but i think people caught up in a dream world of fantasy should not keep passing off the investigation like it's lies..

Blackdaisies, I'm confused here. Isn't this exactly what you are doing? You wrote at post #578 "the whole [Operation Paget Report] is probably trash and biased."
Have you changed your view?

 

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by blackdaisies
and i know...that a lot of royal followers are mostly housewify people who live in their own world....

Possibly the world you're thinking of is the 'internet' (?). People can be whoever they want to be and sometimes treat others in a way they normally wouldn't because theres no physicality involved. Its a sad truth but nonetheless, it exists.

I do agree with Warren though re the 'housewify' comment. This forum consists of people from all ages and walks of life and not just 'housewify' contributors (not that they have any lesser right than I or anyone).

 

[Charlotte1]

Blackdaisies, up until now I've been reading your posts with a great deal of amusement ( albeit with some difficulty, as a knowledge of the conventions of correct punctuation wouldn't go astray!) But your patronising generalisation as to who you consider to be royalty watchers is insulting. Particularly, as these people you are chosing to denigrate, are the same ones who are exposing your own lack of knowledge, be it either about the death of Diana, or correct grammar!
To suggest that 'housewify' ( spelt incorrectly by the way, a knowledge of spelling rules would be good too! The 'i' in 'wife' makes a long 'i' sound due to the silent 'e' at the end, therefore it needs to be 'housewifey'. What you've written has a short 'i' sound as in 'if'.) Anyway back to people who chose to remain at home, male or female, their intelligence does not evaporate when they decide to remain at home rather than go out to work. Being a housewife or househusband does not make one a gibbering idiot who lives in fantasy land.
Educate yourself, rather than denigrating and patronising those who disagree with you.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Anyway back to people who chose to remain at home, male or female, their intelligence does not evaporate when they decide to remain at home rather than go out to work.

Especially if they (me!) take their "housewifey" 5 minutes off from work at home to join the forums....

 

[Skydragon]

does any one have another link to the report you are speaking of and to a link of what has changed from the 2004 report to what will be in the 2008 report?

I believe the French investigation and the report giving details of the investigation was released in 2004.

The law states that when a death occurs outside England and Wales a coroner will become involved if the body is brought into his district and "he has reason to suspect that the deceased died a violent or unnatural death, or has died a sudden death of which the cause is unknown."

So an inquest had to be held in the UK and the royal coroner opened the inquests in January 2004. He then announced that he had asked the head of the Metropolitan Police, John Stevens, to investigate the conspiracy theories.

This is the report that details the investigation of the British team. There is not, as far as I know, another due in 2008.

 

[Skydragon]

Royal Family murdered Diana with the help of MI6 members?

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/crimes/15-12-2006/85952-Diana-0

 

[Madame Royale]

Perhaps a psych assessment for Mr al Fayed, could and should, be arranged

 

[Skydragon]

I just hope that he can find peace within himself and accept that his son died in a tragic accident.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I just hope that he can find peace within himself and accept that his son died in a tragic accident.

I don't think so. IMHO the Paget-report showed clearly that Mohammed al-Fayed was in charge of the whole Diana-Dodi affair and that he wanted them to be together. Dodi appears as over-controlled son whose every move was supervised by his father. IMHO Diana realised where the relationship with Dodi would lead to (hence the "ring-talk" with Burrell) and planned to tell him "no". She after all had nothing to win from a marriage to Dodi - she'd have lost the rest of her standing in British society, get problems with seeing her kids and all the while would have to dance like Mohammed wanted as he was controlling the pursestrings. Why should she marry Dodi?

We don't know if this saying "no" had already happened or not but a woman signals her opinion about an engagement not only with words but with a whole lot of other signs. I guess Dodi was under enormous pressure from his father and realised that he wouldn't be able to fulfill his father's expectation.
IMHO he felt helpless and forced by things he couldn't control (I wouldn't wonder if his father was behind the paparazzi craze as he doesn't strike me as overly protective or caring for the persons who he thought should give him what he wanted while he was the one to profit the most from the situation on showing the world that he was about to capture a princess).

IMHO Dodi only wanted to get out of this situation with an unhappy Diana on his hands - hence the decisions which made them vulnerable and led to their deaths. And maybe he even told his father some of the things that Mohammed tells all the time. We only know that Dodi got rid of his girlfriend immediately before he embarked on his relation with Diana. IMHO he was ordered or even blackmailed by his father to do so. I believe as well that the whole idea of a ring for Diana was Mohammed's doing and that in fact he selected the ring via the phone. He was orchestrating the whole thing - maybe even behind the decision to change the destination that night from the restaurant to his hotel Ritz in order for more publicity.

So maybe Mohammed al-Fayed is angry that his plans went awry, he is guilt-ridden and he looks for a scapegoat. It's understandible but at the same time it's clear that he will never stop.

 

[ysbel]

I don't think so. IMHO the Paget-report showed clearly that Mohammed al-Fayed was in charge of the whole Diana-Dodi affair and that he wanted them to be together. Dodi appears as over-controlled son whose every move was supervised by his father. IMHO Diana realised where the relationship with Dodi would lead to (hence the "ring-talk" with Burrell) and planned to tell him "no". She after all had nothing to win from a marriage to Dodi - she'd have lost the rest of her standing in British society, get problems with seeing her kids and all the while would have to dance like Mohammed wanted as he was controlling the pursestrings. Why should she marry Dodi?

We don't know if this saying "no" had already happened or not but a woman signals her opinion about an engagement not only with words but with a whole lot of other signs. I guess Dodi was under enormous pressure from his father and realised that he wouldn't be able to fulfill his father's expectation.
IMHO he felt helpless and forced by things he couldn't control (I wouldn't wonder if his father was behind the paparazzi craze as he doesn't strike me as overly protective or caring for the persons who he thought should give him what he wanted while he was the one to profit the most from the situation on showing the world that he was about to capture a princess).

IMHO Dodi only wanted to get out of this situation with an unhappy Diana on his hands - hence the decisions which made them vulnerable and led to their deaths. And maybe he even told his father some of the things that Mohammed tells all the time. We only know that Dodi got rid of his girlfriend immediately before he embarked on his relation with Diana. IMHO he was ordered or even blackmailed by his father to do so. I believe as well that the whole idea of a ring for Diana was Mohammed's doing and that in fact he selected the ring via the phone. He was orchestrating the whole thing - maybe even behind the decision to change the destination that night from the restaurant to his hotel Ritz in order for more publicity.

So maybe Mohammed al-Fayed is angry that his plans went awry, he is guilt-ridden and he looks for a scapegoat. It's understandible but at the same time it's clear that he will never stop.

Jo, I haven't read that far in the report. Can you point me to the page that refers to this? I'd be really interested in reading it.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Jo, I haven't read that far in the report. Can you point me to the page that refers to this? I'd be really interested in reading it.

A lot of it - the sentences marked with IMHO are my own interpretations of the findings in the report. You can find the basic information from which I formed my opinion in the chapter about the ring and the question if Diana selected it herself and if it was an engagement ring (chapter one). The report says IMHO while Diana may have looked into a window of the jeweler in Monte Carlo and liked one, she did not select a ring herself. But the fact that she talked with Burrell about a forthcoming gift of a ring showed me that she realized that Dodi would give her one. Then she talked to friends about not wanting to get married.

The staff of the Ritz tell that Dodi was looking for a ring he could not describe but knew where it had been placed in the shop window in Monte Carlo and they were ordered to search for it. The info about the sizing of the ring etc. by the jeweler is IMHO rubbish - no ring really was selected and it wasn't sized for Diana. Ritz-staff tells that Mohammed al-Fayed wanted information and prices on all the rings his son had selected - taking such a vivid interest in the selection of a ring (while Dodi seems to have looked for a gift, not necessarily a ring) told me that it was Mohammed who was really interested in a symbol for a closer relationship, not Dodi and it was him who decided on how much money there is to spend. Eg Claude Roulet recalling on page 40/41 that after Dodi had told him to look for the ring, he phoned Mohammed and got his orders from Mohammed to do what Dodi wanted.

A lot of the things reported about the situation at the Ritz before they took off for their last ride, especially the orders the security team seem to have gotten, show IMHO the enormous influence of Mohammed al-Fayed and that Dodi was so fed up with the situation that he overruled his father's orders. (in chapter thirteen). Diana's friend Lucia Flecha de Lima tells from the last video of Diana at the Ritz that the princess herself was unhappy and appeared stressed.

All these statements gave me the above mentioned ideas. You can find the statements in the report in chapters one and thirteen. Hope this helps.

 

[sassie]

So maybe Mohammed al-Fayed is angry that his plans went awry, he is guilt-ridden and he looks for a scapegoat. It's understandible but at the same time it's clear that he will never stop.

Absolutely. And, of course, since the possibility of having the Princess as a prize/daughter in law is no longer, Al Fayed is promoting the next best thing: that she was engaged to Dodi and that she was pregnant with his grandchild. There's some evidence in his rantings that he feels cheated, and he still wants, at least, public acknolwedgement of a resemblance to what could have been.

 

[shaan]

What about al fayed?

What do you think he will do next? He is so convinced that diana and dodi were killed that there is no chance of convincing him otherwise - what happens next? Any ideas

 

[Jo of Palatine]

What do you think he will do next? He is so convinced that diana and dodi were killed that there is no chance of convincing him otherwise - what happens next? Any ideas

IMHO he will spend money getting nowhere... He will continue to try to embarrass the RF thus endangering his position in Britain and maybe someday we'll hear that he went back to Egypt. For whatever reasons. But he won't stop to claim that Diana and Dodi were murdered. I'm only curious if he will go on finding a forum for his thoughts. After all, the photographers who were specialist in producing ugly pics of Camilla ran out of business after the media decided they did not want them anymore...

And if you check this report you'll see there is nothing of any substance that the media can honestly report about a conspiracy. The investigation seems to have been thorough, it addressed all claims, interviewed whatever witness they could find and came to conclusions that sound absolutely plausible to me. So I honestly don't see where the newsworthiness of any of the old claims should be. And if he really can prove that anything in the report was a cover-up, then he should have his say and then it must be reported. But only then. IMHO.