Run-up to the inquest into Diana's death

[BeatrixFan]

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.

[Oppie]

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

[BeatrixFan]

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.

[Oppie]

But what is this part then ?

His [Lord Stevens] findings form part of the inquest, due to resume next year, into the deaths of the couple which is being overseen by former judge Lady Butler-Sloss.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6176769.stm

I mean what is there "left to resume" next year.

[BeatrixFan]

This is truly confusing and I have to honestly say - I don't know what on earth they're up to.

[sassie]

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.

[Iluvbertie]

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.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

I think that Mohammed Al-Fayed will generally now be regarded as just someone who can't accept the truth.

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.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by sassie

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.

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.

[sara1981]

Fayed ignores plea to end Diana allegations


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...4/ndiana14.xml

[Skydragon]

Princes horrified by paparazzi behaviour

London - A British police inquiry into Princess Diana's death is expected to rule out foul play on Thursday and seek to bury conspiracy theories of a murder plot that have abounded for almost a decade.

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?f...6078521564B216

[ysbel]

The report has been published:

from the BBC

Diana death 'A Tragic Accident'

[ysbel]

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

[BeatrixFan]

"There was no conspiracy to murder any of the occupants of that car," Lord Stevens said.

And now maybe we can move on and this will be an end to wild claims and endless poorly made documentaries.

[Oppie]

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

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Oppie

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

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?

[BeatrixFan]

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.

[Oppie]

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.

[love_cc]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

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?

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.

[BeatrixFan]

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?