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.
Jo of Palatine said:
Well, as both were not even close to the scene of the incident and can only give background information I don't think they will be subjected to an appearance in court where the lawyer's of Al-Fayed will surely try to tear them apart. Isn't there a kind of immunity for the Royal family. How's the situation in Britain?
Click to expand...

The Queen cannot be forced to make any personal appearance in court. Philip and Charles can be ordered to appear in a criminal court, but as with Charles' diaries, his lawyers spoke for him. Anne was prosecuted under the dangerous dogs act after Dotty, her dog bit a couple of children. It was the first time a senior royal has been convicted of a criminal offence, no other senior royal has attended court for 100 years!
 
Prince William and Prince Harry makes statement on death of their late mother the Diana,Princess of Wales during court verdict the royalist says

Diana's sons beg for 'open and fair' inquest
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23380851-details/Diana%27s+sons+beg+for+%27open+and+fair%27+inquest/article.do

No Evidence from Princes
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13560669,00.html

Packed courtroom for Diana hearing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6241459.stm

Coroner rejects royal Diana jury
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6239897.stm

Princes want 'open' inquest
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007010173,00.html

William: inquest must be fair
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=BUYAGOHX12CLNQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/01/09/ndiana09.xml

Judge spares the grieving princes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=427442&in_page_id=1770
 
Last edited by a moderator:
so, the imvestigation is re-open again.
which is the paper of the boys in this?

the diana's death will be investigated like she was a member of the royal family?
 
corazon said:
so, the imvestigation is re-open again.
which is the paper of the boys in this?

the diana's death will be investigated like she was a member of the royal family?
Click to expand...

No, the investigation IS closed. Lord Stevens' report is the result of the investigation-now, the findings of that investigation will be heard before and considered by a jury, which is the actual inquest.
 
sassie said:
No, the investigation IS closed. Lord Stevens' report is the result of the investigation-now, the findings of that investigation will be heard before and considered by a jury, which is the actual inquest.
Click to expand...

thanks I undestand now, how can happend with the jury?
 
corazon said:
thanks I undestand now, how can happend with the jury?
Click to expand...

They can decide in several ways-accidental death, homicide, etc. Most likely, if they agree with the conclusions of the Paget report, they will decide accidental death.

I'm not familiar with British law-does anyone know if Mohammed Al Fayed can appeal the jury's decision?
 
The first link here simply outlines the role of the Coroner’s Court and the types of decisions that can be reached.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroner#Inquest

At the beginning of this article it also outlines the role of the Coroner’s Court in an inquest.


http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/history/inquest.shtm


Both make it clear that the court will have to determine the name of the deceased and the cause of death.

The possible verdicts are: death by misadventure, accidental death, unlawful killing, lawful killing, suicide, natural causes, and an open verdict.


There will be no apportioning of blame as that power has been removed.


Interesting that the second link says that the findings have to be in line with the medical evidence.
 
sassie said:
I'm not familiar with British law-does anyone know if Mohammed Al Fayed can appeal the jury's decision?
Click to expand...

He can call for a Judicial Review on the grounds that the inquest had not been a thorough investigation into how the deceased met their deaths, that in his view many of his questions had not been answered.

I wouldn't put anything past him!
 
Skydragon said:
He can call for a Judicial Review on the grounds that the inquest had not been a thorough investigation into how the deceased met their deaths, that in his view many of his questions had not been answered.

I wouldn't put anything past him!
Click to expand...


I wonder what the odds are that he will do just that if the verdict is anything other than murder.

He has been crying murder for so long now that he will use every legal means possible to get the ruling he wants.
 
Chrissy57 - I did not read the British report. What did they say about the white car that hit Diana's car making it go into the pillar? What about that photographer who owned a white car that was founded murdered?

I think the princes just want closure to their beloved mother's death and can any one blame them. :sad:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
georgiea said:
Chrissy57 - I did not read the British report. What did they say about the white car that hit Diana's car making it go into the pillar? What about that photographer who owned a white car that was founded murdered?

I think the princes just want closure to their beloved mother's death and can any one blame them. :sad:
Click to expand...


According to the Stephens report the photographer Andanson was not in Paris on the night of the accident (confirmed by his wife). His white fiat uno was also with him - 170 miles/km away from Paris on that night. (Can't remember which measurement they used). Although the paint samples do match there is no other evidence to suggest that his Fiat Uno was involved in the accident as where the repaint is on his car didn't match with where it would have been had it hit the Mercedes.

In addition, the findings, along with the French investigation, found that he committed suicide and wasn't murdered.

He was interviewed by the French authorities.

As for the supposedly stolen electronics from his place - none of his stuff was reported stolen.

pp. 728 - 730 of the report actually sum up the findings with the previous 40 pages going through the claims, particularly of Al Fayed, and the evidence to support or contradict those claims with statements from witnesses etc.
 
sara1981 said:
No Jury for Diana Inquest
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1247461,00.html

this story makes me so MAD!
Click to expand...

I see no reason to be mad. This was a perfectly wise decision to make: the jury must consist of people, who do not have prejudiced idea of the case and where would you find 12 people, who don't have a strong opinion about that tragic accident?
Besides, since Princess Diana was still considered a member of the Royal Family, the jury should have consisted of the members of the Royal Household and that would not be a very good idea, imo.
 
I'll add my tuppence - there really is no need to be mad. Look, the fact is that this inquest was demanded by those obssessed with conspiracy theories and to shut them up, the British Government gave the go ahead. Each year, this costs Britons over 4million and it's a joke. We're not paying anymore. This is it. After this inquest, that's it. The Government saw the Baroness as the one to deal with the inquest, whatever she says goes. If people don't like the way the BRITISH are carrying out an inquest into the death of a BRITISH woman then they can spend several million on a seperate inquest.
 
BeatrixFan said:
I'll add my tuppence - there really is no need to be mad. Look, the fact is that this inquest was demanded by those obssessed with conspiracy theories and to shut them up, the British Government gave the go ahead. Each year, this costs Britons over 4million and it's a joke. We're not paying anymore. This is it. After this inquest, that's it.
Click to expand...

I only wonder what the Baroness meant when she said:
"There is much in what Lord Stevens' report says which is capable of challenge". But I guess we will find out in May - probably Lord Stevens has already been informed and will deliver an additional report.
 
BeatrixFan said:
Look, the fact is that this inquest was demanded by those obssessed with conspiracy theories and to shut them up, the British Government gave the go ahead.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you keep saying that. By law, the death of a British citizen on foreign soil requires an inquest, doesn't it? It wasn't a matter of giving into the demands of conspiracy theorists, but of following the same law that would apply to any British citizen in the same situation. Should the laws requiring such an inquest have been disregarded because it was Diana?

Granted, the investigation was extensive, but Al Fayed levied some serious accusations against a lot of people, including Prince Philip. Is it not better than the investigators examined every one of his claims and disproved them in the process? Isn't Prince Philip entitled to having his name officially cleared?
 
I keep saying that because it's true. Yes, an inquest was needed but it's turned into a 10 year saga and it's costing too much money. Prince Phillip doesn't need his name officially cleared, his name was never officially accused. He was accused by a publicity seeking moron who will say anything to get under the skin of the establishment which refuses him a British passport. Anyone with half a head knows Prince Philip is innocent and it's ridiculous to even entertain claims to the contrary.
 
BeatrixFan said:
I keep saying that because it's true. Yes, an inquest was needed but it's turned into a 10 year saga and it's costing too much money. Prince Phillip doesn't need his name officially cleared, his name was never officially accused. He was accused by a publicity seeking moron who will say anything to get under the skin of the establishment which refuses him a British passport. Anyone with half a head knows Prince Philip is innocent and it's ridiculous to even entertain claims to the contrary.
Click to expand...

I thought an inquest was required, not just needed? Isn't that the law in Britain?

So, and I'm not arguing here, I'm simply curious-you think it would have been better to just follow the letter of the law and hold an inquest to establish Diana's cause of death and not investigate all the other factors?

I thought the British inquest took so long to happen because of Al Fayed's civil suits in France?

Of course, Prince Philip is innocent-I wasn't suggesting otherwise. But, officially accused or not, the British still have the right to stand up for him and disprove the accusation, don't they?
 
Needed, required - what's the difference? It has to happen and thats that. I think it would have been best to do all they're doing now in 1997/98 and end it then instead of dragging it on and on for 10 years which is painful for the Royal Family and costly to the British people.
 
Avalon said:
Besides, since Princess Diana was still considered a member of the Royal Family, the jury should have consisted of the members of the Royal Household and that would not be a very good idea, imo.
Click to expand...


why? thw members of the royal family are people like al the others in the UK, diana die in paris, and the briritsh justice investigated her death, but I think is a obligation of the british justice do a investigation until the end
 
No, members of the Royal Family are not people like all the others in the UK. They are the Royal Family. If they were like all the rest, they'd be plain members of the public and the situation would be totally different. You can't drop the fact that the Royal Family are the Royal Family because it suits your argument. Nobody objects to justice, nobody objects to inquests - but they do object to the endless courtroom saga that is costing the British people millions when most British people really don't see a need for investigation after investigation. And the British Judiciary is not obliged to do anything. It does what it considers it has to do but there has to come a point when we say, "We have enough to say what happened" and end it.
 
BeatrixFan said:
Needed, required - what's the difference? It has to happen and thats that. I think it would have been best to do all they're doing now in 1997/98 and end it then instead of dragging it on and on for 10 years which is painful for the Royal Family and costly to the British people.
Click to expand...
Well, 'needed' implies there was some mystery surrounding the accident-which there really wasn't, except in the minds of conspiracy theorists. 'Required' means the British government was restricted, by law, to go forward with the inquest, needed or not.

I was under the impression that the British inquest was held by Al Fayed's civil suits, not to mention the French investigation, which demanded the evidence remain in France. Hard to investigate a case if the evidence is in another country.
 
An inquest is required by law. Therefore it needs to be done. Anyway, that's semantics. The fact remains that investigations cost money and Britain can't afford a couple of million each year on something that's really to silence the fanatics.
 
corazon said:
why? thw members of the royal family are people like al the others in the UK, diana die in paris, and the briritsh justice investigated her death, but I think is a obligation of the british justice do a investigation until the end
Click to expand...

I did not voice my desire/opinion that the jury should have consisted of the members of the Royal Household, I just stated a fact.
19th century law states that a jury, hearing an inquest into the death of a member of the Royal Family, must be chosen only from members of the Royal Household.
At the time of her death Diana was still considered member of the Royal Family and was mother of British Princes.
 
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
321
maria-olivia
maria-olivia
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
504
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
331
Somebody
Somebody

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom