Run-up to the inquest into Diana's death

[Oppie]

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.

[BeatrixFan]

The thing is - if Paul Burrell did write the letters, surely he'll be jailed for perjury?

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[sassie]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

The thing is - if Paul Burrell did write the letters, surely he'll be jailed for perjury?

Especially as this note/letter costs the taxpayer millions....

[Oppie]

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.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

The thing is - if Paul Burrell did write the letters, surely he'll be jailed for perjury?

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.

[Oppie]

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

[sara1981]

reports finds Princess Diana death a 'tragic accident'
http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty...s-diana-crash/

British Police: Diana's Death a 'Tragic Accident'
http://www.people.com/people/article...004254,00.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...5/ndiana15.xml

Princes:End Speculations
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...244101,00.html

Diana: No murder, no pregnancy
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe...ort/index.html

[Skydragon]

Princes urge end to speculation

Prince William and Prince Harry want the "conclusive findings" of the investigation into their mother's death to bring an end to speculation surrounding the crash.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/14122006/34...eculation.html

Some hope!

[BeatrixFan]

Short of spending a million pounds more to prove/disprove he wrote them, there's no way to know.

Well, in for a penny, in for a pound. If we've spent this much, spend a bit more if it's real justice we want. Burrell should be jailed if he's deliberately tried to implicate the Duke of Edinburgh as a murderer.

[ysbel]

Here's an interesting article by Christopher Dickey, a respected Newsweek columnist, and son of James Dickey, the author of Deliverance.

Christopher Dickey was the reporter that first broke the news that Diana was dead. He's been following the Diana inquest as well as the war in Iraq and has good credentials for covering terrorist groups and conspiracies.

He says:

Diana’s death is no less a tragedy for being inadvertent, and to my mind it is even sadder because it was so pointless;

and points to Five Fatal Decisions that led to her death.

First Decision: Diana put her safetly in Dodi's hands after they tried and failed to find a restaurant without the paparazzi hanging on. The couple were tired and frustrated and Dodi instructed his people to sort it out.

Second Decision:

Henri Paul had been called back on duty after he had been let off for the evening and had had a few drinks in the meantime.

Third Decision:

Henri Paul was given a car quite bigger and harder to handle than the cars he is used to driving. Given his intoxication level, the car would be even that much harder to handle.

Fourth Decision:

Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones rode shotgun. He put on his seatbelt, but no one else did.

Fifth Decision:

The car went down two one way streets to the Place de la Concorde. From the Place de la Concorde, its a straight shot to Dodi's apartment. But someone in the car, whether it was Henri Paul, Dodi, or the bodyguard decided to take a detour on a street that was smaller and had a distinct bump in front of the tunnel that would have disconcerted a car at high speed.

Dickey maintains that while the other decisions had an impact it was the last decision to take the smaller road rather than the Champs Elysees that ultimately killed them. And he says they probably did it for the same reason that other cars avoid the Champs Elysees that time of night. The theatres are letting out and the street can get very congested.

[Iluvbertie]

I have just started to read the report and something jumped out at my from page 2:



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


I was always under the impression that Trevor Rees-Jones was wearing a selt belt and that was one of the reasons that he survived.

Any thoughts??

[Caswallan]

Typo?

I find it hard to believe that none of the occupants had their seat belts on? I don't go anywhere without mine on.

[Avalon]

Trevor Rees-Jones was wearing a seat belt, which, imo, saved his life.
You can read about it also in the previous post by by ysbel, where she point Five Fatal Decisions. He was wearing a belt.

[BeatrixFan]

Well, I think that if you said "Drunk driver, most passengers without seatbelts" to a road safety expert he'd say you were begging for disaster. In fact, if you said it to anyone with an ounce of common sense they'd say you were begging for disaster.

[Caswallan]

Drunk driver or not I still think it would be common sense to put on your seat belt.

Drunk driver screams don't even get into the car and let this man drive.

[Sister Morphine]

It was a stupid, tragic accident precipitated by a drunk driver, high speeds, chasing paparazzi and no seatbelts.


They needed and inquest to come up with that?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Avalon

Trevor Rees-Jones was wearing a seat belt, which, imo, saved his life.
You can read about it also in the previous post by by ysbel, where she point Five Fatal Decisions. He was wearing a belt.

According to the official report by Lord Stephens though no one was wearing a seat belt - that is my point.

The article quoted above is in a newpaper just like we have been hearing for the last 9 years but the official report just released, page 2, says that no one was wearing a seat belt.

I want to know why the Stephens report says that 'none of the occupants was wearing a seat belt' and contradicts what has been the view put forward by everyone else for years.

If something as simple as that is wrong in the report what else is??

Maybe Al Fayed is right and Stephens has been blackmailed and this is his way of saying so - make one obvious error and everyone will know the rest of the report is wrong?

[BeatrixFan]

Well maybe Trevor Rees-Jones wasn't wearing a seatbelt after all and previous investigations got it wrong. I very very much doubt that Lord Stephens has been blackmailed and I think that Mr Al Fayed would do well to keep his mouth shut before MI6 do decide to get rid of an Al Fayed...