Run-up to the inquest into Diana's death


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Avalon said:
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.

It absolutely made sense back then to keep things under the carpet, so to speak. But nowadays, especially as the whole inquest is going public anyway, there is no real sense in that anymore.
 
Well what was to be kept under the carpet?
 
Jo of Palatine said:
It absolutely made sense back then to keep things under the carpet, so to speak. But nowadays, especially as the whole inquest is going public anyway, there is no real sense in that anymore.

I completely agree Jo.
Anyway, we now know for certain there will be jury at all.
And personally I welcome that decision: any jury, especially 'people's' jury, would be prejudiced, imo.
 
BeatrixFan said:
Well what was to be kept under the carpet?

Whatever could have happened to a Royal who died so an inquest was necessary. I recall the story of a Danish king who died on his way home to Denmark in a Hamburg brothel... (not sure if it is truth or myth). Now, if I had to do an inquest into this death, I would wish only members of the Royal household to know about the details... :lol:
 
Avalon said:
At the time of her death Diana was still considered member of the Royal Family and was mother of British Princes.

that is a very controvertial point, she was member of the royal family because she was the mother of the future king but in the facts she was alone when she die.
again, is a very controvertial point:ermm:
 
Avalon said:
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.

Avalon, could you provide the actual wording (or a link) to the pertinent part of that law? I've also heard about it and that it was the reason. However, I was under the impression that the law applied in this case, not necessarily because she was a member of the Royal Family, but because her body had been brought to a royal location. In that interpretation, anyone in the same situation, royal or not, would require a jury of Royal Household members.
 
Avalon said:
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?

I agree, they would have been hard put to find anyone without a strong opinion.
 
selrahc4 said:
Avalon, could you provide the actual wording (or a link) to the pertinent part of that law? I've also heard about it and that it was the reason. However, I was under the impression that the law applied in this case, not necessarily because she was a member of the Royal Family, but because her body had been brought to a royal location. In that interpretation, anyone in the same situation, royal or not, would require a jury of Royal Household members.

"The royal coroner - a position which has existed since the 12th century - is responsible for inquests on people whose bodies are lying within the limits of the monarch's palaces.
There were only eight such inquests in the 20th century....
On the question of a jury at a royal inquest, the law is clear. There is no "wiggle" room.
o.gif


It states: "The jurors on an inquest held by the coroner of the Queen's household shall consist of officers of that household".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6176613.stm

Perhaps it was felt that as they were not going to abide by the law and appoint officers of the Queens household, that they would not use a jury at all, thus removing one of al Fayeds chances to ask for a judicial review. :ermm:
 
Thank you, Skydragon.
So membership in the Royal Family was not a guiding factor at all.
 
Thank you for providing the information, Skydragon! :flowers:
I was struggling to find the law, however it appears that selrahc4 was right and it was the case of how and where was Diana buried, not who she was (member of the Royal Family).
 
http://www.butler-sloss-inquests.gov.uk/

Is the official website, if you look under today date you will see a 30 page document in response to the pre trial meeting that took place on the 8th. I haven't read the whole thing but it does get into the arguments for and against the royal household jury, among other things.

I think the other reason why it is not a good idea to have a jury is that the evidence, documents and witness for both cases (they are being held co-currently) is huge. It would pose a huge problem for a jury, 24 people have to be removed from there jobs for months and maybe a year, plus there is no way to prevent a bias from them since they have had ten years of speculation to deal with.
 
BeatrixFan said:
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.

No, it isn't.
 
{Edited - Elspeth}Firstly, let us make sure we all know what an inquest is. An inquest is an investigation to find the cause of death when someone has died in suspicious circumstances. Let's take the British actor Kenneth Williams as an example. He died in 1988 and was found by his mother. Next to the bed was a bottle of alcohol and a bottle of barbiturates. Therefore, he'd died in suspicious circumstances and the coroner wouldn't issue the death certificate until the cause of death was found. So an inquest was heard and his family had to go and hear the inquest. A post-mortem was carried out on Williams and they found that his death had been a result of an overdose of barbiturates. That's one part of the inquest - he died of an overdose and a death certificate can be issued. However, legally, how he came to die of an overdose had to be ascertained and the coroner couldn't determine that so he recorded an open verdict. There wasn't a jury in the Williams case, the Coroner simply looked at the medical reports, the report from the funeral directors and the statements given to the police by Kenneth's mother and the porter who found the body with her. From these documents, the Coroner came to a decision. Now, in Kenneth's case, there was an open verdict and the case could be re-opened at any time and another inquest held.

Now, with Diana the case is pretty much the same, even if a little more complicated. She died in a car crash but the Coroner has to decide what the exact cause of death was. So, Elizabeth Butler-Sloss will look at the post-mortem results, at the medical evidence, the reports from the French investigation, the British investigation and statements from all witnesses, close relatives etc etc. Based on that, she will say what exactly killed Diana. Then she will say how that came to be caused, in this case, what caused the car crash. To do this, she needs to look at the information avaliable on the driver, on the movements of the press etc etc. Once she's done all that, she gives her verdict. Diana died in suspicious circumstances so she has to have an inquest. That's British law. She has to have that done. Suspicious doesn't mean she was bumped off, it means that she didn't die of natural causes or illness, something else caused her death and an inquest is required to find our exactly what that was.

{Edited - Elspeth}Now, you claimed that the death of any Briton abroad needs an inquest. That's true. I am not arguing the fact that Diana has to have an inquest. Whether she died in Britain in a car accident or in France, an inquest would be needed. Right? What I am objecting to is the fact that unlike the Williams case, this inquest seems to have been pro-longed in order to please the conspiracists and the fanatics when in fact, this could easily have been closed before the year 2000. But here we are in 2007 and an inquest is being held after years of investigations, questioning and heaven knows what. This has cost the British tax payer an enormous amount of money and whilst an inquest can't and shouldn't be rushed, it has been dragged out to entertain the claims of a certain Mr Al-Fayed. And that's wrong. Usually, the inquest into a Royal death is held by the Royal Coroner and the jury (if the coroner requests one) is made up of members of the Royal Household. Elizabeth Butler-Sloss is doing things differently and thats fine, as long as we can be assured that by the end of this year, we have a verdict and a promise that this won't keep being re-opened on the whim of a few die hard fans and a politically-motivated father at great expense to the British people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BeatrixFan said:
Therefore, he'd died in suspicious circumstances and the coroner wouldn't issue the death certificate until the cause of death was found. So an inquest was heard and his family had to go and hear the inquest. A post-mortem was carried out on Williams and they found that his death had been a result of an overdose of barbiturates. That's one part of the inquest - he died of an overdose and a death certificate can be issued. However, legally, how he came to die of an overdose had to be ascertained and the coroner couldn't determine that so he recorded an open verdict. There

After a death in the UK, the first thing that happens is a postmortem, at which point, if it was clearly not murder, a death certificate is issued. That allows the family or agents acting for the family, to remove the body from the mortuary to the funeral home.

If the cause is not clear, as in Williams case, an inquest is heard to try to determine whether it was a suicide, murder or an accidental death.

Any British subject who dies abroad under violent, unnatural, or of sudden and unknown cause, is required by law to have an inquest.
 
Hello.

I think Skydragon is right about Diana's position in theory only. Diana was really not royal family at her death. She did not have a real royal funeral and burial. I think both Diana and Dodis' inquests should be with common British citizens. In America we go to court and are asked questions about a case. With our answer then the court then decides if we are used as a juror.

I think in the case of Diana- the inquest should have half the royal household and half common British citizens. That way people who feel she was murdered can feel she and Dodi got a fair trial.

I know Mr. Al Fayed will fight this.:wacko:
 
When Diana's body was taken to 'one of the monarchs palaces', (as Diana had not yet found somewhere else to stay), British law should have taken over fully, namely that 'the royal coroner - is responsible for inquests on people whose bodies are lying within the limits of the monarch's palaces'.

The royals and the coroner were and are in a no win situation. If they had refused to allow her corpse to be taken to the palace, they would have been further condemned, but because they did allow it, they are now being condemned because they are trying to allow the coroner to do her job.

She did not have a real royal funeral....... I think in the case of Diana- the inquest should have half the royal household and half common British citizens. That way people who feel she was murdered can feel she and Dodi got a fair trial.

Her funeral was as royal as it gets, even if she had still been Charles' wife, she would not have received a state funeral. The inquest will be fairly judged and something that concerns me is that you are saying that it will not be. You could get the common people on the jury, who like me believe it was an accident. Will you then say we were got at?
 
Last edited:
Skydragon said:
You could get the common people on the jury, who like me believe it was an accident. Will you then say we were got at?

I bet most people sincerely believe it was an accident. Let me just say: seat belts!

I so understand the princes: Diana is dead. Close the case and allow her to rest in peace. She is not coming back and you won't find anyone guilty of her death apart from a drunken driver in Al-Fayed's pay. It can't be that only because Al Fayed tries to deflect from his own responisbilities the whole world is treated to yet another round of conspiracy theories when there is simply no fire under the smoke.

But fro the sake of all believers that it was indeed the MI6 - don't you think for a moment that the queen has asked to see the protocolls? That William will do another check once he is king? Noone can tell the souverain to back of the information about the Secret Services if the souverain wants to know about something. So even if the queen was in a cover-up, Diana's son will one day be able to find out the truth, if he does not already know it. So why bother? The case is in the very best hands!
 
The inquest will be fairly judged and something that concerns me is that you are saying that it will not be. You could get the common people on the jury, who like me believe it was an accident. Will you then say we were got at?
Yes, if there was a jury of common people - I would believe the inquest would be more fair. Why did the ruling change in the first place from over a week ago? Must of gotten pressure from someone? :wacko:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i am going to ask if it is normal not to have jury present?
 
I bet most people sincerely believe it was an accident. Let me just say: seat belts!

I always wonder if the many press who were making Diana's and Dodi's lives hell that night of there deaths got a fine or jail time? I don't think they did. Maybe if the had life would be different now for Diana's sons and girlfriends.

I just hear seatbelts and a drunk driver are responsible for the deaths. What did the Stevens report say about reporters that night the made the driver drive very fast to get away from them?:ermm:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
xtan said:
i am going to ask if it is normal not to have jury present?

If you're interested in legal stuff, you're welcome to read: http://www.butler-sloss-inquests.gov.uk/docs/findings_08012007.pdf - it explains which arguments Lady Butler-Sloss got to hear from the different lawyers of the parties concerned, what leagl research she undertook and with which result and how she came to her decision and why. Interesting read...!
 
georgiea said:
I bet most people sincerely believe it was an accident. Let me just say: seat belts!

I always wonder if the many press who were making Diana's and Dodi's lives hell that night of there deaths got a fine or jail time? I don't think they did. Maybe if the had life would be different now for Diana's sons and girlfriends.

I just hear seatbelts and a drunk driver are responsible for the deaths. What did the Stevens report say about reporters that night the made the driver drive very fast to get away from them?:ermm:

Yes, surely the paparazzi played their role but IIRC the report said that while they were surely diminishing the attention of the driver they did not actually do something to make the car crash. Or does anyone knows more?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BeatrixFan said:
{Edited - Elspeth}Now, you claimed that the death of any Briton abroad needs an inquest. That's true. I am not arguing the fact that Diana has to have an inquest. Whether she died in Britain in a car accident or in France, an inquest would be needed. Right? What I am objecting to is the fact that unlike the Williams case, this inquest seems to have been pro-longed in order to please the conspiracists and the fanatics when in fact, this could easily have been closed before the year 2000. But here we are in 2007 and an inquest is being held after years of investigations, questioning and heaven knows what. This has cost the British tax payer an enormous amount of money and whilst an inquest can't and shouldn't be rushed, it has been dragged out to entertain the claims of a certain Mr Al-Fayed. And that's wrong. Usually, the inquest into a Royal death is held by the Royal Coroner and the jury (if the coroner requests one) is made up of members of the Royal Household. Elizabeth Butler-Sloss is doing things differently and thats fine, as long as we can be assured that by the end of this year, we have a verdict and a promise that this won't keep being re-opened on the whim of a few die hard fans and a politically-motivated father at great expense to the British people.
I understand all of that. But, your earlier post, where you stated that: "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." inferred that the inquest was initiated simply because of conspiracy theorists, and that isn't accurate. While portions of the investigation may have been conducted to silence fanatics, the inquest itself is a result of the laws requiring it.
 
After a death in the UK, the first thing that happens is a postmortem, at which point, if it was clearly not murder, a death certificate is issued. That allows the family or agents acting for the family, to remove the body from the mortuary to the funeral home.
Really? When my Great Aunt died there wasn't a post mortem and when my Grandfather died, they had to ask our permission to hold one so I don't think it's as compulsory as that.
 
Jo of Palatine said:
If you're interested in legal stuff, you're welcome to read: http://www.butler-sloss-inquests.gov.uk/docs/findings_08012007.pdf - it explains which arguments Lady Butler-Sloss got to hear from the different lawyers of the parties concerned, what leagl research she undertook and with which result and how she came to her decision and why. Interesting read...!

Jo and Skydragon-I don't know all the news in the UK or Europe because I am in America. But I just read Lady Butler-Sloss report. Interesting. Did it come out this week or last week? I thought last week she said there would be a jury. Did she change her ruling yesterday? I am confused.:wacko:
 
BeatrixFan said:
Really? When my Great Aunt died there wasn't a post mortem and when my Grandfather died, they had to ask our permission to hold one so I don't think it's as compulsory as that.

Any death in the UK that is violent, unnatural, of sudden or unknown cause, requires a post mortem and possibly an inquest. If your Gt Aunt died in her old age, or from an illness that was expected to result in an early death, then it would not be needed. The same with your grandfather, it would depend what they thought he had died from.
 
Last edited:
georgiea said:
...But I just read Lady Butler-Sloss report. Interesting. Did it come out this week or last week? I thought last week she said there would be a jury. Did she change her ruling yesterday? I am confused.:wacko:

She has never announced any such thing. Last week she merely said it would be 'inappropirate' to have a jury, consisting of the members of the Royal household.
Several newspapers interpreted it as a signal that there will be 'people's' jury.
 
Last edited:
That's what I thought Skydragon. It just sounded as if you were saying every death needed an inquest which as you point out, it doesn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom