Run-up to the inquest into Diana's death

[sassie]

Well, and truthfully, even if the 'Establishment' answers any question 100%, the conspiracy theorists will not be satisfied. They'll just claim the 'Establishment' is lying, being paid off, or inventing whatever evidence supports their conclusion.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

Well, and truthfully, even if the 'Establishment' answers any question 100%, the conspiracy theorists will not be satisfied. They'll just claim the 'Establishment' is lying, being paid off, or inventing whatever evidence supports their conclusion.

That's true. Mohammed al-Fayed even claims that Stevens was ''bribed'' by the ''secret agents'' who stole his computer. That's the price we pay because Stevens is so non-Establishment. The Establishment *must* be bribing him then. Got to get the 'E' word in there somehow.

 

[gfg02]

diana: Riddle Of 'lost' Charles File

Daily Express: The World's Greatest Newspaper :: News / Showbiz :: Diana: Riddle of 'lost' Charles file

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

diana: Riddle Of 'lost' Charles File

Daily Express: The World's Greatest Newspaper :: News / Showbiz :: Diana: Riddle of 'lost' Charles file

I realize I might be naive.... But I think the coroner of the Inquest will not allow Fayed's lawyers to obtain these interviews (with members of the royal family) because it violates not only the Palace confidentiality but also, these interviews are not permissible evidence in the Inquest. Lord Stevens interviewed the Prince of Wales, Duke of Edinburgh, other members, but .... ok here I get messed up. The United States law says that if there is a specific hypothesis (in other words,a damn good reason, backed by evidence) to suspect these interviews might contain information that will lead to conclusion, then the judge may approve the release of such documents to the lawyers. I imagine that in the UK courts, it is similar because US law is by and large based on English common law, but I realize also that there are some differences.

 

[Suonymona]

The same reason Tony Blair cannot be indicted for the peerages-for-cash scandal while he's still in office is the same reason the Royal Family will not be questioned in public about Diana's death.

 

[Skydragon]

The same reason Tony Blair cannot be indicted for the peerages-for-cash scandal while he's still in office is the same reason the Royal Family will not be questioned in public about Diana's death.

In fact Blair can be arrested and charged while he is PM. The Queen is the only person who cannot be arrested, charged or questioned.

 

[MARG]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that what Mo's team are doing is going on a fishing expedition. Any notes taken during the interview's with any member of the BRF, or anyone I should think, would be inadmissable in a court of law. Notes are just that. Notes. The subjective jottings of an interviewer's/investigator's research.

But 'Notes' are what they are after, not Statments.

Unless Phillip, Charles, William or Harry knew something about the circumstances surrounding the accident, I don't see how a "Statement" would have even been necessary. They weren't even on the same continent at the time!

Do they honestly imagine that Prince Charles blurted out a confession to having conspired to commit murder most foul, and Prince's William and Harry had knowledge of such a thing before, during or after the fact? And the interviewer/investigator just took notes?

Beam me up Scottie!

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

No, I don't think 'Mo' is this so stupid as to expect a blatant confession in, or implied in, the notes. He might be 'stupid' in other ways (maybe thinking he can salvage his reputation or something) but his attornies are doing what lawyers do -- looking for words and phrases that can be twisted to reflect what they want.

As for statements, I remember from the Paget report Lord Stevens had stated that he had acquired full statements from some members of BRF, in particular Prince Charles and Prince Philip, because in order to be thorough, he had to know where they were, who they spoke to, or whatever else (I don't know) but for this reason, in order to satisfactorily eliminate them as suspects, he had to have statements.

 

[Skydragon]

I thought Prince Philip refused to speak or give a statement to the investigators.

 

[scooter]

I thought Prince Philip refused to speak or give a statement to the investigators.

Is he above the law then? I thought only the Queen had that protection. Is it extended to the consort as well?

 

[MARG]

Is he above the law then? I thought only the Queen had that protection. Is it extended to the consort as well?

The facts in evidence were investigated. No-one is going to interrogate the Duke of Edinborough as a murder suspect becase Mohammad Al Fayed says he's a murderer.

Facts in evidence please! Written letters? Phone messages? Anything at all to indicate foul play.

Do we want the rule of law or the law that big money can buy?

 

[Suonymona]

Were Philip the King (even as the husband of the Queen), he would have the same protection as HM enjoys.

And as for Tony Blair, I didn't say it was a rule, I said it was a reason. Its about appearances--which Mr. al-Fayed is skillful at manipulating.

 

[Skydragon]

The only person who is 'above the law' is the monarch. They can only question people against their will IF there is any evidence of involvement. As there was nothing to implicate Prince Philip, quite rightly he declined to give a voluntary statement. After all, what could he say...."I was woken up and told Di was dead, she had got into a car with a drunken driver and Fayeds son.....

Prince Charles was also not implicated, but chose to make himself available to answer any questions the police wanted him to, in strict confidence. It is after all in his and his son's interest to help prove whether it was a 'plot' or an accident.

Tony Blair has been questioned, although not under caution, but he can be arrested, charged and tried while still in office. If he were arrested, the commons would have to pass a vote of no confidence to unseat him.

 

[sirhon11234]

Secret Prince Charles Notes About Diana Found

Lawyers acting on behalf of Mohamed Fayed in the upcoming inquest into Diana have hinted that the existence of secret information concerning her death might have been discovered.
According to The Sun the secret information takes the form of notes from interviews with Prince Charles about Princess Diana's death.
Fayed's lawyers have asked to see all relevant documents at a pre-inquest hearing at London's High Court.
Their appeal is likely to face stiff opposition however, with coroner Baroness Butler-Sloss saying that she will decide what information to disclose "my way".
The inquest is due to start in October.

 

[Suonymona]

sirhon, do you have a link? What paper was this in?

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

I thought Prince Philip refused to speak or give a statement to the investigators.

I agree with you that the Duke of Edinburgh and Prince of Wales shouldn't have needed to make statements, and you might be right about the Duke declining, but I thought I read in the Stevens report that both were at least consulted. Stevens said that all members of the royal family whom he consulted and had statements from (certainly Princes Charles and William, and I think Prince Philip too) were fully cooperative and he thanked them for this in the report. I don't blame the Duke if he didn't cooperate, but I imagine he wanted to give any help he could if for nothing else than to assist the process of closing the business!

 

[Vanesa]

Al Fayed's accusations about Prince Philip aside, his claims about Diana's "pregnancy", her "engagement" to Dodi and that ridiculous statue inside Harrod's have shown very little respect for Diana herself or her memory.

People doesn't want to believe it. But sometimes, reality is more "fantasious" than fantasy itself. I think we don't know what really happened with Diana this awful night. I'm sure (I see the accusations about the "conspirative minds" coming...but, oh, I'm used to them! ) that the real thing is very different than the one that official medias said to us, but it must also be different than the wild fantasies that are running here and there in peoples imagination.

Lets time to speak by itself. I'm sure that we'll be pretty surprised when we are aware of what happened in "Diana's case" (as well as other "unsolved" or "officially solved" other cases).

Vanesa.

 

[TheTruth]

People doesn't want to believe it. But sometimes, reality is more "fantasious" than fantasy itself...

I totally agree with you Vanesa. I'm sure one day we will know the truth about all this, even if it takes time .

The Truth

 

[Skydragon]

I totally agree with you Vanesa. I'm sure one day we will know the truth about all this, even if it takes time .

The Truth

You have only to wait until October unless Fayed comes up with anymore ploys.

 

[TheTruth]

You have only to wait until October unless Fayed comes up with anymore ploys.

Yeah but from what I know of Mr Fayed, he will come up with other ploys. IMO he will never be satisfied of any rational conclusion !

 

[gfg02]

Costs for Diana inquests set to soar

Costs for Diana inquests set to soar - Independent Online Edition > Legal

 

[sassie]

People doesn't want to believe it. But sometimes, reality is more "fantasious" than fantasy itself. I think we don't know what really happened with Diana this awful night. I'm sure (I see the accusations about the "conspirative minds" coming...but, oh, I'm used to them! ) that the real thing is very different than the one that official medias said to us, but it must also be different than the wild fantasies that are running here and there in peoples imagination.

Lets time to speak by itself. I'm sure that we'll be pretty surprised when we are aware of what happened in "Diana's case" (as well as other "unsolved" or "officially solved" other cases).

Vanesa.

As I've said before, "we" is subjective. Perhaps YOU don't know what really happened that night-or don't believe the evidence-but not everyone shares that view. There are quite a few people who don't believe that the truth is anything more sinister than a tragic, avoidable accident.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

As I've said before, "we" is subjective. Perhaps YOU don't know what really happened that night-or don't believe the evidence-but not everyone shares that view. There are quite a few people who don't believe that the truth is anything more sinister than a tragic, avoidable accident.

In my opinion, the inquest must come to the verdict that it was an accident. There is no other solution possible when one looks at the facts gathered by Lord Stevens with a juridical mind. Plus at the inquest all these statements and facts can be viewed anew, so even if Lord Stevens was a bit prejudiced, then is the time to look again and independently. I don't think something new will turn up to change the general view at the cause and effect-chain. After 10 years, every piece of information should be investigated and can now be checked, put into perspection and judged.

So when the verdict is: accidentally death, then this is as close to the truth as is possible to proof. That was it, then.

 

[Suonymona]

Which will end up being cheaper--the 2012 Olympics in England or the various inquests into the accident which killed Diana and two other people?

 

[Warren]

Which will be over first - the London Olympics or the Diana Inquest?

 

[Skydragon]

I agree with you that the Duke of Edinburgh and Prince of Wales shouldn't have needed to make statements, and you might be right about the Duke declining, but I thought I read in the Stevens report that both were at least consulted.

Stevens spoke to Prince Phillip, who I believe declined to make a formal statement.

 

[MARG]

Which will end up being cheaper--the 2012 Olympics in England or the various inquests into the accident which killed Diana and two other people?

My guess would be the Olympics!

Which will be over first - the London Olympics or the Diana Inquest?

The way things are going - again the Olympics!

 

[ysbel]

I totally agree with you Vanesa. I'm sure one day we will know the truth about all this, even if it takes time .

The Truth

If its like any other event where most of the participants are dead, then most probably we will NOT know every detail of what happened that night.

Prosecutors in murder cases warn juries against the expectation that they will know everything about what happened at the fateful moment of the crime.

The reality is that a lot of details are never uncovered. That doesn't change the verdict. We don't need to know absolutely everything that happened that night to determine whether or not it was an accidental death or murder. There comes a point where you've gotten enough evidence to show probable cause. The causes that point to a verdict of accident are high speed, small tunnel, incapacitated driver, a reasonable cause for high speed (being chased by the papparazzi).

These known facts are so compelling that a verdict of murder would have to have equally compelling facts to have the same weight as the accidental death verdict. Just to say that cospirators would be so smart that they would not leave any evidence around is not compelling enough- that is lack of evidence, not evidence. If there is no independent evidence of a conspiracy, it is just as likely (perhaps more likely) that the reason for the lack of evidence is that there was no conspiracy.

 

[sassie]

In my opinion, the inquest must come to the verdict that it was an accident. There is no other solution possible when one looks at the facts gathered by Lord Stevens with a juridical mind. Plus at the inquest all these statements and facts can be viewed anew, so even if Lord Stevens was a bit prejudiced, then is the time to look again and independently. I don't think something new will turn up to change the general view at the cause and effect-chain. After 10 years, every piece of information should be investigated and can now be checked, put into perspection and judged.

So when the verdict is: accidentally death, then this is as close to the truth as is possible to proof. That was it, then.

Exactly.

I dislike being lumped in with the "we" of conspiracy theorists-i.e. "we will never know the truth" or "the world will never know the truth". It's a peeve of mine. I say, simply because some don't want to accept the truth, they need to speak for themselves and not generalize about other people's opinions.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

As I've said before, "we" is subjective. Perhaps YOU don't know what really happened that night-or don't believe the evidence-but not everyone shares that view. There are quite a few people who don't believe that the truth is anything more sinister than a tragic, avoidable accident.

That's a good point and well stated. Even though every inch of known facts and solid evidence points to the official explanation of tragic accident, there will likely always be people, fed by more accusations from al-Fayed, that will cling to the questions and conspiracies. Prince William and Prince Harry may hope until they are blue in the face that the Stevens report and Inquest will settle the matter, but it is not likely to quiet those desperate to blame someone. It is lamentable that Fayed and his followers will always have the Fiat Uno to point to as an excuse for ongoing theories. It seems very sad to me that Fayed is persisting in this business only to point accusations away from himself. I have sometimes wondered if he has other motive(s); it seems that he has only made himself appear in a worse light than ever by this campaign to pin the blame on the Establishment.
Thank you to Skydragon for clarifying about the Duke of Edinburgh declining to make a formal statement. Obviously it's unfortunate that he was in the position to have to make such a decision, but I'm sure he made the right decision according to the advice of the family lawyers.