Run-up to the inquest into Diana's death

[Chiyo]

Originally Posted by sassie

That's a concern...but all 12 (or however many serve on the jury) would have to agree to it, which would be tougher. The Paget report offers some fairly compelling evidence against implicating Prince Philip, as well. Laid out step by step, it would be hard to ignore the logic in the report's conclusions.

Not if the inquest goes on for as long as eight months. Herd mentality could set in, not to mention cabin fever!

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

A quote from this article: " But Mr Mansfield said there was such a mountain of new evidence to consider the hearing could not begin until October."

Where did they find all this new evidence? Why was this evidence not offered to the police for their investigation? It seems al-Fayed is trying to create a seperate state in the UK where he decides what to tell and not to tell with everyone being forced to play his puppets... I can't believe it!

My question would be, how much of this evidence is legitimate and how much of it was 'created' by al Fayed? Let's not forget his more presposterous claims, such as the 'pregnancy', the 'engagement', the alleged emergency room nurse to whom an unconscious Diana murmured her last words, and, of course, the omnipotent power of Prince Philip, who orders hits on family members just because he can.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

FAYED PUT ON SPOT OVER DI CLAIMS

A CORONER said yesterday there was not "a shred of evidence" that Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed were murdered in a plot involving the royal family.

Why they will be looking at Diana's fears for her life, I do not know. An inquest is supposed to be based on evidence, not on what the deceased person may or may not have written or said 'in a moment of madness'. (Meant only as a commonly used expression)

To be fair, the coroner can only say what condition the body was in and the physical cause of death. He/She would not be able to tell the cause of the crash (ie was it engineered). That would be established by outside evidence (witnesses, skid marks etc). It is quite a coincidence that she died in the exact way that she wrote about Prince x engineering for her 'to clear the way for Prince Charles to marry his lady'.

[Warren]

A couple of things to consider..
Note how al Fayed ups the ante at particular points in time: now that the inquest is about to start in earnest, the allegation is not the Duke of Edinburgh murdered Diana and Dodi, but that the Duke AND Prince Charles were involved. Will he accuse the Queen of being a co-conspirator when he feels the need for some extra media attention?

After al Fayed has campaigned for years for an inquest, and when the Coroner is about to commence proceedings, his lawyer requests a six months delay. Nine-plus years after the event, he "needs more time"? What's this about?

The request for a six-months delay may indicate his intent to drag this inquest out for years, if possible, so that he has a long-term stage from which to rail against "the Establishment" and members of the Royal Family at regular intervals. Endless legal wrangling also serves to delay any official finding that the deaths were caused by a speeding car with a drunk al Fayed employee at the wheel.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by scooter

To be fair, the coroner can only say what condition the body was in and the physical cause of death. He/She would not be able to tell the cause of the crash (ie was it engineered). That would be established by outside evidence (witnesses, skid marks etc).

Which is why we have the Paget Report, all 832 pages of it, online and available for anyone and everyone to read.

It is quite a coincidence that she died in the exact way that she wrote about Prince x engineering for her 'to clear the way for Prince Charles to marry his lady'.

It's also worth remembering that Diana claimed Charles was planning to bump off not just herself, but Camilla too, so that he could marry the third party [Tiggy Legge-Burke].

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by scooter

To be fair, the coroner can only say what condition the body was in and the physical cause of death. He/She would not be able to tell the cause of the crash (ie was it engineered). That would be established by outside evidence (witnesses, skid marks etc). It is quite a coincidence that she died in the exact way that she wrote about Prince x engineering for her 'to clear the way for Prince Charles to marry his lady'.

Actually in an American Court of Law, Diana's letter would be considered hearsay because the authorities can not question her on the intent and meaning of her letter. As hearsay, it wouldn't be admissible in court as evidence. I think the British system may be similar.

The only way her letter could be introduced as evidence would be if the investigation uncovered evidence that validating the contents of her letter. So far the authorities have not found that confirming evidence.

scooter mentions the importance of the coincidence that Diana had a fatal accident after writing that her husband was trying to kill her in a car accident. That accident itself does not even come close to validating that what Diana wrote in her letter was true. Authorities would have to look at the situation surrounding Diana when she wrote the letter. Who she had contact with and what she said to others. They would also have to check the people, places, and things surrounding Diana's death in Paris and check against what they found for the time when she wrote her letter.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Actually in an American Court of Law, Diana's letter would be considered hearsay because the authorities can not question her on the intent and meaning of her letter. As hearsay, it wouldn't be admissible in court as evidence. I think the British system may be similar.

The only way her letter could be introduced as evidence would be if the investigation uncovered evidence that validating the contents of her letter. So far the authorities have not found that confirming evidence.

scooter mentions the importance of the coincidence that Diana had a fatal accident after writing that her husband was trying to kill her in a car accident. That accident itself does not even come close to validating that what Diana wrote in her letter was true. Authorities would have to look at the situation surrounding Diana when she wrote the letter. Who she had contact with and what she said to others. They would also have to check the people, places, and things surrounding Diana's death in Paris and check against what they found for the time when she wrote her letter.

In the USA, the letter could be introduced by the defense (in the context of a criminal trial), but it would have little bearing without the supporting evidence that you speak of. Since the burden of proof would be on the prosecution, It would simply be 'showboating' on the behalf of the defense-something that we all know defense attorneys rarely do.

[Skydragon]

Diana inquest delayed until October

The judge investigating the death of Princess Diana in a Paris car crash 10 years ago decided on Tuesday to postpone the opening of the inquest until October.

Diana inquest delayed until October - Yahoo! News UK

Is this judge a woman or a mouse, it is time she stood up to Fayeds unreasonable demands!

His was not the only loss!

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Diana inquest delayed until October

The judge investigating the death of Princess Diana in a Paris car crash 10 years ago decided on Tuesday to postpone the opening of the inquest until October.

Diana inquest delayed until October - Yahoo! News UK

Is this judge a woman or a mouse, it is time she stood up to Fayeds unreasonable demands!

His was not the only loss!

Appalling. Let me guess-in October, Fayed will come up with even more evidence that has to be investigated, and there will be yet another delay.

So much for her sympathy regarding the other family members.

[BeatrixFan]

Those poor boys. Having waited for an inquest for a family member myself, I can only imagine what they're going through is 10x worse with all the set-backs and media circus surrounding it.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Warren

A couple of things to consider..
Note how al Fayed ups the ante at particular points in time: now that the inquest is about to start in earnest, the allegation is not the Duke of Edinburgh murdered Diana and Dodi, but that the Duke AND Prince Charles were involved. Will he accuse the Queen of being a co-conspirator when he feels the need for some extra media attention?

After al Fayed has campaigned for years for an inquest, and when the Coroner is about to commence proceedings, his lawyer requests a six months delay. Nine-plus years after the event, he "needs more time"? What's this about?

The request for a six-months delay may indicate his intent to drag this inquest out for years, if possible, so that he has a long-term stage from which to rail against "the Establishment" and members of the Royal Family at regular intervals. Endless legal wrangling also serves to delay any official finding that the deaths were caused by a speeding car with a drunk al Fayed employee at the wheel.

I wonder if there are any charges that could be levelled against him but whose statute of limitation runs out after 10 years. Maybe he's stalling so that he can get the maximum publicity with the minimum repercussions to himself if things don't go his way.

Or maybe he's trying to string it out until Prince Philip dies of old age so his questions will never get answered, at least by putting Philip on the stand. Bit strange that he's also included Charles in the equation if that's the case, though.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Diana inquest delayed until October

The judge investigating the death of Princess Diana in a Paris car crash 10 years ago decided on Tuesday to postpone the opening of the inquest until October.

Diana inquest delayed until October - Yahoo! News UK

Is this judge a woman or a mouse, it is time she stood up to Fayeds unreasonable demands!

His was not the only loss!

She tried to stand up to him, and she got overruled on the question of the jury trial. She may just be thinking that if she gives in to all these demands, it may be quicker in the long run.

If this all turns out to be so much fiction on the part of Fayed, is he liable for any of the expenses incurred?

[zhontella]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

FAYED PUT ON SPOT OVER DI CLAIMS

A CORONER said yesterday there was not "a shred of evidence" that Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed were murdered in a plot involving the royal family.

So much for being fair and impartial -- her mind is already made up. I can see why she should not have had the sole decision. I'll bet even then, Al Fayed was surprised to have finally had a court rule in his direction. I wouldn't be surprised if Princes William or Harry helped, since I'm sure they want to be much more clear on some details too.

But if Diana was assassinated, there will never be "a shred of evidence". Those who would be involved in this kind of action would be skilled enough to leave not a shred of evidence. The only problem might be if someone might have seen something or even had suggestive photos -- and that probability was minimized when they rounded up all the paparrazi and confiscated their cameras and threatened them with endless legal action. Next if any witnesses came forth claiming to have seen something or to know something, they would be ridiculed and mocked or worse, as needed, to discredit them.

[BeatrixFan]

Oh I see. So she was murdered but we'll never know because the evidence has been gotten rid of? Sounds like, "Only the Messiah would deny his true divinity" to me.

[selrahc4]

Originally Posted by zhontella

So much for being fair and impartial -- her mind is already made up. I can see why she should not have had the sole decision. I'll bet even then, Al Fayed was surprised to have finally had a court rule in his direction. I wouldn't be surprised if Princes William or Harry helped, since I'm sure they want to be much more clear on some details too.

But if Diana was assassinated, there will never be "a shred of evidence". Those who would be involved in this kind of action would be skilled enough to leave not a shred of evidence. The only problem might be if someone might have seen something or even had suggestive photos -- and that probability was minimized when they rounded up all the paparrazi and confiscated their cameras and threatened them with endless legal action. Next if any witnesses came forth claiming to have seen something or to know something, they would be ridiculed and mocked or worse, as needed, to discredit them.

If you read her statement you'll see that she didn't say there necessarily WAS no evidence. She said that she hadn't seen any because none had been PRESENTED.

[zhontella]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Oh I see. So she was murdered but we'll never know because the evidence has been gotten rid of? Sounds like, "Only the Messiah would deny his true divinity to me".

I'm not sure what you're trying to say -- is it ridicule?

Anyway, another thought of something that rings a bell as strange -- calling up more questions. Why is it considered a moral and ethical imperative to not show pictures of a dying Diana? Video of President Kennedy getting his brains blown out was played over and over, and I don't recall anyone saying that was immoral or even improper. Strange. But I can think of plenty of reasons that aren't so strange as to why assassins would not want photos of their immediate crime scene taken -- if they had any say about it.

[BeatrixFan]

In the film, "Life of Brian", the crowd ask Brian if he is the Messiah. He says no, to which a woman says, "Only the true Messiah would deny his divinity". Brian responds, "Well what chance does that give me? Alright then, I am the Messiah!" to which a joyous crowd celebrate. It's the same with this. If the courts decide Diana was murdered, the conspiracists will jump for joy. If the courts decide Diana wasn't, the conspiracists will also jump for joy. The conspiracists put forward evidence to prove she was killed but they also say that if there isn't any evidence to prove it, it was destroyed so that it could never be seen and therefore the murder thing never proved or disproved. And that gives us an endless conspiracy which in turn, lines the pockets of people who don't want to get a proper job.

As to watching Di's final moments, it's simple. Notice how we see JFK's autopsy pictures circulated but we never see Marilyn Monroe's autopsy pictures printed. The press build up a picture of a glamorous, hard done by woman who suffered and died at a young age for Marilyn and Diana. If they print a picture of their corpses, they immediately break that picture and the perception changes - and income goes down. People want to buy pictures of Di in a tiara, they don't want to buy pictures of her in her coffin. And that's partly the press, partly keeping the fairy tale alive but partly because of the way we deal with death in this country. Remember the pictures of Grace Kelly in her coffin? A car crash, a beautiful woman, a mother - but we saw her lying in state with an open coffin. We didn't see it with Diana because the British couldn't cope with that. It's too final and it threatens our stiff upper lip mentality.

[zhontella]

Originally Posted by selrahc4

If you read her statement you'll see that she didn't say there necessarily WAS no evidence. She said that she hadn't seen any because none had been PRESENTED.

Her court in this matter has not heard any evidence yet -- so she makes a moot statement that betrays her bias.

:::::::::::::::::::::::

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

She tried to stand up to him, and she got overruled on the question of the jury trial. She may just be thinking that if she gives in to all these demands, it may be quicker in the long run.

If this all turns out to be so much fiction on the part of Fayed, is he liable for any of the expenses incurred?

Sadly no!

[selrahc4]

Originally Posted by zhontella

Her court in this matter has not heard any evidence yet -- so she makes a moot statement that betrays her bias.

:::::::::::::::::::::::

She simply said that in order to present the allegations to the jury evidence was needed and that none had been provided. That's not necessarlily bias; more like a statement of fact.