The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you follow Diana's philosophy and the way she wanted to lead her life, it's no surprise that she gave up her personal protection. After splitting up with Charles her desire to live a normal life was very high. When you wish that, you don't want to have a bodyguard standing 24 hours a day next to you.
 
TheTruth said:
If you follow Diana's philosophy and the way she wanted to lead her life, it's no surprise that she gave up her personal protection. After splitting up with Charles her desire to live a normal life was very high. When you wish that, you don't want to have a bodyguard standing 24 hours a day next to you.
Click to expand...

But then she dreamt of becoming the US First Lady... now that would be a nightmare for any protection resistant person.... :D

I can only explain the opinion of Diana that she needed no protection with the fact that very often she herself was behind the extensive media coverage, so thought she controlled the public - if she wanted to be private, she could. I doubt she ever felt really threatened by terrorists etc.
 
Jo of Palatine said:
But then she dreamt of becoming the US First Lady... now that would be a nightmare for any protection resistant person.... :D

I can only explain the opinion of Diana that she needed no protection with the fact that very often she herself was behind the extensive media coverage, so thought she controlled the public - if she wanted to be private, she could. I doubt she ever felt really threatened by terrorists etc.
Click to expand...

Well the sight of Jackie Kennedy almost shot in Dallas should have dissuaded her to give up her personal protection :D

There's also the theory of being "too" protected. If you have a troop of bodyguards around, people will find you too inaccessible. She may have thought a personal protection was avoiding her of being close of the crowd.
 
Last edited:
TheTruth said:
We'll never know if a protection officer would have saved her. Trevor Rees-Jones, bodyguard of Dodi, was there and he didn't save her or Al-Fayed's son.
Click to expand...

A Scotland Yard protection officer would have a greater chance of keeping their client safe than a private security guard like Trevor Rees-Jones. He was a paid employee, he had to go with whatever his employer ( Dodi) wanted. The Scotland yard protection officer ( Ken Wharfe) is a police officer not an employee of the client, therefore he can disagree, refuse to do what the clients insisting on if its unsafe.
Ken Wharfe has been very critical of the Fayed security. He's stated that as protection officer would not allow the car to move until all seat belts were fastened. The protection officers would have liased with the French police for extra support, private security don't have that ablity. Also he wouldn't allowed all the changes that happened that night, a protection officer goes to a place beforehand and accesses the risks.
There was a big difference in what a private security guard whose employment is dependent on his client to a protection officer whose employment isn't dependednt on his client is capable off and the level of security that is offered.
 
What I find interesting about the articles Skydragon has posted links to, is that Hasnat Khan is apparently going to give evidence. That will certainly be interesting!

As for that "friend" saying Diana said the relationship with Dodi was over, it seems to me she was telling him what he wanted to hear to shut him up. I think she tended to do that.
 
Diana's decision to not have security was totally insane. IMO, Diana should have been placed in a mental facility or some other lock-up because giving up her security was tantamount to her security and that of her sons..but by that time she had burned so many bridges with the royal family and others (like Ken Wharfe) who had tried to help her they probably didn't really care one way or another. I don't understand why Paul Burrell didn't insist she have personal protection. That is a criticism I have of Mr. Burrell.
 
ghost_night554 said:
Diana told 'without any doubt' that she was being bugged by a five-strong surveillance team | the Daily Mail

Well this is certainly true I remember the MI6 confirming that they did listen into Diana's calls but for "other reasons" not to track where she was but was it them listening in or someone else I wonder.
Click to expand...
Another very misleading headline! From the article -
"He said was unable to get behind the wall to examine the device. But there was "no indication" that the fabric of the wall had been altered."

"It could have been innocent electronic equipment in another room. But the noise behind the wall was very similar to a transmitter device"

"The inquest also heard Diana had been told by well-placed "friends" that there was a five-strong team in an "organisation" she believed the security service had instructed to conduct a surveillance operation on her" The allegation emerged in notes made by a senior officer about a 1994 meeting between Diana and the head of the royalty and diplomatic protection department"
-------------
All that seems to boil down to is that Diana told people she thought she was being bugged etc, the same way she tried to convince 'people' that Manakee was deliberately killed by a 17 year old learner driver. :bang:
 
Ok then forget what I said I musta not read the article correctly anyways Diana seemed very paranoid I think, in a way I don't blame her but still..
 
A former bodyguard of Diana, Princess of Wales, has claimed the government's intelligence services were behind the so-called "Squidgygate" tapes.

Diana Inquest: Claim Government Behind Squidgygate Tapes |Sky News|World News

Ken Wharfe, who guarded Diana for around seven years until 1993, told her inquest he believed the British intelligence listening station GCHQ had routinely bugged the Princess' conversations.....

.........He explained that the Queen told the Princess she was "unhappy" about the tape and ordered an inquiry into the incident but he did not know the result of the investigation.
-----------
It will be interesting if Buckingham Palace confirm that the Queen ordered an investigation
 
I can't bare that Simmons ! Isn't she bored of coming up with new scoops every time we ask her something ... Oh right ! I forgot, ... that's her job :D
 
Skydragon said:
Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi al Fayed were intending to move to Malibu, the home of Hollywood's biggest stars, her inquest has been told

Inquest: Princess Diana And Dodi Al Fayed 'Moving To Malibu' |Sky News|UK News

Didn't Simmons originally say Diana had told her of some letters, not shown her? :ermm:
Click to expand...

One should really read the transcripts not the media coverage because the media does not point out obviously lies (that are discussed in the inquest) and leaves out a lot.

For example the Malibu-story: Kelly Fisher had told the inquest that Dodi and she selected the house in Malibu which is only 10 miles away from her own house on Pacific Ocean highway. The house was readied for her to move in but she was in Paris at that time, so her maid started to work there preparing everything. Then it turned out that Mohammed Al-Fayed had bought the house of Dodi, not Dodi himself and Mohammed gave orders to throw Kelly off the premises when she wanted to move in.

So far I can believe the story because between buying the house and Kelly's try to move in Mohammed had set Dodi up with Diana. But why should Dodi want to live with Diana in a house that was selected because Kelly Fisher on her marriage with Dodi did not want to leave the neighborhodd she had come to like since moving there (she still lives in Malibu?) Dodi had no connection to Malibu before and suddenly he wanted to move with Diana there?

Just imagine: Diana was just past a divorce where she had claimed to have been the injured part in a triangle of husband, wife and mistress. Now there is this Kelly Fisher who obviously has lots of witness statements (partly from Malibu residents) to support her claim that Dodi had wanted to marry her and move into that house with her. So I guess there is some truth in it.
Malibu is not your average Small Town America, but the "society" there is formed mostly be celebrities and mostly American. While the average American may adore foreigners and Royality to boot, I'm not sure that this is the case with American celebrities who have to fight pretty tough for their place on top. Especially with a lady like Diana, who not only had a history of trying to steal husbands, fight dirty and collecting most of the media's interest. A lady who had already stolen the fiance of one of Malibu's ladies. I doubt Diana would have wanted to move to malibu. I doubt Dodi would have wanted to meet Kelly at every corner.

So yes, Diana probably thought about moving partly to the US, as have told quite some acquaintances of her. But to Malibu? Come on!
 
Personally, the one thing (today) that is peeving me about this inquest is the blatant attempt to blacken Prince Phillip. Hey, I know the man isn't the most charming guy on the planet but he has always been a rock of support for the Queen and his role cannot have been easy.

Also, it appears that HM is not immune from scurrilous attacks by Dianas' "friends". Its appalling that HM can be attacked in this way and by the friends of a "flash in the pan" like Diana. The only two good things of lasting importance that she gave us were William & Harry!!!
 
I also don't think that Diana would have moved to Malibu because she would be too far away from her sons.
 
Awkward questions for Fayed aide at inquests[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]·[/FONT]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2238917,00.html


Very interesting article about aide to Fayed. The article said Fayed walked out of inquest when aide was questioned about Diana being pregnant and engaged to to Dodi. Apparently aide was caught lying.:flowers:
 
Princess ‘may have been murdered over landmine file’
Princess ‘may have been murdered over landmine file’ - Times Online

I don't trust Ms. Simmons. But if it was murder, I believe it was Princess Diana's stance on landmines made it possible for secret services to murdered her in 1997.
I don't believe that the BRF had anything to do with the accident, because as many have said here on this forum that they could have had her killed before the divorce.
 
Last edited:
georgiea said:
Awkward questions for Fayed aide at inquests[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]·[/FONT]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2238917,00.html


Very interesting article about aide to Fayed. The article said Fayed walked out of inquest when aide was questioned about Diana being pregnant and engaged to to Dodi. Apparently aide was caught lying.:flowers:
Click to expand...

Oh, I think several of Al-Fayed's aides were already caught lying, either in the time directly after the crash on giving interviews or now at the inquest.
Interesting that when it comes to Kelly Fisher and her relationship with Dodi, those who were in Al-Fayed's employ but aren't any longer say they knew her and support her claims while those still employed by Al-Fayed or in need of his help (like the former butler in Paris who said he needed money from Al-Fayed to pay for his medical bills and treatments and already got thousends of pounds for that) claim that she is either lying or they don't know her at all....

Ot the people in Al-Fayed's employ all the time claim to have talked to people now desceased, who cannot be asked anymore, like Susan Barrantes, Fergie's mother who allegedly said her daughter felt threatened as well when Fergie says she can't recall any such feeling...

Fishy that, very fishy. And quite obviously so.
 
georgiea said:
Princess ‘may have been murdered over landmine file’
Princess ‘may have been murdered over landmine file’ - Times Online

I don't trust Ms. Simmons. But if it was murder, I believe it was Princess Diana's stance on landmines made it possible for secret services to murdered her in 1997.
I don't believe that the BRF had anything to do with the accident, because as many have said here on this forum that they could have had her killed before the divorce.
Click to expand...

We should not forget that in 1997 the government in Britain changed. while Diana was opposed to the stance of the old (Tory) government, the new government (Blair's Labour Party) took over her point of view. So I doubt that the people responsible for such things in the secret services wanted to alienate their new superiors on doing such a murderous move to protect a political agenda that was not longer the agenda of the government.

If she had to die because of the landmines, then it was the weapon dealer's interest, not that of the British secret service. I seriously doubt Simone Simmons and her claims that Diana had compiled such a dossier with so dangerous contents that she was killed for that. And then simmons burned her copy and all other documents she was given by Diana? Come on!

Any secret service worth his grain would of course search Simmons' house and find the documents under her mattress if they suspected Diana had given somebody copies - after all Simmons seem to have been a big buddy back then...

So many really stupid things to say.
 
georgiea said:
Awkward questions for Fayed aide at inquests[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]·[/FONT]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2238917,00.html
Click to expand...

He was asked why he had said that there was "not a scrap of evidence" that the princess was pregnant, even though Fayed had told him in the aftermath of the crash that she was....
Click to expand...
Well, this is not lying. I assume "Fayed" refers to Mo not Dodi, since the timeframe is the "aftermath of the crash." So Mo telling the aide, Cole, that Diana was pregnant is not exactly "evidence", or is it? I don't think so.

....and why he had insisted that there was no indication that the couple were going to get engaged or married, when he had just informed the inquest that Dodi had confided his intentions to him a month before the crash.
Click to expand...

If you look on the transcript of Cole's testimony (under part 113) he said Dodi had told him that Dodi and the princess (Cole's words) "were together now" in a (attorney's words, agreed on by Cole) "permanent relationship."

Cole: "[Dodi] said, "We are together now". I don't think there is
degrees of togetherness; they were together. As far as
I was concerned --I think even when people do split up, while
they are together, they are together. I concluded that
they were an item, as they say these days."
 
Last edited:
georgiea said:
Princess ‘may have been murdered over landmine file’
Princess ‘may have been murdered over landmine file’ - Times Online

I don't trust Ms. Simmons. But if it was murder, I believe it was Princess Diana's stance on landmines made it possible for secret services to murdered her in 1997.
I don't believe that the BRF had anything to do with the accident, because as many have said here on this forum that they could have had her killed before the divorce.
Click to expand...

She is very odd woman, I think! :D Check this out, from the transcript of her testimony, section 87:
(Q=Horwell, A=Simmons)

MR HORWELL: My name is Richard Horwell and I appear on
behalf of the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police.
The two books that you wrote, how much did you
receive for those?

A. Probably not as much as you are earning in a week here.
Q. Direct that comment to that side of the courtroom, Ms Simmons, not this side of the courtroom, if you don't mind! If you could answer my question?

A. I haven't got a clue.
Q. You must have an idea how much?
A. No, I haven't got a clue.
Q. It wasn't that long ago?
A. I seriously haven't got an clue.
Click to expand...
:ROFLMAO: :lol:
 
princesslily said:
I also don't think that Diana would have moved to Malibu because she would be too far away from her sons.
Click to expand...
Even I don't believe that Diana would have been so crass as to move into a house that was for her boyfriends marriage to another woman! :eek:
 
Paul Burrell alluded to some "secret" in his book "Royal Duty" that implied a move..and it has been mentioned other places it was to Julie Andrews' house...in Malibu... There would be no question of her sons being afforded the highest and best in security so I could fathom Diana making such a drastic move.

The house and the interior can be seen in a Julie Andrews movie in which she plays the mother to Hugh Grant. It aired on Lifetime and also starred Ann-Margret. It aired the summer of 1997, ironically.

Simone Simmons, is someone I would listen to because she noted all sorts of details about Diana, her brand of make-up, hoisery, etc., in her books. Now just because she is a "psychic" by trade would not alter her ability in telling the truth on a witness stand, especially when it comes to someone who meant a lot to her and was entrusted with intimate infortmation from Diana herself.
 
wymanda said:
Personally, the one thing (today) that is peeving me about this inquest is the blatant attempt to blacken Prince Phillip. Hey, I know the man isn't the most charming guy on the planet but he has always been a rock of support for the Queen and his role cannot have been easy.
Click to expand...

Prince Philip has been a rock of support for the Queen and they are partners in every way as Prince Andrew recently said.

I believe Prince Philip did write the nasty letters to Diana, and I think that is no big deal. I can sure do the tarantula letters when I get upset, so I understand. However, it disturbs me when Prince Philip lies about this. It makes him look guilty.
 
I am fairly certain of JUST one thing as regards Diana and the Royal Family at this point, SAVE FOR PRINCES WILLIAM AND HARRY, I would wager everything I own that they wish Charles NEVER, EVER, EVER even said hello to the girl, much less anything else and that they had NEVER, EVER, EVER encouraged that relationship in anyway.

IF the above had happened, I think Diana might well be alive and happy and the Royal Family might well be much happier and better satisfied.

The morale to this story is;

STAY OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S PRIVATE LOVE LIFE AND MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, imo.
 
Next monday they'll have Paul Burrell - the chance to "hear" the guy in his own speaking, without anyone who has edited his words...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

wbenson
The Verdict of the Diana Inquest, April 2008, and Aftermath
9 10 11
Replies
325
Views
37K
Mermaid1962
M
Warren
  • Locked
Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh Current Events 19: October 2008-March 2009
16 17 18
Replies
511
Views
76K
Warren
Warren
Warren
  • Locked
Queen Elizabeth & Prince Philip: State Visit to Slovenia & Slovakia - Oct 21-24, 2008
2 3
Replies
78
Views
17K
Jose
J
Warren
The Memorial Service: August 31, 2007
10 11 12
Replies
331
Views
94K
Denville
D
Warren
  • Locked
The Late Diana, Princess of Wales News Thread 7: October 2007-June 2008
6 7 8
Replies
237
Views
27K
Warren
Warren

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom