I feel myself agreeing with angela here. As much as I respect the wish of posters to just 'let Diana rest in peace', this inquest is an important and justified one in both a criminal and historic context. There are too many issues unresolved due to quite an astonishing number of inaccuracies, conflicting forensic evidence and unanswered questions.
So far, new evidence like the whole footage of the Ritz surveillanvce tapes and the latest paparazzi pics have only added more questions to the already existing ones. My main focus here wouldn't be on speculation about the Diana's private matters (yes, obviously there's a change of mood from late afternoon to early evening etc -) but on the fact that the whole course of events which lead up to the fateful ride into the tunnel remains a blurred, condradictory story to this very day.
This starts with the question what exactly the purpose of a less-than-24h-stay in Paris before going to Balmoral was and coninues from there on: What exactly took place during the first ride from the airport, what was the purpose of the couple's visit to the Duke of Windsor's house, why exactly did they keep going back and forth between Dodi's apartment, the Ritz, a restaurant and back to the Ritz within just five hours, and most importantly, what is the EXACT chronicle of their last ride:
# 1: The choice of route (which was not the closest to Dodi's apartment)
# 2: The reason for speeding (if the ride's destination was his apartment, paparazzi would have been waiting for the couple there anyway);
# 3: The number, the drivers, and the destiny of all other vehicles present and their exact position at which moment (including the paparazzi's motorcycles, the 'mystery' Fiat Uno which collided with their Mercedes, the Citroen driving in front of them)
# 4: Henri Paul's physical condition (He must have been a long-time alcoholic in order not to appear drunk that night, and no proof of this has ever been forthcoming);
# 5: The setbelt question (The amazing thing not so much that Diana & Dodi didn't wear one but that Rhees-Jones since a bodyguard is not supposed to never wear one in case he has to move quickly);
# 6: The medical decisions taken (the ambulance containing Diana driving at slow speed not to the closest possible hospital, her embalming);
# 7: The aftermath (the lack of road surveillance camera's footage, the fast cleaning and re-opening of the tunnel, the sloppy Paris investigation) -
unfortunately I could go on forever with more details but this is also the reason why the inquest will go on seemingly forever and why it's so important to get it right this time.
To anyone who is further interested, I can only recommend the 1998 book by Sancton & Mac Leod 'Death Of A Princess' (outdated, but a serious investigation of all facts known at the time) and the coroner's official link to the inquest thankfully posted here already by GillW:
Inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Mr Dodi Al Fayed
I am not a follower of conspiracy theories and I don't believe for a moment that the Royal Family was involved in any kind of assassination attempt. But the more I learn about dry forensic facts here, the more disturbed I am about lacking consistency, missing evidence and the lack of proof.
. In anycase, the image of the wrecked car can't lie and it proves what is absolutely obvious, it was going to fast. The speed killed them. Drunk or not, Henri Paul could have been excited from all the attention the couple was getting that night and wanted to play the "Starsky and Hutch" (on the orders of Dodi or not).
