The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

-SNIPPED-

That was your earlier post, nowhere in the transcripts does the embalmer mention Charles was concerned about maintaining her appearance or any instruction from anyone from or connected to the UK to embalm the body, from what I read.

Yes, this situation is kind of "blurry". Apparently the embalmer, Jean Monceau, took the decision on his own. (link)

Quote : "It was obvious to me that it was not possible to present the body in the state that it was."

That's understandable but how could he decide so fast, without being sure if it would be approved by the family and officials. That's rather strange to be so confident when you're dealing with such an event ...

[Jo of Palatine]

From the Inquest (about the Panorama-interview; Q: Mansfield; A: Burrell):

Q. All right. Now, did you watch the interview when it
22 went out?
23 A. No, I didn't.
24 Q. Have you ever seen it since?
25 A. I have seen clippings of it, but not the entire interview.


End of quote.

Now, is that believable? Sorry, this answer boggles my mind... and I wanted to share that with you.

[TheTruth]

^ Does he honestly believe what he's saying ?! Come on, he was ready to sacrifice his life for her, he wrote 2 books about her, he was suspected to have robbed some of her personal effects and now he wants us to believe he didn't see the most well-known interview of her entire life ?! If that was his big revelation I'm more than disappointed

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

.... nowhere in the transcripts does the embalmer mention Charles was concerned about maintaining her appearance or any instruction from anyone from or connected to the UK to embalm the body, from what I read.

True, neither Charles nor any member of the royal family expressed this wish directly in words, that we know of. From what I understand from the transcript about the embalming (please correct me if necessary) the British Consul in Paris was worried that Diana's body was unfit to be seen by the dignitaries and family members who would visit her. The consul asked the embalmer if every action possible to make Diana's body fit to be seen was being carried out. So I think you are right, Skydragon, if this testimony is true, that at least from the diplomatic side, it was just an indirect request, not an order, as claimed by the conspiracy theorists.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

True, neither Charles nor any member of the royal family expressed this wish directly in words, that we know of. From what I understand from the transcript about the embalming (please correct me if necessary) the British Consul in Paris was worried that Diana's body was unfit to be seen by the dignitaries and family members who would visit her. The consul asked the embalmer if every action possible to make Diana's body fit to be seen was being carried out. So I think you are right, Skydragon, if this testimony is true, that at least from the diplomatic side, it was just an indirect request, not an order, as claimed by the conspiracy theorists.

I read it as a genuine concern that she didn't look too bad, under the circumstances, for anyone to see her. That she had clothes on, hair done and perhaps a little makeup. Undertakers here will always try to present 'the loved one' in as 'normal' a look as is possible. Nobody really wants to see the person they love(d), looking grey and dishevelled. In the heat, the body quickly starts to decay and of course smell, he didn't know whether her sons would see her and so I think he did the best he could. To him it was just a terrible accident, why would he even consider his actions to be a problem in years to come? I think he did his best to maintain her dignity and appearance.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I read it as a genuine concern that she didn't look too bad, under the circumstances, for anyone to see her. That she had clothes on, hair done and perhaps a little makeup. Undertakers here will always try to present 'the loved one' in as 'normal' a look as is possible. Nobody really wants to see the person they love(d), looking grey and dishevelled. In the heat, the body quickly starts to decay and of course smell, he didn't know whether her sons would see her and so I think he did the best he could. To him it was just a terrible accident, why would he even consider his actions to be a problem in years to come? I think he did his best to maintain her dignity and appearance.

Well yes, that was his job and he did it properly. We can't blame the guy for having the good intention to take care of the dead person and making her look the less shocking for the people who are coming. The experience of seeing someone you loved really not in the state you had reminded her might be very awful. From what I read, she had a bad bump on the forehead but they had indeed taken care of her appearance. I don't know in which clothes she left from France but I know she was buried in a black gown made by Catherine Walker.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

From the Inquest (about the Panorama-interview; Q: Mansfield; A: Burrell):

Q. All right. Now, did you watch the interview when it
22 went out?
23 A. No, I didn't.
24 Q. Have you ever seen it since?
25 A. I have seen clippings of it, but not the entire interview.


End of quote.

Now, is that believable? Sorry, this answer boggles my mind... and I wanted to share that with you.

It boggles my mind, too. When I first read it in the transcript I stopped, agog. Everyone else in the Western world has seen that interview; of all people, you'd think he'd have seen it. But why on earth would he lie about it? It is mind-boggling.

I'll be very interested to find out what the jury makes of his evidence. I've read it, and overall I think he hasn't done too badly in the witness box, but it's the little things like this that are likely to make them think he's either off his rocker or lying, because who's going to believe he didn't see the Panorama interview?!

[CasiraghiTrio]

^ Maybe I missed something? I honestly did not notice very much in the Burrell transcripts that even seem important for the jury. Even Burrell saying in May 2003 at the time he was promoting his book that he thought the deaths were "something more than accident" sounds to me like a man doing just what he was doing, trying to amp up his future book. Mansfield was trying to lead Burrell into agreeing that the "establishment" was intent on spying on and dealing with Diana, and it just wasn't happening. Burrell seemed like he was trying not to say too much. His memory lapses were pretty convenient toward keeping him in safe ground. He doesn't want to slip and risk saying too much. I guess that's why he said he only saw snippets of the interview. Then if someone points to a certain part that could be awkward for him, he can say he did not see that part.

[pinkie40]

It is 9:37 pm (the date is January 16) here in the Central Time Zone here in America and at cnn.com the current web poll is asking about the Diana inquest....I don't know how long it will be up as they change the poll often.

I have to admit Paul's testimony is very odd.

[pinkie40]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Yes, this situation is kind of "blurry". Apparently the embalmer, Jean Monceau, took the decision on his own. (link)



That's understandable but how could he decide so fast, without being sure if it would be approved by the family and officials. That's rather strange to be so confident when you're dealing with such an event ...

Often in cases like this, the "next of kin" is supposed to give final approval for procedures such as embalming, etc. The body would have been transferred to the morgue awaiting family decisions. It was odd that Dodi was given this treatment and Diana was just embalmed for a contingent of oversea officials to gaze upon.

I've often wondered why an attorney representing Prince William (since he was not of legal age) was not appointed and arrangements made through this legal channel...or at least Charles Spencer could have stepped up the plate and hired immediate French legal representation for the Spencer's...

[CasiraghiTrio]

^ Well, the Spencers and the Prince Charles camp probably all would have consented to the embalming if asked. I mean, that's what most families would want, right? Provided no foul play was suspected by the police, in which case the body would have a court-ordered autopsy. But at the time of "that week," no one was saying or even thinking Diana was pregnant, and certainly no rational people were jumping to conclusions about the crash. All the suspicions came after the fact, after it was all done and too late. So if I'm not mistaken, the embalming was just a matter of course.

[zhontella]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

If you read the early testimony regarding the embalming, you will find the decision was nothing to do with Charles or St. James's.
Hearing transcripts: 20 November - Afternoon session

Section 82 of your link above:

3 A. No, but what I saw was Prince Charles, in the late
4 afternoon, with two people getting ready to embalm
5 the body of the Princess.

But apparently Prince Charles was just a tiny bit too late -- a full embalming had just been done. It's too bad they didn't save some blood samples first so a full toxicology could have been done -- like looking for succinylcholine for example.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by zhontella

Section 82 of your link above:

3 A. No, but what I saw was Prince Charles, in the late
4 afternoon, with two people getting ready to embalm
5 the body of the Princess.

But apparently Prince Charles was just a tiny bit too late -- a full embalming had just been done. It's too bad they didn't save some blood samples first so a full toxicology could have been done -- like looking for succinylcholine for example.

But one would think that succinylcholine was to be found in any case as this is a muscle relaxant used in emergency medicine to allow for intubation.

I very much doubt they keep blood samples from victims of traffic accidents as this costs money and makes no sense. From the driver, of course as they need to know the blood alcohol level for the insurances, so it was clear these samples would be needed. But why should anyone need blood samples from the average passenger? And at that moment, Diana was just the passenger in a car that had had an accident.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by zhontella

But apparently Prince Charles was just a tiny bit too late -- a full embalming had just been done. It's too bad they didn't save some blood samples first so a full toxicology could have been done -- like looking for succinylcholine for example.

Section 79 reads -
Q. Is it right that you started the process at around 2 o'clock, 14.00 hours?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember the British funeral directors arriving at the hospital later that afternoon?
A. With the Prince of Wales, yes.
Q. Can you remember the conversation that you had with them?
A. Well, they came with their equipment to embalm the body of the Princess and they realised that we had already undertaken the embalming process, so we invited them to control the work that we had undertaken. We told them how many arteries we had injected with which fluids and they thanked us, the men, and they kissed the young thanatopractitioner, female thanatopractitioner, that was there.
Q. I think they told you that you had done a good job.
A. Yes, of course.
Section 81 -
A. Well, in France you have to be authorised to do it by the members of the family or anyone having authority. Considering the fact that I had talked about the subject with the different authorities present on site, including the people -- the head of the funeral body in France, I thought that basically I had received enough authority
-------------
So Charles was not even there at that point, he acted on his own, doing what he thought best, to spare the feelings of her relatives. He goes on to say (section 84) We don't take anything away from the bodies. We leave everything that is inside.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

It boggles my mind, too. When I first read it in the transcript I stopped, agog. Everyone else in the Western world has seen that interview; of all people, you'd think he'd have seen it. But why on earth would he lie about it? It is mind-boggling.

I'll be very interested to find out what the jury makes of his evidence. I've read it, and overall I think he hasn't done too badly in the witness box, but it's the little things like this that are likely to make them think he's either off his rocker or lying, because who's going to believe he didn't see the Panorama interview?!

I think its entirely possible that Paul Burrell did not see the interview in its entirety and only saw clippets. If you didn't see it when it was broadcast and didn't have access to a recording to the full session later, all you would probably see were clippets of the program that were used in other programs.

I'm not a fan of Burrell but in this case I think he's just being extra careful to tell the exact truth under oath and he probably didn't see the original program from end to end but saw clips in news programs that discussed it.

I do think that because this is a legal proceeding that people are just being extra careful to only say the exact truth even though it sounds a little odd.

[daisygoogles]

Originally Posted by Duchess

i think this is a great post. i couldn't agree more. the loss of her title was a small sacrifice, especially if she knew that william would one day return it. i have always thought that charles' actions were incredible following her death. he cuold very easily have taken the position that since he was no longer married to her he should remain at arm's length and only with his sons but he chose to go to france and he did all he could to ensure that she was given the public funeral that HE knew was the right thing to do.

Charles did act appropriately even loving during the immediate days after the death of the mother of his children and furture king.
The only problem I have is that many things were said to the effect that Prince Charles was so worried about the public reaction to him and camilla that he was actually frightened saying things like "They are going to blame me"

[Skydragon]

Diana, Princess of Wales, would still be alive if she had retained her police protection, a former chief policeman has told the inquest into her death.

BBC NEWS | UK | Police 'begged to protect Diana'

[zhontella]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

But one would think that succinylcholine was to be found in any case as this is a muscle relaxant used in emergency medicine to allow for intubation.

It would have been nice to have info about levels or other toxins.

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

I very much doubt they keep blood samples from victims of traffic accidents as this costs money and makes no sense. From the driver, of course as they need to know the blood alcohol level for the insurances, so it was clear these samples would be needed. But why should anyone need blood samples from the average passenger? And at that moment, Diana was just the passenger in a car that had had an accident.

But Diana was not the average passenger, so I still find it very odd that no blood was collected.

Given her level of fame, I'm surprised that someone didn't collect her blood to sell as souvenir samples.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I'm not a fan of Burrell but in this case I think he's just being extra careful to tell the exact truth under oath and he probably didn't see the original program from end to end but saw clips in news programs that discussed it.

I do think that because this is a legal proceeding that people are just being extra careful to only say the exact truth even though it sounds a little odd.

ysbel, I agree with your above statements.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by zhontella

It would have been nice to have info about levels or other toxins.


But Diana was not the average passenger, so I still find it very odd that no blood was collected.

Given her level of fame, I'm surprised that someone didn't collect her blood to sell as souvenir samples.

Why would you like to have this info? For what purpose? She was not poisoned, wasn't she?

Diana might not have been the average passenger but she was just a human being hurt in an accident that the trauma specialists tried to save. In such cases medical staff don't make any difference in their treatment.
If they kept blood samples when there were none needed and neither regulations nor police requesting them - now that I would call strange.

As for the collection of her blood as souvenirs - now you really have a weird view on people working in emergency treatment. They see so much blood during their work they are probably only too happy to get washed up after work. Why should one of those highly trained people be in the souvenir business? Selling blood of traffic accident victims of all things....