The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008

[Elspeth]

Let's face it, there will always be someone out there be commoner or royal who will always think there was a conspiracy surrounding Princess Diana's death. Someone out there will go to their death bed believing that this was planned and that they both were embarrassments to the crown.

Indeed - and some people in this forum have said that no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever convince them otherwise. Which just goes to show the truth of the old saying that you can't reason a person out of a position he didn't reason himself into.

All I am saying is that if it was a conspiracy in time it will be brought into the light. And it might not need a half a million pound inquest to figure it out. There is always that one piece of evidence WHEN A CRIME IS COMMITTED that in time is found.

And when a crime isn't committed, it isn't found. But that's the essential worthlessness of this inquest - they can come up with all sorts of factual evidence pointing to an accident, and it'll make no difference whatever to people who need to believe that it wasn't an accident. They'll just say that evidence of murder wasn't found, or was suppressed, or was misunderstood or something. When people say that they just want to hear the truth, a lot of the time they feel they already know the truth, and that if the verdict is "accidental death," they won't have heard the truth.

It may take years but until the one piece of evidence that proves NOTHING happened and it was a simple DUI car crash then it will continue to be what it is a Tragic Death of Princess Diana.

Well, of course, this is a fairly good example of the futility of trying to prove a negative. You might have some success in finding one piece of evidence that proves criminal intent - but one piece of evidence that nothing happened? That's an impossible demand.

 

[LadyCat]

I will always believe the deaths in the Alma tunnel to be suspicious. I can't imagine a member of the British Royal Family being so emotionally cold to personally "ordering a hit" but I will always be open to the thought that Al-Fayed security was compromised and it might have been by common enemies of both Diana and Al-Fayed, which, ironically, includes members (and very loyal friends) of the Royal Family.

I believe the inquest has been a "farce" with the reluctance of several parties unwilling to testify and that of Paul Burrell compromising the integrity of his own testimony.

Personally, I am left with even more questions than before it began.

That is about the only "conspiracy" that would make any sense. Still, it would have meant coming up with a plan on very short notice and knowing the details of Diana and Dodi's route to his apartment in advance. Diana and Dodi weren't even supposed to be in Paris at that time!

That Fayad began trying to manufacture the "truth" so soon after the crash tells its own tale. The testimony of several Fayad employees is evidence of this.

Paul Burrell's testimony wasn't really damaging to anyone but himself. I don't see that he had much credibility before he took the witness box at the inquest.

To date I have read nothing in the transcripts of the inquest that indicates the accident in the Alma Tunnel was anything other than just that - a very tragic accident.

Cat

 

[Skydragon]

I will always believe the deaths in the Alma tunnel to be suspicious. I can't imagine a member of the British Royal Family being so emotionally cold to personally "ordering a hit" but I will always be open to the thought that Al-Fayed security was compromised and it might have been by common enemies of both Diana and Al-Fayed, which, ironically, includes members (and very loyal friends) of the Royal Family.

I believe the inquest has been a "farce" with the reluctance of several parties unwilling to testify and that of Paul Burrell compromising the integrity of his own testimony.

Personally, I am left with even more questions than before it began.

I am sorry but WHICH enemies, neither Dodi or Diana were important enough to anyone for anything, to be killed!

I honestly can't believe that after reading the Paget report and the transcripts of the inquest, anyone could have any doubts that it was anything other than an accident!

 

[Duke Douglas]

Indeed - and some people in this forum have said that no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever convince them otherwise. Which just goes to show the truth of the old saying that you can't reason a person out of a position he didn't reason himself into.



And when a crime isn't committed, it isn't found. But that's the essential worthlessness of this inquest - they can come up with all sorts of factual evidence pointing to an accident, and it'll make no difference whatever to people who need to believe that it wasn't an accident. They'll just say that evidence of murder wasn't found, or was suppressed, or was misunderstood or something. When people say that they just want to hear the truth, a lot of the time they feel they already know the truth, and that if the verdict is "accidental death," they won't have heard the truth.



Well, of course, this is a fairly good example of the futility of trying to prove a negative. You might have some success in finding one piece of evidence that proves criminal intent - but one piece of evidence that nothing happened? That's an impossible demand.

No demand at all. We, I do believe have all investigated something that we thought might have been done on purpose only to find out that nobody had anything what to do with it at all. We find out only later that "It is what it is".

 

[Mermaid1962]

I believe that as well. The thing about lying is that a person eventually trips himself up.

I believe what the bible says and it apply's hear, what was done in the darkness shall be brought into the light. If there was foul play, in time it will be found. And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Perhaps the secret was about herself?

I have been at youtube.com watching all sorts of videos relating to Diana and the inquest. Paul Burrell as "dianasrock" has been making comments on videos concerning his testimony at the inquestand the veracity thereof. He says Diana did harbor a "deep dark secret".

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yeah, vampire blood from the Dracula family.

Very, very true! Unfortunately, Fayed wants a confession preferably signed in blood stating it, as well!

 

[Mermaid1962]

Conspiracies survive because it's impossible to prove a negative. Only what did happen can be proved, not what didn't happen. Conspiracyland is the only place where the lack of evidence is "proof" of a cover-up and not proof of what did happen.

P.S. I like your motto.

Let's face it, there will always be someone out there be commoner or royal who will always think there was a conspiracy surrounding Princess Diana's death. Someone out there will go to their death bed believing that this was planned and that they both were embarrassments to the crown. All I am saying is that if it was a conspiracy in time it will be brought into the light. And it might not need a half a million pound inquest to figure it out. There is always that one piece of evidence WHEN A CRIME IS COMMITTED that in time is found. It may take years but until the one piece of evidence that proves NOTHING happened and it was a simple DUI car crash then it will continue to be what it is a Tragic Death of Princess Diana.

 

[pinkie40]

Obvioulsy the inquest was an attempt to silence some very powerful voices and critics who were powerful enough to compell Her Majesty and her advisors the absolute need to make sure the immediate members of the current British Royal Family were not in any way whatsoever connected with the death of the Princess of Wales...This inquest is a serious legal matter (a very expensive one for the British taxpayer) not a "sideshow" to placate a group of people like me who might think Diana met a sinster end from some unknown faction by a security breach. I do believe it has been meticulous in its attempt to make this a "transparent" case...I just like to look beyond the "obvious".

I question the reluctance of the French to allow to give testimony, be questioned and undergo cross examination...even via video link... I would have loved for all that to have been resolved under oath...Thus it will forever remain as fodder for the conspiracy lovers.

Actually, it is easier to omit evidence rather than present it. So I will always be suspicious for what may or may not have been supressed.

I don't know if Paul actually has "a secret" he claims to have (in his posts as 'dianasrock' on youtube.com) but his reluctance to "go away" is puzzling.

Does anybody know if Paul can be compelled to come back to the inquest to be questioned by his remarks (obviously obtained without his permission or knowledge)?

 

[Mermaid1962]

That was rather garbled, sorry. What I'm trying to say is that in normal investigation, charges aren't laid if there's no evidence pointing toward a person. However, with conspiracy theories, people take the very lack of evidence as "evidence" of a cover-up.

Conspiracyland is the only place where the lack of evidence is "proof" of a cover-up and not proof of what did happen.

P.S. I like your motto.

 

[Duke Douglas]

I knew what you meant

That's ok, I knew what you meant. Thank you I like my motto also, it's on my Coat of Arms.

I do understand the difference between conspiracy's and facts, and no one I think can call this a normal investigation. It has been my experience with five years in the field as an investigator and another year as a criminal intelligence analyst, that when other than normal people are invovled the case is no longer normal.

Things are suppressed SOMETIMES out of respect for the not so normal persons family. Look right here in the United States how many crimes with not so normal people like Ted Kennedy drowning his girlfriend. What is normal about all of the deaths in the Kennedy family? Were any of them normal, just plain assassinations and accidents? And whoever decided that the children of a man who made his money from selling alcohol during prohibation like the mafia, was America's next Royal Family????? I get sick everytime I hear that reference to the Kennedy family.

I have always noticed once your famous you always have friends and you always enemies.

 

[LadyCat]

I question the reluctance of the French to allow to give testimony, be questioned and undergo cross examination...even via video link... I would have loved for all that to have been resolved under oath...Thus it will forever remain as fodder for the conspiracy lovers.

Actually, it is easier to omit evidence rather than present it. So I will always be suspicious for what may or may not have been supressed.

I don't know if Paul actually has "a secret" he claims to have (in his posts as 'dianasrock' on youtube.com) but his reluctance to "go away" is puzzling.

Does anybody know if Paul can be compelled to come back to the inquest to be questioned by his remarks (obviously obtained without his permission or knowledge)?

I think perhaps the paparrazi were tired of the whole thing after two inquiries and having had their statements take numerous times. Over the course of 10 years they may have felt it was pretty pointless to put themelves out just because one man feels he has an axe to grind with the royal family. They (the paps) bear part of the responsibility, just as Mo Fayad does, for the accident.

It is easier to omit evidence but I doubt any evidence the paps would give would support Fayad's conspiracy theories.

I have doubts that Paul Burrell has any deep, dark "secret" despite his claims. His reluctance to go away stems from one thing and one thing only -- he doesn't want to lose his cash cow! The man has made millions off Diana in the past 10 years. He could easily retire and live comfortably for the rest of his days, however greed and love of the limelight have him attempting to remain centerstage!

To my understanding, as long as he is not on British soil, he can't be compelled to return to the inquest. Though the curious part of my nature would love to hear his "secret" and know what "red herrings" he tossed out during his previous testimony, unless he returns of his own volition, I may just have to remain curious. Sad, as we all know what killed the ...

Cat

 

[pinkie40]

That's ok, I knew what you meant. Thank you I like my motto also, it's on my Coat of Arms.

I do understand the difference between conspiracy's and facts, and no one I think can call this a normal investigation. It has been my experience with five years in the field as an investigator and another year as a criminal intelligence analyst, that when other than normal people are invovled the case is no longer normal.

Things are suppressed SOMETIMES out of respect for the not so normal persons family. Look right here in the United States how many crimes with not so normal people like Ted Kennedy drowning his girlfriend. What is normal about all of the deaths in the Kennedy family? Were any of them normal, just plain assassinations and accidents? And whoever decided that the children of a man who made his money from selling alcohol during prohibation like the mafia, was America's next Royal Family????? I get sick everytime I hear that reference to the Kennedy family.

I have always noticed once your famous you always have friends and you always enemies.

Even last week here in Dallas, there surfaced yet another cache of documents that had been "held back" by the Dallas County DA's office pertaining to the Kennedy Assassination. And there was just some information released in the last few days that had been supressed regarding the mother of Prince Philip; supposedly, to refrain from causing his public embarrassment in an earlier time.

It just goes to show, it's never going to be over as long as there are questions and the need to protect an image.

 

[Duke Douglas]

Exactly what I mean!

Exactly what I mean! Let's dig up Marilyn Monroe while we are at it and ask her if it was REALLY an overdose that killed her.

Why is the Kennedy assassination records/files still sealed after all these years? I am not a big conspiracy theory buff, but some things in history either happened or they were committed and when you are a NOT SO NORMAL PERSON, the facts are sometimes suppressed out of respect for the family.

Is that the case with Fayed and Diana? Only God knows, and I am not him. But to say they had no enemies and were not important enough to kill might be stretching it a bit. IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE on deployment to Afghanistan that in the musilum world WOMEN are not respected at all, Diana in their world was and INFIDEL.

And to see pictures of Dianar on that yacht with a bathing suit with a musilum is not what Osama Bin Ladin would like. I think we all know that by now.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Bear in mind that as with Christianity, there are different schools of thought in Islam and what (for want of a better word) orthodox muslims decree and live by, more moderate muslims see as totally at odds with their religion. It's rather unfair to speak for the muslim world where there isn't such a thing.

 

[Duke Douglas]

Infidel

I think it's more than fair to say that in any sect of the "muslim faith" that any Anglo women in a bathing suit sitting on a yacht with a muslim would cause anger. ESPECIALLY any sect that involves Osama Bin Ladin, let's not forget what he did in this country on 9/11. Jihad is still Jihad no matter what sect of muslim you are in.

 

[pinkie40]

Well, I doubt that Dodi and his father follow their religion to the letter. I think one can buy bacon at Harrod's. Both were married to or had married non Muslim women, And I think perhaps that might have been a relief to the Princess who had tried to turn herself into a Pakistani woman to appeal to Dr. Khan. Diana did tend to try to "change" or adapt her personality/dress to please whatever man she fancied at any given moment.

Perhaps Diana was in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong person...at the wheel of the Mercedes. I am still shocked to this day Diana even gave Dodi the time of day. Get a hold of a rough draft of her brother's eulogy. It is quite telling of Diana's feelings for Dodi from her brother's perspective.

I just have a hard time believing Diana would have met even a small scratch, let alone death, in the protection of Mr. Al-Fayed, though.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I think it's more than fair to say that in any sect of the "muslim faith" that any Anglo women in a bathing suit sitting on a yacht with a muslim would cause anger. ESPECIALLY any sect that involves Osama Bin Ladin, let's not forget what he did in this country on 9/11. Jihad is still Jihad no matter what sect of muslim you are in.

Not quite. Jihad actually means to furthur oneself or to follow Islam despite struggle or doubt to become closer to Allah. So, yes - Jihad is universal amongst muslims but some muslims interpret Jihad in a very different way. It's exactly the same where issues of dress and women's rights are concerned - it depends not on faith alone but on a mixture of faith and culture. Diana being English would have nothing to do with anger or resentment, neither would a non-muslim holidaying with a muslim. I can see that the bathing suit would raise eyebrows with most muslims but it's open to interpretation. When talking about Islam you have to be just as careful as when talking about Christianity - they're really umbrella terms and there's a great deal of diversity in both which would affect the matter at hand.

 

[pinkie40]

No charges will be filed on anyone because this inquest has done its job providing material to the effect that it was only a sad, unfortunate accident.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, I think there may be charges filed against Mr Al Fayed and Mr Burrell but that remains to be seen.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Another reason for the paparazzi not to want to take the time to appear is that they have money to make and scoops to get. Like anyone else, going to court would cut down on their earnings.

I think perhaps the paparrazi were tired of the whole thing after two inquiries and having had their statements take numerous times. Over the course of 10 years they may have felt it was pretty pointless to put themelves out just because one man feels he has an axe to grind with the royal family. They bear part of the responsibility, just as Mo Fayad does, for the accident.

It is easier to omit evidence but I doubt any evidence the paps would give would support Fayad's conspiracy theories.

I have doubts that Paul Burrell has any deep, dark "secret" despite his claims. His reluctance to go away stems from one thing and one thing only -- he doesn't want to lose his cash cow! The man has made millions off Diana in the past 10 years. He could easily retire and live comfortably for the rest of his days, however greed and love of the limelight have him attempting to remain centerstage!

To my understanding, as long as he is not on British soil, he can't be compelled to return to the inquest. Though the curious part of my nature would love to hear his "secret" and know what "red herrings" he tossed out during his previous testimony, unless he returns of his own volition, I may just have to remain curious. Sad, as we all know what killed the ...

Cat

 

[pinkie40]

Mr. al-Fayed could be found innocent of any charges of libel and slander by reason of insanity (LOL)...but Paul may be playing a cat and mouse game...and could possibly get more requests (and thus more money) for his side of the story...very interesting how Paul keeps it going for his benefit...but he knows something...

 

[LadyCat]

^ I agree. Fayad is certifiable. And after reading the transcripts from today, I seriously doubt SIS, M16 or whatever they are called had anything to do with any of this. Another nail in the conspiracy coffin. Soon perhaps we can bury it, then Diana, Dodi and the conspiracies can rest in peace

Cat

 

[Duke Douglas]

Not quite. Jihad actually means to furthur oneself or to follow Islam despite struggle or doubt to become closer to Allah. So, yes - Jihad is universal amongst muslims but some muslims interpret Jihad in a very different way. It's exactly the same where issues of dress and women's rights are concerned - it depends not on faith alone but on a mixture of faith and culture. Diana being English would have nothing to do with anger or resentment, neither would a non-muslim holidaying with a muslim. I can see that the bathing suit would raise eyebrows with most muslims but it's open to interpretation. When talking about Islam you have to be just as careful as when talking about Christianity - they're really umbrella terms and there's a great deal of diversity in both which would affect the matter at hand.

Jihad : the concept of Holy War in Islam

The Quranic term 'Jihad' means, "Holy fighting in the Cause of Allah or any other kind of effort to make Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) superior. Jihad is regarded as one of the fundamentals of Islam." (Note 1)

Muslims refer to a 'greater Jihah' (the personal struggle against sin), and a 'lesser Jihad' (holy warfare against the enemies of Allah and Islam). This distinction is often lost in the media, in part because some Muslims deliberately misrepresent the concept of Islam (example).

Lesser jihad is the traditional holy war launched in the name of God against the enemies of God and Islam. Thus, jihad is both a personal and community commitment to defend and spread the religion of Islam.

Let's identify Islamic Jihad as what it is to those who are blowing up ours and theirs in the name of Allah. And that is in the "Lesser Jihad". Or to those with bombs strapped on their chest's just, and expect 72 Virgins in the after life

"JIHAD"!

 

[ysbel]

It just goes to show, it's never going to be over as long as there are questions and the need to protect an image.

No, its never going to be over so long as there are cospiracy theorists who find fantasies of murder are more entertaining to muse over and discuss than the mundane details of a preventable and rather regrettable accident.

 

[BeatrixFan]

The Quranic term 'Jihad' means, "Holy fighting in the Cause of Allah or any other kind of effort to make Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) superior. Jihad is regarded as one of the fundamentals of Islam."

Again, open to interpretation and depends on the sect of Islam we're discussing. I'm not sure which kind of Islam the Al-Fayeds follow but obviously Diana in a bathing suit didn't offend Dodi's muslim beliefs.

 

[ysbel]

And can one of you clarify why we are discussing a jihad here?

Has al-Fayed mentioned that he is carrying out a jihad against the Royal Family. If he has stated that, he's incredibly pompous and stupid.

 

[BeatrixFan]

No Ysbel, Duke said that the muslim world wouldnt have accepted Diana in a bathing suit and I said it was important not to refer to the beliefs of the 'muslim world' as there's no such thing. And Jihad was an example of different interpretation within Islam, the same as the modesty rules are different and obviously didn't offend the muslims on board the yacht Diana wore a bathing suit on.

 

[Russophile]

No Ysbel, Duke said that the muslim world wouldnt have accepted Diana in a bathing suit and I said it was important not to refer to the beliefs of the 'muslim world' as there's no such thing. And Jihad was an example of different interpretation within Islam, the same as the modesty rules are different and obviously didn't offend the muslims on board the yacht Diana wore a bathing suit on.

Yeah.
What Sam said.

 

[ysbel]

Thanks for explaining BeatrixFan and Russophile.

I understand your original point and I agree that Muslim beliefs can vary from culture to culture which was well made but I don't think a further discussion of what exactly constitutes a greater or lesser jihad is going to help clarify the distinctions of different expectations of appropriate behavior among different Muslim groups.