The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008

[ysbel]

Here's the link to the new discussion about Charles and Tiggy.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f38/did-charles-have-relationship-tiggy-15565.html#post719273

I'm opening this thread to all Inquest-related discussions except Tiggy.

ysbel
British forurms moderator

[Skydragon]

Henri Paul may have had five alcoholic drinks before taking the wheel in the doomed car journey in which Diana, Princess of Wales was killed, her inquest has been told.

Diana crash driver 'over the limit' - Yahoo! News UK

Henri Paul May Have Had Five Drinks Before Diana Crash |Sky News|UK News

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Henri Paul may have had five alcoholic drinks before taking the wheel in the doomed car journey in which Diana, Princess of Wales was killed, her inquest has been told.

Diana crash driver 'over the limit' - Yahoo! News UK

I think the supposition that Henri Paul was drunk is still the major explanation of such an accident. Since the Inquest has begun, there were several images like the one when we see him bending down to lace his shoes that would perhaps falsify this theory. Although we are still not sure at what time he might have been at the bar and most of all, we know that he was used to drink strong alcohols so he must have been able to handle many drinks before looking or acting drunk.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by zhontella

There was no reason that Ms. de Lima had to testify about how unpleasant her "good friend" Diana was.

Could you point to the lines of the testimony where she said Diana was unpleasant?

There was no legal requirement for that at all. This was also the friend who introduced Diana to that M16 plant Monckton, since poor Diana had no other British friends. It's little wonder that Diana could not trust her so-called friends.

It's a shame Diana wasn't better at making (or at least keeping) friends if she had no other British friends by then. Rosa Monckton has stated under oath that she was not connected to the secret services, so "that MI6 plant" comment is nonsense.

Taking an oath means nothing to many people, and I think Ms. De Lima is one of those people. If she really wanted to tell the truth she would have told the whole truth, and not just the diss-Diana part.

You don't know that she didn't. And stating that she's a person to whom lying under oath "means nothing" is a terrible thing to say about someone unless there's a damn good reason - which in this case there isn't. The only thing here is that she's contradicting your opinion of Diana, and the chances are that she knew Diana a lot better than you did. You're going to have to eventually entertain the possibility that some of these statements are actually true, painful though that might be for you.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Henri Paul may have had five alcoholic drinks before taking the wheel in the doomed car journey in which Diana, Princess of Wales was killed, her inquest has been told.

Diana crash driver 'over the limit' - Yahoo! News UK

Henri Paul May Have Had Five Drinks Before Diana Crash |Sky News|UK News

I read, that at the inquest today, the person who was there when when the blood sample was tested said that the blood sample of Henri Paul's might not have been gather from the right organ. I believe you are to get blood from the heart. Also he said that Henri Paul's body and Dodi's body were marked with the others name on it, so could it possible be Dodi's blood they tested?

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by georgiea

I read, that at the inquest today, the person who was there when when the blood sample was tested said that the blood sample of Henri Paul's might not have been gather from the right organ. I believe you are to get blood from the heart. Also he said that Henri Paul's body and Dodi's body were marked with the others name on it, so could it possible be Dodi's blood they tested?

Read the entire testimony, blood was taken from Henri Paul's thoraic cavity and also from an artery in his groin.( Which according to the British forensic scientist is the best place to get blood for testing) There were at least 7 fials of blood available. DNA testing has taken place 3 times ( Henri Paul's mother gave a DNA sample) in each case the blood that was tested was Henri Paul's regardless of whether at first one fial had the wrong name on it. The solicitor representing Henri Paul's family is making much of the 'chain of evidence' and whether things were labelled correctly as he can't argue against the scientific testing that took place. Various samples of Henri Paul's blood were tested all had high levels of alcohol, the samples were DNA tested to vertify that they were actually Henri Paul's. As well as blood, a portion of muscle tissue was also taken and hair samples, there was enough there to be certain of who and what they were testing.

[sthreats]

I agree all of this time and money keeps coming back to that Diana was killed in a car accident. That Henri Paul was intoxicated. And that the Ritz/Fayed organization provided inadequate security for Diana.How does it work in Europe? Here in the US if a company's employee causes a crash, death etc. the company is libel. Why can't William and Harry sue Mr Al Fayed/the Ritz Paris for the wrongful death of their mother?Can the British government request reimbursement for some of the millions spent on this inquest from Al Fayed--I used to think he was a mourning dad searching for answers: but the answer is as plain as day--his company is responsible for this (along with the paparazzi). The "Diana stuff" ie. the men, her mother, the psychic, Prince Phillip, etc.. is just to shift blame and muddle the inquiry.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sthreats

I agree all of this time and money keeps coming back to that Diana was killed in a car accident. That Henri Paul was intoxicated. And that the Ritz/Fayed organization provided inadequate security for Diana.How does it work in Europe? Here in the US if a company's employee causes a crash, death etc. the company is libel. Why can't William and Harry sue Mr Al Fayed/the Ritz Paris for the wrongful death of their mother?Can the British government request reimbursement for some of the millions spent on this inquest from Al Fayed--I used to think he was a mourning dad searching for answers: but the answer is as plain as day--his company is responsible for this (along with the paparazzi). The "Diana stuff" ie. the men, her mother, the psychic, Prince Phillip, etc.. is just to shift blame and muddle the inquiry.

I think we can be pretty sure that al Fayed is using this inquest to try to avoid mentally having to take the responsibility for the death of his son. The reason for all the 'witnesses' is to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that as Diana was probably not intending to marry Dodi and was not pregnant, there would have been no reason (to a twisted mind playing the race/religion card) for Philip to arrange to have her killed. let's face it she has caused as much, if not more damage and division with her death than if she had lived. The royals and their advisors are not silly, although they couldn't have foreseen the disgraceful exhibition in London, if they had wanted to be rid of her, they would have, IMO, done so when the marriage had clearly broken down, before the Morton book or at the very least before the Panorama interview.

I believe a new offense has been brought in, one of corporate manslaughter, but it will not be retrospective and is not a path the royals or government are likely to take.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

if they had wanted to be rid of her, they would have, IMO, done so when the marriage had clearly broken down, before the Morton book or at the very least before the Panorama interview.

I believe the best thing would have been if Charles simply had thrown her over board on his honeymoon. You know, I'm not overly fond of William and Harry.

[sthreats]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I think we can be pretty sure that al Fayed is using this inquest to try to avoid mentally having to take the responsibility for the death of his son. The reason for all the 'witnesses' is to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that as Diana was probably not intending to marry Dodi and was not pregnant, there would have been no reason (to a twisted mind playing the race/religion card) for Philip to arrange to have her killed. let's face it she has caused as much, if not more damage and division with her death than if she had lived. The royals and their advisors are not silly, although they couldn't have foreseen the disgraceful exhibition in London, if they had wanted to be rid of her, they would have, IMO, done so when the marriage had clearly broken down, before the Morton book or at the very least before the Panorama interview.

I believe a new offense has been brought in, one of corporate manslaughter, but it will not be retrospective and is not a path the royals or government are likely to take.

It seems to me that if Al Fayed/the Ritz Paris want to repeatedly use the race card to accuse Prince Phillip and the BRF the the BRF could in turn go down the road for a settlement for corporate wrongful death. The monies could be used for Diana's for for the young Prince's charities. I doubt that the Ritz's investors would want more negative publicity: 'Prince Harry the Ritz killed my Mama story in the Globe'. IMO they would settle quickly..

[Picmajik]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Absolutely. And I don't even know if I would believe Diana, Charles or Camilla on their "truth". Experiences, reactions, etc. depends immensely on each individual's subjectivity so it seems that we would have exactly the same problem.

My ex's favorite quote was that there were three sides to any argument: my opinion, your opinion and what really happened. That used to drive me insane but there is still an element of truth to that. A person's reaction to any event is still shaded by how it relates to them. Even someone who is not involved will see things differently. How many times have eyewitness accounts for an accident been different? They all "saw the same thing" but in the retelling there are often differences. Add the emotional factors in a relationship such as Charles and Diana and all bets are off. I'm sure they each thought their remembrances were accurate however they may have been skewed one way or the other.

[georgiea]

"Inconsistencies" over Diana driver samples - Mirror.co.uk

I thought it was an interesting article about inconsistencies over Paul's blood sample.

[Picmajik]

Originally Posted by ysbel

The Queen abdicating the winter of 1996! That is impossible even to consider after the Panorama interview.

Why do I think that Burrell encouraged every depressing, mean, or nasty thought that Diana had?

And I agree with others who say that he certainly is enjoying his day in court.

I certainly am enjoying his squirming in court
As others have said, what a weasel!

After seeing the effects on her family I do not for one moment consider that the Queen would ever abdicate. She was anointed with a sacred duty when accepting the crown and she is not about to voluntarily give that up. I'm sure that the young Elizabeth heard plenty about not shirking her duty especially in light of how she came to be queen. She is a part of "the Greatest Generation" who takes her duties seriously and realizes that this is not a whim or a role to be taken lightly. The Duke of Windsor didn't want to be king or at least not all the duties of office (based on reading different interviews and biographies) and probably didn't realize the impact that it would have on all concerned. Her Majesty would not make that same mistake.

[anbrida]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

I believe the best thing would have been if Charles simply had thrown her over board on his honeymoon. You know, I'm not overly fond of William and Harry.

funny post. I have a similar idea

I believe the best thing would have been if Diana simply had thrown Charles over board on her honeymoon. You know, I'm not overly fond of William and Harry either.

[akuji]

my consolation to diana's family ;if we are not satisfied with french investigations ;we must hold another investigation so that we will find out the truth .

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by anbrida

funny post. I have a similar idea

I believe the best thing would have been if Diana simply had thrown Charles over board on her honeymoon. You know, I'm not overly fond of William and Harry either.

I hope you're fond of Beatrice, then.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I hope you're fond of Beatrice, then.

Now that's a sobering thought!

[tinkerbell1948]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

Now that's a sobering thought!

[COUNTESS]

Or, isn't it too bad that Diana didn't throw Charles over on her honeymoon. The real wish would be that they never married. Charles and Camilla would still be sneaking around and Diana would have met some chap who might have given her children and love. What a combo.

[anbrida]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Or, isn't it too bad that Diana didn't throw Charles over on her honeymoon. The real wish would be that they never married. Charles and Camilla would still be sneaking around and Diana would have met some chap who might have given her children and love. What a combo.

Then who produce the heir?