The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by pinkie40

I am concerned as to the reasons why there is such a strong point in portraying the Princess as just having a summer "fling" with Dodi and a person beyond sanity mired knee deep in paranoia.

I just know "from the past" Diana's brother thanked God for taking Diana when "she had joy in her private life" (I always thought of Dodi when he spoke of this) and Paul Burrell was given prime US airtime talking about Diana's handwritten letter about her fears.

Because I think al-Fayed's motive was in making sure that Diana's paranoia was seen as very real and very sane and not the mad ravings of an insane woman and he wanted to bolster the claim that Diana was killed because her relationship was serious with Dodi.

The easiest way to discredit al-Fayed's position was to make Diana's fears seem like the paranoid fears of a madwoman and the relationship with Dodi as a summer fling. If the jury believed that, then they would believe none of what al-Fayed claimed.

[ghost_night554]

I don't think Diana was insane but I think she was ridiculously paranoid.

[Fabulous Fake]

I just cannot begin to imagine how the members of the jury can possibly keep track of all this.

[ghost_night554]

I think they have a folder where the keep all the info in^

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Fabulous Fake

I just cannot begin to imagine how the members of the jury can possibly keep track of all this.

I wonder, too. Especially as this goes from one point to the next, then back aso.

But there is definately something fishy about these letters from prince Philip. Let me amuse you with my very own conspiracy theory.

I bet the moment the news came that Diana had died in Paris someone at the Royal Household decided that it had to be done something about her papers. She was considered a "loose cannon" (for whatever reasons) and she definately had papers worth to go into safekeeping (maybe a diary, but at least her divorce papers - and who could have know what else this obviously slightly paranoid woman would collect in addition).

So Paul Burrell was informed and sent off to France and left Diana's apartments alone. That's the only reason I can think of why they sent him, a man and not her dresser or another dresser in Royal employ - it didn't seem appropriate to me at that time. I believe someone trusted by the Royal family, probably authorized by Charles who had become the sole guardian of his sons who were Diana's heirs, used this absence to go through Diana's papers. It's interesting that Paul Burrell said that he helped Diana filling her letters while Lady Sarah explained that they were not filled, just kept somehow. On returning Burrell realised what had happened. I think they didn't find the mahagonny box because as Lady Sarah explained, she never saw the key and thought it was just a low table and I think other people thought likewise.

I think Burrell used his knowledge to get a place at the Diana fund. In March 1998 Lady Sarah finally realised that the box contained papers. I doubt she knew about the machinations of the Royal Household, but had just be informed that Burrell knew too much and thus they had to find aplace for him and pay him the "legacy" which helped him to buy his house - for services to the late princess. So she gave in all innocense the "sensitive" papers to him for safekeeping till she could transport them to Althorp for the princes. I've no idea what happened to the papers then. And I don't think Lady Sarah told her sister or anyone else at the Royal Household about it.

Lady Sarah said she asked for them and Burrell, as long as he worked for the Diana-fund, said he had them and would give them back. But then he was "made redundant" (quote of Lady Sarah) and she could not longer ask him. I think at that point the Royal Household heard of these papers, namely the divorce papers plus the audiotapes about that rape. So they set the machinery in motion against Burrell. It's interesting that Lady Sarah said neither she nor her mother had reported theft, that police came and made inquirys on their own about a wedding gift that had been sold. The police inspector had to explain at the inquest why Paul Burrell was arrested for this theft, even though there was no proof he was involved in it. In that case the law allowed police to search his house without having a warrant and they took what they thought would give them more evidence against Paul Burrell. I don't buy the meager explanation he gave, if you can call it that. But police didn't find the papers. I seriously doubt they were interested in any letters by prince Philip back then.

The trial against Burrell started. There were media leaks which made the public quite interested in this trial. Now it turned out that Paul Burrell himself was behind the leaks - why? Officially he blamed police for the negative publicity he got, but I think at this point he had realised that the Royal Household was up against him and leaked information to the press as a way to protect himself and present him as a victim (The Diana-method).
At that stage I think the bargaining began and the RH found out that Burrell had copied letters Diana had gotten - copiers existed back then, so he very well could have done so. By that time the Philip-letters had become infamous IIRC and so they forced Burrell to give his material up in exchange for the queen to remember about the "safe-keeping". So Burrell was acquitted.

But he searched fro revenge and wrote his first Diana-book with the mentioned "secret" at the end - to taunt the enemy. I think he had learned a lot from Diana.

Back to Philip's letters. I think he wrote the four letters in 1992. I don't see him as a letter writer, so I don't wonder why there were not more. In 1992 he might still have hoped that there could be another solution than separation and he could help as a mediator. I doubt he would ever write nasty letters at a later point, he says things directly or cut people who displease him, he is not a poison pen-writer. IMHO, of course.

Lady Sarah has agreed to have the storage in Althorp searched for letters from prince Philip. She said that there were a lot of letters from all members of the Royal family kept for the princes and that she would see to it that these letters are checked again in case the Philip-letters are there. My guess is that the Philip-letters have returned to the RF a long time ago and it's probable that Lady Sarah finds them now. Plus some others who are friendly, to say the least.... I think the Royals have hoped that the inquest would not go that way, so never thought that these letters were needed in the original, but since Al-Fayed bases so much on them, there is the possibility that they are "found" now either at Windsor Castle or Althorp.

I bet Paul Burrell's second book was not only to generate more money for him but to back away from the "secret"-stuff. With the way the inquest was fired by him with the "Burrell"-note, he surely attracted once more attention within the RH and now he is afraid. At least that was my impression of his appearance at the inquest. I believe he had more copies of material he handed to the RH and used that for his book. But he doesn't want to make that public, thus he claimed he had destroyed what he had. I think he has realised that you don't temper with the RF in Britain.

That's my conspiracy-theory, based on the inquest-transcripts. I'm afraid I still believe that Diana was an embarrassment to the RF after the divorce, but not a real threat. I believe they knew she would never let information of her divorce papers leak to the press, that there was still a border for her she would not cross. And why should she? She had nothing to gain from it anymore. So Diana died through an accident. But the search for her papers makes for quite the thriller.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

I wonder, too. Especially as this goes from one point to the next, then back aso.

{ ... }

So Paul Burrell was informed and sent off to France and left Diana's apartments alone. That's the only reason I can think of why they sent him, a man and not her dresser or another dresser in Royal employ - it didn't seem appropriate to me at that time. I believe someone trusted by the Royal family, probably authorized by Charles who had become the sole guardian of his sons who were Diana's heirs, used this absence to go through Diana's papers. It's interesting that Paul Burrell said that he helped Diana filling her letters while Lady Sarah explained that they were not filled, just kept somehow. On returning Burrell realised what had happened. I think they didn't find the mahagonny box because as Lady Sarah explained, she never saw the key and thought it was just a low table and I think other people thought likewise.

Thanks for this brilliant and post (and sorry for snipping it ). I agree with all your arguments although I'm still very interested to know why they sent Burrell to France and not someone who wasn't "close" to Diana. It's a terrible task to dress a dead person (I've never done it, fortunately ) and moreover someone you knew ...

That's my conspiracy-theory, based on the inquest-transcripts. I'm afraid I still believe that Diana was an embarrassment to the RF after the divorce, but not a real threat. I believe they knew she would never let information of her divorce papers leak to the press, that there was still a border for her she would not cross. And why should she? She had nothing to gain from it anymore. So Diana died through an accident. But the search for her papers makes for quite the thriller.

I agree that it's not the crash in itself that created the conspiracy but the elements reported missing and all the confusion around the facts.

[TheTruth]

From this morning hearing transcripts (30 January 2008) : Questions from MR HILLIARD to PROFESSOR PETER VANEZIS

10 Q. You were told that you wouldn't in fact be allowed to
11 carry out a further post-mortem examination on Mr Paul?
12 A. That's correct, yes.
13 Q. You were given to understand that the reason for that
14 was because of rules and protocols within the French
15 legal system?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. You found that rather surprising in the circumstances;
18 is that right?
19 A. I did, yes.
20 Q. But whilst you were in Paris, did you have a number of
21 meetings with advocates representing both Mr Al Fayed
22 and Henri Paul's family?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. You were briefed on the findings, is this right, of
25 Professor Lecomte, who carried out the post-mortem

20

1 examination?
2 A. I was, yes.
3 Q. I think, whilst you were in Paris, you were given a copy
4 of her post-mortem report.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I don't know whether you have a copy of our bundle of
7 documents? It runs to 87 pages.
8 A. I haven't in front of me.
9 Q. I shall give you one. We have the post-mortem report
10 there and I want to know whether that's the same, more
11 than or less than you were given.
12 A. Certainly. (Handed) Thank you very much.
13 Q. That, as you will see from the bundle, begins at page 1
14 and you can see that it runs through to 12 pages. There
15 were some parts added at the end, lists of samples, but
16 12 pages including the drawing at the end.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Was that what you were given a copy of when you were in
19 Paris; do you remember?
20 A. To the best of my recollection, it was certainly
21 something similar to this, yes.
22 Q. Right, and could well have been that?
23 A. Could well have been, yes.
24 Q. Whilst you were in Paris at this time -- again I am
25 looking at your statement, Professor -- you say that you

21

1 were shown the toxicology reports of Dr Pepin.
2 A. I was, yes.
3 Q. Can you help us with what you were shown at that time,
4 when you were in Paris? So this is some time between
5 the 2nd and the 5th; that follows, doesn't it?
6 A. Yes, it was. I believe I was -- I can't remember the
7 exact document, but I believe that I was shown
8 a document which stated the concentration of alcohol
9 that was present in Henri Paul's body.
10 Q. Will you have copies of the documents or will somebody
11 have copies of the documents that you were given at the
12 time?
13 A. I am sure someone will have copies of those documents in
14 order to verify it.
15 Q. Could you find those for us or ask somebody to do it,
16 not now, but in due course?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. All right. Is this right, that when in Paris you
19 recommended that opinion should be sought from
20 toxicology experts and a further forensic pathology
21 expert?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. When you were in Paris, did you also ask that further
24 samples be taken and tested by an independent
25 laboratory?

22

1 A. Correct.
2 Q. You say in your statement that that was refused --
3 A. It was, yes.

How come this Inquest is questioning people who don't even had the original document in their hands ? The professor didn't get the chance to take samples of the body to conclude the alcohol effects. If there were nothing to hide, why did they refuse ?

[Mermaid1962]

According to Burrell's first book, he personally decided to go to Paris to do his last duties for the Princess. He wasn't sent by anyone. If people had gone into Diana's apartment at Kensington Palace to search, others would have known about it or seen something, IMO.

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

I wonder, too. Especially as this goes from one point to the next, then back aso.

But there is definately something fishy about these letters from prince Philip. Let me amuse you with my very own conspiracy theory.

I bet the moment the news came that Diana had died in Paris someone at the Royal Household decided that it had to be done something about her papers. She was considered a "loose cannon" (for whatever reasons) and she definately had papers worth to go into safekeeping (maybe a diary, but at least her divorce papers - and who could have know what else this obviously slightly paranoid woman would collect in addition).

So Paul Burrell was informed and sent off to France and left Diana's apartments alone. That's the only reason I can think of why they sent him, a man and not her dresser or another dresser in Royal employ - it didn't seem appropriate to me at that time. I believe someone trusted by the Royal family, probably authorized by Charles who had become the sole guardian of his sons who were Diana's heirs, used this absence to go through Diana's papers. It's interesting that Paul Burrell said that he helped Diana filling her letters while Lady Sarah explained that they were not filled, just kept somehow. On returning Burrell realised what had happened. I think they didn't find the mahagonny box because as Lady Sarah explained, she never saw the key and thought it was just a low table and I think other people thought likewise.

I think Burrell used his knowledge to get a place at the Diana fund. In March 1998 Lady Sarah finally realised that the box contained papers. I doubt she knew about the machinations of the Royal Household, but had just be informed that Burrell knew too much and thus they had to find aplace for him and pay him the "legacy" which helped him to buy his house - for services to the late princess. So she gave in all innocense the "sensitive" papers to him for safekeeping till she could transport them to Althorp for the princes. I've no idea what happened to the papers then. And I don't think Lady Sarah told her sister or anyone else at the Royal Household about it.

Lady Sarah said she asked for them and Burrell, as long as he worked for the Diana-fund, said he had them and would give them back. But then he was "made redundant" (quote of Lady Sarah) and she could not longer ask him. I think at that point the Royal Household heard of these papers, namely the divorce papers plus the audiotapes about that rape. So they set the machinery in motion against Burrell. It's interesting that Lady Sarah said neither she nor her mother had reported theft, that police came and made inquirys on their own about a wedding gift that had been sold. The police inspector had to explain at the inquest why Paul Burrell was arrested for this theft, even though there was no proof he was involved in it. In that case the law allowed police to search his house without having a warrant and they took what they thought would give them more evidence against Paul Burrell. I don't buy the meager explanation he gave, if you can call it that. But police didn't find the papers. I seriously doubt they were interested in any letters by prince Philip back then.

The trial against Burrell started. There were media leaks which made the public quite interested in this trial. Now it turned out that Paul Burrell himself was behind the leaks - why? Officially he blamed police for the negative publicity he got, but I think at this point he had realised that the Royal Household was up against him and leaked information to the press as a way to protect himself and present him as a victim (The Diana-method).
At that stage I think the bargaining began and the RH found out that Burrell had copied letters Diana had gotten - copiers existed back then, so he very well could have done so. By that time the Philip-letters had become infamous IIRC and so they forced Burrell to give his material up in exchange for the queen to remember about the "safe-keeping". So Burrell was acquitted.

But he searched fro revenge and wrote his first Diana-book with the mentioned "secret" at the end - to taunt the enemy. I think he had learned a lot from Diana.

Back to Philip's letters. I think he wrote the four letters in 1992. I don't see him as a letter writer, so I don't wonder why there were not more. In 1992 he might still have hoped that there could be another solution than separation and he could help as a mediator. I doubt he would ever write nasty letters at a later point, he says things directly or cut people who displease him, he is not a poison pen-writer. IMHO, of course.

Lady Sarah has agreed to have the storage in Althorp searched for letters from prince Philip. She said that there were a lot of letters from all members of the Royal family kept for the princes and that she would see to it that these letters are checked again in case the Philip-letters are there. My guess is that the Philip-letters have returned to the RF a long time ago and it's probable that Lady Sarah finds them now. Plus some others who are friendly, to say the least.... I think the Royals have hoped that the inquest would not go that way, so never thought that these letters were needed in the original, but since Al-Fayed bases so much on them, there is the possibility that they are "found" now either at Windsor Castle or Althorp.

I bet Paul Burrell's second book was not only to generate more money for him but to back away from the "secret"-stuff. With the way the inquest was fired by him with the "Burrell"-note, he surely attracted once more attention within the RH and now he is afraid. At least that was my impression of his appearance at the inquest. I believe he had more copies of material he handed to the RH and used that for his book. But he doesn't want to make that public, thus he claimed he had destroyed what he had. I think he has realised that you don't temper with the RF in Britain.

That's my conspiracy-theory, based on the inquest-transcripts. I'm afraid I still believe that Diana was an embarrassment to the RF after the divorce, but not a real threat. I believe they knew she would never let information of her divorce papers leak to the press, that there was still a border for her she would not cross. And why should she? She had nothing to gain from it anymore. So Diana died through an accident. But the search for her papers makes for quite the thriller.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

According to Burrell's first book, he personally decided to go to Paris to do his last duties for the Princess. He wasn't sent by anyone. If people had gone into Diana's apartment at Kensington Palace to search, others would have known about it or seen something, IMO.

I don't think he took this decision alone. You can't decide on your own to go and dress the body of an ex-HRH without having the official permission and moreover, how morbid this idea sounds ! It looks like he was thrilled by being the big hero who dressed her to rest in her coffin. And how come this job was given to a man ... .

[TheTruth]

From : Diana driver 'had drink problem' - Yahoo! News UK

Quote :

The High Court jury heard that Mr Paul - who was driving the car in which Diana, Princess of Wales, was killed in 1997 - might not have appeared impaired because his body may have built up a tolerance to alcohol through heavy drinking.

CCTV footage shows Mr Paul on the night of August 30-31 1997 walking around the Ritz Hotel in Paris apparently unimpaired, even bending over to tie his shoe lace at one point.

But bar receipts from the hotel suggest he purchased two large measures of Ricard, a strong aniseed spirit.

Post-mortem tests indicated that he had been about three times the French drink-drive limit. The jury heard that such levels would have left an "average man" looking "markedly impaired".

Bodyguard Kes Wingfield, who was with Mr Paul in the hotel bar, has told the jury he had not smelt drink on Mr Paul's breath but added that this may be because he "stank" of cigars.

Now that's really interesting because the high level of carbon monoxide may be justified by the fact that Henri Paul was a smoker :

Hearing of this morning :
16 Q. I don't think there is anything we are going to need to
17 look at in the detail of it, but, for example, on
18 17th November 1998 you deal again with the question of
19 carbon monoxide. You deal with the level that is likely
20 to be found in smokers;

If he drank too much and smoked, there's no real doubt on the unreliability of the autopsy ...

[iowabelle]

I always wondered why Burrell claimed to have dressed the princess. It seems distasteful for an unrelated male to have done this -- after all, he wouldn't have dressed her while she was alive, would he?

I can understand his impulse to go and sit with her body, though, especially if he felt that she was abandoned by the Royal Family.

[iowabelle]

Originally Posted by selrahc4

Diana thought al Fayed spied on her

I wouldn't be surprised if Diana were right about this. I think many wealthy people are suspicious of those around them, concerned about theft, etc. And I could certainly see al Fayed wanting to head the princess off if he thought she was going to dump Dodi.

[iowabelle]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

I have to say that I don't get it. It's not even clear to me who has a degree in law what the inquest is actually trying to establish at the moment. It seems they were talking about the Burrell-trial, are still looking for the letters that Diana had gotten and check into the Burrell-claims that he himself was bugged as well. Or so. But I'm not really sure they are talking about press leaks which occurred before and at the Burrell-trial or if they talk about the bugging of Diana or what. I'll try to read it again, maybe it becomes a bit clearer then.

Excuse the third post. I have to agree, Jo. Having worked as a trial attorney I don't understand the relevance of some of this testimony -- and some of the witnesses. It's certainly not the way I would have run the inquest.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

I always wondered why Burrell claimed to have dressed the princess. It seems distasteful for an unrelated male to have done this -- after all, he wouldn't have dressed her while she was alive, would he?

I thought Burnell did not dress the princess. I thought the undertakers did. What I thought was strange was that Burnell did not bring clothes for Diana, Princess of Wales to be put in. The clothes she wore home were borrowed.

Originally Posted by iowabelle

I can understand his impulse to go and sit with her body, though, especially if he felt that she was abandoned by the Royal Family.

Yes I agree iowabelle

[pinkie40]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Because I think al-Fayed's motive was in making sure that Diana's paranoia was seen as very real and very sane and not the mad ravings of an insane woman and he wanted to bolster the claim that Diana was killed because her relationship was serious with Dodi.

The easiest way to discredit al-Fayed's position was to make Diana's fears seem like the paranoid fears of a madwoman and the relationship with Dodi as a summer fling. If the jury believed that, then they would believe none of what al-Fayed claimed.

Diana felt "safe" in some sense of her being or she would have not dispensed of her constant Scotland Yard trained presence. She just didn't feel she needed to be constantly shadowed...which probably became a huge nuisance to her.

I believe she did have some sort of feelings for Dodi..and whether she kept company for a 2 hour tea party or a two month summer jaunt, any time at all spent in the presence of an Al-Fayed must have upset the Establishment/Royal Family.

[pinkie40]

In the remaining weeks of the inquest, will there be a questioning of such entities such as the IRA, etc., to rule out the possibility that Diana was a target of assassintion by a terroristic faction known to focus on the British Royals?

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by georgiea

I thought Burnell did not dress the princess. I thought the undertakers did. What I thought was strange was that Burnell did not bring clothes for Diana, Princess of Wales to be put in. The clothes she wore home were borrowed.

I think he did dress her. Isn't there a law or a protocol stuff where it's said that a Royal must be dressed by an official person ? But since Diana was no longer a member of the RF, it may have been difficult to do everything conventionally. Here's a link (THE BURRELL CASE: PROFILE - Paul Burrell ; Loyal to the end, a `rock' | Independent, The (London) | Find Articles at BNET.com) where you can read :

Quote : The night Diana was killed, Mr Burrell chose a black suit by Catherine Walker from her wardrobe, packed it in a small suitcase and took it to Paris.He recalled that, at the morgue, "I knew for sure it was the Princess as soon as I saw her red toenails. She used to walk around Kensington Palace in her bare feet. The first thing she did when she came through the door was kick her shoes off." He flew back with the coffin, and the night before the funeral stayed with it until dawn.

Honestly, I wouldn't have had his strength and I think not many people here would be enough courageous to do it either. So I'm a little suspicious on him telling the plain truth and it's even stranger that no one stood against his will of staying alone next to her coffin all this time !
Or it confirms that not a single person was wishing or asking to stay next to her ...

[Fabulous Fake]

I enjoyed reading your speculation Jo of Palatine.

[ghost_night554]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

From this morning hearing transcripts (30 January 2008) : Questions from MR HILLIARD to PROFESSOR PETER VANEZIS



How come this Inquest is questioning people who don't even had the original document in their hands ? The professor didn't get the chance to take samples of the body to conclude the alcohol effects. If there were nothing to hide, why did they refuse ?

I'm not entirely sure but I beleive Operation Pagat touched base on why they refused for the independant study on the blood samples. I don't think I fully understood what they were trying to say but I think it was something along the lines of the papers were never filed on time or something like that I can't remember exactly.

So I'm a little suspicious on him telling the plain truth

I think he was telling the truth but just because when the inquest first started I had read an excert from the book "the day Diana died" and whoever wrote the book talked about Mr. Burrell staying with Diana and bringing her clothes etc.


I'm also puzzled as to why the BRF would need her letters to Prince Phillip like did they really think they would leak or something? I sure hope they are "found" before the inquest is over just so everything can be cleared up.

Btw When does the inquest end? Can it run longer than 6 months if needed?

[LadyCat]

Apparently I'm not the only one who feels the only "conspiracy" is the conspiracy of Mohammad al Fayed to blame/frame Prince Phillip and/or the government for the deaths of his son and Diana. Too much has come to light regarding his efforts to engineer a conspiracy--trying to persuade Trevor Rees to remember certain things, Keiran's testimony at the inquest, whomever it was earlier in the inquest who asked someone high up in the Ritz management why the jeweler who sold Dodi the ring was lying about it, the security guy at Villa Windsor that testified MF told him to lie about Diana and Dodi's visit to the Villa, and other niggling little things that escape me for the moment. The amazing thing is that most of these instances occurred within a day or two of the deaths of Diana and Dodi. It was as if he was determined from the moment of their deaths that someone was going to pay for the death of his son and he chose Prince Phillip as his scapegoat.

Did MF think no one would reveal his attempts to create facts? When he pressed for this inquest did he not consider that these things would come to light? Does he honestly think the people sitting in the jury box aren't coming to the same conclusions some of us have? Does he think his wealth and power are such that he can overcome the evidence of his witness tampering, so to speak? Is he planning to give testimony at the inquest? And if he does testify and says everyone who has claimed he asked them to lie is lying would anyone really take him seriously? Does he even think at all?

My opinion is that Diana was not pregnant, nor was she planning to marry Dodi and that their deaths resulted from a tragic car accident. MF has deluded himself for over 10 years and in his own mind I am certain he can no longer distinguish fact from the fiction he created and has elaborated on for those 10 years.

Once the inquest is over and the jury has spoken hopefully Princes William and Harry can have some peace of mind. If nothing else, perhaps they can find a way to have those awful "memorials" removed from Harrods!

Just my few cents worth.

Cat