The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008

[pinkie40]

I say Paul was drunk on some if his own "Butler's Special" tipple when he was ranting about "red herrings"!!! He discredits himself then and there!

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by pinkie40

I say Paul was drunk on some if his own "Butler's Special" tipple when he was ranting about "red herrings"!!! He discredits himself then and there!

Burrell reminds me alot of Hewitt. Seriously, they both made some profit of their position in Diana's life and they both look silly, talking and answering about controversial issues. They are really thick and persevere in speaking their truth although, it's rare that it corresponds to what they had said 2 months earlier ...

Perhaps I'm the only one to see this similiarity but for me, they are so the same.

[pinkie40]

Can we add Simone Simmons to the group? Granted, all these people had the "inside scoop" and shared unique experiences with the princess but there should be a one book minimum on Diana, imo.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by pinkie40

Can we add Simone Simmons to the group? Granted, all these people had the "inside scoop" and shared unique experiences with the princess but there should be a one book minimum on Diana, imo.

Definitely. I think she's the worst of the bunch. She really went too far when claiming that Diana had slept with John-John .

[Panicgrl]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Burrell reminds me alot of Hewitt. Seriously, they both made some profit of their position in Diana's life and they both look silly, talking and answering about controversial issues. They are really thick and persevere in speaking their truth although, it's rare that it corresponds to what they had said 2 months earlier ...

Perhaps I'm the only one to see this similiarity but for me, they are so the same.

I completely agree with you. One is no better than the other. That's what really makes me feel so sorry for the late Princess - so many were willing to sell her out for a buck.

Seeing Burrell's Youtube promo cracks me up. He was a Butler for goodness sake!

[PadThaiPrincess]

Originally Posted by Panicgrl

I completely agree with you. One is no better than the other. That's what really makes me feel so sorry for the late Princess - so many were willing to sell her out for a buck.

Seeing Burrell's Youtube promo cracks me up. He was a Butler for goodness sake!

Money changes things, doesn't it? I just wonder what Princess Diana would think of her "rock" now.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by PadThaiPrincess

Money changes things, doesn't it? I just wonder what Princess Diana would think of her "rock" now.

She would probably throw him in the middle of a lake.

[pinkie40]

Not trying to stir up a hornet's nest here, but if they can keep Prince Harry's whereabouts secret for 10 weeks or so in this day and age, I wonder what was kept a royal secret in the days before we all had the internet in 1997....

I'm just sayin'........

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by pinkie40

Not trying to stir up a hornet's nest here, but if they can keep Prince Harry's whereabouts secret for 10 weeks or so in this day and age, I wonder what was kept a royal secret in the days before we all had the internet in 1997....

I'm just sayin'........

It wasn't kept secret from the media, they agreed to keep it quiet in exchange for photo and interview opportunities, that they agreed would NOT be published until after his return!

[pinkie40]

Perhaps a similar such agreement has been made with the French and the paparazzi regarding Diana and thus no cooperation with testimony in the inquest. Since most of the photos from in the tunnel were confiscated....

Some sort of "Getlemen's Agreement".....

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by pinkie40

Perhaps a similar such agreement has been made with the French and the paparazzi regarding Diana and thus no cooperation with testimony in the inquest. Since most of the photos from in the tunnel were confiscated....

Some sort of "Getlemen's Agreement".....

I think we have seen that most journalist are unable to keep a secret that could cause dozens of deaths now, do you really think every single one of them would have been able to say no to a scoop of that magnitude?

[pinkie40]

No, but I do think (in my conspiracy theory mindset) perhaps James Andeson's agency failed to "comply"...Some of the others like Arthur Edwards knew the magnitude and severity of the photos they were receiving electronically from Paris that they were almost immediately destroyed....

I also believe (again in my conspiracy theory mindset) the accident could have been "assisted" by a media outlet to "create" news, only to have the whole thing result in a mindblowing tragedy...

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by pinkie40

No, but I do think (in my conspiracy theory mindset) perhaps James Andeson's agency failed to "comply"...Some of the others like Arthur Edwards knew the magnitude and severity of the photos they were receiving electronically from Paris that they were almost immediately destroyed....

I also believe (again in my conspiracy theory mindset) the accident could have been "assisted" by a media outlet to "create" news, only to have the whole thing result in a mindblowing tragedy...

If Diana had not died, make no mistake, the authors have said they would have used the pictures, if she had hung on for a day or two, again they would have been used. Arthur Edwards was merely a photographer and would not have been involved, IMO, in any decision regarding the publication of the 'death photo's'. The moment it was announced that she was dead and that she had been hounded by photographers, the only safe thing for the editors to do, was to shred them, although I am reasonable sure that hard copies still exist in newspaper vaults. Your theory of an accident to create news is, to me, a bit wacky. Nobody can tell how much damage a car accident will do to the driver or passengers and an awful lot of people would have had to be involved! Again, at some point, one of those involved would need some extra cash and leak the story.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

If Diana had not died, make no mistake, the authors have said they would have used the pictures, if she had hung on for a day or two, again they would have been used. Arthur Edwards was merely a photographer and would not have been involved, IMO, in any decision regarding the publication of the 'death photo's'. The moment it was announced that she was dead and that she had been hounded by photographers, the only safe thing for the editors to do, was to shred them, although I am reasonable sure that hard copies still exist in newspaper vaults. Your theory of an accident to create news is, to me, a bit wacky. Nobody can tell how much damage a car accident will do to the driver or passengers and an awful lot of people would have had to be involved! Again, at some point, one of those involved would need some extra cash and leak the story.

Oh yes, they were ready to publish them. Ken Lennox was one of the first who bought the pictures and received them via internet. He was very hesitant to delete them when he learnt that she had died and I still think he kept them somewhere. But imagine if she had survived ; she would be so sick to see that paparazzi sold pictures of her and her dead boyfriend and made them publish in the papers. What a disgusting world the gutter press ...

[Mermaid1962]

My amateur opinion is that he has some sort of pathological need to impress people by how close he was to the Princess and how much he knows. Perhaps he's beyond the point of being able to stop himself. He seems to have a compulsion to discuss his life with the Royals.

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I wonder why he didn't have the sense to keep his trap shut about misleading the coroner until after the end of the inquest.

[normalil]

To see that this thread has reached 66 pages shows the obsession which is still attatched to Diana. I find it all a complete waste of time...(I do believe that she was murdered because she was such a dangerous woman, but that her murder was nothing to do with any member of the Royal Family.) I have a lot of sympathy with what al Fayhed says, because he must be heart broken over the loss of his son, and the realisation that he will now be forever an outcast of the British establishment.
Diana was a person in love with herself I think, and to spend all this time and money on an inquest which will never change the minds of any of us, no matter what we think, is such a waste of time and money.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by normalil

to spend all this time and money on an inquest which will never change the minds of any of us, no matter what we think, is such a waste of time and money.

Hm, okay, it didn't change my mind but what about yours?

[Skydragon]

Phone lines were tampered with at a house where Prince Charles is believed to have had secret liaisons with Camilla Parker Bowles while still married to Diana, it was revealed yesterday.

Charles and Camilla's lovenest was bugged, Diana inquest told| News | This is London

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Phone lines were tampered with at a house where Prince Charles is believed to have had secret liaisons with Camilla Parker Bowles while still married to Diana, it was revealed yesterday.

Charles and Camilla's lovenest was bugged, Diana inquest told| News | This is London

From this article:

Lord Fellowes, who was then the Queen's private secretary, told the gathering in April 1993: "Evidence had been found that the fixed telephone lines had been tampered with.
"It was almost certain that this was the location where the Prince of Wales had been staying on the night of the alleged conversation between him and Mrs Parker Bowles."

and:
"The inquest heard that Charles made the call to Camilla, who was at her home in Wiltshire, on a mobile phone, not a landline."



Sorry, but I don't get it. If the landlines at that house were bugged but Charles, who stayed there, used a mobile - how could his call have been intercepted? And how could they find out the lines were bugged when the fact that the call had been intercepted only became public three years later? Is it believable that Charles and/or Camilla have such good memories as to figure out where they were when this call was made - after three years? With the Squidgygate-call, it was easy to put a date on it but with Camillagate there is not much to indicate when and from where they phoned. Well, okay, that talk about an ambulance strike and Andrew Parker Bowles occupation with it might have helped. Still, it's strange.




Well, IMHO even if it had been the SIS who listened in against orders (and we have such an amount of proof from around the world that Secret Service members tend to lie occasionally to their political superiors against the rules layed out for them) I guess that behaviour stopped once there was this internal check on orders of the queen. So as long as we are only interested in the inquest, IMHO we have heard enough to realise that no Secret Service was involved in monitoring Diana.

[ghost_night554]

Mr. Fayed's new claim is worse then all of them put together. Now he says the MI6 put on a "scare" plan in order to cause the car to crash in very few hours. As if! It still doesn't add up properly. Ugh! I'm so sick of him. I understand he lost his son but this is just beyond ridiculous.