The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ghost_night554

I could see this being his secret but anyways it's not the ring everyone claims was supposed to be the engagement ring. Is she wearing it on her marriage hand, with greeks it's on the opposte hand then with everyone else don't ask me why so I could never figure out which hand is the one for us and which is for everyone else that's why I'm asking.

An engagement ring or wedding band is worn on the third finger of the left hand. It looks to be a simple dress ring.

[TheTruth]

For me, there's one and only ring bought in Repossi and even if it was supposed to be an engagement ring, I doubt Diana would have said yes.
But I can't figure out why Burrell would take this ring away. This man gives me the creeps ...

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

For me, there's one and only ring bought in Repossi and even if it was supposed to be an engagement ring, I doubt Diana would have said yes.
But I can't figure out why Burrell would take this ring away. This man gives me the creeps ...

I just can't see Diana accepting a ring that was 'one of a range' available in a variety of their shops. She would at the least have wanted an exclusive, IMO.

If Burrell did steal a ring from Diana's body, along with the other items he was 'looking after', (but hid at a neighbours), it casts further doubt on his honesty, IMO.

[ghost_night554]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

An engagement ring or wedding band is worn on the third finger of the left hand. It looks to be a simple dress ring.

Thanks And yes I thought that it looks to be just a simple dress ring as well.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

An engagement ring or wedding band is worn on the third finger of the left hand. It looks to be a simple dress ring.

That rng was discussed at length at the inquest - it's part of a set by Bulgari (including a watch and a bracelet) which was given to Diana by Dodi during their trip. Paul Burrell took the ring with him back to London where it was stored in Diana's apartment at Kensington Place till her sister Lady Sarah took it with her to Althorp to be kept for the princes.

The ring was identified on pictures of Diana landing in Le Bourget after her trip to Sardinia by Burrell and by her sister, so there is no doubt that this was not an engagement ring but just part of a set which was, while expensive, nowhere near the value of an engagement ring.

[ghost_night554]

Ah! that makes sense, thanks for clearing that up^ Ok I'm about to go a tad bit off topic here but I spent my morning staring at pics of Diana in St. Tropez and I just can't help but wondering am I right to assume her small "bulge"that they claim is her pregnancy bump was from her being on birth control. I know in the past when she wore swimsuits like that nothing ever really showed, and she was always very fit so I'm taking that from what we know it was most likely caused by the birth control she was on? I know recently studies have said weight gain or w/e is not caused by birth control but I personally gained weight very quickly when I went on it. And back then it was 1997 so it wasn't as advanced as now. Ok wow now I'm blabbing. Is it fair to assume it was from that. In case anyone is wondering I'm not trying to criticize Diana in any way with what I said, lordy I know if I was her I would never be able to look that fabulous.

[Picmajik]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Is there no justice in the world. I sincerely hope I never meet Burrell 'cos it'd be so worth the assault charge.

and friends here would put up the bail for you especially if you got good video of that smackdown

[LadyCat]

Originally Posted by ghost_night554

Ah! that makes sense, thanks for clearing that up^ Ok I'm about to go a tad bit off topic here but I spent my morning staring at pics of Diana in St. Tropez and I just can't help but wondering am I right to assume her small "bulge"that they claim is her pregnancy bump was from her being on birth control. I know in the past when she wore swimsuits like that nothing ever really showed, and she was always very fit so I'm taking that from what we know it was most likely caused by the birth control she was on? I know recently studies have said weight gain or w/e is not caused by birth control but I personally gained weight very quickly when I went on it. And back then it was 1997 so it wasn't as advanced as now. Ok wow now I'm blabbing. Is it fair to assume it was from that. In case anyone is wondering I'm not trying to criticize Diana in any way with what I said, lordy I know if I was her I would never be able to look that fabulous.

If you look closely at pictures of Diana in form fitting dresses you will notice that "bump" has been there since after the birth of Prince Harry. Sometimes women have a hard time losing that post baby bulge.

Some of these photos show it quite well.

Getty Images - Unsupported browser detected#

Cat

[Mermaid1962]

Some have suspected that she was taking The Pill in 1987 because she gained some weight that year. Her face looked fuller.

Originally Posted by ghost_night554

Ah! that makes sense, thanks for clearing that up^ Ok I'm about to go a tad bit off topic here but I spent my morning staring at pics of Diana in St. Tropez and I just can't help but wondering am I right to assume her small "bulge"that they claim is her pregnancy bump was from her being on birth control. .

[pinkie40]

Had she worn the ring on the middle finger of the right hand that would have been different than her wearing the ring on the ring finger of the right hand, imo. The ring finger of the right hand is traditionally the wedding ring finger in the Orthodox Church and Diana knew that...

[Jo of Palatine]

I really have the impression that the inquest is speeding up now due to activity by Fayed. Of course it was to be expected as we all know form American jury dramas that it's the last impressions that count more than the first. Probably Fayed has some more information waiting to be introduced to the inquest. Just like the phone list just recently supplied by the Ritz which his lawyer used to reverberate the credibility of a former employee at the Ritz. Or the Broccoli statement.

Now it turns out that the former bodyguard of Paul Burrell who made really interesting observations while claiming he didn't want to breach a confidentality agreement had still talked to Harrods' lawyers before contacting the inquest. I bet this whole talk about this agreement is used to signal to others to come forward if they have something to tell and not to be afraid. Yes, there is IMHO a probability that Burrell had lots of papers from Diana in his possession and kept them with a confidante during his trial and that he destroyed this evidence once he was acquitted.

But why should he claim that the ring he brought with him from Paris was an engagement ring and that he had removed it from Diana's finger, that the ring was bloddied with Diana's blood, so a DNA-analysis could prove it really was hers - why that when it turned out that the ring had a perfectly understandible explanation which noone questions any further? Okay, Burrell is said to have claimed that in 2002 and the evidence of the ring only came out with the Paget-report, but still, why should he except to make himself appear more interesting?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

But why should he claim that the ring he brought with him from Paris was an engagement ring and that he had removed it from Diana's finger, that the ring was bloddied with Diana's blood, so a DNA-analysis could prove it really was hers - why that when it turned out that the ring had a perfectly understandible explanation which noone questions any further? Okay, Burrell is said to have claimed that in 2002 and the evidence of the ring only came out with the Paget-report, but still, why should he except to make himself appear more interesting?

As we have heard from editors and various witnesses, there was very little blood from Diana and the few pictures I saw on the Ch4 programme would back that up, so even that leads you to question the truth of Burrells claims.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by pinkie40

Had she worn the ring on the middle finger of the right hand that would have been different than her wearing the ring on the ring finger of the right hand, imo. The ring finger of the right hand is traditionally the wedding ring finger in the Orthodox Church and Diana knew that...

On what do you base the assumption that Diana would have known about any traditions of the Orthodox church and of course which one, Greek, Antioch, Russian, etc? I am genuinly curious.

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

As we have heard from editors and various witnesses, there was very little blood from Diana and the few pictures I saw on the Ch4 programme would back that up, so even that leads you to question the truth of Burrells claims.

These are not actually Burrells' claims but rather those of his former body guard who just testified at the inquest. He claims this is what Burrell told him. A statement from Burrell refutes all that the former body guard claims.
The body guard's testimony isn't all that reliable as it came out that he's been trying to sell his story to the media but is bound by a confidentiality agreement that he signed. If he testifies at the inquest he is no longer bound by the confidentiality agreement ( the information is in the public domain) and then the body guard is free to sell his story.

[BeatrixFan]

On what do you base the assumption that Diana would have known about any traditions of the Orthodox church and of course which one, Greek, Antioch, Russian, etc? I am genuinly curious.

Well Charles has always been enamoured with Orthodoxy. The Greek/Russian thing is a matter of location AFAIK. For example, the Serbian Orthodox Church is an autocephalous branch of Orthodoxy which will be culturally Serb but religiously Orthodox. It's the culture part that denotes which finger the wedding ring is worn on and that varies between Orthodox believers depending on where the jurisdiction is based. Traditionally, Orthodox Christians will wear their rings on the right but this is more Eastern European influence than religious symbolism. So congregants of the British Orthodox Church might wear their wedding rings on a different hand to congregants of the Greek Orthodox Church but they're still both Orthodox and have had Orthodox weddings. Diana could always have copied from Queen Anne-Marie whom she spent time with but I doubt that Diana would be leaning towards Orthodoxy at all.

[LadyCat]

Does anyone know what this is referring to? Evidently Mo Fayed gave false testimony as pointed out at the close of the inquest yesterday by Mr. Phillips.

17 MR PHILLIPS: Sir, may I say a word?
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
19 MR PHILLIPS: I am referring to the statement of
20 Mr Martin Smith which was read just now by
21 Mr Ian Burnett.
22 I was present in court when Mr Al Fayed gave his
23 evidence and I was struck by it. It now turns out that
24 it was completely untrue and I would like to know how it
25 came about that this pack of lies was not corrected

156

1 sooner.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Mansfield?
3 MR MANSFIELD: Well, sir, I was not in a position since
4 I was not involved in that case. There have been
5 enquiries made, as you know, up until last Friday.
6 I was not aware of the upshot of those. There was
7 a question of an embargo and so forth.
8 I will obviously take instructions and give a full
9 explanation if required but, certainly, I am not at the
10 moment in possession of the relevant material.
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Hopefully by tomorrow you
12 might be.
13 MR MANSFIELD: Yes, certainly.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
15 Half past 9 then, tomorrow, members of the jury.
16 (3.30 pm)
17 (The hearing was adjourned until 9.30 am

[TheTruth]

If it were an engagement ring, Diana wouldn't have worn it on the right hand. By going out with Dodi she wanted to shock and attract attention on her. Wearing a ring on the left hand would have create a great tabloid news and she would have had the certitude of reigning on the front pages for a long time. This ring was, for me, just a friendship ring that she wore to please Dodi who gave it to her.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

As we have heard from editors and various witnesses, there was very little blood from Diana and the few pictures I saw on the Ch4 programme would back that up, so even that leads you to question the truth of Burrells claims.

If he made these claims at all. The questioning of this bodyguard named Faux (sic!) is interesting as it can be read that he was "encouraged" by the Fayed-people to claim things he didn't actually witnessed. He obviously made a statement to police in March 2007 and only after he had talked to the Fayed-people (including MacNamara who had obviously lied to the police before according to the inquest data) he included the bit of the "engagement ring" and the "type-writer written letters". He even acknowledged that the people at Harrods informed him of the significance of this "observation". Later he said that he was willing to sell his story, so who says he did not already sell his witness statement of Fayed. The Coroner was rather displeased that a witness had first talked to an interested party and been briefed by them before he could be interviewed at the inquest.

Ah, and I found out that I had gotten it wrong: the Bulgari "friendship" ring which Burrell said he had left in the pantry at Kensington Palace after his return from Paris has not been found by Lady Sarah but has disappeared. So IMHO there could be a bit of truth in the fact that Burrell still had the ring in 2002/2003 but got rid of it, but that Faux, who knew that Burrell had a ring, changed his story to back up Fayed's claims.

I think the Coroner and his team is doing a really good job on trying to figure out what is the truth and what is "doubtable credibility" of some witnesses. I have the impression that the only person who is willing to spend money for lies is Fayed, that the solicitors for Henri Paul's parents try to shift blame away from Henri Paul and that all other parties involved are trying to figure out the truth as well as they are able to do.

I got quite a good picture of what really happened, what is absolutely clear and what is still diffuse but according to my views the jury will come to the verdict that it was an accident.

[LadyCat]

I am in total agreement with Jo of Palatine. Credibility is always key and if we can figure out who is credible and who is not, the jury should have no problems in that regard as well. I think, despite his best efforts to shift the blame and re-write events, Mo Fayed is not going to like what the jury concludes at the end of the day. Burrell is hardly credible, the jeweler from whom the ring was purchased is suspect, Fayed lacks any credibility at all and certain witnesses are suspicious. Frankly, there just isn't any evidence that this was anything but a tragic accident that could have been avoided had certain people not gone to such lengths to avoid the unavoidable paparazzi.

Cat

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Well Charles has always been enamoured with Orthodoxy. The Greek/Russian thing is a matter of location AFAIK.

I did a google search and it appears to be different traditions within the various sects, there appear to be a number of 'orthodox' churches within just London. Of course it is only rumour that Charles leans towards orthodoxy in the past and I don't recall Diana being overly religious.