The Verdict of the Diana Inquest, April 2008, and Aftermath

[ghost_night554]

Oh for christ sake leave the woman alone! It has been 13 years when will these stories end?

< ed - Warren. Removed patently ridiculous "news" story >

Tony Blair told Princess Diana her relationship with Dodi Fayed was a problem | Politics | guardian.co.uk

 

[Warren]

Guys, I've taken out all those posts discussing the "Hollywood psychic" who claims to have been introduced to Diana's spirit by the spirit of the Duchess of Windsor. I've also removed the "report" claiming that Prince Philip had Diana killed because she had refused his advances. For obvious reasons.

We don't need every piece of trash found on the internet to be repeated in these threads so I'd ask members to refrain from posting rubbish in the guise of "news" or to consider it worthy of comment.

thanks!

Warren
British Forums moderator

 

[queenofthelight]

Key Princess Diana witness Abdelatif Redjil exposed as common thief | Mail Online (01/11/10).

 

[ghost_night554]

This has to be THE best article ever written on the inquest
Stop the Diana Lies | Story | POWERWALL

Anyways reports have surfaced that the inquest is about to re-open
French court reopens Princess Diana's death case: Report - Times Of India

 

[ghost_night554]

Um I'm sorry when did this happen? I didn't know they re-opened the case! For God's sake Mr Fayed let it go!
Princess Diana inquiry: Lord Condon answers claims that he withheld evidence into death | Mail Online

 

[Mermaid1962]

This will live in the courts until Al Fayed and his lawyers run out of reasons to appeal. To an extent, I think that conspiracy theories about Diana's death will always be with us. There will always be those who have a "feeling" that she was murdered and will try to find something to support that.

 

[ghost_night554]

Actually as painful as it was for me to relive that night and I imagine for her children and her whole family, I wouldn't mind it being re-open, lemme explain why. Ok so you see people claim the inquest was done in England on purpose to hide evidence. Due to the fact the crash was in Paris they could not force witness' to attend the England inquest. If there is an inquiry held in France they could force everyone to come and testify hence hopefully it'll shut some people up about them trying to hide things by certain witness' not coming. I hope that made sense. Plus that author hasn't helped much with his what is it 5 part book series about the inquest, tho I personally have never read any of them myself.

 

[NGalitzine]

Mr Fayed will never give up, he cannot accept that his son and heir was killed in a car accident. Of course he clooses to overlook what in a civil court would be his own responsibilities in the death....owner of The Ritz, owner of the Mercedes Benz, and employer of Henri Paul.

 

[bethaliz6894]

i thought the reason it took so long for england to do their inquiry was because france had to get done with all of theirs?

 

[corazon]

Mr Fayed will never give up, he cannot accept that his son and heir was killed in a car accident. Of course he clooses to overlook what in a civil court would be his own responsibilities in the death....owner of The Ritz, owner of the Mercedes Benz, and employer of Henri Paul.

it's true but that night the last decition have dodi, no mohmed.

 

[NGalitzine]

True it was Dodi's decisions ( which he father would never admit was at fault) but ultimately Mohammed was the owner and employer and could be sued or at least The Ritz company could be sued as Henri Pauls employer.

 

[Mirabel]

Actually as painful as it was for me to relive that night and I imagine for her children and her whole family, I wouldn't mind it being re-open, lemme explain why. Ok so you see people claim the inquest was done in England on purpose to hide evidence. Due to the fact the crash was in Paris they could not force witness' to attend the England inquest. If there is an inquiry held in France they could force everyone to come and testify hence hopefully it'll shut some people up about them trying to hide things by certain witness' not coming. I hope that made sense. Plus that author hasn't helped much with his what is it 5 part book series about the inquest, tho I personally have never read any of them myself.

It won't make any difference; people believe what they want to believe, and some want to believe there was some huge conspiracy to murder Diana and Dodi.

 

[ghost_night554]

i thought the reason it took so long for england to do their inquiry was because france had to get done with all of theirs?

From what I remember around that time alot of the delay was due to the fact they kept switching judges as well as Mr. Fayed's lawyer needing more time to process evidence and such. From what I recall an inquest is mandatory in England, I believe the original investigation done by France was concluded in 98 and then the British inquiry concluded which was Operation Pagat in 06 and right after that in late 07 the inquest began and concluded in early 08 since then Mr. Fayed has been trying to reopen the case ever since he endorsed that book written by John Morgan

It won't make any difference; people believe what they want to believe, and some want to believe there was some huge conspiracy to murder Diana and Dodi.

I know there are some people who just won't believe otherwise but there are ALOT of people out there who are just not informed about the case and base their opinions largely around what they have told over the years and much of that was merely speculation that came out in the early days.

 

[Mermaid1962]

What could he be sued for? The wrongful death of Henri Paul and Diana Princess of Wales? In that case, I assume that the families would sue. I can't imagine William and Harry or the Spencers wanting to bring this into the courts again. Could the Pauls even afford to sue? Nothing monetary was lost.

True it was Dodi's decisions ( which he father would never admit was at fault) but ultimately Mohammed was the owner and employer and could be sued or at least The Ritz company could be sued as Henri Pauls employer.

 

[NGalitzine]

I meant the family of the Princess, but of course they would not have wanted to draw any more attention than necessary. As the owner of the Ritz Fayed would have been responsible for the actions of his employees, in this case a drunk driver behind the wheel of a vehicle.
It would be similar to where you go to a party and over indulge in alcohol, drive home and get in an accident. Your host can be held responsible because they allowed you to drive. Cases have been brought against companies that host staff parties where booze is served, and against bars that over serve customers, where accidents or deaths have resulted when the drunk individual got behind the wheel and caused an accident. The Ritz allowed a drunk driver, even though he may not have appeared drunk, to get behind the wheel and drive.Even without the drink aspect it was The Ritz limousine being driven at high speed by a Ritz employee.
It would be interesting to pursue the case and put Mohammed Fayed in the dock and charge him with responsibility for the death of the princess and of his own son.

 

[Mermaid1962]

That's another unfortunate thing about this whole case: al Fayed will never be held to account for his circulating and reinforcing the conspiracy theories. As with other sudden deaths of famous people, conspiracy theories were bound to form around the Paris accident; however, in this case, I think that al Fayed fanned the flames into a real inferno.

 

[MARG]

While it is true Al Fayed has fanned the "Conspiracy" flames we should not forget that of those in the car the only survivor was wearing a seatbelt. Surely knowing the press were in hot pursuit would encourage one to "buckle up"? It didn't. They didn't. And here we are today fighting a losing battle with the conspiracy theorists.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

In the inquest, I believe it came out that there were no seat belts in the back seat of that older (and usually not used-by-Diana) Mercedes.

I could be misremembering - it was a lot to read. The car had been serviced and the records from that service company were produced; one thing they noted was "no seatbelts in the back," which is apparently not unusual for older cars that have been used for hire in the past. They might have worn out or become non-functional (or impossible to buckle, that's happened with ours sometimes).

But I do remember thinking that we could no longer blame Diana for not buckling up. She wasn't the one who made the car decision - Dody did, and he changed to that car at the last minute on the advice of the now-dead driver. At least, that's what I remember the inquest saying.

 

[MARG]

In the inquest, I believe it came out that there were no seat belts in the back seat of that older (and usually not used-by-Diana) Mercedes.

I could be misremembering - it was a lot to read. The car had been serviced and the records from that service company were produced; one thing they noted was "no seatbelts in the back," which is apparently not unusual for older cars that have been used for hire in the past. They might have worn out or become non-functional (or impossible to buckle, that's happened with ours sometimes).

But I do remember thinking that we could no longer blame Diana for not buckling up. She wasn't the one who made the car decision - Dody did, and he changed to that car at the last minute on the advice of the now-dead driver. At least, that's what I remember the inquest saying.

An inquest headed by Lord Justice Scott Baker into the deaths of Diana and Dodi began at the Royal Courts of Justice, London, on 2 October 2007 and was a continuation of the original inquest that began in 2004.[7] On 7 April 2008, the jury released an official statement that Diana and Dodi were unlawfully killed by the "grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes" adding that additional factors were "the impairment of the judgment of the driver of the Mercedes through alcohol" and "the death of the deceased was caused or contributed to by the fact that the deceased was not wearing a seat-belt, the fact that the Mercedes struck the pillar in the Alma Tunnel, rather than colliding with something else".

Throughout all the inquests and enquires during this this period, I cannot imagine anything as important as a total lack of seat belts in the back of the car would have been overlooked and not made the front page on every newspaper in the English speaking world.

 

[Tyger]

Throughout all the inquests and enquires during this this period, I cannot imagine anything as important as a total lack of seat belts in the back of the car would have been overlooked and not made the front page on every newspaper in the English speaking world.

You mistake her importance to the English-speaking world, then. Such information is not front page news - if it were, I'd question our priorities. TRF is a bit of a bubble.

 

[Kataryn]

But I do remember thinking that we could no longer blame Diana for not buckling up. She wasn't the one who made the car decision - Dody did, and he changed to that car at the last minute on the advice of the now-dead driver. At least, that's what I remember the inquest saying.

I have yet to see a Mercedes still driving (except for rare vintage cars) that has no seat belts in the back. AFAIK Mercedes introduced them around 1970. At that time they were a very special extra for chauffeur driven limousines.

Safety belts for the front seats were introduced around 1960. From 1974 you did not only have to have seat belts in the front seats but you had to use them. In 1979 it became law in Germany that each new car had to have seat belts in the backseats and the passenger had to use them

I highly doubt any car rental would offer a Mercedes older than 18 years to the Ritz hotel (1979-1997)... So of course Diana's car had seatbelts in the back seats.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There were seatbelts in the back seat.

Dodi and Diana chose not to wear them and died as a result. It was their decision not to put them on - they were breaking the law I believe and it cost them their lives.

It was regularly reported that Diana didn't wear her seatbelt that night - at the time, at the enquiries, at the inquest etc.

 

[cinrit]

You mistake her importance to the English-speaking world, then. Such information is not front page news - if it were, I'd question our priorities. TRF is a bit of a bubble.

I don't know about the rest of the English-speaking world, but Diana's death, along with all the relevant available information, made the front page news of the "Washington Post" ... on a Sunday morning.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I turned on the radio Sunday morning, and the first thing I heard was an announcer solemnly saying, "The Death of a Princess." The last I'd heard the night before was that she and the bodyguard had been injured and Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul were dead. The story was out almost immediately that M. Paul was drunk and evading the paparazzi. I don't remember anything about a seat belt at that point.

 

[Tyger]

I don't know about the rest of the English-speaking world, but Diana's death, along with all the relevant available information, made the front page news of the "Washington Post" ... on a Sunday morning.

Yes, her actual death at the time - of course - it was a huge tragedy dealt a famous individual. I was referring to information coming out of the inquest. A poster was indicating that lack of seat belts would have been front page news all over the English-speaking world. I was saying no - that's my opinion. News of the inquest itself was confined to 'Entertainment Tonight' kind of shows. I know I rarely heard anything about it - and never heard about any of the results. I learned about it later and in passing and even today have only the fuzziest sense of all that inquest stuff.

 

[olebabs]

The whole circus Mr Fayed has brought about is to me a show of a guilty conscience. Just think to have to live with the knowledge that you are partly responsible for killing your own son AND Diana.

 

[MARG]

You mistake her importance to the English-speaking world, then. Such information is not front page news - if it were, I'd question our priorities. TRF is a bit of a bubble.

You mistake my meaning. I was referring specifically tp the information "That there were NO seatbelts in the back of the car", had emerged from the inquests and inquiries.

Now that would have been new information. New news, and, as such, would have lead the news.

 

[Baroness of Books]

I can't speak for the occupants of the car and I don't know what may have transpired and what their state of mind was during that tragic and tumultuous car ride, but if I were a passenger in the backseat seeing how the driver was speeding up and behaving recklessly, if I didn't have my seatbelt on that time I'd sure as hell be buckling up in a hurry. At least, I hope I'd have the presence of mind to do that IF seatbelts were available. And if I were the bodyguard who was sitting in the front seat (who was wearing his seatbelt, BTW), that's what I'd be telling Diana and Dodi to do.

 

[Tyger]

You mistake my meaning. I was referring specifically to the information "That there were NO seatbelts in the back of the car", that had emerged from the inquests and inquiries.

Now that would have been new information. New news, and, as such, would have lead the news.

I understood you and IMO it would not have led the news. It simply is not that significant to a world. It probably would have led the news in the UK and its Dominions - but not elsewhere. She just was not that significant.

I can't speak for the occupants of the car and I don't know what may have transpired and what their state of mind was during that tragic and tumultuous car ride, but if I were a passenger in the backseat seeing how the driver was speeding up and behaving recklessly, if I didn't have my seatbelt on that time I'd sure as hell be buckling up in a hurry. At least, I hope I'd have the presence of mind to do that IF seatbelts were available. And if I were the bodyguard who was sitting in the front seat (who was wearing his seatbelt, BTW), that's what I'd be telling Diana and Dodi to do.

They were all drunk, correct?

 

[scooter]

Diana was famously a teetotaler, so no.