Well, and truthfully, even if the 'Establishment' answers any question 100%, the conspiracy theorists will not be satisfied. They'll just claim the 'Establishment' is lying, being paid off, or inventing whatever evidence supports their conclusion.
That's true. Mohammed al-Fayed even claims that Stevens was ''bribed'' by the ''secret agents'' who stole his computer. That's the price we pay because Stevens is so non-Establishment. The Establishment *must* be bribing him then. Got to get the 'E' word in there somehow.sassie said:Well, and truthfully, even if the 'Establishment' answers any question 100%, the conspiracy theorists will not be satisfied. They'll just claim the 'Establishment' is lying, being paid off, or inventing whatever evidence supports their conclusion.
gfg02 said:diana: Riddle Of 'lost' Charles File
Daily Express: The World's Greatest Newspaper :: News / Showbiz :: Diana: Riddle of 'lost' Charles file
In fact Blair can be arrested and charged while he is PM. The Queen is the only person who cannot be arrested, charged or questioned.Suonymona said:The same reason Tony Blair cannot be indicted for the peerages-for-cash scandal while he's still in office is the same reason the Royal Family will not be questioned in public about Diana's death.
Is he above the law then? I thought only the Queen had that protection. Is it extended to the consort as well?Skydragon said:I thought Prince Philip refused to speak or give a statement to the investigators.
The facts in evidence were investigated. No-one is going to interrogate the Duke of Edinborough as a murder suspect becase Mohammad Al Fayed says he's a murderer.scooter said:Is he above the law then? I thought only the Queen had that protection. Is it extended to the consort as well?
I agree with you that the Duke of Edinburgh and Prince of Wales shouldn't have needed to make statements, and you might be right about the Duke declining, but I thought I read in the Stevens report that both were at least consulted. Stevens said that all members of the royal family whom he consulted and had statements from (certainly Princes Charles and William, and I think Prince Philip too) were fully cooperative and he thanked them for this in the report. I don't blame the Duke if he didn't cooperate, but I imagine he wanted to give any help he could if for nothing else than to assist the process of closing the business!Skydragon said:I thought Prince Philip refused to speak or give a statement to the investigators.
sassie said:Al Fayed's accusations about Prince Philip aside, his claims about Diana's "pregnancy", her "engagement" to Dodi and that ridiculous statue inside Harrod's have shown very little respect for Diana herself or her memory.
I totally agree with you Vanesa. I'm sure one day we will know the truth about all this, even if it takes time .Vanesa said:People doesn't want to believe it. But sometimes, reality is more "fantasious" than fantasy itself...
You have only to wait until October unless Fayed comes up with anymore ploys.TheTruth said:I totally agree with you Vanesa. I'm sure one day we will know the truth about all this, even if it takes time .
The Truth
Skydragon said:You have only to wait until October unless Fayed comes up with anymore ploys.
Vanesa said:People doesn't want to believe it. But sometimes, reality is more "fantasious" than fantasy itself. I think we don't know what really happened with Diana this awful night. I'm sure (I see the accusations about the "conspirative minds" coming...but, oh, I'm used to them! ) that the real thing is very different than the one that official medias said to us, but it must also be different than the wild fantasies that are running here and there in peoples imagination.
Lets time to speak by itself. I'm sure that we'll be pretty surprised when we are aware of what happened in "Diana's case" (as well as other "unsolved" or "officially solved" other cases).
Vanesa.
sassie said:As I've said before, "we" is subjective. Perhaps YOU don't know what really happened that night-or don't believe the evidence-but not everyone shares that view. There are quite a few people who don't believe that the truth is anything more sinister than a tragic, avoidable accident.
Stevens spoke to Prince Phillip, who I believe declined to make a formal statement.CasiraghiTrio said:I agree with you that the Duke of Edinburgh and Prince of Wales shouldn't have needed to make statements, and you might be right about the Duke declining, but I thought I read in the Stevens report that both were at least consulted.
My guess would be the Olympics!Suonymona said:Which will end up being cheaper--the 2012 Olympics in England or the various inquests into the accident which killed Diana and two other people?
The way things are going - again the Olympics!Warren said:Which will be over first - the London Olympics or the Diana Inquest?
TheTruth said:I totally agree with you Vanesa. I'm sure one day we will know the truth about all this, even if it takes time .
The Truth
Jo of Palatine said:In my opinion, the inquest must come to the verdict that it was an accident. There is no other solution possible when one looks at the facts gathered by Lord Stevens with a juridical mind. Plus at the inquest all these statements and facts can be viewed anew, so even if Lord Stevens was a bit prejudiced, then is the time to look again and independently. I don't think something new will turn up to change the general view at the cause and effect-chain. After 10 years, every piece of information should be investigated and can now be checked, put into perspection and judged.
So when the verdict is: accidentally death, then this is as close to the truth as is possible to proof. That was it, then.
sassie said:As I've said before, "we" is subjective. Perhaps YOU don't know what really happened that night-or don't believe the evidence-but not everyone shares that view. There are quite a few people who don't believe that the truth is anything more sinister than a tragic, avoidable accident.