The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008

[Skydragon]

Accidental death--I still do not completely understand why the rantings of Al-Fayed were even taken seriously. It was tragic that she died so horrifically, it was tragic Dodi died in the same manner. But, let's end this thing. That being said, is there an end in sight any time soon?

Under normal circumstances the inquest would have been based on the report from France, but once Fayed and the Di Express started to accuse the Duke and MI6, it was deemed in the best interests of all concerned to hold a full investigation, followed by this very prolonged inquest. If there had been no accusations about the Royal Family, the inquest would have been based solely on the manner of her death, not the months and years leading up to it. I didn't like the woman, but I find it very sad that many of her involvements, faults and neurosis have been aired for all to hear, including her sons.

 

[Skydragon]

It is a legal requirement for there to be an inquest after an individual's death.

Perhaps if the authorities had had the good sense to do this 10 years ago, we wouldn't be seeing the kind of shambles and farce that this event has turned into.

The legal requirement is that an inquest is held for every Briton who dies abroad, but not for every person who dies in the UK.

The inquest here could not start until after the French investigation and all legal matters there had been concluded, which caused a significant delay. The inquest here could not start until after the full investigation of all allegations being leveled against the Duke, Charles etc. Therefore good sense had nothing to do with the delay.

 

[Russophile]

Under normal circumstances the inquest would have been based on the report from France, but once Fayed and the Di Express started to accuse the Duke and MI6, it was deemed in the best interests of all concerned to hold a full investigation, followed by this very prolonged inquest. If there had been no accusations about the Royal Family, the inquest would have been based solely on the manner of her death, not the months and years leading up to it. I didn't like the woman, but I find it very sad that many of her involvements, faults and neurosis have been aired for all to hear, including her sons.

Indeed!
I respected Diana for everything she did but I wasn't keen on her myself. It is too bad that Fayed and crew made it into such a circus. Can they get it behind them now? Or is he going to rear his ugly head up yet again?

 

[Charlotte1]

"During al-Fayed's testimony, he was asked if he was prepared to accept the verdict of the jury. Under oath al-Fayed stated that he would accept whatever the verdict the jury came up with. The Coroner in his summing up made sure he the jury were reminded, he told the jury that Mohammed al-Fayed had stated under oath that he would accept the verdict of the jury."


Yeah, right. Like that's going to happen. He will never believe it was an accident, because that would make him and his dim-witted son responsible for the death of Diana. He will charge "cover up" loudly and incessantly until he dies. And because he is so paranoid, any attempt to quash his rantings will (in his sick mind) be one more indication that Diana and Dodi were murdered, they are trying to silence him, they don't want the truth, etc. etc. etc., ad nauseam.

I agree that al Fayed is unlikely to go quietly but the fact that he on oath has stated that he will accept the ruling of the inquest. (To get him to say yes took the lawyer asking him a number of times, the lawyer was persistent) means that if al Fayed does complain and continue to persue his vendetta then he could also be liable for perjury charges. He lied under oath that he would accept the ruling of the inquest. Legal avenues have now been set up to persue him. That's also why the coroner made a point in his summing up of stating that what al Fayed had said under oath.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I agree that al Fayed is unlikely to go quietly but the fact that he on oath has stated that he will accept the ruling of the inquest. (To get him to say yes took the lawyer asking him a number of times, the lawyer was persistent) means that if al Fayed does complain and continue to persue his vendetta then he could also be liable for perjury charges. He lied under oath that he would accept the ruling of the inquest. Legal avenues have now been set up to persue him. That's also why the coroner made a point in his summing up of stating that what al Fayed had said under oath.

O, come on. As if that would stop Mo Fayed. He will simply claim to have got another bit of information pointing to murder and say that this changes the situation completely. I only wonder if the media will write about it. Probably yes - and there are so many people out there who don't care one bit about the basics of this case and are too lazy to get more information - they are bound to believe that the whole inquest was in vain because of that one piece of info Fayed will come up with. Believe me.

 

[Roslyn]

For the legal instructions on what choices are open to the Jury see:

http://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/docs/directions_handout_jury.pdf

Thank you for posting that link, GillW. I believe that the circumstances warrant a finding of unlawful killing due to grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes. There is no doubt Paul owed a duty of care to his passengers, and breached that duty, and I believe his driving was a significant cause of the crash and deaths. I believe his conduct went beyond mere negligence; I believe he drove with reckless indifference to an obvious risk of death to his passengers.

I suspect, however, that the finding will be accidental death.

 

[Roslyn]

Pinkie--you have raised a point I have never even considered--the ability of hte Princes to sue the Ritz--I mean, they could win that easily. The driver was intoxicated, didn't have the proper training for dealing with the paparazzi in this type of situation, etc....Whether they do it or not is another question, but I think they should consider it. Unless the statute of limitations has run out--

I think the limitation period would have expired years ago. Even if they could sue someone, I doubt they would, partly because the evidence would have to be given all over again before a civil court, and partly because the measure of damages may not be as high as people might think. The mere fact a child's parent is killed in a car accident due to someone else's negligence does not give that child an entitlement to a large chunk of money. There has to be financial dependency and financial loss attributable to the death. It could be argued that Diana's death has actually given William and Harry a financial benefit, since they have inherited a very large amount of money from their mother far earlier than they would otherwise have received it.

 

[Little_star]

The legal requirement is that an inquest is held for every Briton who dies abroad, but not for every person who dies in the UK.

The inquest here could not start until after the French investigation and all legal matters there had been concluded, which caused a significant delay. The inquest here could not start until after the full investigation of all allegations being leveled against the Duke, Charles etc. Therefore good sense had nothing to do with the delay.

IMRIC the French investigation concluded some time ago.

 

[Skydragon]

IMRIC the French investigation concluded some time ago.

The inquest was formally opened in 2004, according to this article printed January 7th, 2004.
Diana's death: Prince Charles may be questioned

He added the delay in launching the inquest was the result of an 'extremely lengthy' and detailed French judicial investigation, which was only now drawing to a close. It would have been 'desirable' for the inquests to have been heard and completed long ago, he said

This article also explains why the long delay was necessary. Princess Diana's Inquest Postponed, Originally Scheduled To Begin In May, Hearing Will Now Begin In October - The ShowBuzz

The inquest could begin only after the investigations into the deaths were complete. A two-year French investigation, a three-year Metropolitan Police inquiry in Britain and repeated legal action by al Fayed have delayed the inquest.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I think the limitation period would have expired years ago. Even if they could sue someone, I doubt they would, partly because the evidence would have to be given all over again before a civil court, and partly because the measure of damages may not be as high as people might think. The mere fact a child's parent is killed in a car accident due to someone else's negligence does not give that child an entitlement to a large chunk of money. There has to be financial dependency and financial loss attributable to the death. It could be argued that Diana's death has actually given William and Harry a financial benefit, since they have inherited a very large amount of money from their mother far earlier than they would otherwise have received it.

Interesting if Trevor Rees-Jones sues. Would Fayed really dare not to pay in case the verdict is against him? Just think how the media would slam him for not taking responsibility.

 

[Duchess]

while i do believe that Mr. Al Fayed has dragged this well past the "best before date"...i've also considered this: if it was your child, wouldn't you do EVERYYTHING in your power to convict the person you felt was responsible for the death of your child? now i'm not saying that i agree with him but if you felt, to the very core of your being, that someone had been involved or directly responsible for the death of your child, you would do the same thing. i know i would. even though we all feel he's wrong, he's still doing what a lot of parents would do.

 

[LadyCat]

while i do believe that Mr. Al Fayed has dragged this well past the "best before date"...i've also considered this: if it was your child, wouldn't you do EVERYYTHING in your power to convict the person you felt was responsible for the death of your child? now i'm not saying that i agree with him but if you felt, to the very core of your being, that someone had been involved or directly responsible for the death of your child, you would do the same thing. i know i would. even though we all feel he's wrong, he's still doing what a lot of parents would do.

Yes I would! However, I think initially it was a way for him to divert attention from the fact that they died on his watch. After all these years of spouting the same stuff he may have convinced himself of its truth but I truly believe in the beginning it was a diversion from his own culpability that eventually took on a life of its own.

Cat

 

[Duchess]

yes i certainly understand your point. we also need to remember that dodi and diana are also responsible. he had no experience dealing with the media and she had the good common sense to wear a seatbelt but chose not to.

 

[ghost_night554]

I can so see Mr. Fayed changing his story again and he has so many times in court. He won't stop,nor will the conspiracy theorists I'm afraid. But I feel this inquest was well done, you can tell this is no cover up and for me I feel this should mark the end of the Diana saga but unfortunately it won't.

 

[Skydragon]

if it was your child, wouldn't you do EVERYYTHING in your power to convict the person you felt was responsible for the death of your child? now i'm not saying that i agree with him but if you felt, to the very core of your being, that someone had been involved or directly responsible for the death of your child, you would do the same thing. i know i would. even though we all feel he's wrong, he's still doing what a lot of parents would do.

I think the majority of parents would look at the majority of facts and try to come to terms with the loss, rather than see innocent parties blamed and their names tainted.

IMO, because he was trying to use his son to further his own ambitions, three people lost their lives, (something he could not have forseen) and that is why he needs to put the blame elsewhere, if he accepts that it was his machinations that at least indirectly caused the accident, well, that would be unbearable.

 

[Polly]

IMO, because he was trying to use his son to further his own ambitions, three people lost their lives, (something he could not have forseen) and that is why he needs to put the blame elsewhere, if he accepts that it was his machinations that at least indirectly caused the accident, well, that would be unbearable.

This is merely what you think.

What evidence do you have to support your contention that these unfortunate and tragic deaths, which have occasioned such turmoil, were the fault of Fayed's ambition? You do say that 'he cost three people their lives...'.

Has the Inquest jury announced its verdict already?

As well, if you've never lost a child, I doubt that you'd have even the remotest conception, whatsoever, of what a grieving parent might or might not do.

 

[Skydragon]

This is merely what you think.

As I clearly stated

What evidence do you have to support your contention that these unfortunate and tragic deaths, which have occasioned such turmoil, were the fault of Fayed's ambition? You do say that 'he cost three people their lives...'.

Has the Inquest jury announced its verdict already? As well, if you've never lost a child, I doubt that you'd have even the remotest conception, whatsoever, of what a grieving parent might or might not do

If you look at the beginning of my post, it clearly says - I think - short of putting IMO after every sentence, I can't really see how anyone could read that it was the opinion of the jury, when that verdict is announced, it really will be breaking news with the headlines to back it up!.

As you might have seen from past posts, I can unfortunately claim the distinction of knowing about it, so I don't need to worry about a remote conception!

 

[Polly]

With all due respect, your post said 'I think' when alluding to the death of a child. I can respect and understand that.

Nonetheless, you offered no qualification at all towards your bald statement that Fayed 'cost three people their lives'.

In the absence of a jury's verdict, I question the propriety of such an assertion.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Has the Inquest jury announced its verdict already?

As well, if you've never lost a child, I doubt that you'd have even the remotest conception, whatsoever, of what a grieving parent might or might not do.

Since when do we need to follow a jury's verdict when the info is out in the open and we base our opinion on it?

And even though I haven't yet lost my child and hope I'll never will, I still can have the opinion that what Fayed does is not okay - him being a grieving parent or not. It's not that grieving people don't have rules to follow and it's not that anybody has to accord grieving parents a kind of fool's freedom or jester's license. It's a fact that a quite convincing evidence at the inquest points at the fact that Henri Paul was employed by the Ritz, had a couple of drinks at the Ritz and then he went out driving a car and getting into an accident that killed him and two of the passengers.

In addition we learned quite a bit about how the structures of command were at the Ritz during that fateful night, so saying that Fayed's ambition cost three people their life is nothing unfounded, an interpretation, an opinion, of course, but based on evidence presented during the inquest.

 

[Skydragon]

Nonetheless, you offered no qualification at all towards your bald statement that Fayed 'cost three people their lives'.

In the absence of a jury's verdict, I question the propriety of such an assertion.

Many people who have posted their 'verdict' on the thread have done so based on their own opinions and without the benefit of any 'I think' or 'IMO' in their posts, however.....

Fayed was and is well known throughout the UK for his desire to be part of the UK aristocracy, his quest for a British passport is, IMO, well documented. His apparent 'need' to be seen as part of the British establishment is also, IMO, well documented in previous links posted on this thread and also, in many news programmes and articles.

The suggestion from his own staff that Dodi was answering to his father with regards to security on the night in question and the speed with which Fayed was willing to blacken Diana's name with his claim she was pregnant to his son after a short courtship, IMO, backs up my claim.

If Fayed had been more concerned with the safety of Dodi and Diana, he would, IMO, have been heard insisting they stay at the hotel, rather than chance the pursuit that was bound to happen, bearing in mind the gathering of photographers outside the hotel.

I believe that he was encouraging Dodi in his relationship with Diana, not from love of his son or admiration of Diana, but as a way into the society, he IMO, desperately wanted to be part of. Had he been less concerned with the, to him, positive publicity Diana was generating for him and more concerned about their safety and privacy, the accident might not have happened. His lack of care, in not providing better security alone would make him responsible. ALL IMO

 

[Skydragon]

And even though I haven't yet lost my child and hope I'll never will, I still can have the opinion that what Fayed does is not okay - him being a grieving parent or not. It's not that grieving people don't have rules to follow and it's not that anybody has to accord grieving parents a kind of fool's freedom or jester's license.

I also hope you never will! Everybody grieves in a different way, and yes I would imagine everyone who has lost someone wants the guilty party brought to justice. I say imagine because nobody can know the individual hell that another goes through with the death of a loved one, especially a child. That is the difference between some people, like Fayed and others. In the heat of the moment and the following weeks even months, it is easy to blame one person or another, but to keep up the foundless accusations 10 years on.... even his rant outside the court, where he accused the BBC reporter of working for MI5/6, shows he has very little hold on reality.

 

[TheTruth]

The thread is now closed. A new one was created on the verdict of the Inquest. All the posts about it have been moved to the following thread :

The Verdict of the Diana Inquest

TheTruth
Diana, Princess of Wales Sub-forum moderator.