Diana's Murder - Latest / Analysis

[bri]

I am merely safeguarding your rights..... by assisting you not to
deliver a verdict that could lead one to believe you are the kind of low-life
scum who are a pestillence on any landscape and should be jailed
forthwith for Contempt of Court.

Edit(bad mood, bad day, didn't get joke. )

[kathy]

That is Fintan's send up of what the judge said

Cough cough - 1st April Bri??

[bri]

That's t-20 minutes in my territory.

[RockDock]

I'd imagine his summing up went like this:

Imaginary summing up. I am sure it went something like that indeed.

Two hours to get her mobilized to the hospital tells me that someone wanted her dead. Stone cold even.

[bri]

http://news.smh.com.au/coroner-shoots-d ... -22sz.html


April 1, 2008 - 6:53AM


Prince Philip is off the hook. So are the agents of the Secret Intelligence Service.

There is no proof that they had anything to do with the death of Princess Diana and her boyfriend Dodi Fayed, a coroner said.

Beginning his summing up in the wide-ranging and lengthy inquest, Lord Justice Scott Baker briskly shot down the theory promoted by Fayed's father, Mohamed Al Fayed, that the couple were victims of a murder plot.

Baker, who expects to finish his summation on Wednesday, left open the possibility that the couple's driver and the paparazzi who pursued them through Paris on August 31, 1997, were reckless and caused the crash.

The jury was also asked to consider that the deaths resulted simply from an accident.

"There is no evidence that the Duke of Edinburgh (Philip) ordered Diana's execution and there is no evidence that the Secret Intelligence Service or any other government agency organised it," Baker told the 11-member jury.

Al Fayed was indignant as he left the Royal Courts of Justice.

"It is terrible," Al Fayed said. "It's all biased."

French and British police both concluded the crash was an accident, and Paul was drunk and speeding as the car carrying Fayed and Diana was pursued by paparazzi.

Baker told jurors to consider Paul's driving and the behaviour of one or more of the paparazzi to decide "whether they were wholly indifferent to an obvious risk of death, or actually foresaw the risk of death but determined to run it nonetheless."

If so, he said, the jury should find the couple were unlawfully killed through the grossly negligent driving of driver Henri Paul, the paparazzi, or both.

"The most potent feature of the way in which the Mercedes was driven was its speed," Baker said. Investigators concluded that Paul was driving in excess of 95km/h, or double the speed limit, when the Mercedes slammed into a concrete pillar in the Alma underpass.

"Had it been travelling more slowly, the outcome might have been different. Had it hit the side of the pillar rather than the corner, it would probably have bounced off, and in a loss of control, nobody can predict which way it would go," Baker said.

Baker said the law obliged him to discard a possible verdict that the couple were unlawfully killed in a staged accident - that is, that they were victims of a murder plot.

"When a coroner leaves a verdict of unlawful killing, in this case on the basis of a staged accident, to a jury, he must identify to the jury the evidence on which they could be sure of such a conclusion. But in this case sufficient evidence simply does not exist," Baker said.

"Speculation, surmise and belief are one thing; evidence is another."

However, Baker said there was some evidence - "albeit limited and of doubtful quality" - that the crash was staged, which he left for the jury to consider in choosing among the five possible verdicts.

He did not immediately explain why, having dismissed the possibility of an establishment murder plot, he considered such evidence to have any relevance.

Baker said the inquest, which began in October, had heard lies, half-truths, speculation and rumours. He identified Diana's butler, Paul Burrell, as one of the liars - either in court or elsewhere.

He also raised sharp questions about the truthfulness of al Fayed and his spokesman, Michael Cole - notably on the issues of whether Diana was pregnant and intended to marry Dodi Fayed.

"The only evidence that Diana was pregnant comes from the mouth of Mohamed al Fayed," said Baker, referring to al Fayed's claim Diana told him so just hours before the crash.

"On the other hand there is a great deal of evidence that she was not pregnant, although you may think it cannot be proved with absolute scientific certainty that she was not, " Baker told the jury.

"What we have heard about engagement has been almost entirely speculation," Baker said, except for Fayed's claim that his son and Diana told him so. A number of Diana's friends disputed that idea.

Baker again expressed the hope that the inquest would bring an end to speculation.

"The very fact that these allegations have been circulating during the last 10 years, and, I would add, not only coming from Mohamed Al Fayed, makes it important to put matters to rest one way or the other, once and for all," he said.

"Many of the rumours you may think, if not media-generated, have been media-encouraged, and where there is no substance in them, it is in everyone's interests that this should be shown to be the case, rather than they be left in the air."

© 2008 AP

[bri]

Spot on Fintan You had it right. And for fool's day of course!

[Rumpl4skn]

An extremely disappointing outcome.

But at least, we finally have a photograph of our beloved Grumpy:



Der conspeeracies iss fargin' VERBOTEN!

[Fintan]

From the Archive......

"Sceptics of the official account question why a crucial witness, the driver
of a second car involved in the crash, has never been identified and how
it took nearly two hours to get Diana to a hospital just four miles away."

BBC

Author backs Diana conspiracy

View BBC Video RealPlayer

Noel Botham is a former Royal correspondent who believes the crash that
killed Diana, Princess of Wales, was no accident. The author of "The
Murder of Princess Diana" spoke about the details that aroused his suspicions.

Noel Botham:
'The two bodyguards swore that Henri Paul was not drunk when he got in
the car to drive Diana and Dodi. They said their job would have been on
the line......'

The French police checked to see if he’d been drinking in the bars close to
his home near the hotel.

Nicholas Davies:
'There was no single witness come forward to say that he was drinking,
and we also - we also know that only three days before he had had a
rigorous pilot’s medical examination and there was no suggestion in that
that he was a drinker, or a drunkard. ' Henri Paul had been a pilot for
over 20 years and had clocked up 600 hours of flying time.

Henri Paul’s blood samples contained unusually high levels of carbon
monoxide.

Mohamed Al Fayed:
‘If you have carbon monoxide of 24% in the blood, you can’t walk, for I
am certain there is foul play, I am certain it’s not Henri Paul’s blood, and
straight away…drunken driver…it’s just unbelievable.’

Conspiracy theorists now fixed on the idea that the driver’s blood samples
had been switched.

Noel Botham:
‘I was told there were twenty-two people who died in Paris that night
which were investigable deaths, for one reason or another. One of them
was a man who drank half a bottle or more of Vodka - who sat in his car,
tied, having tied a hosepipe from the exhaust to the inside of the car and
killed himself - with carbon monoxide poisoning….That man's blood,
according to my police spokesman has, who I got in the pathologist's lab,
that man's blood is the blood that was substituted for Henri Paul's. ‘

Martine Monteil, the head of the French Judicial Police who investigated
the crash, is outraged at the suggestion: ‘These stories of switched test
tubes are nonsense. Henry Paul’s blood samples have never been switched’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/p ... a_died.txt

Family of Diana Crash Driver Speak of Their Legal Battle

Listen to Audio

by Adrian Addison and Angus Stickler

The parents of Henri Paul - the chauffeur blamed for the death of Princess Diana are taking action in the French Courts to try and clear his name. The French Authorities say he was drunk at the wheel. But in their first ever interview - the parents told have told the Today Programme - that they believe the blood sample taken at the time of the accident was not their son's. They are taking legal action to try and force the French authorities to release the blood for an independent DNA test.

It's five years this month since the death of Princess Diana and for five years the parents of the chauffeur Henri Paul have maintained their silence. But, they revealed in an exclusive interview with BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, they speak about how they've been forced to resort to the courts to obtain the blood samples taken at the time of the crash. They strongly refute allegations that their son was a heavy drinker, and believe that the blood tested possibly came from one of dozens of bodies held at the Paris morgue that night.

They say that levels of carbon monoxide found in the blood sample would incapacitate an adult - that their son would have been unable to walk let alone drive a car. They point to the fact that three days earlier their son passed a medical for his pilots licence. If he was an alcoholic, they say, he would have failed. So far the French Authorities have refused to release the blood. The parents say they will accept the result of an independent DNA test if it proves that the sample came from their son.

This is what they said:

How did you hear about your son's death?

Jean Paul: A telephone call at four in the morning.

Giselle Paul: From one of his colleagues who worked at the Ritz and who was worried that we would be surprised, that we would learn on the radio that there had been an accident. We found out he was dead but they didn't tell us who he was with. We didn't know he was with Dodi and Diana.

What went through your mind?

Giselle Paul: I thought straight away that we would have a lot more problems than if he had been, say, with one of his friends , given that he was with Diana. We understood that.

And there have been problems haven't there. The finger of blame points directly to your son. Do you accept this?

Giselle Paul: No. Not at all. We want to know the truth. We're certain that our son wasn't drunk. We don't accept it. For us, he was a good man, a good son. People say parents are often biased and that can be true but everyone who knew him, who lived with him said the same.

It's alleged he was a heavy drinker, that he was drunk the night of the accident. You're saying he wasn't. How can you prove that?

Jean Paul: Because we knew him since he was born.

Giselle Paul: Exactly. And, when you think about it, it would have been obvious if he was drunk. Dodi had another driver. He had his personal driver. Would have used a man who was drunk and who wasn't a professional driver? And also, there was a bodyguard there. you would have thought a bodyguard wouldn't let a drunk driver take them when there were other people around.

But there were two separate blood tests. Both of those showed a high alcohol count.

Jean Paul: We're not experts in pathology.

Giselle Paul: We're not experts. But I suppose if there were two they would show the same thing.

Jean Paul: There were 30 autopsies.

Giselle Paul: On the same night, there were others. You can imagine how they might have been mixed up. There could have been a mistake.

So you don't actually believe that this is your son's blood that they've tested?

Giselle Paul: That could be the case. That could be one reason. It could be that.

So what are you concerns about the investigation?

Giselle Paul: Since the beginning we haven't made any progress. The only thing we want is our son's blood... to re-do the tests and see if what they say is right. But that's always been refused to us. Always. We've had no success.

Surely this is your word against that of the authorities. How can you prove that your son wasn't drinking?

Giselle Paul: We can't. We can't prove it. He's dead. It's easy to attack a dead man. They said his liver was in perfect condition. And we would have known, we would have seen if he'd been drinking. The 28th of August, he passed his medical exam for his pilot's licence. Everything was fine. And three days later he was labelled alcoholic.

So you're saying it's ridiculous that he can be accused of being an alcoholic. But you also have concerns about the levels of carbon monoxide in his blood.

Giselle Paul: Yes. Yes. As far as carbon monoxide is concerned...

Jean Paul: It's inexplicable.

Giselle Paul: They found 20% of carbon monoxide in his blood. We're not experts, obviously. But whenever we talk to people who know about this, they say it's impossible. He wouldn't have been able to stand with that level in his blood.

So with this level of carbon monoxide in your son's blood you say that it's not his blood, that they've got the wrong blood.

Giselle Paul: Yes, that's right. They could easily have made a mistake with 30 autopsies done on the same day...It's possible they made a mistake.

So, what does this suggest to you? Do you think it was pure incompetence or something more sinister?

Giselle Paul: We can't explain it. We know it can happen because everyone can make a mistake.

Jean Paul: Incompetence maybe. Maybe ill will. Maybe both. But it must have been chaos that night, with 30 corpses on the table. 'I made a mistake'. No-one says that easily. Especially when important people are involved.

Basically what you want to do though, if I understand correctly, is you just want to clear your son's name.

Giselle Paul: Absolutely. That's the only thing. It's for his memory. No-one has the right to smear someone's name like that- and for what? We don't know why. We don't understand why anyone would want to say that my son was alcoholic.

Jean Paul: Who profits from that?

Giselle Paul: Who profits? Not me, not my son. And my son shouldn't leave the world like that - that image of him created by people when he wasn't anything like that.

And is that the thrust of the legal action that you're taking? That you want his blood to do a DNA test on him.

Giselle Paul: Yes, it's always been for that. It's always been to find that out. We're not pursuing anyone in particular. We're not accusing anyone of anything because we don't know. But it's always been about that, about getting his blood...

What reason have the French government given to you for refusing to give you his blood.

Giselle Paul: They don't give explanations. They don't say why. For us, it's as if we didn't exist.

Jean Paul: It feels like we're completely shut out. A wall.

Giselle Paul: We feel like.. if the President's dog was killed in an accident people would have cared more.

Taking this legal action must be an expensive business. How much is it actually costing?

Giselle Paul: It's not costing us anything because he had friends who look after us, fortunately. If not we couldn't have done anything. We haven't got the means. The state gives me a little over 600 euros a month. you do the maths!

Has Mr Al Fayed had anything to do..had a part to play in your action?

Giselle Paul: No. Not at all.

This is a difficult question. But do you not feel in any way, shape or form that five years on it would be better for all the relatives, yourselves, Princes William and Harry just to let the matter rest?

Giselle Paul: Only on condition that everyone else stops....

Jean Paul: Historically, the impression left is that our son was Princess Diana's assassin. It's false.

Giselle Paul: Every day, people lose their children on the roads. But people don't smear their name, as they have with our son. Given that Diana was involved as well, people will always say she was killed by her drunk driver. That's what we don't want. We want to change that. That's why we're carrying on.

If you get the blood and you get a DNA test and it turns out that it is your son's blood, what then?

Giselle Paul: Then we couldn't do any more. It would be too late. But they should have listened to us right from the beginning when we asked. It's too late. They've deliberately let the matter drag on.

Do you feel that you can properly grieve your son's death with all this going on?

Giselle Paul: How can we grieve and get over it? No. When we're..when it's just us. We can't. It's not possible. No.

Jean Paul: People seem to think you can close the door and that's it, you bounce back. But it's not like that. It eats us up, all the time. All our life...But I'm always hoping we'll make progress on the case.

Giselle Paul: And we're forced to return to it all the time. It's why I've tried to not to talk about it too much. It's too difficult, we have to go back to the same place.

Jean Paul: I sleep very badly. I've been an insomniac since it happened. And when I have nightmares I look for my son, my sons, all night. I try to get over it but there's always a part of me...

Giselle Paul: I never saw my son come back..you know..in a state... or anything. Never. If I had I would say. But it never happened. Never...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/repor ... paul.shtml

Jeweler Was Told To Lie In Princess Diana Case

December 6, 2006 - Maira Oliveira - All Headline News Reporter

London, England (BANG) - A key witness in the inquiry into the death
of Britain's Princess Diana recently claimed police threatened him to
change his evidence.

Jeweler Alberto Repossi - who claims he sold Diana's lover Dodi Al Fayed
an engagement ring the day before the couple were killed in a car crash
in Paris on August 31, 1997 - alleges he was put under pressure by
investigators to retract the statement he gave to Lord Stevens, who is
leading the inquiry.

There is speculation that investigators did not want evidence that Diana
and Dodi were to become engaged to be made public, as it would fuel
conspiracy theories championed by Dodi's father Mohammed Al Fayed
that the princess was murdered as part of a secret plot to prevent her
from marrying a Muslim.

Repossi told Britain's Daily Express newspaper, "These are things which I
am absolutely certain about. They warned me if anyone lied to Lord
Stevens - and anyone could include the prime minister or even the secret
service - then he had the power to get people sent to prison.

He added, "They kept repeating the warnings of the risk to my reputation
and the bad press coverage I would get. But despite all this, I was not
prepared to change what I'd said before because it was the truth."

Repossi's testimony - backed up by receipts and CCTV footage - reveals
Dodi and Diana picked a $305,000 emerald and diamond ring from a
range of engagement bands called "Did-Moi Oui" which means "Tell Me
Yes" at his Monte Carlo jewelry store in August 1997.

Dodi - the son of Harrods owner, Mohammad Al Fayed - asked for the
ring to be sent to Repossi's Paris branch so he could collect it on August30.

Repossi said, "I strongly support any attempt to determine exactly what
caused this terrible tragedy. Until now I thought I could play my part by
co-operating fully with the inquiry. But my treatment during the
interviews has convinced me that they are not interested in establishing
the truth."

He continued, "My real concern is that attempts were certainly made to
get me to change what I knew to be the truth. I believe they were doing
this in order to support theories or conclusions they had already arrived
at before they saw me. They only seemed interested in trying to show
me I was lying."

The investigation is expected to conclude that the crash was an accident
due to driver Henri Paul being under the influence of alcohol and driving
over the speed limit.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7005768564

[Wu Li]

I hate to throw things off here but I feel there may be something more here or nothing at all.

When I first heard of the death of Princess Diana I (probably like most here) saw something fishy immediately and remember telling friends at the time; "They got rid of her". I guess that can be seen by most as the typical response of a skeptic in nature.

But after a few years I started to think of some interesting points of view that may seem unlikely but still worth noting.

I am starting to think of these murders as a direct assault on Mr. Fayed himself. Afterall if you understand his history as a man who plays with the big boys I would think that in order to get rid of Diana they would have been able to do this without his son being involved. That would mean the supposed marriage would not take place(Unless of course she was pregnant). Since,(from my own logic) I see the British Thrown as being the supposed rightful heir to the throne (as I have read a number of times) to even the royalty line of King David why would they not welcome a Muslim face to the mix. Isn't Prince Charles a muslim now or am I mistaken?

Fayed to me is one of those boisterous individuals who seems a bit cut throat when dealing with past indiscretions and/or relationships to move the world. I have heard him speak in interviews a few times and I now think he is a bit to revealing. He seems like a loose cannon of sorts and it would make sense to destroy what he probably holds most dear. I know there are other reasoning why this would not be true but if you look at his battle when buying the "House of Frasier" it seems that their may be some deep held resentments from his then opponents.

Anyway I guess what I am getting at is;

Has anyone ever thought the same or looked into anything else besides the crown being involved?
An inquiring mind wishes to know

[PatrickSMcNally]

Has anyone ever thought the same or looked into anything else besides the crown being involved?

Apart from Britsh Royalty and the SIS, the other suspect which had occurred to me was the Mossad. Having Diana establish such close family connections with an Arab could certainly be disturbing to some important people in Israel. Or maybe the British elite was miffed enough on their own to do it. There's a bit of a grey area there.

[Cracrocrates]

Has anyone ever thought the same or looked into anything else besides the crown being involved?

I haven't looked into it and I know little about Di or Fayed, but this exact thought crossed my mind about two weeks ago. I don't think (at least anymore) that the British Royals had much to gain from her death at all. So...who feared the coupling of Di and Fayed the most?

Royal marriages, historically, are political bonds more than anything else.

Who else might have hated this union?

Anyone here seen Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country?

Whoever caused her death (assuming it wasn't just a car accident) was afraid of the "undiscovered country" of peace. Di was a vocal spokesman for peace (against landmines). The symbolic coupling of The British Empire and the Arab world would put a damper on any group/nation that had regional ambitions in the Middle East. Any group who benefited from making Western influence seem like The Great (and ONLY)Satan would have cursed the couple.

Iranian revolutionaries, perhaps?
If any intelligience led to this conclusion, it would need to be covered up completely because neither UK nor US nor NATO is willing to invade a fairly large country that can defend itself (Iran) over the death of only one V.I.P. (WORLD WAR I).Any incident that may lead to another World War must be covered up. War with Iran leads to a holy war and destabilizes the region (which actually is not the case with invading Iraq, since EVERYBODY has reasons to hate Saddam Hussein.)

While the internet/conspiracy hate seems to have been focused on the Brits, what about the other side of the family (Arab religious leaders and/or wannabe revolutionaries) who want to prevent further cultural modernization with the West?

....

I know I'm in the minority here, but I've seriously been thinking that the first Gulf War was a (justifiable) excuse for US presence in Iraq. After the Iran-Iraqi War where US played balance of power game (making sure neither side was dominant) the fear would have been Iran taking over Iraq. Iraq was majority Shiite like Iran so Pentagon planners must have been worried that:
IRAN CONQUERING IRAQ = WORLD ECONOMY DOWN THE POOPER
(or at least the threat of this).
....
Yes, I know about doubts about the cause of the OPEC oil crisis...but if that's the case, then what about the 15-year supply glut since the late 1980s until about 2003? Maybe the US forced that late 1970s recession with high interest rates because the Arabs who wouldn't play ball (Iran chiefly) needed to know that they didn't hold as much leverage as they first thought.

[dilbert_g]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I've seriously been thinking that the first Gulf War was a (justifiable) excuse for US presence in Iraq. After the Iran-Iraqi War where US played balance of power game (making sure neither side was dominant) the fear would have been Iran taking over Iraq. Iraq was majority Shiite like Iran so Pentagon planners must have been worried that:
IRAN CONQUERING IRAQ = WORLD ECONOMY DOWN THE POOPER
(or at least the threat of this).
....
Yes, I know about doubts about the cause of the OPEC oil crisis...but if that's the case, then what about the 15-year supply glut since the late 1980s until about 2003? Maybe the US forced that late 1970s recession with high interest rates because the Arabs who wouldn't play ball (Iran chiefly) needed to know that they didn't hold as much leverage as they first thought.

Lots of speculation possible. I'd say that the French and British authorities hiding the evidence and encouraging perjury are de facto evidence of guilt.

After the (US-inspired) Iran-Iraq War (yes, there was some Shiite-Sunni enmity), and the final truce between the two, the Pentagon reported that Iraq was NOT interested in aggression against it's neighbors. Presumably, upon the truce, neither was Iraq. Iraq (Saddam) had outlived it's usefulness, once it was no longer destroying Iran. Iraq was a more apt choice for a foothold for "Seizing Arab Oil" as the article is titled.

But the problem was how to force non-aggressive Iraq to become aggressive again. The story is that a combination of wholesale theft of Iraqi reserves, PLUS the effect of Kuwait dumping oil on the market (breaking OPEC mutual agreements), PLUS the consistent prodding of US State Dept officials and a few more things like that pushed Saddam's hand.

Is this justifiable reason? Not in my book. The only legitimacy is the Inherent Legitimacy of the American Global Hegemon -- because we're strong and we're right and everyone else can go fuck themselves. Some people think that THAT justification is sufficient.

(Or am I misunderstanding you, Croc?)