Diana inquest seeks 'final answer' to Paris crash

UK Features

Oct 1, 2007, 13:42 GMT

London - Ten years after Princess Diana was killed in a car crash in Paris, the circumstances of her premature death and the many conspiracy theories that surround it will be re-examined in a courtroom at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The official British inquest into the death of Diana, and Dodi al Fayed, on August 31, 1997, holds all the ingredients of a thriller, as a jury of 11 ordinary men and women will be asked to judge the facts presented to them and examine the allegation that the couple were the victims of a 'murder plot.' Listening and watching in a temporary court annex will be up to 300 members of the public and reporters from around the world, as up to 70 witnesses - including possibly members of the royal family - will be called. 'Ladies and gentlemen, you have been summoned for jury service, not for any ordinary case...' Lord Justice Scott Baker, who heads the inquest, told jury members ahead of the opening session set for Tuesday. 'The deaths of these two people have created worldwide interest on an unprecedented scale. Millions of words have been spoken and written...You have to put out of your minds anything you may have heard out of court,' Baker instructed the jury. 'It will not be easy in this particular case, but you will have to,' he added. The crucial role played by the jury in establishing 'once and for all' how Diana died is dramatically underlined by Baker's order that members should make their way to and from the court under police guard so that they should 'not be harassed' during the inquest. Day after day, for at least six months, the jurors will be presented with the facts of the case, and the details and allegations surrounding the events of the fateful crash. One of their first assignments will be a trip to Paris to inspect the sit of the crash in the Pont d'Alma underpass. After numerous delays, obstructions and legal wrangling, marked by more or less open reluctance by the royal family to involve the public in a judgement on the Diana case, the fact that a public inquest is being held constitutes a victory for Mohammed al Fayed, Dodi's father, in his relentless campaign to 'establish the truth.' Fayed's lawyers have applied to call as witnesses members of the royal family, including Prince Philip and Prince Charles, Diana's former husband. Fayed has left no doubt that he intends to turn the inquest into something of a tribunal, announcing that it will be up to the 'citizens of this country to find out the truth' about Diana. It seems doubtful, therefore, that the hope of the royal family, and in particular of Diana's sons, William and Harry, that an 'open and fair inquest' will finally enable Diana to 'rest in peace,' will be fulfilled. The inquest will undertake a detailed examination of the last few months of Diana's life, and illuminate many of the questions that have fuelled the conspiracy theories. These include whether the princess was pregnant at the time of her death, and about to announce her engagement to Dodi, as his father claims. It will investigate repeated reports that Diana had 'feared for her life' and examine 'whether the British or any other security services had any involvement in the collision.' These will include unanswered questions, such as whether Henri Paul was dazzled by flashing lights, or whether a white Fiat Uno spotted at the scene just before the crash - 'or any other vehicle caused or contributed to the collision.' Under British law, inquests have to take place when someone dies abroad and a coroner suspects the deceased died a violent or unnatural death, or died a sudden death of which the cause is unknown. Two previous police investigations, in France and in Britain, have concluded that Diana and Dodi, pursued by paparazzi photographers, died in an accident and that Henri Paul was drunk. © 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

Your Talkback on this Story

Note posts made on our older Talkback system will still show below. However, new posts can only be made via the new system (above). We will export the old comments to the new shortly. You can still comment as a guest on the new system but it also allows you to login using various social network and other accounts.

Other features coming soon.

Talkback

page: 1

TEN years to NOW..Oct 3rd, 2007 - 19:14:16

Another gallon of Whitewash...please.
It stinks!
Hail
QUEEN CAMILLA.

Report this comment

GeorgeRobsonOct 4th, 2007 - 04:31:06

What Drivel.

So the son of a storekeeper and his tart got killed in a road accident.Who cares
,
...Hundreds of... HARD WORKING...people die in accidents every year...

Report this comment

RealistOct 4th, 2007 - 12:37:31

It was just an accident for God`s sake, you stupid idiots.

The driver was pissed, going too fast and simply lost control and ended up wrapped around a concrete pillar. Did a marvelous job mind you.

There is NO conspiracy involved, that is the thinking of simple-minded idiots who always conclude there must be some dastardly plot behind every bad thing that happens to celebrities. Just sheep, these stupid fools are with brains like a cabbage.

And what if Diana WAS pregnant, so bloody what ?. 10,000`s of ordinary girls get podded just the same every day of the week, it seems to be a national pastime, and THAT is perfectly acceptable to the present day masses as decent behaviour.

Forget the whole damned thing, so 3 people were killed - this happens on any motorway every day of the week. Who the hell cares whether it is a so called Princess or a lowly joyrider ?

What a waste of time this Diana crap is. Just shows how human thinking goes in this time of bean-headed attitude to decent values. It is laughable.

Report this comment

georgeOct 4th, 2007 - 20:31:34

One thing is certain, It was Charles's and Camilla's treacherous adultery that led to a chain of events which ended in her tragic death.
If ever King Charles and Queen Camilla ever get to sit on the Throne,
it will be stained by her blood.

Report this comment

HI GEORGE !Oct 4th, 2007 - 21:52:42

Well put, Charles and Camilla acted like a couple of rabbits, carrying on the 1000 year old British tradition of the Prince of Wales being nothing but a rampant royal stud and Camilla filling the ancient role of obliging fleshpot.

Diana had her moments of course, wrecking marriages and weakening half the Household cavalry with her uncontrollable gymnastics.

The sun still rose at the same time that morning, so it never made any difference to our daily life cycle.

Report this comment

GeorgeOct 5th, 2007 - 11:08:26

Yes but Charles and Camilla were the prime players from day one.
You might find this interesting .
George Smith (royal servant)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
George Smith (1961-2005) was a former footman and valet in the Royal Household of Prince Charles.

Smith alleged:

that he was raped by Michael Fawcett, a favoured servant of the Prince of Wales; and
that Fawcett was himself in a homosexual relationship with the Prince of Wales, who protected him.
The allegations made international headlines in November 2003 and were the subject of a legal injunction in the United Kingdom

AND REMAIN SO.

Report this comment

page: 1

UK

Diana inquest seeks 'final answer' to Paris crash

UK Features

Your Talkback on this Story

Talkback

Similar articles

Latest Headlines in UK

From Sites We Like

Latest PopEater News

Latest Cinema Blend News

Latest Tech Herald News

In Monsters and Critics

Corporate

The Fine Print