Princess Diana unlawfully killed

Princess Diana unlawfully killed

news.bbc.co.uk

Princess Diana was unlawfully killed due to the "gross negligence" of driver Henri Paul and the paparazzi, an inquest jury has found.

The jury reached the same verdict for her companion Dodi Al Fayed.

The jury also specified that Mr Paul's drink-driving and a lack of seatbelts contributed to their deaths.

Mr Al Fayed's father Mohamed refused to accept the verdict. Former Met Police chief Lord Stevens said he hoped it would bring "closure".

The jury returned joint verdicts of unlawful killing through grossly negligent driving - or gross negligence manslaughter

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is not what many people wanted, most especially Al Fayed, but IMO is probably the correct verdict.

Regardless of the "other cars" or flashlights in the tunnel or any other of al fayeds ravings about the royals and MI6, the fact is that if they had been wearing seatbelts they would have had a much greater chance of surviving.

This has cost the taxpayer over £10 million - mostly just to shut al fayed up, but predictably he refuses to believe the verdict, although he accepts that it was "murder" caused by henry paul and the papparazzi.

There will always be questions surrounding the death of someone so famous, but it's now time to let the matter, and the victims, rest.

I have seen absolutely no evidence to support anything except the verdict the jury returned, other than outrageous speculation.

I'm no fan of the royals, but I really believe they had nothing to do with this - and surely the 10 million quid could have been better spent.
If al fayed wanted this so badly, then the money should have come out of his pocket, NOT the taxpayers.

Have we heard the last of this?
Probably not.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

At last, the circus is over. Now can we please let the poor woman rest in peace and move on.

This has dragged on ten and a half years... it's time for some closure, I think. The verdict seems like a sound one based on the evidence put forward; no one was able to support the theory that MI6 assassinated Diana and Dodi, and I hope Mr. al Fayed can accept that (though I don't think he will).

reply to post by Ste2652


Of course he won't - he'll be back in the media soon, saying that the jurers were MI6 plants and demanding appeals from every court in the land.

I'm not sure just how far he can take this, but he's not going to let it lie.

I think this is as much about the british aristocracy rejecting him, and a desire for revenge as it is about the death of his son.

Am I missing something, or just didn't get enough sleep.... The article mentions "lack of seatbelts" as a charge against the driver? I don't understand that.

Was he supposed to strap them in himself?
Was there NOT seatbelts installed in the car?

Someone clerify..lol...PLEASE!

reply to post by rcwj75


I think that was just what the jury believed was the cause of death; a combination of a drunk driver, the paparazzi and the fact that Diana and Dodi weren't wearing their seatbelts. The UK courts can't actually charge anyone because the accident occurred on French soil (which is under the jurisdiction of the French courts, obviously) - this is just an inquest, not a trial.

Budski, I fear you're right. But this has already cost us, the taxpayer, £10million so far. How much more do we have to pay, when it's clear there won't be anything new to discuss? Most of those who gave evidence are fantasises or, at worse, outright liars (some put up to it by al Fayed, others for their own gain). It has descended into a farce.

Why are we even discussing this? If the British govt spent 10 million on this, that's already silly enough.

It's okay you sitting here saying 'oh this was 10+ years ago, let the poor woman RIP' but if you'd have lost a member of your family in such circumstances you'd fight until your last breath to get the truth.

Mr.Al Fayed had every right to push this as far as he possibly could, he lost his son that day as well remember.

If i was him, i'd never let go because their STILL remains many many unanswered questions - Fayed won't let this go, this won't be the end.

As for the 10 mil $ court costs, he pay's his taxes too doesn't he??

A couple of points in answer to that - al fayed has pushed and pushed for an enquiry whilst saying to the papers and anyone who would listen that MI6 killed them and that the royal family was implicated in the killings, either by condoning them or by ordering the killings.

Yes he pays taxes, but that doesn't give him the right to demand that so much money is wasted just to satisfy his desire for revenge against the system which rejected him.

If there were any proof at all, I'd say go for it - but it's all in his mind and apart from the death of his son, has been a blatant attempt to embarress the royals.

He has tried for years to break into the upper echelons of british society, and because he couldn't has embarked on a campaign to cause as much fuss as possible.

His accusations about a muslim not being allowed to become a royal have no basis or foundation in fact - it would be impossible, because diana was no longer a royal, as such.

Everything he has said has been deluded or inflammatory.

This was the correct decision.

Mohammad Al Fayed will not let this lie as he is pusuing a private vendetta against the UK establishment.

He has been turned down for British citizenship on several occassions and as a result is convinced there is a conspiracy against him.
When this paranoia is combined with the natural grieving for a lost son, he has convinced himself of a plot against him and his family.

Originally posted by budski
A couple of points in answer to that - al fayed has pushed and pushed for an enquiry whilst saying to the papers and anyone who would listen that MI6 killed them and that the royal family was implicated in the killings, either by condoning them or by ordering the killings.

It's not his fault it's taken 10+ years to get a formal enquiry, he did call for
a formal enquiry from day one, and so did the British public.
Fact is, British Justice dragged its heels until such time.

Yes he pays taxes, but that doesn't give him the right to demand that so much money is wasted...

sorry, but legally it does.

If there were any proof at all, I'd say go for it - but it's all in his mind and apart from the death of his son, has been a blatant attempt to embarress the royals.

To name but a few unanswered questions - Was Diana pregnant? Was she about to marry? Why did Clarence House order to have her body
embalmed immediately after death? Why wern't the cameras working in the tunnel that night?

He has tried for years to break into the upper echelons of british society, and because he couldn't has embarked on a campaign to cause as much fuss as possible.

So he's using the death of his son as an excuse/opportunity too?????

His accusations about a muslim not being allowed to become a royal have no basis or foundation in fact - it would be impossible, because diana was no longer a royal, as such.

So why did Clarence House have any say in her body after her death?

Everything he has said has been deluded or inflammatory.

Does this apply to the milllions of us British that still smell a rat?

They didn't even lower the British flag on news of her death, until the public outcry..

[edit on 7-4-2008 by The Wizard]

reply to post by The Wizard


Hell, i remember when it happened - i was on holiday at the time and had something of a discussion with my relatives about it.

Funnily enough when i got back in school no one else knew about it (probably because i was the only kid sad enough to watch the news on his holiday), i actually had people openly declaiming me and saying that i was wrong.

So yeah, i was used to antagonism by the age of 10 (partly for a few other reasons involving the teacher telling me i was wrong, when i was right - the kinds of things that can really f#ck up kids).

Well, Princess Diana is now officially the 1st conspiracy i was aware of that happened in my lifetime.

Cut and pasted from my post on another thread:

In common with all conspiracy theories there will always be those that you will never convince of the truth. Obviously a lengthy, open enquiry with a jury isn't good enough for some people and Mohammed Fayed's ravings before and during the process should be enough to convince anyone that he is a bereaved father struggling to get over the loss of his son.

I wonder if a prosecution of Fayed could be made under French health and safety laws for allowing a drunk driver to be on duty? Oh no, French H&S laws cannot be applied to any event greater than ten years old - I wondered why Fayed had dragged this out for so long.

Can we not just let this matter lie? There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Diana died as a result of anything other than drink driving, failing to wear a seatbelt and irresponsible paparazzi.

reply to post by budski


I must say that I find the formulation of the verdict most annoying, quite irritating. Given the fact that there is no death penalty in the UK, there is no chance of anyone being "lawfully killed", right?

As for the inquest itself... I understand that many people would be interested.
It's just that I am not.
(And I hope that is understandable, too. :-))

Everything he has said has been deluded or inflammatory.

Calling people "crocodiles", "Nazis" and "not important" (= the Queen) is certainly not a way to ingratiate oneself to the public.

It's really sad to see how grief can mess up people's minds.

reply to The Wizard

The question of pregnancy and marriage were both answered and had already been answered at the french enquiry and in the Lord Stevens report, and no, al fayed has NO right to demand anything - he can ask, but that's it. as he's not a british citizen.
And yes, that's also a problem for him - he tried to buy and force his way into the "aristocracy" by buying harrods - they were having none of it and this made him extremely bitter to the extent that he swore revenge (allegedly) against the upper class and the monarchy.

I think actually looking at some FACTS might be in order, such as the legality of his position and his rights under law.

There was no reason to hold another inquest as the accident happened on foreign soil - he just wanted to rant, rave and embaress the royals.

[edit on 8/4/2008 by budski]

Not meaning to go off topic but i have just one question and that is:
If their was an Official Inquest into 911 and they came back saying that it wasn't a conspiracy and that the official story was correct and true would you put down your evidence that says otherwise and believe them?
or are the people here that say their was no conspiracy same that go along with the official 911 story?

there's a lot more unanswered questions about 911 than there is about this.

And for the record, I'm a skeptic



Also, the report into 911 (yes there's ALREADY BEEN an inquiry) doesn't even come close to answering questions.

[edit on 8/4/2008 by budski]

reply to post by budski


True there were a lot more unanswered questions in 911 but i think that is due to the fact that its was a much larger operation involving a whole lot more hence we have more questions.

And yes there has been a report stupidly i forgot about that seeing as it was obviously pointless.
Anyway you proved my point their has been a report and people still don't believe the official story and i think this is the same guess thats why it is and always will be a conspiracy theory.

I honestly cant believe some of the responses to this... a drunk driver crashes a car head on at 60 miles an hour and the passengers who WERNT wearing a seatbelt died.... and people seem surprised at this

The one person wearing a seatbet SURVIVED ... doesnt that say it all.

And for all the decryers of the Royal family and M16 , if they wanted to get rid of her do you HONESTLY THINK that they would leave it to chance with something like a car crash???????? After all, there was a survivor for gods sake and every chance that she might have done so too.

They could have got to her yacht anytime and made it look like she drowned, or brought down the private jet she travelled a lot in with dodi and downed it over water with out any shred of evidence being left. Now if i can think up just those 2 scenarios are you people seriouslysuggesting that the combined powers of the Royals and the intelligence services couldnt??

For gods sake, it was a tragic accident THATS IT