0
   

94% OF YOU BELIEVE DIANA WAS MURDERED

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 07:22 am
That really would be a nice idea to have an English coroner holding an inquestin France and make a verdict ... according to French law, then?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 07:33 am
No I'm just being sarcastic....

The French have already had their inquiry and concluded Henri Paul was drunk.

But under English law there must be an inquest here into the death abroad of any British citizen. Mostly its just a formality. And I wonder how many Brits have been killed on the roads in France since 1997...and how many verdicts were "accidental death"? Pretty much all of them I should think.


But after 10 years this has still not happened in the case of the most famous woman in the world. Why not?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jun, 2007 03:48 am
And now we learn that eye witness accounts from SIS agents on the night of the crash (? what were they doing) will never be brought before the jury.

Daily Express wrote:
The ruling (by the coroner) means that statements from agents such as former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson, who has publicly suggested that the Princess's death may have been the result of foul play, will not be revealed to the jury unless the coroner allows it.

British secret service agents were believed to have been with the driver of the Mercedes, Henri Paul, in the hours leading up to the crash.


Has anyone ever heard of an eyewitness to events leading to a fatal road crash being barred from presenting evidence to a court before? I give this coroner 2 months before he too drops it and runs away screaming.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 04:37 pm
well steve I agree with you

and 10 years and still no inquest into a perfectly straightforward road traffic accident (apparantly).


Why?
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2007 05:25 pm
Well, they're having an inquest now. Apparently it will take 6 months. I can't hazard a guess as to what the monumental cost will be, but one thing can be assured. It is a monumental waste of time and money. If the stupid f@cking bitch had put a seatbelt on none of this would be needed. What a pathetic friggin' joke.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 01:51 am
your usual tact and discretion I see Wilso

worried about the rugby?

the original title of this thread was a headline in the Daily Express who did a poll.

I'm just wondering how they can ever select a jury who can be relied upon to turn in the right verdict.

I think that in large part accounts for the delay.
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 02:01 am
Steve 41oo wrote:


worried about the rugby?



There'll be a bloody inquiry if we lose I can tell you!
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 02:50 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
your usual tact and discretion I see Wilso

worried about the rugby?

the original title of this thread was a headline in the Daily Express who did a poll.

I'm just wondering how they can ever select a jury who can be relied upon to turn in the right verdict.

I think that in large part accounts for the delay.


Just wondering....what iyo would the "right verdict" be? Is there a "right" verdict?

BTW the pathologist must have determined whether she was pregnant...and could even have tested the foetus for parenthood , if she was.

Do you think we'll find out about that? Not that it's any of my business.

I wonder if Earl Spencer is making any money at his morbidity mausoleum?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 03:16 am
McTag wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
your usual tact and discretion I see Wilso

worried about the rugby?

the original title of this thread was a headline in the Daily Express who did a poll.

I'm just wondering how they can ever select a jury who can be relied upon to turn in the right verdict.

I think that in large part accounts for the delay.


Just wondering....what iyo would the "right verdict" be? Is there a "right" verdict?

BTW the pathologist must have determined whether she was pregnant...and could even have tested the foetus for parenthood , if she was.

Do you think we'll find out about that? Not that it's any of my business.

I wonder if Earl Spencer is making any money at his morbidity mausoleum?


dp will get back to you re rugby odds...certainly an inquiry if not a full blown coroners inquest...Smile



mct You make some good points. Coroner's courts only have limited verdict options right? Accidental death, suicide misadventure etc correct? I'm not a lawyer. From the point of view of the Establishment, there is only one verdict...accidental death... which is acceptable. Anything else would leave questions unanswered for ever. And the verdict al Fayed wants, "unlawful killing" would hasten the demise of the British monarchy imo. The stakes are that high.

Regarding pregnancy, Diana's body was embalmed before burial. Thus any trace of a foetus was destroyed. Just who ordered this procedure and why, (which was actually contrary to French law pertaining to such cases I believe help please Francis) is a question the al Fayed team will be pressing.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 03:35 am
Quite intriguing

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article3024728.ece
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 03:41 am
I'm not really sure what your question is, Steve, regarding the French law.

But, if I understand, embalming the corpse, after autopsy decided by the juge, is not illegal. When the body is returned to the family, they are free to decide to embalm or not.

Note that, usually, when an autopsy is performed in France, a pregnancy test is conducted. (On women, obviously).
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 01:04 pm
Francis wrote:
I'm not really sure what your question is, Steve, regarding the French law.

But, if I understand, embalming the corpse, after autopsy decided by the juge, is not illegal. When the body is returned to the family, they are free to decide to embalm or not.

Note that, usually, when an autopsy is performed in France, a pregnancy test is conducted. (On women, obviously).
Well I might have it completely wrong (it has been known) but I heard or read somewhere that for Dianas body to be embalmed was contrary to normal practice.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 01:38 pm
You mean, perhaps, that the corpse was embalmed before returning it to the family?

That would be contrary to normal pratice and, surely, against the law.

According to French law, after autopsy, the corpse must be given back in a "decent state" and the organs must not be missing, if they were present at the moment of the death.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 01:40 pm
Francis wrote:
You mean, perhaps, that the corpse was embalmed before returning it to the family?

That would be contrary to normal pratice and, surely, against the law.


Thats my understanding of what happened.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 02:04 pm
Quote:
Having the Princess's body embalmed ten hours after her death is another grey area. Was it illegal? Was it ordered by MI6 to conceal the pregnancy? What took place was not the kind of embalming associated with the pharaohs, but rather an injection of fluid into the blood vessels to slow decomposition. Efforts to keep the body cool on a hot day were failing.

In France, the inquest heard, author-isation to embalm a body is needed from both the local mayor and relatives of the deceased. Permission from the official side came from the police because the crash happened in the early hours of the morning.

In the absence of relatives, personal permission was given by Michael Gib-bins, the Princess's personal secretary, and Colin Tebbutt, her security consultant, after learning that the Prince of Wales would not arrive in Paris until 5pm to collect the body of his former wife. "These men may paint a picture of finding themselves unexpectedly in a difficult situation; a decision should have been made by relatives, but who was there to call?" the coroner said.
Source
0 Replies
 
Sglass
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 02:46 pm
Walter what is M16?
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 03:37 pm
It's the not-so-Secret Service - a UK Crown Service responsible for obtaining secret information and conducting operations in support of the UK's foreign policy objectives....

I got that off the internet so if I'm wrong, don't shoot me.
0 Replies
 
Sglass
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 03:45 pm
The only weapon I have in my house is my mouth
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 09:37 pm
Mame wrote:
It's the not-so-Secret Service - a UK Crown Service responsible for obtaining secret information and conducting operations in support of the UK's foreign policy objectives....


It's the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), commonly known as MI6 (Military Intelligence, Section 6).
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2007 04:15 am
Quote:
"These men may paint a picture of finding themselves unexpectedly in a difficult situation; a decision should have been made by relatives, but who was there to call?" the coroner said.
Laughing You might have thought faced with the sudden death of the mother of the future king, the most famous woman in the world, estranged daughter in law of the present Queen - that "these men" might have done it by the book. (Out of fear if nothing else).

"Who was there to call?" Laughing Laughing Well of course no one, just a poor dead girl, a hapless victim of notorious Paris driving.

They phoned home to tell Charles his ex wife was dead. Why didnt they phone to ask permission to embalm the body?

The procedure may not have been the same as during the Pharohs. But it still destroyed any evidence of pregnancy.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 09:59:57