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...
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.