Mohamed Al Fayed has failed to win his legal challenge which would have seen the Queen and Prince Philip called to give evidence at the inquest into the deaths of his son and their former daughter-in-law, Diana, Princess of Wales.

Your Name:

Your Email Address:

Your Homepage:


Comment:

BOLD

"QUOTE"

UNDERLINE

Name: Carolyn

Comment: You will find copious evidence given by Richard Tomlinson on 13/2/08, statements given and discussion of by Romauld Rat, Oderkerken, Arson, given on 11/3/08, Darmon on 30/10/08, and so it goes on. Plus first hand witnesses who were either driving or on foot and heard the crashes and hurried into the tunnel on various days of the trial. Henri Paul's GP has spoken, the drugs he was taking and were found in his blood samples have been discussed. French Drs. who treated Diana have spoken, the pathology has been discussed and gone over time and time again by eminent scientists, and so we go on ad infinitum. Again, put yourself in William and Harry's shoes and ask yourself if they would not speak up if they thought their father or grandparents were involved. Then ask yourself if perhaps Diana's letter written to her butler when she was sad and lonely just might have been a reflection of her disordered thinking, rather than a statment of fact. Camilla was to be set aside too, don't forget.

Name: M-M

Comment: Carolyn Comment: We can thank Mr. Al Fayed for the focus on Diana's personal life, which had to be addressed in the light of his outlandish claims. The means of her death has been gone over minutely. Prince Charles, well, Diana suggested that Camilla was to be "set aside". And it beggars belief that William and Harry would not expose their father if they had any suspicion he was involved in their beloved mother's death. And if he was called, and said he had nothing to do with his ex-wife's death, the conspiracy theorists would say he was lying. Many of the papparazzi have spoken. Richard Tomlinson has also spoken. There have been days and days of forensic evidence given by the French pathologists, and other eminent scientist re Henri Paul's blood samples, organ samples, hair samples, aqueous humor samples, etc. etc. And so it goes on, if their was an Inquest held every year for the next 50 years, some would still cry "conspiracy". _____________________ Fact - Prince Charles was not called to appear at this Inquest - as any other ex-husband accused of planning his wife's death would have been Fact - the French Forensic experts were not called to appear at this Inquest - their government refused on their behalf . Fact - The Papparazzi present immediately after the car crash in the Alma refused to appear at this inquest . Fact - Richard Tomlinson may have spoken - but it was not at this Inquest . He is still in danger from MI6 . Fact - the CIA still refuse to reveal what is in their hundreds of tapes of the late Princess Diana's phone calls . You are quite right , in view of the elaborate 10 year cover-up we have witnessed , some will always 'cry conspiracy'

Name: Carolyn

Comment: We can thank Mr. Al Fayed for the focus on Diana's personal life, which had to be addressed in the light of his outlandish claims. The means of her death has been gone over minutely. Prince Charles, well, Diana suggested that Camilla was to be "set aside". And it beggars belief that William and Harry would not expose their father if they had any suspicion he was involved in their beloved mother's death. And if he was called, and said he had nothing to do with his ex-wife's death, the conspiracy theorists would say he was lying. Many of the papparazzi have spoken. Richard Tomlinson has also spoken. There have been days and days of forensic evidence given by the French pathologists, and other eminent scientist re Henri Paul's blood samples, organ samples, hair samples, aqueous humor samples, etc. etc. And so it goes on, if their was an Inquest held every year for the next 50 years, some would still cry "conspiracy".

Name: Monika	Comment: Carolyn...agreed.

Name: M-M

Comment: Vital witnesses omitted (IMO) are :- Prince Charles (actually named by Diana as wanting her dead ) French Forensic 'experts' (Henri Paul's dodgy blood tests ) CIA (still withholding tapes of Diana's phone taps ) French Papparazzi (many were on the spot in the Alma ) Richard Tomlinson - ex MI6 on what he saw in their files . There are probably more . The focus of the inquest seemed to be mostly on the late Princess's love-life rather than on the means of her death

Name: Carolyn

Comment: Yes, thanks, Monica, I know where you are coming from. But to suggest that the emergemcy treatment of Diana, and it follows Trevor was put on hold for 90 minutes awaiting instructions from BP, is just so amazingly ludicrous. Especially since the evidence of the "first responders" is there in the transcipts of the Inquest. Such statements cannot go unchallenged. Even from the point of view of the French medics! They must feel terrible that they lost a young and famous person. I know how horrible it is when you throw everything into trying to save a life, and no matter what you do, the patient dies. Imagine how Harry or William would feel if they heard such scurrilous and indeed libelous statemtents made about their grandparents.

Name: Carolyn	Comment: Which vital witnesses have been omitted? Name them please. Three of them died in the car, the other occupant has testified, despite his acquired brain injury memory deficit. Read the transcripts, please, before making such unsubstantiated general statemtents. It's just so simple, if you want to believe in a conspiracy, you will, even if God Himself gives evidence at the Inquest!

Name: Monika

Comment: Carolyn, I agree with some of what you've said and I'll answer your double standard question. IMO, a site such as this is similar to a book club where people get together, read the same articles and share their thoughts, if they so desire. Sometimes the comments are of a serious nature and sometimes they are lighthearted or humorous. I suppose it depends on the topic, the angle and, of course, the individual making the observation. Different styles and opinions make the world a more interesting place. I just think that making fun of a person based on their belief is unkind and it can be tricky since we can’t be sure HOW a personal ‘attack’ will be received. I don’t want to expand any more than that…I’m sure you know where I’m going with this.

Name: Carolyn

Comment: Yes. Those who want to believe in conspiracies will continue to against all the evidence, given by eminent and learned people, to the contrary. For some people it is just too difficult to accept that Princess Diana was human, and died as many other people do, accidentally. Some statements are just too ludicrous to be taken seriously, and humour cam be a break to the monotony of repetition. The ubiquitous repetition becomes evident when almost every article concerning Princess Diana is brought down to the common denominator of an alledged conspiracy. I have noted that some posters seem to find it humourous to deride public figures even for their style of dressing, or their hair, or some other inconsequence. But then would that be a double standard?

Name: M-M

Comment: Emily Elizabeth Windsor-Cragg Comment: You don't believe in conspiracies, therefore you don't believe in Opus Dei, Knights of Malta, Templars, Masonry, Knights of the Garter, the Mafia or the CIA. Your privilege, to believe what you want; but, if Diana was murdered, as she believed she would be, it WAS by a conspiracy. And from the huge holes in the testimony, it is clear to me, the whole real story is being finessed. Again, concealment and coverups are common; but again, you can choose to believe what you want. I'm sure this jury senses the holes in the fabric of information being presented and not presented to them; so it is the jury who will decide. _____________ It is my belief that , firmly led by the Coroner , this jury will repeat the verdict of the previous Inquiries . It is sadly clear from the omissions of vital witnesses , and the permitted digressions into the late Princess's love life which have headlined the papers , that this will be the Establishment-approved result . The world has been offered salacious trivia instead of a hard hitting investigation of the deaths

Name: anyacat

Comment: Actually some people did think Enron could do wrong and they spent four long years building the case to prove that Enron was in fact a house of cards. Steve Fraser, historian and author of Every Man a Speculator: A History of Wall Street in American Life, observed, "The Enron case and all the other scandals and cases that trailed after it may have finally punctured that romance with Wall Street that has been true of American culture for awhile now." In the aftermath, no one has come forward to ask for an investigation of the investigation. No one has suggested that what happened to Enron, Arthur Anderson, or WorldCom had anything to do with The Bilderberg Group, the Illumanti, or the CIA. It was just what it seemed to be: A sorry tale of corporate and personal greed on a monumental scale. Diana died in a tragic and avoidable car accident. Her death has resulted in a review of French emergency assistance procedures. At the time of her death, Diana was easily the most photographed woman in the world. In an effort to outrun photographers, the car in which Diana died went out of control and hit a pole. According to one theory, Diana was sacrificed by an International group of satanists headed by Bill Clinton, who wanted to divorce his wife and marry Diana. When she refused, she was assassinated. In another theory, Diana was killed by an International Cartel of arms dealers because of her crusade against land mines. And, of course, we have the theory that the Royal Family was so anti-Muslim that they wanted Diana dead rather than married to one. Take your pick. Three inquests have asked the same questions and two came to the same conclusion: The accident was an accident, tragic and avoidable, but an accident.If at the end of this third inquest, it is not proved that Diana was assassinated by the Royal Family, those who believe she was murdered will continue to believe. But a conspiracy theory does not become truth just because we want to believe it. Some times there is a conspiracy, whether to defraud the public and other financial institutions, or to silence critics (as was the case with Valerie Plume) or to create public support for the invasion of a country that never once rattle its saber in the direction of the US, but sometimes accidents happen. And while it may be difficult to accept, accidents sometimes happen, even to the most photographed woman in the world. The most recent inquest has unleashed a torrent of information that was best left private. Diana is being picked over in death just as she was picked over in life. To me, it seems an unhealthy interest in the life of a dead woman who some may have idealized but who they would never know. But because they thought they knew her and claim to love her, these people believe they have the right to sift through her life looking for clues to the why of her death. A tragic accident doesn't seem big enough to bring down an icon.

Name: Monika	Comment: Exploora, another gem! I so agree with you about the mocking. Debate the subject; don't attack the person making the comment.

Name: exploora

Comment: The fact people mock people who ask why, creates an environment where wrongdoing can occur right under people's noses. Enron is a great example of conspiracy. It went on for a long time, the evidence was right under people's noses, even while California was being "ripped" off for its power people still did not question the authority believing that Enron could do no harm. In Di's case, the wrongdoing relating to the exploitation of her image, happened right under our noses too. This "wrongdoing" was possible because it was generally accepted by the public that swarming such people like Di for photos is acceptable. Di was swarmed by photographers and had very little personal space and privacy and such an accident had high probability of occurring. Going against the tide and validating that wrongdoing is a probability whenever there is a gain to be made by such behaviour, could go a long way in preparing the public for future man made disaster.

Name: Monika	Comment: Emily, I think you misunderstood my last comment. I don't agree with you, but I support your right to express your opinion.

Name: anyacat

Comment: The conversation continues... Dr. Martino: La Mafia s'est déguisée en le Templier de Chevaliers sont dans le Pont du tunnel de l'Alma même maintenant comme nous parlons. Palace Operator: Sir, you are speaking gibberish. Please calm yourself and maybe I can help you. Dr. Martino: Le ciel tombe ! Le ciel tombe ! Palace Operator (losing patience): Well, if, as you say, le ciel is really tombe, all I can say is take cover.

Name: Emily Elizabeth Windsor-Cragg

Comment: You don't believe in conspiracies, therefore you don't believe in Opus Dei, Knights of Malta, Templars, Masonry, Knights of the Garter, the Mafia or the CIA. Your privilege, to believe what you want; but, if Diana was murdered, as she believed she would be, it WAS by a conspiracy. And from the huge holes in the testimony, it is clear to me, the whole real story is being finessed. Again, concealment and coverups are common; but again, you can choose to believe what you want. I'm sure this jury senses the holes in the fabric of information being presented and not presented to them; so it is the jury who will decide. EEWC

Name: Carolyn	Comment: Stop it Anycat! Seriously though, we have on our local TV a new documentary showing this week re the terrible events in Dallas in 1963. It seems that we have a never ending thirst for information about the famous who die a violent and horrible death. Strange creatures, we humans are.

Name: Monika	Comment: Emily, I do not believe in a conspiracy and recently we debated (quite heartily!) on the role of first responders. That said, I'm sorry I asked you to expand on your original statement in this thread.

Name: anyacat

Comment: Transcripts? Transcripts? We don't need no steekin' transcripts, we have conspiracy theories...and (cue creepy organ music) stealth tanks! (With a nod to John Huston and everyone who appeared the The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, and especially to Alfonso Bedoya, who, as Gold Hat, uttered the immortal line, "Badges?... We don't need no... stinkin' badges!!" )Warning: This entry is designed as comedy and should not be taken as a serious attempt to present facts about stealth tanks laying in wait in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel.

Name: Carolyn

Comment: Anyacat, you did it again, I almost fell out of my chair laughing! Dear, Dear, if only Emily would read the transcripts of the Inquest, she might learn something, and cease her repetitive nonesense. And never, never in 42 years of nursing have I tried to contact a NOK before commencing emergency treatment, Emily dear, it is just not how we work, either in France, UK, USA or anywhere! Neither did Dr. Maillez, who just happened to be the first on the scene with medical knowledge. He didn't even know who the injured and dead people were, he did what we all do, jumped in to see how he could help! Again, read the transcripts, PLEASE.

Name: exploora

Comment: The whole idea of monarchy, is that part of the operations of government is closed, and can appear reasonable due to the human faces and the personal elements. All kinds of things happen behind closed doors, especially when people don't have voices, or scolded when speaking if not spoken too. I think there probably was confusion relating to who was in charge, in situations like this, this confusion is often typical of dysfunctional "families" and possibly governments. I personally would not have left the Ritz for all the tea in china. I would assume the heir of princess, and realized men in a group, when exploiting women, often do degrade her, intentionally or unintentionally. And the tabloid industry, it is very unclear where pornography starts and where news ends. Obviously it is mostly men who appear in charge. Just do a search for the word boob in any of the search engines on a tabloid then compare it with the search for the word love. No wonder men wonder what "in love means". I rest my case.

Name: isabel	Comment: Interesting, EE?? WHAT makes you think the Princess did not receive treatment from the first responders? And since when do first responders NEED PERMISSION to treat a critically injured person at the scene of an accident? Can you also pull out a theory for what happened in Dallas, Texas back there in 1963??

Name: anyacat

Comment: Ring, Ring, Ring Operator: Good evening, Buckingham Palace, how may we help you? Dr Jean-Marc Martino: Peux-je parler à la Reine, s'il vous plaît? Operator: Who is this? Dr. Martino: Peux-je parler à la Reine, s'il vous plaît ? Operator: Do you speak English? Dr. Martino: Zee Queen, I must speak to zee Queen. Operator: Does Her Majesty know you? Dr. Martino: Non, je suis une route un médecin latéral. Ceci est une urgence. Operator: Sir, to help you, I will have to know who you are and what you want, preferably in English. Dr. Martino: Il y a eu un accident terrible! Operator: The Queen has been in a terrible accident? Dr. Martino: Non, non, ces anglais stupide... and so it goes for 90 minutes...

Name: Susie	Comment: Emily, You certianly presume quite a lot for someone who has ZERO first hand information. Whats even more preposterous is that you believe your perception is the truth without ANY facutal basis. Just because you seem to have the Queen's telephone number on speed dial doesn;t mean the rest of the world has it. You do our queen a great injustice by your ridiculous accusation.

Name: Monika	Comment: Thanks for explaining, Emily. Gosh, I'm at a loss for words here....and that doesn't happen too often, as some may have noticed.

Name: Emily Elizabeth Windsor-Cragg

Comment: Okay, here's what I believe happened. The first squad car and/or first ambulance arrived at the scene; identified the occupants as Princess Diana and Dodi, NATURALLY they got on the radio or the cellphone and they called across the channel to Buckingham Palace for instructions. The Queen was informed of the accident and was asked for instructions. She put them on hold for an hour or 90 minutes, without giving instructions the whole time during which time, Diana died. The crew basically spun their wheels waiting for instructions, for ninety minutes. There has to be some reason why they did so. If I had been on that Ambulance Team, I would have called Buckingham Palace, FIRST THING! This is why HRMQE2's testimony becomes critical. What happened when the emergency call got to the Palace looking for authorizations and instructions? PERMISSION TO TREAT IN A FOREIGN NATION. EEWC

Name: Monika	Comment: Emily, are you keeping something from us? Assuming the Queen and Prince Philip had been called to give testimony, what do you believe they would have said that would have lead to a 'clear and just decision'? Just wondering...

Name: M-M

Comment: We have all been offered a slide show of the late Princess of Wales' emotional life , both true and untrue , instead of the testimony of those witnesses crucial to finding the truth , being called before the Court . We have seen the shadow not the substance . Her ex-husband the POW who she actually NAMED as plotting against her and wishing her harm , the Papparazzi actually on the scene that infamous night , the French forensic 'experts' and their blood tests on Henri Paul , the CIA tapes on Diana (still unavailable ) all have been withheld from the Coroner's court . Yes , let's just see how the Coroner leads the Jury and how the Jury finds . The signs are not good for truth and justice

Name: valmae	Comment: What a ridiculous idea to call HM and Prince Philip into the witness box. What on earth what that achieve? Fayed, go back to your shop and invent another story and bribe another person. I think you have lost count of the number of rings, engagement or otherwise, lavished on Diana by your son. You lack respect for the dead, so why should the living have any regard for you?

Name: Emily Elizabeth Windsor-Cragg	Comment: Now we'll see just what the jury is made of :: gullible sheep or something else : realizing they have not been given access to the information which would lead to a clear and just decision. EEWC