According to newspaper reports the Diana Inquest has cost some £7-10million. The hope was that it would clear up some of the unanswered questions about Diana's death, and in doing so, reach a conclusion as to whether her death was an accident, manslaughter or perhaps murder.
The previous coroner, Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, had decided that she would sit without a jury and decide the verdict alone.
This caused an amount of comment, especially from those supporting a conspiracy theory, who saw a whitewash - an establishment figure alone deciding the outcome. They argued that only by allowing a jury of normal people to decide a verdict would there be any chance of convincing skeptics that the death really was just an accident.
Mohamed Al Fayed challenged the decision, and won. Despite the extra costs, the inquest would have a jury of normal people. Baroness Butler-Sloss stepped down as coroner.
Now with the inquest almost complete, and millions of pounds later, the new coroner has decided that the jury won't have the option to decide that there was a conspiracy after all. They'll be limited to finding that deaths were either an accident, manslaughter (by drunk driver/paparazzi) or unexplained. The jury cannot apparently be trusted to dismiss a conspiracy themselves, so must have it done for them.
Its by no means likely that the jury would have concluded that it was a conspiracy. But it makes a mockery of the legal ruling to use a jury if another establishment figure (the current coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker) then takes away the most controversial of options from them. Surely if the evidence for a conspiracy is so non-existent, then a jury can be trusted to come to this conclusion too?
Perhaps the millions might have been better spent elsewhere.
More info:
The Independent - Coroner rules out Diana murder verdict
Showing posts with label diana inquest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diana inquest. Show all posts
02 April 2008
02 March 2007
Diana inquest will have jury
Since Diana's death in 1997 there have been persistent conspiracy theories that her death was not an accident.
An inquest has still not been held nearly 10 years later.
When the coroner for her inquest was finally appointed she decided to hold the inquest without a jury - she alone would decide the verdict.
ThroneOut criticized this decision. Such an inquest would be seen by those who disbelieve the official version of events as a whitewash.
After legal action by Mohamed Fayed, this decision has now been overturned, and the inquest will proceed with a jury.
It unlikely that true conspiracy buffs will be convinced by anything, including the verdict of a jury of randomly selected people, but for most the selection of an unbiased jury of ordinary members of the public will give much more legitimacy to whatever decision is reached.
Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. A single coroner acting alone may well come to the right decision, but in the eyes of many it would be a verdict that means nothing.
One has to ask why this commonsense decision was not made initially. It will be interesting to see if there is any legal attempt to appeal it, and again leave the decision on this controversial event to a single "estblishment" figure.
For more information see
ThroneOut - Public cannot be trusted with Diana inquest verdict
BBC News - Diana inquest to be heard by jury
An inquest has still not been held nearly 10 years later.
When the coroner for her inquest was finally appointed she decided to hold the inquest without a jury - she alone would decide the verdict.
ThroneOut criticized this decision. Such an inquest would be seen by those who disbelieve the official version of events as a whitewash.
After legal action by Mohamed Fayed, this decision has now been overturned, and the inquest will proceed with a jury.
It unlikely that true conspiracy buffs will be convinced by anything, including the verdict of a jury of randomly selected people, but for most the selection of an unbiased jury of ordinary members of the public will give much more legitimacy to whatever decision is reached.
Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. A single coroner acting alone may well come to the right decision, but in the eyes of many it would be a verdict that means nothing.
One has to ask why this commonsense decision was not made initially. It will be interesting to see if there is any legal attempt to appeal it, and again leave the decision on this controversial event to a single "estblishment" figure.
For more information see
ThroneOut - Public cannot be trusted with Diana inquest verdict
BBC News - Diana inquest to be heard by jury
16 January 2007
Public cannot be trusted with Diana inquest verdict
Since Diana's death there have been widespread suspicions that she may have been murdered due to many unanswered questions about her death. These suspicions were later inflamed by the revelation that she had claimed that she would be killed in a car crash.
The authorities of course have always denied foul play.
Having seen the inquest delayed until nearly 10 years after her death, and with an attempt made to hold the inquest in private, those believing in a conspiracy always suggested that an unbiased inquest would never take place. Their suspicion was that the jury would be a fixed jury (by using the coroner's powers to appoint a jury of members of the royal household).
Instead the coroner, Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, has removed any reason for a bent jury - by deciding she alone will decide whether Diana was murdered by a government conspiracy. No jury required.
ThroneOut takes no position on whether Diana was murdered. Its entirely possible that her death was an accident, but then again many questions remain unanswered, and Diana herself claimed she would be murdered in a car crash.
But the move to exclude a jury will do absolutely nothing to dispel rumours of a conspiracy. Judges don't have a history of finding against "the establishment". Ask those who sat through Lord Hutton's investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly, and were stunned when he reached a verdict quite different from that which everyone else who sat through the hearings had expected.
The inquest verdict is of course a done deal. It seems inconceivable that the decision to exclude a jury could be made in a case of such great public interest. Instead the inquest has been turned into monumental waste of public money which will do absolutely nothing to dispel any rumours about a conspiracy.
More info
BBC News - Diana inquest to sit with no jury
The authorities of course have always denied foul play.
Having seen the inquest delayed until nearly 10 years after her death, and with an attempt made to hold the inquest in private, those believing in a conspiracy always suggested that an unbiased inquest would never take place. Their suspicion was that the jury would be a fixed jury (by using the coroner's powers to appoint a jury of members of the royal household).
Instead the coroner, Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, has removed any reason for a bent jury - by deciding she alone will decide whether Diana was murdered by a government conspiracy. No jury required.
ThroneOut takes no position on whether Diana was murdered. Its entirely possible that her death was an accident, but then again many questions remain unanswered, and Diana herself claimed she would be murdered in a car crash.
But the move to exclude a jury will do absolutely nothing to dispel rumours of a conspiracy. Judges don't have a history of finding against "the establishment". Ask those who sat through Lord Hutton's investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly, and were stunned when he reached a verdict quite different from that which everyone else who sat through the hearings had expected.
The inquest verdict is of course a done deal. It seems inconceivable that the decision to exclude a jury could be made in a case of such great public interest. Instead the inquest has been turned into monumental waste of public money which will do absolutely nothing to dispel any rumours about a conspiracy.
More info
BBC News - Diana inquest to sit with no jury
06 January 2004
Diana claimed charles would kill her in car accident
ThroneOut has previously reported how Diana had claimed that a "senior royal" was planning to kill her in a car accident. The Mirror Newspaper has now confirmed that the letter she wrote accuses Prince Charles of planning her death. Diana was killed in a car accident later that year.
Diana was apparently convinced that she would be killed and had famously collated evidence of wrongdoing by Prince Charles which she apparently intended to use in any battle with him over the custody of her sons. There was also claimed to be unease in high places about the extent of her relationship with Dodi Fayed who would have been step father to the future King had Diana and Dodi married.
In related developments, the coroner appointed to oversee the inquest into Diana's death has adjourned the inquest until 2005 after appointing a senior policeman to investigate whether Diana's death was suspicious. So we have:
1) Diana rumoured to be about to marry Dodi Fayed, and possibly pregnant with his child
2) Diana collating evidence about male rape and other wrongdoing within Prince Charles' home, for use in a custody battle over William and Harry
3) Diana alleging that Prince Charles would arrange a car accident to kill her
4) Diana dying shortly afterwards in a car accident
5) Numerous documented inconsistencies with the official version of events both before and after the accident.
No doubt Mr Plod will conclude that there is nothing suspicious at all. Afterall, why let a jury see the evidence, when you can let one copper who has pledged allegiance to the Queen decide that for you?
"Nothing for you to see here folks, move along."
Coverage of this current story:
The Guardian - Burrell: I didn't want Charles named
BBC News - Diana crash investigation ordered
Diana was apparently convinced that she would be killed and had famously collated evidence of wrongdoing by Prince Charles which she apparently intended to use in any battle with him over the custody of her sons. There was also claimed to be unease in high places about the extent of her relationship with Dodi Fayed who would have been step father to the future King had Diana and Dodi married.
In related developments, the coroner appointed to oversee the inquest into Diana's death has adjourned the inquest until 2005 after appointing a senior policeman to investigate whether Diana's death was suspicious. So we have:
1) Diana rumoured to be about to marry Dodi Fayed, and possibly pregnant with his child
2) Diana collating evidence about male rape and other wrongdoing within Prince Charles' home, for use in a custody battle over William and Harry
3) Diana alleging that Prince Charles would arrange a car accident to kill her
4) Diana dying shortly afterwards in a car accident
5) Numerous documented inconsistencies with the official version of events both before and after the accident.
No doubt Mr Plod will conclude that there is nothing suspicious at all. Afterall, why let a jury see the evidence, when you can let one copper who has pledged allegiance to the Queen decide that for you?
"Nothing for you to see here folks, move along."
Coverage of this current story:
The Guardian - Burrell: I didn't want Charles named
BBC News - Diana crash investigation ordered
22 December 2003
Windsors 'nobble' Diana inquest
There is nothing the Windsors hate more than independent public scrutiny of their behaviour. When wrongdoing is alleged in Prince Charles' household, it is his "good friend" and employee, Michael Peat, that he appoints to carry out an "independent" investigation.Some six years or so after the death of Princess Diana, the coroner appointed to investigate has finally set a date for the inquest which it is confirmed will commence on the 6th January 2004.
However, unlike normal inquests, this will be far from independent.
The Coroners Act 1988, the law governing the appointment of coroners, and the conduct of inquest states at s.29:
(2) The coroner of the Queen's household shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of inquests into the deaths of persons whose bodies are lying
(a) within the limits of any of the Queen's palaces; or
(b) within the limits of any other house where Her Majesty is then residing.
(3) The limits of any such palace or house shall be deemed to extend to any courts, gardens or other places within the curtilage of the palace or house but not further; and where a body is lying in any place beyond those limits, the coroner within whose district the body is lying, and not the coroner for the Queen's household, shall have jurisdiction to hold an inquest into the death.
Diana's body was not found within the limits of a Royal Palace, it was found in a wrecked Mercedes car in a tunnel in Paris. Clearly subsection 3 states that a normal coroner should have been appointed. One may therefore ask why a Royal Coroner has been appointed instead.
Subsection 4 provides a possible answer.
(4) The jurors on an inquest held by the coroner of the Queen's household shall consist of officers of that household, to be returned by such officer of the Queen's household as may be directed to summon the jurors by the warrant of the coroner.
There we have it. A nobbled jury. The Windsors are going to be permitted to hand pick the jury that will decide (inter alia) whether Diana's claim that a senior Royal would kill her in a car accident is true.
The law relating to the appointment of a Royal Coroner has been completely ignored so that a nobbled Coroner AND jury can be appointed.
Once again the Windsors are rigging the system to ensure no inquiry is indepedent. One wonders what they are trying to conceal this time?
More Information:
BBC News - Date set for princess's inquest
BBC News - Q&A: Diana and Dodi inquests
HMSO - Coroners Act 1988 s29
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
