I'm glad that horrible hag won't be going to Diana's memorial. How insulting and disrespectful that would be to her memory.
Anyhoo, anti, what do you think of the details of the movie which aired here? Any comments on my questions?
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by sunny » Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:28 pm
by antiaristo » Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:02 pm
For decades, it has been an unspoken rule in France that the press had no business delving into the private lives of politicians - although everyone knew that President Chirac could not be contacted the night Lady Diana died because he was holed up with his mistress...
Thursday August 23 2007
Editors on Diana death: a very partial apology
I watched ITV1's Diana's Last Summer last night in the expectation - following a Daily Telegraph piece on Tuesday - that red-top editors would be admitting guilt over the accident in which she died. Well, one did.
Phil Hall, then editor of the News of the World, talked of "a circle of culpability" which involved readers, photographers and newspapers (meaning editors). "I felt huge responsibility for what happened and I think everyone in the media did," he said.
Everyone? It was clear that the photographers who were interviewed refuse to accept any blame. They stuck to the line that it was all the driver's fault (for being drunk and driving too fast). They were not chasing and, even if they were, they were a long way behind. And why were Diana and her companion, Dodi Fayed, so worried about being pictured anyway? We're not guilty. The paparazzi are misunderstood.
Hall was much more honest, but he is an ex-editor after all, and it's easy for former editors to own up.
The Sun's then editor, Stuart Higgins, was quoted in the Telegraph as saying: "I have often questioned my role, the paper's role and the media's role generally in her death and the events leading up to it." But he couldn't bring himself to accept blame for the accident. "In the end I believe it was just a terrible accident, caused by a drunken driver and possibly because of the lack of the high level of police and security protection that she had enjoyed previously."
Lord Justice Scott Baker
Assistant Deputy Coroner of Inner West London
Directions following Pre-Inquest Hearing of 27th July 2007
1. Counsel to the Inquest to lodge a skeleton argument on the role of Counsel to the Inquest within 14 days of 27 July 2007; any skeleton argument from any interested person to be lodged within 14 days thereafter; any skeleton argument in reply on behalf of the Ritz Hotel to be lodged by 10.30am on 3 September 2007. The issue to be argued on 5 – 6 September 2007.
2. Dr Shepherd and Professor Vanezis to prepare and sign a joint report by 3 August 2007. The report of Professor Vanezis to be provided by 17 August 2007.
3. Final podiatry report to be provided by 17 August 2007.
4. Any other expert report relied upon by the Interested Persons to be provided by 1 September 2007.
by antiaristo » Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:02 pm
Disaster for the man who would be king
COLETTE DOUGLAS HOME August 28 2007
Comment
They say you shouldn't judge a man until you have stood in his shoes. I presume the same holds for a future king. I have spent the past couple of days standing, metaphorically, in the Prince of Wales's loafers. I've been trying to work out, as sympathetically as possible, why he has shot himself in both of them; wondering if a man who displays such poor lack of judgment should be king.
The memorial service for Diana on Friday could have been a triumph for him. Only one week ago I was listening in to a discussion between two well-informed men who were marvelling at how the royal family - and particularly Charles - had re-established themselves in the hearts and minds of the public since Diana's death.
From being loathed as the deceiving husband, the betrayer of the people's princess, Prince Charles married his long-standing mistress and carried her with him into the affections of his future subjects. The man who sat, reviled, at Diana's funeral in Westminster Abbey while the crowds outside clapped and cheered Charles Spencer's almost treasonable speech, came to be seen as a loving and dutiful father. He relaxed into a happy and fulfilled marriage. It warmed the public's heart to see him, for the first time in his life, looking at one with the world. Once he was with the woman he had always loved, he seemed to be a good husband, after all. It was a short step to foreseeing him as a good king.
Now, thanks to his insistence that Camilla should attend Diana's memorial service, we must revise our opinion about his suitability to become monarch.
It may seem too small a matter on which to hang such a major consequence. I don't think so. For it speaks volumes about his judgment and about his understanding - or lack of understanding - of his future subjects. It reveals Prince Charles as a man aware only of his own needs and desires. That may be the privilege of a prince but it is an undesirable trait for a king-in-waiting in a democracy.
The Prince of Wales has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. His sons organised a memorial concert at Wembley for their mother just a couple of months ago which passed off smoothly. He didn't attend but his absence was both appropriate and benign. Then, this thanksgiving service at the Guard's Chapel began to loom in the royal diary. It, too, should have been plain sailing. Formal occasions are always a matter of fancy footwork for dysfunctional families. With good sense and good manners on all sides, they can be as elegantly executed as Swan Lake. With so may families confronting complicated social conundrums, who better than the royal family to demonstrate how it should be done?
It looks as if everyone around Prince Charles read the situation correctly and fulfilled their required roles, while he blew his.
One of the great social conventions is the tactical invitation. It is the one you extend in the unspoken understanding that the recipient will refuse. Honour is served and feelings are spared. William and Harry got it right. They invited their stepmother to the memorial service for their mother. No doubt they did it to please their father, to signal their delight that he is happy and to reassure Camilla that they accept her. The young princes also knew that if they didn't invite her, the media would have had a field day. "Princes snub Camilla" would have been across every front page. The invitation saved Camilla's face. It was then incumbent upon her politely to decline.
To do so was, reportedly, her instinct. After all, why would she want to attend a service dedicated to remembering Diana's life? Who in the church or in the watching world beyond could look at her in the front pew without seeing her as the scarlet woman who broke Diana's heart and stole Diana's husband? If she looked sad she would be dubbed a hypocrite; if she smiled it would be said that she was dancing on her defeated rival's grave. At a time when the emotions of 10 years ago are stirring again, why stoke the fire? If anyone wants to look forward not back, surely it is Camilla.
The wise old queen agreed with her that it was folly to attend. Camilla could have insisted from the start that this was a day for her husband and his boys. She could have arranged a charitable commitment at the other end of the country or simply stayed at home with a good book. The anniversary would have passed and she and Charles could have continued on their upwardly popular trajectory to the throne.
Prince Charles, however, wanted her with him. No doubt he, too, remembers that funeral day 10 years ago. He remembers a sense of isolation, of guilt, grief, hostility and condemnation. He won't want ever to feel that way again and so, we hear, he needed Camilla by his side. It was her duty to support him. All understanding of how inappropriate her presence would be, or how deeply uncomfortable for her, were dismissed.
Stand in his shoes again and remember that sea of flowers in the weeks after Diana's death: remember the weeping crowds, the queues for the books of remembrance. Britain has never seen mourning like it. Many called it mass hysteria; communal madness. Whatever the cause, Diana remains a touchstone for many. Her untimely death means that, like Kennedy and Monroe, she remains forever beautiful and forever crossed in love. Inevitably the service will be a strain for him. The point is that it isn't about him. It is a day for his sons. It is a day for Diana's family, her friends and her public. All he needs to do is to show his face for two hours then go home to his wife.
Ten years on, this service should have been the last obstacle for Prince Charles. If he and Camilla overcame it - separately - with grace, there would be no going back.
They were almost there. Now, with only days to go, Camilla finally got her way. She has withdrawn from the service. It is the right decision at the wrong time; making her front-page news when Diana's life and legacy are at the fore of public consciousness. Once more her role as "the third person" in that unhappy "overcrowded" marriage is back in the headlines.
It will set her back, but she will recover. The person who might not regain the public trust is Prince Charles. We are no longer ruled by our monarch, but the head that wears the crown requires decisiveness, a sureness of touch and, most of all, good judgment.
Prince Charles is a compassionate man, as the good work of the Prince's Trust demonstrates. He has an inquiring mind for which he is to be congratulated. But does he have a real understanding of his people? Does he have judgment? Is Diana, from 10 years beyond the grave, shaking her head?
Camilla has her man but should the man ever become king? I'm beginning to doubt it.
by antiaristo » Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:53 pm
Whether a Fiat Uno or any other vehicle caused or contributed to the collision
Whether Andanson was in Paris on the night of the collision
Owner of white Fiat Uno refuses to give evidence at Diana inquest
From DENNIS RICE and PETER ALLEN in Paris - More by this author »Last updated at 22:53pm on 1st September 2007
Comments
A key witness to the car crash that claimed the lives of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed has rejected repeated requests from British detectives to give evidence at next month's inquest into their deaths.
Le Van Thanh, a Parisian taxi driver, owned a white Fiat Uno identical to the one that struck Diana's Mercedes seconds before it smashed into a concrete pillar.
The coroner, Lord Justice Scott-Baker, believes he holds crucial information about what took place in the Alma tunnel ten years ago.
But despite officers from the Metropolitan Police's Operation Paget making more than one formal approach to Le Van Thanh, he is adamant that he will not help.
He told The Mail on Sunday: "It happened a long time ago. I do not want to speak about this ever."
British police do not have the power to compel Le Van Thanh to give evidence because he is a French citizen.
The second-generation Vietnamese immigrant was quizzed by the Paris Criminal Brigade three months after the crash and released after six hours.
His statements, which are now in the possession of the Coroner, show he gave contradictory accounts of when he resprayed his Fiat Uno red.
Initially Le Van Thanh said he and his brother, a Citroen mechanic, did the work the day before the crash on August 31, 1997. He then admitted that it was done the day after.
The Paget report into the crash, written by Lord Stevens and published earlier this year, refers to an unnamed Fiat Uno driver who was seen by the Paris Criminal Brigade.
The former Metropolitan Police Commissioner said the French ruled out the driver after deciding the paint on his car was different from that found on the Mercedes.
But Lord Stevens said that British forensic scientists disagreed, saying the car should not have been ruled out.
French investigators also said that a new rear tail light had not been fitted on the car - shards from a broken one were found at the crash scene.
Lord Stevens pointed out that the owner could have replaced it with a second-hand light.
A Mail on Sunday investigation has established that Lord Stevens was referring to Le Van Thanh.
His father admitted that his sons resprayed the car in the middle of the night, hours after an identical white Fiat Uno fled the scene of the crash five miles away.
British detectives know a Fiat Uno was involved because white paint found on the Mercedes matched that used exclusively on models produced between 1983 and 1987.
'Glancing blow': A computer simulation of how the crash might have happened
Eyewitnesses also described a man driving a small car who had a large dog sitting in the back seat - at the time Le Van Thanh owned two Dobermanns.
A source said: "The evidence points to the Fiat having struck the Merc a glancing blow.
"It would not have caused the Merc to hit the pillar. But we believe it was sufficient to panic Mr Fayed's driver Henri Paul who, as we all know, had been drinking.
"Trevor Rees-Jones, Diana's bodyguard, sustained a serious head injury and has no memory of what happened.
"Potentially the driver of the Fiat Uno could end all the conspiracy talk and describe what was a simple accident. Unfortunately Mr Le Van Thanh steadfastly refuses to co-operate."
Jean Claude Mules, the police officer who was in charge of the French investigation, astonishingly admitted it had been "a good thing" that the Uno driver was never found, saying that the motorist would have been tarred as Diana's killer.
His startling admission will again give rise to the suspicion that the Paris Criminal Brigade was not interested in tracing the driver, with several officers said to have resented the huge resources being used to investigate what they saw as a simple accident.
Prince Harry recently said in a documentary that he still wonders what happened in the tunnel that night, a question that Le Van Thanh could potentially answer.
Blood tests have established that Henri Paul was three times over the drink-drive limit and Le Van Thanh could recount what happened without incriminating himself.
But, pressed on whether he would help Operation Paget, he replied: "No I will not. I have nothing more to say. It's over."
Jean Claude Mules, the police officer who was in charge of the French investigation, astonishingly admitted it had been "a good thing" that the Uno driver was never found, saying that the motorist would have been tarred as Diana's killer.
A source said: "The evidence points to the Fiat having struck the Merc a glancing blow.
"It would not have caused the Merc to hit the pillar. But we believe it was sufficient to panic Mr Fayed's driver Henri Paul who, as we all know, had been drinking.
.....
Prince Harry recently said in a documentary that he still wonders what happened in the tunnel that night, a question that Le Van Thanh could potentially answer.
Blood tests have established that Henri Paul was three times over the drink-drive limit and Le Van Thanh could recount what happened without incriminating himself.
by zuestorz » Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:09 pm
by antiaristo » Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:46 pm
zuestorz wrote:
Just for the sake of wondering, I wonder at how Lord Justice Scott Baker will evaluate the tale of patsy Le and how he will also evaluate the affidavit of Richard Tomlinson.
The coroner, Lord Justice Scott-Baker, believes he holds crucial information about what took place in the Alma tunnel ten years ago.
He's micromanaging the inquest before it ever opens. He's actually scripting the evidence and the arguments to be put before the jury.
by zuestorz » Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:54 am
antiaristo wrote:You're having a laugh, aren't you z? . . .The coroner, Lord Justice Scott-Baker, believes he holds crucial information about what took place in the Alma tunnel ten years ago.
by zuestorz » Tue Sep 04, 2007 6:18 am
by Seamus OBlimey » Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:20 am
DIANA: VITAL NEW EVIDENCE BLOWS APART POLICE CASE
Monday September 3,2007
By Cyril Dixon
Have your say(6)
THE mystery over Princess Diana’s fatal car crash took another twist yesterday when startling new evidence emerged about the death of a key witness.
The Daily Express has uncovered dramatic new information which undermines the French police claim that photographer James Andanson doused himself and his black BMW with petrol and set himself alight.
Andanson was found dead in his burnt-out car three years after the smash which killed Diana, her lover Dodi Fayed and driver Henri Paul.
Andanson, suspected of causing the crash by driving a white Fiat Uno into their Mercedes, was said officially to have committed suicide.
But investigators have uncovered a receipt which shows that although Andanson, 54, did buy a substantial amount of fuel on the day he died, it was diesel, not petrol.
Unlike petrol, diesel is not highly inflammable at normal temperatures and would not have ignited if he had struck a match.
He used his credit card to buy more than 100 litres of diesel on a visit to a hypermarket near Nant, southern France.
Sceptics would say it is far more likely that the experienced paparazzo bought it to fill up his car for the 400-mile journey back to his home in central France.
They would also think it unlikely for him to prepare his car for a long trip if he planned to kill himself just a few miles away.
The development could support the theory that Andanson was murdered by the security services.
Dodi’s father Mohamed Al Fayed believes he was on the intelligence payroll and that he was killed to stop him exposing a plot to assassinate his son and the Princess.
The Harrods owner’s belief is supported by the evidence of a new witness, a policeman, who said he saw what looked like a bullet hole in the dead photographer’s head.
The officer backs up claims by Christophe Pelat, the fireman who discovered the body, that Andanson had been shot in the head.
Two months ago, Pelat said: “I saw him at close range and I’m absolutely convinced that he had been shot in the head.”
Yesterday’s revelation came just days after the police officer who ran the initial inquiry into how Diana died in Paris’s Alma tunnel blamed the Fiat driver.
Jean Claude Mules said he had compelling evidence that the black Mercedes collided with the Fiat seconds before it ploughed into a pillar. He said his officers would have “had their killer” if they had succeeded in tracing the driver.
Andanson was found dead on May 4 2000 in woodland alongside a country road near Nant, in the Aveyron region of France.
He had apparently left his wife Elizabeth, 45, at their farmhouse in Lignieres, 170 miles south of Paris, and driven 400 miles south to Nant.
A police spokesman said at the time: “He took his own life by dousing himself and the car with petrol and then setting light to it.”
But Andanson’s credit card records show he went into a Géant hypermarket just a few miles away from where he was found dead.
He bought more than 100 litres of diesel and spent almost 600 francs.
Investigators are not certain what he did with the fuel. But his BMW 3 series’ saloon would hold only 60 litres and he may have filled up and transported the surplus in cans. Critically, experts say that it is inconceivable that Andanson would buy diesel to set himself alight.
Ray Holloway, of the Petrol Retailers Association, said: “With petrol it is the vapour that is the risk. It’s very different with diesel.
“Diesel is warmed and compressed to make it fire. You wouldn’t be able to set light to diesel with a match. It would just go out.
“The flashpoint for diesel, that is the temperature it would need to get to, is something like 63C.
“You would need to warm diesel up with something like a blow torch to have any hope of igniting it, and even then you would probably have to be in a confined space.
“People often get burned when using petrol because they try setting light to the liquid. But what happens is the vapour ignites first.”
The riddle of Andanson’s death will be looked at by Lord Justice Scott Baker, the judge appointed to oversee Diana’s inquest. He has produced a list of 20 questions about the accident which most people assumed had been answered but which must now be re-examined.
Andanson, who worked for the Sipa agency, was famous for his celebrity portraits, including one of Greek shipping tycoon Aristotle Onassis on his death-bed.
But he is also rumoured to have been working for the security services. Former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson once alleged they use the paparazzi because they are good at tracking the whereabouts of high profile “targets”.
In the summer before the accident, when Diana and Dodi cruised the Mediterranean on his father’s yacht Jonikal, they were plagued by paparazzi. Andanson was one of the biggest players on that scene and was never far away from the couple.
Mr Al Fayed believes Diana, 36, and Dodi, 42, were murdered in a conspiracy driven by the Royal Family and carried out by the security services in August 1997.
He claims they had fallen in love after spending the summer together and planned to marry.
Mr Al Fayed claims the Royals objected to their romance because they did not want Prince William to have a stepfather who was non-white and a Muslim.
http://dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/18 ... olice-case
The whole piece strikes me as a Jeffrey Archer plotline. It's that ridiculous.
by antiaristo » Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:26 pm
In August 1997, the Andanson family owned three cars: two BMW 320d’s and a white Fiat Uno. James Andanson also owned a red/orange BMW R65 motorcycle.
(Operation Paget Statement 214)
Professor Baccino and Doctor Anne Dorandeu carried out an autopsy on 10 May 2000 as part of the judicial investigation. They reported on their anatomic-pathological examination of the bony remains from the temporal-parietal region. On part of the
connective tissue membranes that surrounded the brain they found an extra-dural haemotoma (bruise) consistent with the escape of a discharge of blood from the dome of the skull under the effect of the temperature whilst there was no sign of sub-dural haemorrhage (bleeding). In effect they stated that the hole in James Andanson’s head was caused from the inside by the intense heat, and not from the outside by a blow or foreign object.
Dr Richard Shepherd, adviser on pathology issues to Operation Paget, confirmed that this was a rational explanation for the hole observed in James Andanson’s head.
The subsequent toxicological tests of 21 June 2000 showed:
‘ A concentration of carbon monoxide of 98% in a dehydrated sample of blood taken from the aortic region. This confirms that Mr Andanson was indeed alive when the fire started.’
The conclusion to the report signed by Dr Dorandeu and Professor Baccino stated:
‘The autopsy examination has found no evidence of violence notwithstanding the traumatic destruction caused by the heat of a fire which significantly destroyed the body.’
Jean-Gabriel Barthélémy, a photographer who had known him since 1972, stated that when they were in Gstaad, Switzerland together, ten years before he died, James Andanson had told him that if anything happened to his wife he would kill himself by pouring petrol from a canister in his car boot and lighting it with the end of his cigar. He stated that James Andanson often talked about committing suicide and of his worries about the financing of his son’s career as a racing driver.
Sophie Deniau, who used to buy photographs from James Andanson, recalled a conversation with him on 18 April 2000 during which he said that if anything were to happen to a member of his family he would not be able to live with himself and he would commit suicide by sitting in his car with a good cigar and setting fire to himself.
Christian Maillard from Sipa Press and a friend of James Andanson since 1988 stated that during a conversation with him, only about ten days before his death, James Andanson had told him that he was thinking of committing suicide by creating an explosion in his motor vehicle. Christian Maillard told him not to say such things to which James Andanson stated that he would be able to do it.
Further enquiries undertaken by Operation Paget
LGC Forensics (formerly known as Forensic Alliance) reviewed the work undertaken during the French inquiry. This included a review of the assessments made by French experts. Based on that information they have produced their own assessment as to whether James Andanson’s Fiat Uno could have been involved in the collision.
The same considerations were given to the only other Fiat Uno that was apparently examined by technical experts during the French judicial inquiry. That Fiat Uno belonged to a French citizen living in Paris. The details of the owner are known to Operation Paget. (Operation Paget Other Document 327 and 432)
...
LGC Forensics however came to the same conclusion as they did with James Andanson’s Fiat Uno. They stated that the physical evidence did not show conclusively whether this Fiat was or was not involved in the collision.
by zuestorz » Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:06 pm
antiaristo wrote: . . . In effect they stated that the hole in James Andanson’s head was caused from the inside by the intense heat, and not from the outside by a blow or foreign object.
antiaristo wrote:
The conclusion to the report signed by Dr Dorandeu and Professor Baccino stated:
‘The autopsy examination has found no evidence of violence notwithstanding the traumatic destruction caused by the heat of a fire which significantly destroyed the body.’
antiaristo wrote: And they've got these witnesses:Jean-Gabriel Barthélémy, a photographer who had known him since 1972, stated that when they were in Gstaad, Switzerland together, ten years before he died, James Andanson had told him that if anything happened to his wife he would kill himself by pouring petrol from a canister in his car boot and lighting it with the end of his cigar. He stated that James Andanson often talked about committing suicide and of his worries about the financing of his son’s career as a racing driver.Sophie Deniau, who used to buy photographs from James Andanson, recalled a conversation with him on 18 April 2000 during which he said that if anything were to happen to a member of his family he would not be able to live with himself and he would commit suicide by sitting in his car with a good cigar and setting fire to himself.Christian Maillard from Sipa Press and a friend of James Andanson since 1988 stated that during a conversation with him, only about ten days before his death, James Andanson had told him that he was thinking of committing suicide by creating an explosion in his motor vehicle. Christian Maillard told him not to say such things to which James Andanson stated that he would be able to do it.
It seems remarkable that Andanson would feel compelled to make such detailed and prophetic observations of his future demise to so many people on so many occasions yet not provide this level of detail in a suicide note. It's almost as if the suicide was of minor importance compared to the exact method of the suicide. Quite extraordinary.antiaristo wrote:
Now with regard to patsy Le . . .
Reckon he got paid?
Reckon it would be no skin off his nose to be "Diana's killer"?
Reckon it might be worth somebody's money for him to take the rap?
by antiaristo » Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:52 pm
Although, if I were an insurance rep. I would not be approving any life insurance policy for patsy Le . . .
4.45pm
Diana jury to visit Paris crash site
Staff and agencies
Wednesday September 5, 2007
The inquest jury examining the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, will be taken to the scene of the fatal crash in Paris, it emerged today.
At the last preliminary hearing before the case begins next month, it was announced that the visit is expected to take place shortly after the inquest starts.
Ian Burnett QC, counsel for the inquest, said the jury, drawn from the public, would travel to the French capital with the coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, and the interested parties.
Diana, 36, and 42-year-old Dodi Fayed were killed along with driver Henri Paul when their Mercedes crashed in the Pont de l'Alma underpass on August 31 1997. They had just left the Hotel Ritz.
Mr Burnett said the inquest could last until Easter next year. The jury is due to be sworn in on October 2, followed by any opening remarks by Lord Baker.
Over the following two days the jury will hear scene-setting evidence and be given maps and photos, before heading to Paris.
Video link evidence from France is expected to start around October 10 and involve witnesses who saw the Mercedes and the aftermath of the crash. It is hoped there will be evidence from paparazzi who were following the car.
Mr Burnett said the legal team for Dodi's father, Mohamed Al Fayed, who was at today's session, had asked for 68 witnesses overall, while the Ritz had requested eight.
He gave the proposed running order up until Christmas 2007, saying the video evidence would be followed by evidence on the treatment of the princess at the scene, the journey to hospital and her treatment there.
"There are issues raised about the way in which the French ... emergency services responded," he told the high court in London.
The inquest would then focus on the embalming of Diana's body, the post-mortem examination, events earlier in the day she died, the suggestion Diana was engaged, the alleged purchase of a ring, claims she was pregnant, and bodyguards' evidence.
The jury would then hear "the whole topic of Henri Paul", Mr Burnett said.
Both the Operation Paget report by British authorities and the French investigation concluded that the chauffeur had been drinking, and was driving too fast when the car crashed.
The inquest will look at whether his driving was actually impaired by drink or drugs. The jury will sit for four days a week, with the fifth day taken up by legal discussion, Mr Burnett said.
Michael Mansfield QC, representing Mr Al Fayed, told today's hearing that the controversial "Squidgy-gate" tapes should be examined at the inquest as evidence of the princess's state of mind in the summer of 1997 when she died.
The tapes, believed to have been secretly recorded by an amateur radio enthusiast, caught Diana in conversation with a mystery man later found to be the bachelor James Gilbey.
During the conversations Mr Gilbey repeatedly affectionately calls the princess "Squidgy".
Mr Mansfield said a potential expert witness, John Nelson, had examined one of the Squidgy-gate tapes provided by the Sunday Times and his investigations had cast doubt on the official explanation that they were made by an amateur radio enthusiast.
Mr Mansfield said this backed up Diana's suspicion that she was being monitored by the security services throughout the 1990s.
"What Mr Nelson's report relates to is that the public explanation that has been given, that it was an amateur radio ham, was plainly not right. This relates to the credibility of the security services' claim that they were not involved in monitoring Princess Diana in any way in the summer of 1997."
Le Figaro has reported that a metre-wide file containing thousands of original documents and photos about the death of Diana has vanished from the Paris court archives.
Jean-Louis Pelletier, a lawyer who represents a photographer prosecuted after the crash, said officials had failed to locate the file after he asked to see it. Although complete photocopies exist, the original documents are required for future proceedings. Justice officials said they were looking into it, Le Figaro reported.
by zuestorz » Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:02 pm
antiaristo wrote:Heh. You'll never make it on Wall Street, z.
True. And I have been known to misplace the odd document as well, but apparently I'm not the only one.
by Doodad » Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:50 pm
Israel is 'a plucky little country'
By JERUSALEM POST STAFF
Diana, princess of Wales, thought Israel to be "a plucky little country," and she and her then-husband Prince Charles accepted an invitation to visit "at the appropriate time," Yehuda Avner, Israel's former ambassador to Great Britain, reveals in an article for The Jerusalem Post today.
Writing 10 years after Diana died in a Paris car crash, Avner describes a January 1986 lunch held in honor of the then-visiting prime minister Shimon Peres at the royal residence of Kensington Palace.
by antiaristo » Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:37 am
Fayed lawyers to ask for Queen's evidence
Jamie Doward
Sunday September 30, 2007
The Observer
Lawyers acting for Harrods chairman Mohamed al-Fayed want the Queen to give evidence at this week's inquest into the death of Princess Diana.
By law, the Queen cannot be forced to testify, but she could choose to do so.
Fayed's lawyers say her evidence is crucial to establishing the truth about the deaths of Diana and Dodi Fayed, which an extensive investigation has already concluded were the result of a 'tragic accident'. Lawyers want to ask about a conversation after the 1997 Paris crash in which the Queen is alleged to have told Diana's former butler Paul Burrell there were 'powers at work about which we have no knowledge'. Fayed's press director, Katharine Witty, said that it was important that the coroner called all witnesses.
Fayed's press director, Katharine Witty, said that it was important that the coroner called all witnesses.
What is the point of the Diana inquest?
By Andrew Pierce
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 29/09/2007
You do have to wonder about these judges, don't you.
Take the stern advice given this week from Lord Justice Baker to the unfortunate 11 men and women chosen as jurors for the inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
He told them that they should not attempt to get themselves up to speed on the case by reading books or looking things up on the internet.
As if they would need to.
He also said that they must banish from their minds anything they had previously heard or seen about the case and make their decision based only on the evidence given during the inquiry. "You have to put out of your minds anything you have heard out of court," he said.
So where does he think these jurors have been for the last 10 years? Mars? An igloo in the North Pole? The scientific base camps on Antarctica, home to penguins and boffins who are more concerned about melting ice caps than daft conspiracies about the death of a princess.
Apparently, the jurors have also been told not to watch or read any reports of the proceedings, which are expected to last six months.
Brilliant. And how does he suggest they achieve that? By locking them up in solitary confinement? If they go home, the TV and radio will have to be permanently switched off. Newspapers will have to be cancelled - which is never a good idea. Oh, and for good measure, the kids must be told not to talk to their chums on the internet any more in case they stumble on a startling new revelation about the most well-documented car crash in the history of motoring.
We should not be surprised at Lord Justice Baker's absurd advice. The judiciary doesn't have a reputation for being particularly worldly.
Remember "Who is Gazza?" - the question posed by Mr Justice Harman, who later also admitted ignorance of Oasis and Bruce Springsteen; "What is Linford Christie's lunch box?" inquired Mr Justice Popplewell (probably mischievously); "What is this Teletub?" asked Judge Francis Aglionby, of a Teletubby jigsaw; Mr Justice Peter Openshaw wondered: "What is a website?"; and then there's one of my favourites, "What is B&Q?" asked Lord Irvine of Lairg, the then Lord Chancellor and head of the judiciary.
While we're at it, let's add another question. What is the point of the inquest since we all know, having read the books, watched the programmes, and pored over millions of words in newspaper articles, that it was a terrible accident caused by a drunk driver who was going too fast? Don't we?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 150 guests
