Dodi 'real target' in Diana tragedy

[antiaristo]

Hi Telexx

Therefore, my question is, in what way do your points here represent a "Plan B"?

"Plan B" is to bypass Charles and go straight to William as the next king.

So long as William is married that will be fine for those that run the Empire. For there will be a queen, able to invoke the Treason Felony Act.

Look up what happened the last time an unmarried man was heir apparent: he was forced to abdicate before the Coronation, and his place taken by his younger brother.

If you believe the "Love Story" narrative about Edward and Mrs Simpson you are misled.

[Telexx]

Look up what happened the last time an unmarried man was heir apparent: he was forced to abdicate before the Coronation, and his place taken by his younger brother.

Well, technically, the last time an unmarried man was heir apparent he was told to stop wasting his time with the married Parker-Bowles and marry Di Spencer!

Sorry, I am just being a smart-arse I do take your point about Edward & Mrs. Wallace, and I view with suspicion anything the Saxe Coburg mob do.

So, you saying that William is being forced to marry Middleton, whether he likes it or not (just like his dear ole pa) and that is the Plan B?

Thanks,

Telexx

[antiaristo]

Telexx,
Yup, you're absolutely correct.
What I should have said was

"Look up what happened the last time an unmarried man was king:"

No smart-ass about it. You're keeping me honest!

And no, I don't think William is being forced. He seems to be very much in love with Kate. And they lived together at St Andrews, so they have experienced the reality of marriage.

He has been encouraged, though.
Since the death of his mother it has been the interest of the dynasty that he marry as early as possible. A sort of "back stop" to his father.

[antiaristo]

This is the sidebar on the Guardians UK Latest page

Breaking news

Diana jury should not be 'royal'

Judges snub sentencing reform plans

Woman hunted over alleged Mafia tie

£12m Government deal for mail firm

Pupils may face more frequent tests

Internet trade in organs condemned

Airport runway reopens for business

Cameron defends Kelly in school row

Woman Pc stabbed at home is named

Tougher mental health laws proposed


Last updated: 12:03 PM
From Press Association

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/

So I selected the link for the top story about the diana jury, and got...

Sorry, the requested article is no longer available.
Please choose another story from the updated menu.

That was at 12:22 PM

Added on edit

There's now something there:

Diana jury should not be 'royal'
Press Association
Monday January 8, 2007 1:08 PM


The inquest into Diana, Princess of Wales's death should be heard by a jury made up of members of the public and not from the Royal Household, the Queen's lawyer has argued.

In written submissions to the preliminary hearings at the High Court, Sir John Nutting QC said that, if it was decided to have a jury, the public interest would be "best served" by choosing a panel of ordinary men and women to avoid any "appearance of bias".

In the early stages of the proceedings, Baroness Butler-Sloss, who is presiding over the high profile case, indicated she would hold a joint inquest for Diana and Dodi Fayed.

She said it would be "unbelievably expensive" to hold separate inquests, as well as exhausting and upsetting for the families.

After checking that none of the counsel objected, she added: "I would be expecting, if I did it at all, to be operating two concurrent inquests."

She said the most important point upon which she had to decide was whether to call a jury.

Diana was still part of the Royal Family when she died and her body lay in the chapel at St James's Palace before her funeral, meaning that under current legislation any jury would normally have to be made up of senior members of the Royal Household.

But Sir John's submission declared: "Indeed, in the particular circumstances of this case the public interest, it is submitted, would be best served by avoiding the course of summonsing a 'royal' jury to avoid any appearance of bias in consideration of the issues which such an inquest would be bound to consider."

Sir John was appointed counsel for the Royal Household by the Attorney General.

Lady Butler-Sloss suggested that the inquest could be moved to Surrey to avoid having to have a Royal Household jury. Dodi's father, Harrods boss Mohamed al Fayed, who was present on the front bench in the packed courtroom, is known to want a panel made up of members of the public.

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved.

Every story I've seen goes out of its way to tell us she was part of the royal family when she died. So you can be satisfied it is a lie IN LAW. Divorce means what it says, and it was Queen Elizabeth that forced the divorce.

Butler Sloss knows she is on dodgy ground here, but her suggestion to transfer to Surrey is completely bizarre. The Surrey Coroner is Michael Burgess, who got taken off the case to bring in Butler-Sloss in the first place!

[antiaristo]

.Bolded text added on edit

It looks to me as though Dame Elizabeth Buler-Sloss PC is going to dispense with a jury and make the judgement herself. That is the logical conclusion from this story

Judge rules out royal Diana inquest
Jury of Windsors deemed inappropriate.
More UK news

http://www.guardian.co.uk/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/stor ... 08,00.html

A coroner is not compelled to call a jury: they have discretion.

What is curious here is the reversal of natural sequence. If you think about it, the first question to be answered is whether there should be a jury. If there is a jury, then you go on to decide the source from which it is to be drawn. If no jury, then the source issue does not arise.

So why has Butler Sloss gone about it back to front?

The answer is that they are giving away something that has no value. We have been told of how the Queen "gave way" on the jury issue. But she has had effective control of the corpse for almost ten years, under the pretense that a divorced woman was still somehow "part of the family". Now, finally a divorce judge can see that divorce is final, and realises that a "Jury of Windsors" is actually unlawful.

How quintessencially Windsor!

And the coup de grace will be that there will be no jury at all.

The decision for a "Jury of Windsors" was made ten years ago when they grabbed her corpse. Of course it was illegal, but they did it anyway. A bit late to worry about the niceties.

Butler-Sloss can simply accept the Stevens/Paget report ("John Cleary? Never heard of him."). She would then weigh the costs and difficulties of calling a jury against the benefits. She will find the benefits to be minimal - "The investigation has shown it to be simply an accident" - in such a straightforward case.

So it's worth saying a few words about Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss PC.

She has no experience whatsoever as a coroner. None. She is a specialist in family law (divorce). The reason she was appointed to preside over THIS inquest is that she is a privy counsellor and has sworn the privy council oath. That oath finishes thus:

And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help you God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Coun ... ed_Kingdom

When Diana died the royal coroner was Sir John Burton. But he knew the law and would have nothing to do with the inquest.

So Michael Burgess was appointed deputy royal coroner, because he was already the Coroner for the County of Surrey, where Dodi was resident.

He took over responsibility for both inquests.
He set the terms of reference for the Coroner's report, to be supplied by the Metropolitan Police.

Then in July this year he stood down.
He gave an entirely spurious reason - "pressure of work".

Just think about that. It's a transparently misleading statement by a coroner.

So naturally Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss was the obvious candidate

**No relevant experience.
**Chairman of the Security Commision.
**Sworn servant of the Windsors.

So that's the game.
A "Jury of Windsors" is just a bit too obvious.
Much more discreet to go with a single "Windsor Judge".

[slimmouse]

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss

Does not becoming a Dame involve kneeling before "her majesty", (rather like Gulyiani, Bushco, Clinton and all the rest of these vermin ?)

If this in itself doesn't completely prejudice the entire outcome, then I dont know what does.

This is to my mind ( for you 'mericans) the equivalent of having Bush and Cheney as head of the "impartial" Kean commission.

[Joe Hillshoist]

hey anti this might seem a bit OT, but it might be relevent.

The Aussie abc had this tv show on years ago. at least 5 years before Di died. (That everyone always called her Princess Di, but when you heard them it always sounded like "Princess - Die!" has always spun me out a bit, well since 97 anyway but that is OT)

It was a bbc production about the most machiavellian politician I have seen on abc TV.

It was about a guy who was PM.

Francis Urquart.

Everyone called him FU.

May have been a sequel about him, too.

He was corrupt, and perhaps in the first series he was responsible for killing a reporter who he had an affair with... sketchy details I will try and find out more.

If that rings a bell tho...


Well I got the CPU has exceeded its quota thing

So I can make this one post.

The show was called to play the king based on the second in a trilogy of novels by Micheal Dobbs.

House of Cards, To play the king and the Final Cut.

heres a quick synopsis from wikipedia

The second novel starts with the newly-appointed Prime Minister Urquhart feeling a sense of anti-climax. Having gained great power and influence, he wonders how to use them. His wife comments that he needs "a new challenge". This challenge is shortly provided in the form of the new King. The King has a social conscience and is concerned about Urquhart's harsh policies. He does not directly criticise Urquhart, but makes speeches about the direction he wishes the country to pursue, which contrasts with the government's policies. Urquhart wins the confidence of the King's estranged wife and uses his influences in the press to reveal intimate secrets about the Royal Family. The King is dragged into a general election which Urquhart wins, creating a constitutional crisis and finally forcing the King to abdicate in favour of his teenage son, whom Urquhart expects to manipulate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Urquhart

For some reason what you are posting about resonates with that story.

It was a great show (haven't read the novels), had little elements of Gladio like stuff, bloodline clashes and the like (conventional not icktillian), and assassinations of inconveinient witnesses by british secret service types. About a reprehensible character.

On the surface it might seem a little irrelevent but underneath it seems to have similar themes to what you are outlining..

[antiaristo]

Does not becoming a Dame involve kneeling before "her majesty", (rather like Gulyiani, Bushco, Clinton and all the rest of these vermin ?)

Sure does, slim. Lots of bowing and scraping before the majesty of, well, Her Majesty.

This is to my mind ( for you 'mericans) the equivalent of having Bush and Cheney as head of the "impartial" Kean commission.

Not quite. A better analogy would be Harriet Myers - before she fell out with the boss.


Joe, I remember it well.
"You may wish to comment, but I couldn't possibly do so!" (after he has just leaked)

The reason it resonates is because it is the mirror-image of real life.

The poor king, victimised by those horrible elected politicians. He's such a nice man, with a social conscience, deeply concerned for the well-being of all those subjects.

Is that not how they present Prince Charles? (shame about the number of dead bodies surrounding him, eh?).

Joe, did you know that Aus went to Iraq without a vote in parliament? That John Howard used the royal prerogative instead? You Aussies thought you got away in 1901. Sorry to disappoint you

And did you see what I posted about Paul Keating breaching the Treason Felony Act. Do you remember that?

THAT is the true relationship between politician and royalty.

[antiaristo]

Diana inquest judge rules out jury drawn from royal household


· High court hears princes' plea for quick conclusion
· Inquest on Dodi Fayed to be held concurrently

David Pallister
Tuesday January 9, 2007
The Guardian

The inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, almost 10 years ago will not be heard before a jury drawn from the royal household, Lady Butler-Sloss ruled in the high court yesterday. Opening a two-day preliminary hearing into procedures for the inquest - and that of Dodi Fayed - the judge said it would be inappropriate.

But she has yet to decide whether to sit alone in London as the deputy royal coroner or to empanel an ordinary jury.

Lady Butler-Sloss, who was brought out of retirement to hear arguments on the matter, also decided that the inquests would run concurrently. She said it would be "unbelievably expensive", exhausting, as well as upsetting for the families, to have separate inquests.

Before ranks of two dozen lawyers and Dodi's father, the owner of Harrods Mohamed Al Fayed, Lady Butler-Sloss began the hearing by reading out an appeal from Princes Harry and William that the inquest "should not only be open, fair and transparent, but that it should move swiftly to a conclusion". Their wishes - in a letter from the princes' private secretary, Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton - were endorsed by Diana's sister, Lady Sarah McCorquodale, who was in court.

Both inquests were opened three years ago, but have been delayed by the French prosecutor's investigation and the inquiry by Lord Stevens, the former Metropolitan police commissioner, into allegations by Mr Fayed of a conspiracy to murder. He alleges that the princess was killed by British intelligence agents on the orders of Prince Philip.

The Stevens inquiry, the results of which were published last year with the approval of Lady Butler-Sloss, is likely to become a contentious issue at the inquest. Lord Stevens found that Diana and Dodi died in a "tragic accident" when their car crashed in Paris because its driver, Henri Paul, was drunk and driving too fast.

Lawyers for Mr Fayed, Paul and the Ritz hotel in Paris which employed Paul, all argued that the inquests should be held before an ordinary jury, and the judge acknowledged that this was the most important decision she would have to take. Diana was still part of the royal family when she died, meaning that any jury would normally have to be made up of senior members of the royal household.

Ian Burnett QC, for the coroner, said if the inquest was to be heard by a jury made up of members of the public Lady Butler-Sloss would have to transfer to Surrey coroner's court. If she were to do so, she would no longer be running the inquest as deputy royal coroner but as the straightforward coroner of Surrey. If she decided to sit without a jury, Lady Butler-Sloss could choose whether she wanted to transfer or not, Mr Burnett said.

The decision to rule out a royal household jury was supported by the Queen's lawyer, Sir John Nutting QC, who pointed out that the position of royal coroner would be abolished in a forthcoming bill.

Michael Mansfield QC, for Mr Fayed, criticised the timing of Lord Stevens's report into the crash, arguing that it had given the impression that the Diana case was now closed. "The public, as well as national and international media, have regarded what is printed in the report as the final and the official verdict."

Edmund Lawson, for the Metropolitan police, hit back at Mr Mansfield's "substantial public criticisms" and said appropriate legal advice had been taken. "The commissioner stands by the decision to publish the report," he said. "It was not a decision taken lightly."

Lady Butler-Sloss was later forced to address the suggestion that there might be a perception of bias over her role in presiding over the inquest. Richard Keen QC, counsel for Paul's parents, suggested that she might be associated with the conclusions of the Stevens report. But Lady Butler-Sloss said that just because she had agreed to the publication of the report it did not mean she was parti pris to its findings. "I don't know whether its conclusions are right or not," she said. "I haven't heard the inquest."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/stor ... 00,00.html

*If she intended to summon a jury she would have said "The jury hasn't heard the inquest." not "I haven't heard the inquest."

*Once again the Windsors are playing the victim. If her two children were really interested in what happened to their mother they might have thought of talking to her lawyer while he was still alive. They just want to bury her "with a swift conclusion" and get on with living the high life.

*The Coroner of Surrey is Michael Burgess. Surrey is nothing to do with The Dame. But then again she has never before presided over an inquest, has she?

*Nice of the Queen's lawyer to tell us all about future legislation to abolish the royal coroner. But he's been useful for keeping this inquest on ice.

*"The commissioner stands by the decision to publish the report," he said. "It was not a decision taken lightly."

In which case why is it by a puff of smoke called "Operation Paget"? Why was it not published under the name of the Metropolitan Police? (see earlier posts about bait and switch for the reason why).

*"I don't know whether its conclusions are right or not," she said.

EVERY British newspaper (bar the pornographer) had the same message following the Stevens TV conference. "Accept it", "Put an end to conspiracy theories", "let her rest". And now the "impartial" judge says she is not "parti pris to its findings".

[antiaristo]

.

I've just had confirmation that what I've written here is accurate.

I've just got off the phone to my mother in England.
She was crying throughout.

Ever heard an eighty-seven year old woman crying uncontrollably? Your own mother?

She went to the building society. Nationwide Building Society.
To draw out some money.

But there is nothing there. All gone.

The last time she went was when I accompanied her back in September. So I know how much money she has.

More than five thousand pounds.

But the Windsors don't want her to help me anymore. So they have stolen everything she has.

I don't know what I'm going to do.
She has nobody but me.

Are you listening, William and "Harry"?

You two may not give a shit about your mother, but I care about mine.

Added on edit

Thank you sunny. One heart to another.



If anyone thinks I'm too hard on "young William"*?

He knows his father lied to him about this before.

Remember the Burrell trial? That trial resulted from a joint complaint by Charles and William against Paul Burrell.

Charles told William that Burrell was a thief.

DI Maxine de Brunner was wheeled in** to lie straightfaced to William. She said that the police could prove Paul Burrell was a thief.

Burrell had been a substitute father for William when his own father had been otherwise occupied. Burrell bought William his first pornography (with all that that entails).

William betrayed Paul Burrell, and hasn't had the guts to face him ever since.

So William has good grounds to suspect something might be amiss. But he displays no curiosity at all. He seems quite happy to play the role assigned to him by those that killed his mum. He's helping them cover it up.

Read my exchange with Sir Michael Peat from November 18 to December 12 2002, in Data Dump.

I've got his fancy letters here.
That's evidence.

That correspondence was sent to William at St Andrews, at the time.

* William is 24. I'd bet good money that's older than the median dead soldier or marine in Iraq.

**Supervising the case was John Yates (of De Menzes fame, and currently handling "Cash for Peerages".

[sunny]

anti, that is horrible news. I'm so sorry.

[greencrow0]

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/article ... overup.htm

You gotta hand it to Dodi's Dad...he really is cut from a different cloth of a lot of rich men. He really doesn't give a crap whose toes he's stepping on to get at the truth of what happened to his son.

More power to you sir!

If there was a 'Dodi's Dad' involved in the 9/11 mass murder, perhaps we'd be further along today.

gc

[antiaristo]

.
The main reason I'm posting the whole piece is to illustrate the old adage that the interesting information is usually in the final paragraph

Feel free to go direct to two bolded passages at the botom.

Crime

The Times January 09, 2007

Royal controversy

Princes call for Diana inquest to be fair, open - and swift
Stewart tendler and Rajeev Syal



Prince William and Prince Harry called yesterday for the inquest into the death of their mother to be not only fair and open but swift.

The princes’ call, backed by the sisters and brother of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, was revealed by Baroness Butler-Sloss as she began preliminary legal hearings into the content of the inquest, over which she is presiding, into the Princess’s death.

Lady Butler-Sloss said that she had received a letter from Major Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton, the princes’ private secretary, in which he wrote: “The princes have asked me to indicate that it is their desire that the inquest should be open, fair and transparent but that it moves swiftly to a conclusion.” The coroner had also received a letter supporting the princes from Lady Sarah McCorquodale, the Princess’s elder sister and executor, on behalf of Lady Jane Fellowes and Earl Spencer.



The inquest will be sitting ten years after the Princess and Dodi Fayed died in a car crash in Paris. Last month Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, produced a 830-page report dismissing claims of a plot to kill her.

The inquest is expected to start in May but Lady Butler-Sloss said she was unlikely to call either prince. The Royal Household will also not be represented in future hearings.

During six hours of legal argument yesterday the coroner said that there would not be a jury drawn from officers of the Royal Household because it would be “inappropriate”. She told the hearing that a jury chosen by the Lord Chamberlain from the Household would create “very considerable difficulties. It would seem to be a rather special jury for a very general public interest.”

Sir John Nutting, QC, representing the Queen, had suggested that a jury made up of members of the Household would be “inadvisable”. He said: “We submit that in the particular circumstances of this case it would be undesirable, even perhaps invidious, to ask for such a jury.”

It would be better to choose a jury of ordinary citizens, counsel said. “We so submit, not because we doubt the capacity to reach a fair and true verdict, but rather the principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.”

Lady Butler-Sloss also decided that Mohamed Al Fayed, Mr Fayed’s father, would be an interested party at the inquest and would be legally represented. Others will include the parents of Henri Paul, who was driving the car and died, and Trevor Rees-Jones, the Princess’s bodyguard, who survived.

She ruled that there would be concurrent inquests into the deaths of the couple, who were on their way from the Ritz to Mr Fayed’s apartment.

But she reserved her decision on whether she will sit on her own or with a jury although counsel for Mr Al Fayed, the Ritz Hotel, and the Paul parents urged her to call a jury.

She will also rule later on questions raised by Michael Mansfield, QC, for Mr Al Fayed, on whether she should hear the case as a Royal Coroner. Lady Butler-Sloss is deputy coroner of the Queen’s Household and assistant deputy coroner for Surrey, so can preside at both inquests. Mr Fayed was brought home from Paris and buried at a Surrey cemetery.His father objects to a Royal Coroner presiding over the inquest and wants the hearing to be in Surrey before a local jury.

Reserving her decisions, Lady Butler-Sloss said she would give her written answers by very early next week. She wants the inquests to start by the beginning of May.

A Scotland Yard report on the crash will be sent to her this month and she will decide in March on the scope of the inquest and the witness list.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 37546.html

I suppose Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss's one remaining dream to complete her resume was to make it as....deputy assistant coroner for Surrey

Seriously though.
Can anybody explain why Scotland Yard have not completed the Coroner's report in time for the inquest?

My explanation is that they were planning a bait and switch, as explained earlier on this thread.

Any other ideas out there?

[Telexx]

Can anybody explain why Scotland Yard have not completed the Coroner's report in time for the inquest?

My explanation is that they were planning a bait and switch, as explained earlier on this thread.

Any other ideas out there?

I think you have it spot on Anti I really do.

Thanks,

Telexx

[slimmouse]

I think you have it spot on Anti I really do.

But of course he does. Jordan Maxwell has been telling anyone who will listen who's in charge in the west for years.

Anti clarifies all of this by explaining that which is still enshrined in English law, and how the deceptions are played.