Inquest or Trial ????

  Cockle 21:07 17 Jan 2008

The 'Inquest????' on Princess Diane's death is becoming one of the greatest acts of perverting the cause of justice in this country, money is being allowed to buy revenge, the final result, and it is blatantly obvious what that will and should be,will not bring either back to life or redeem the twisted anger of the power behind the 'Prosecution!'
There must be a great deal of anger & sadness among the close relatives and friends of Diane and Doddi that this bitter 'Trial' is taking place.
Unfortunaly the deceased cannot have their say.

  Forum Editor 23:06 17 Jan 2008

You might at least have got the name right - It was Princess Diana, not Diane, and comments such as "money is being allowed to buy revenge" are just silly.

The whole point of an inquest is precisely because the deceased cannot have their say, it's an inquiry into the manner of a person's death. An inquest must be held in each case where a death was violent or unnatural, sudden and of unknown cause, or if the deceased died in prison, or in police custody.

In this case the inquest is not a perversion of the course (not 'cause') of justice. The relatives and friends of the deceased have no say in whether an inquest takes place, it's the law, and the coroner's decisions are made in the light of what the witnesses say under examination. People can be compelled to give evidence at an inquest, but their testimony is subject to what's called the priviledge against self-incrimination.

There have certainly been criticisms of the rules under which coroner's inquests are conducted, and there's a body of opinion that says coroners should have much wider powers, that relatives of bereaved people should be allowed to make a greater contribution to proceedings, and that there should be full-time coroners. A draft bill incorporating these reforms (and others)was published in 2006.

None of that means that inquests conducted under the current system are perverting the course of justice - inquests are not about justice in that sense, nobody is accused of anything and on trial. There's a jury in this case, but most inquests don't have one, and a coroner is only required to appoint one in certain circumstances.

  Cockle 03:00 18 Jan 2008

I stand corrected on the spelling, but I think you have missed the point, or perhaps I did not make my point clearly. I strongly believe our law is being hi-jacked by others with an agenda of their own,it is evident from the manner of the questioning and the reports in the paper that there is more than just getting 'the truth' involved.To say "nobody is accused of anything and on trial" seems to have missed what has been going on. Those who have been called to attended the Inquest have been put "On Trial" to one degree or another, and the public and the press are the jurors.
I have been a juror a number of times and have experience of the difficulties in establishing the truth. I accept and support that there should be full time coroners and that relatives should have a greater contribution,but there is an anger in this Inquest that does no justice to our laws. Cockle

  Chegs ®™ 07:18 18 Jan 2008

Why wait 10yrs to have this "inquest" ? There is something macabre about the media coverage,inquests do not need hear about hearsay (the queen considering abdication,etc)and the rest of the rubbish.The basics of this tragedy were discovered at the time,drunk driver crashes powerful car at high speed killing occupants.

  laurie53 07:45 18 Jan 2008

If you think that this inquest is not being driven by al Fayid's money you are very naive.

  Cymro. 13:39 18 Jan 2008

"You might at least have got the name right - It was Princess Diana, not Diane"

You have the right to call her Princess Diana if that is what you wish, but don`t Cockle and myself have the right to call he just "Diana" if that is what we prefer?. For me to call her Princess would suggests that I had some respect for her.

  HondaMan 13:49 18 Jan 2008

she was "Diana, Princess of Wales" not Princess Diana which seems to have been a name given by the press. I also think she would be correctly referred to as "Princess Charles" as Charles' wife

  GANDALF <|:-)> 16:12 18 Jan 2008

1) Hey Al Fayed..get over it, they are gone.
2) Drunk Frenchman + powerful car + speeding + gormless passengers not wearing seat belts = recipe for disaster.
3) I am sick to death of hearing all the nutjobs and their conspuracy theories.
4) I am sick to death of people wittering on as though she was God on Earth and not a publicity seeking leech with personality defects.
5) It was 10 years ago, give it a rest.
6) The lawyers must think that it is Xmas every year.
7) End of story.



  Cymro. 16:25 18 Jan 2008

Thanks GANDALF you helped make my day.

  laurie53 19:40 18 Jan 2008

Do not be taken in by GANDALF <|:-)>'s post.

It appears to be fairly obvious that he is part of a conspiracy to do the lawyers out of their subsistence level fees.

  Forum Editor 00:54 19 Jan 2008

"If you think that this inquest is not being driven by al Fayid's money you are very naive."

What rubbish - the inquest is being driven by the coroner, whose job I wouldn't have for all the tea in China. Money is paying the lawyers, certainly, but that's nothing strange.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

What is ransomware and how do I protect my PC from Petya?

Microsoft Surface Studio – the artist's hands-on review

Original iPhone review

Comment mettre à jour Kodi ?