UK NEWS

PRINCE PHILIP 'DID NOT ORDER DIANA’S DEATH'

The jury heard Prince Philip 'did not order Diana's death'

Monday March 31,2008

By Nicola McCafferty for express.co.uk

Comment Speech Bubble Have your say(46)

THE inquest into the death of Princess Diana heard today that there was “no evidence” that she was murdered by the MI6 at the behest of the Duke of Edinburgh.

Lord Justice Baker began his summing up to the inquest jury today following the six-month hearing investigating the Paris crash that killed Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana in August 1997.

As he went through evidence from more than 250 witnesses, he swept aside conspiracy theories, claiming they had been encouraged by the media for the past 10-and-a-half-years.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** CLICK HERE TO VIEW OUR DIANA GALLERY ***
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

He told the jury: “There is no evidence that the Duke of Edinburgh ordered Diana’s execution, and there is no evidence that the secret intelligence service or any other Government agency organised it.”

The coroner added that Mohamed Al Fayed’s theories about the crash had been dismissed as they were “without foundation.”

Defending the length and the cost of the inquest, Lord Baker told the jury that the conspiracy theories had been put to the test.

He said: “For the last 10-and-a-half years there have been those who claimed that what happened in the Alma Tunnel was no tragic accident but a staged collision intended to cause and, in fact, causing the death of Diana, Princess of Wales along with the driver Henri Paul and Dodi al Fayed.”

The coroner said that Dodi’s father, Mohamed al Fayed, had been foremost among that list.

He continued: “There are no doubt those who genuinely believe this (the murder theory) to be the case and will continue to do so regardless of any verdict you return.

“But the inquests, despite the time that they have taken and the cost, have served an important purpose."

The Coroner gave the jury five verdicts to consider - but none of them must include any suggestion that Diana and Dodi were killed in a murder plot.

He said: “I have determined that it is not open to you to find that this was unlawful killing by the Duke of Edinburgh or anyone else in a staged accident.”

Diana, her lover Dodi Fayed and driver Henri Paul died when their Mercedes crashed in the Alma Tunnel in Paris in August 1997. Paparazzi were in pursuit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEE MORE BREAKING NEWS FROM THE DIANA INQUEST NOW
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PHILIP 'DID NOT ORDER DIANA’S DEATH'

02.04.08, 10:48am

Oh he most certainly did! Philip is an extremely ruthless man. He'll do anything and everything - whatever it takes to protect the monarchy and their privileged and empowered Establishment way of life. Regarding the evidence including Philip's horrid and threatening letters to Princess Diana, they were being held for safe-keeping by the police and the police 'lost' them - how convenient! I've stated this previously in other responses on this subject, therefore to reiterate, want something to go missing, then give it to the police to hold. This holds true for police regardless of country. The police here 'lost' Philip's letters and the French police 'lost' the massive 6,000 page dossier of evidence into Princess Diana's death. How is it possible to 'lose' such vital evidence by the very agencies which are supposed to be skilled and trustworthy to protect and safeguard such extremely important documents? Logic dictates either that these vital documents are NOT lost just deliberately suppressed or the police here in the UK and in France as well are complete and utter buffoons with their heads up their arses. They are incapable of looking after documents, therefore how are they to protect the people? Now we know the reason crime is so rampant.

Princess Diana was assassinated for several reasons including her campaign against landmines and other anti-personnel weapons. She was compiling a dossier on British involvement in the arms trade in Angola. On the 18 August 1997, Diana obtained a promise from the then American President Bill Clinton that he would sign the ban against land mines on 19 September 1997. After Princess Diana was murdered, President Clinton was informed it would be advisable for him to NOT keep his promise to Princess Diana.

Those of you car 'accident' nutters / fantasists who believe everything The Establishment tells you should telephone Governor Jeb Bush at the Capitol Building in Tallahassee, Florida, USA as he has swamp land in his state to sell to you.

• Posted by: EnglishMyst • Report Comment

DIANA’S DEATH

01.04.08, 7:02am

Mohamed Fayed is a bafoon and should be made liable for this debacle!

• Posted by: TedR • Report Comment

CROWOOD - WHAT DISTURBS ME ABOUT QUOTATIONS FROM THE INQUEST WAS THE DAILY EXPRESS FOLLOW UP ON MR. FAYED'S NAZI ACCUSATIONS AGAINST PRINCE PHILIP

01.04.08, 12:21am

Never in a month of Sunday's would I have expected a British newspaper to have the prominent headline, "Philip and the Nazis." And this accompanied by photographs of Prince Philip at a funeral in Germany and in the company of some of Germany's high-ranking officers replete with uniforms. The Daily Express did. They forgot themselves in my view.

They seemed to have forgotten that the British Royal Family does have German ancestry. They totally ignored the fact that Queen Mary was originally Princess Mary of Tech. That would hardly make the Windsors Nazi sympathizers. Yet the Daily Express reporting was disgracefully. Picking up Mr. Fayed's cue, they made much of Prince Philip's German connections. I was surprised that they overlooked, forgot, that the name Moutbatten was originally Battenburg (town in Hesse), and later anglicized to Mountbatten (burg is mountain in German), and that people of the potential negative reaction of the English to the German name of the First Sea Lord.

Newspapers decide to print what they print. They exercise the right to allow comments on what they print when they host forums they set up to "Have Your Say." I have no problem with that. But I do weigh in with those who hold them responsible for printing what others say when they have their say with no regard for whether it is fact or fiction or wishful thinking.

While I didn't cry in my teacup over the Daily Mail's selectivity regarding others' comments, I tried not to get a measure of satisfaction out of the fact that the Daily Mail and 4 other newspapers paid a price for exercising the right to be selective in what they printed - and making a wrong choice. To the tune of £500,000 in one case.

I assumed that it was because of the Royal Family's track record for declining to sue that the Daily Express got away with the taunting headline, "Philip and the Nazis." But now I don't assume anything about anything they say.

Thanks for the post Crowood.

• Posted by: Rothaymere • Report Comment

ROTHAMEYRE

01.04.08, 12:02am

Hopefully I spelt your name correctly. I found the Daily Mail did not allow you to comment right from the start on the Diana inquest stories. hence I moved over to this one. I think the Express has quite shamefully ,made money and increased their circulation figures with the Diana inquest.

• Posted by: crowood • Report Comment

ONLY REPORTING WHAT OTHERS SAY - AND WALKING YOURSELF RIGHT INTO A LAWSUIT

31.03.08, 11:55pm

"The Daily Express is not responsible for what others say or think regarding Prince Philip, they only reported on the story as did all of the tabloid newspapers" comment from a poster.
------------------------------------------------------Well ...

I wouldn't downplay what others say or over-emphasize it either when it comes to whether it's correct or incorrect. It matters little how many tabloid newspapers report what "They" say when it comes to libel. You print it, you are liable for it, and especially if it is libel.

Five newspapers recently paid out quite a bit in recompense for printing what others say. The court held them responsible.

• Posted by: Rothaymere • Report Comment