Another Coroner Bites the Dust
You couldn’t make it up. Yet another coroner has resigned from the interminable inquest for Diana, Princess of Wales, which has yet to get underway 10 years after the event in question.
Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss has walked away from the case citing lack of experience. Is the obvious cause, though, the constant delaying tactics of Mohamed Al Fayed’s legal team, which would clearly like to whack the inquest into the long grass forever?
Butler-Sloss will be replaced by one of Britain’s most experienced judges, Lord Justice Scott Baker. Already delayed to October, the inquest is now unlikely to get started even then because of the mountain of case notes the new coroner has to master.
Why the delay? Initially, it was the long French inquiry, which found that the car crash that killed Diana and Dodi was caused by the driver, Henri Paul, who was found to be a long-term alcoholic.
A British inquiry was then set up under Lord Stevens which came to the same conclusion after a meticulous investigation lasting three years.
The inquest will finally draw a line under the tragedy, especially for those accused of conspiring to murder the Princess. Once the inquest has delivered its verdict, the facts will be clear and we can all move on.
John, my view is that if she knew or suspected that she was unequal to the task of performing this duty, she should have declined at the beginning when asked. A professional person who has reached the level she has knows what such a high profile inquest will entail. I believe it is possible that some other factor influenced her resignation. Perhaps she discovered that at least some of Mr. Al Fayed’s accusations are true and she did not wish to become embroiled in the cover-up. Regarding Lord Steven’s investigation, if, as has been said, his report concluded that the cameras at the tunnel where Princess Diana met her death are normally turned off at night, then his report was neither meticulous nor accurate.
By Gigi on April 25th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Too much conspiracy theory going on here, Gigi. The evidence is overwhelming that it was an accident. I wish everyone could see that simple fact and we could move on.
By John on April 25th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Evidence is only as credible as the person presenting it. I have seen no evidence presented by a person I deem to be credible or without agenda. Let’s hope that the inquest, when it occurs, features credible witnesses presenting credible evidence that leads to a conclusion we all can accept and believe.
By Gigi on April 25th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
John I agree 100% with Gigi. I also think she had met her match in Mr. al Fayed and there will be no sweeping things under the carpet.
By Trudie on April 25th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Can someone (Gigi?) provide the details on the camera issue? I am not familiar with it. thank you!
By Cate on April 26th, 2007 at 3:44 am
Cate, there are cameras (surveillance) cameras at the tunnel where Princess Diana and Dodi al Fayed met their death in the car crash. Had the cameras been on that night, they would presumably have shown exactly what happened and who was involved, but, mysteriously, they were turned off. Lord Steven’s investigation included conclusions that the cameras are always turned off at night, although this has been disputed by others. One of the persons who disputes this is my own cousin, a French National who has lived his entire life in Paris, and says the cameras are always on at that time. There apparently are many questions and suspicions in France about why those cameras were turned off at that time on that night, who did that, and for what reason.
By Gigi on April 26th, 2007 at 3:51 am
Yes! Every tunnel in Paris has 2 or 4 cameras. 2 at least. Touristic places are full of cameras. They are NEVER turned off. And certainly not at night. Then if someone is able to explain why they didn’t work that night, and if someone can explain why they opened the tunnel a few hours only after the crash, while sometimes it is closed during one or 2 entire days (grr #”!%) just for tv or for some crap documentaries then I’m all ears.
By Lilyfromfrance on April 26th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Gigi, with all due respect to your cousin, how would he have known the cameras were always on at night, except through reports in the media. We know that much disinformation has been put into the public domain to muddy the waters. Even the surviving bodyguard was briefed on what to say about the crash as soon as he recovered his wits.
Lord Stevens’s team had access to original sources and if his report says they are turned off at night, you can be sure they were. Most of the cameras along the route are privately-owned so there would not be a general policy on their use. That sort of variation has been used as evidence of tampering. Go figure!
By John on April 26th, 2007 at 9:10 am
John, as a parisian I can assure the cameras inside tunnels in Paris are never off at night
It could be possible during the journey but certainly not at night. There are cameras, automatic crash detections, and radars everywhere.
Last december my friend’s car brokedown suddenly, in the tunnel des Tuileries, we just had the time to put in the side. Less than 1 minutes later, from nowhere, council security technicians and police came, they led the car in a parking hotel and they dropped us to a taxi station, while we never called them.
Thats not because I find that camera affair too weird that does mean I believe in a conspiracy
By Lilyfromfrance on April 26th, 2007 at 10:53 am
But radars are different from cameras, Lily. You wouldn’t know they were on or off without checking with the controllers. Lord Stevens was satisfied on this point, as was the French judge and the BBC investigators. Were they all in the conspiracy?
And it was around 2am, if my memory serves me right.
By John on April 26th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Of course. Radars take photos when cars are too fast. The car was too fast. The radars weren’t so many present 10 years ago as they are today of course, but tunnels were the first thing to be equipped of it. The car crash happened at 0:24 French time, then 23:24 in England. Thats not too late, even if it would have happen at 3:32 or 6:11, the cameras would have be on. This is the only thing I find questionable, because I live here and know how the things work in tunnels here. Thats all. I’m not an expert, I don’t work in Paris security offices, but as long as I know how it works here no one can convince me the cameras were off suddenly that night. Why? Im not a paranoid conspiracy stories believer but if the cameras were off, it was not blind chance. I can’t know the other things about that crash, I can’t know whats true or wrong, then I will never give my opinion about them and couldn’t be convinced by any theory. The cameras here are always on, I know, thats all.
By Lilyfromfrance on April 26th, 2007 at 11:29 am
The UK was on BST at the time of the crash, so I believe it would be the same time as in France.
Maybe there was not a radar at the entrance to the tunnel which was where the crash started to happen. We would need to see where these radars are situated to be able to say with certainty what happened.
The three investigations would have covered all of that extensively. Nothing will convince me that they were all in a conspiracy to kill one very popular woman.
By John on April 26th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
“The three investigations would have covered that extensively.” John that is giving a very large benefit-of-the-doubt to persons you do not know, and subsequently you cannot know their agendas, motivations, or by whom they might be swayed. I do know my cousin, and I believe what he says. It is only one point in a large amount of evidence, but great crimes, complex crimes, are often broken open and revealed by just such a detail as this.
By Gigi on April 26th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
“Lord Steven’s investigation included conclusions that the cameras are always turned off at night, although this has been disputed by others. ”
And pigs always prefer to fly in the dark.
By Kit on April 26th, 2007 at 4:29 pm