Diana Inquest accused of bias by Fayed
It didn’t take long after the Diana Inquest under Lord Justice Scott Baker got underway before Mohamed al Fayed was accusing the Coroner of bias.
Princes William and Harry at Diana’s funeral
The Coroner’s opening remarks covered the main points of the case “dispassionately” leading to an immediate charge of bias from the Fayed team. Clearly a lot of delaying tactics are going to be deployed by those who don’t want the truth to emerge.
The main points include :
1. The Coroner said Princess Diana was taking contraceptive pills when she died, nor could she have been pregnant by Dodi because of the timescales involved. He claimed it would have been impossible because the two of them were not even in a relationship when the rumour emerged.
2. Princess Diana told her solicitor that she believed the Queen planned to abdicate in April 1998 to make way for Charles, a claim denied because the Queen has always said she would never abdicate.
3. Diana told her lawyer, Lord Mishcon, that she feared that both she and Camilla Parker Bowles would be “put aside” to allow Prince Charles to marry his sons’ nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke. Lord Mishcon wrote that Diana told him “the Queen would be abdicating in April and the Prince of Wales would then assume the throne”.
4. Lord Mishcon, who admitted he could “not believe what I was hearing”, added that Diana “was convinced that there was a conspiracy that she and Camilla would be put aside”. Diana also told him that Miss Legge-Bourke had undergone an abortion and that she would obtain a medical certificate to prove it.
5. The jury were told that, on the night of the crash, Henri Paul told the waiting paparazzi “not to try to catch them because they would not succeed”. He had virtually challenged them to a race.
The case continues, with the accumulation of evidence so far supporting the two police inquiries previously carried out.
It does appear that the coroner is leading the jury about which veerdict is expected.
By Trudie on October 3rd, 2007 at 12:57 pm
I thought so, too. The best way to proceed with this inquest is to be very careful not to try to influence the jury or to make it appear as if the judge who is presiding is biased in any way. His opening statements contained statements of bias, unfortunately. Still, the jury may be independent enough to draw their own conclusions. Lets see what transpires.
By Gigi on October 3rd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
These wild, unsubstantiated rumours and accusations should never have been put before a British court of law. If people can’t see behind the motives for the endless delays and the unspeakable accusations against a senior member of the Royal Family, then they are beyond redemption.
This is a deliberate attempt to deflect attention from the decision that was the material cause of Diana’s Death : to dismiss Scotland Yard protection officers during her stay in Paris. With them, she would not have died.
By John on October 3rd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
John, if there was not reasonable doubt about the cause of death, a coroner’s inquest would not have been convened. It is in the best interests of everyone concerned to find the truth and publish it. If there has been a crime committed, no matter who committed it, British law is bogus if the guilty person is to be shielded from justice, no matter what his or her station in life. Furthermore, neither you nor anyone knows whether Scotland Yard could have prevented the death of Princess Diana. This inquest will provide the process to substantiate the rumors if they are true, or dismiss them if they are untrue. I do not understand why you are bitterly railing at the process. This inquest is very important and will, I hope, go far to restoring the credibility of British law for people across the world and in the UK. The truth never hurt anyone, John. When people feel, rightly or wrongly, that there is a cover-up, great damage is done to institutions and to the public trust. America has never recovered from the Kennedy Assassination, never believed the conclusions of the Warren Report, and the broken trust and it’s collateral damage has festered and endured to this very day. Great Britain must avoid that quagmire, at all costs.
By Gigi on October 3rd, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Gigi, Scotland Yard would never have allowed Henri Paul to drive the car, nor to taunt the paparazzi. They would have advised the couple to remain overnight at the Ritz. Had they ignored that advice there would have been a backup car driving behind and the Mercedes would have been driven much slower.
These deaths could have been avoided by good security. Diana was promised that, but she got a Mickey Mouse version and ended up dead.
By John on October 3rd, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Diana and Dodi’s plans changed, from minute to minute, on that fateful night. If they didn’t know where they were going, or when, how could an elaborate plan already be in place to cause the car accident and ultimately their deaths? It defies logic. John is correct, Al Fayed’s deplorable security put the Princess and Dodi in peril. Had Diana and Dodi posed for a few pictures, outside the Ritz, the whole situation could have been defused. That is something a good security team would have recommended. If nothing else, a seatbelt could have saved Diana’s life, but her security officer failed to ensure that Diana was wearing one. It’s time for Al Fayed to move on. If he insists on the need to blame someone for Diana and Dodi’s death, perhaps he should look in the mirror!
By Arthur on October 3rd, 2007 at 6:51 pm
My dear John and my dear Arthur, President John F. Kennedy was murdered in his own country by a gunman or gunmen while protected by the best professional security force in the world, the U.S. Secret Service. If someone wants to kill someone, the murderer or murderers can find a way to do it, especially when the victim is traveling outside his or her own land.
By Gigi on October 3rd, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I’m a firm believer that what happened to Diana that night was pure accident fueled by shear stupidity on the part of Dodi’s staff. How they could not know that Henri Paul was drunk (egads, look at those photos!)
Al Fayed will never, ever be satisfied with anyone’s conclusion unless they fall in line with his idea of what happened. We all know that will not happen.
By On the Outside on October 3rd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t British Law demand an inquest as soon as possible for any citizen that dies out of the country? It has taken ten long years for this to happen and you all can say Diana was paronoid but she always contended she was being spied on so it is possible that even though plans changed someone knew with enough time for someone to strike. It may be a theory but it cannot be discounted. As we were not there it is time questions are answered not just for Fayed but for Harry who said he will never stop wondering and the public that loved Diana.
By Trudie on October 3rd, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Gigi, with all do respect, President Kennedy may have been protected by the best professional security force in the world, but the Secret Service failed to put the bullet proof bubble-top on JFK’s limousine that fateful afternoon in Dallas. That one action would have saved the President’s life, much the same way a seat belt would have saved Diana in Paris! Also, JFK had very powerful enemies: the Soviets, Fidel Castro, the Mafia and, according to some, Lyndon Johnson, himself. I doubt we will ever know the whole truth; however, I fail to see the parallel with Princess Diana. Diana didn’t have enemies on the scale of JFK. Yes, Diana was annoying to the Royal Family, like a mosquito at a picnic on a hot day in Texas
– but that’s all she was – annoying. No matter what she did or whom she married, her actions would never have prevented Charles, or ultimately William, from ascending the throne. The succession is all that matters in this saga, and I believe Diana saw herself as a greater threat to the Monarchy than anyone else did. The Royal Family is proficient at “freezing out” those who fall out of favor and that’s all they had to do with Diana – freeze her out, not kill her. No matter how cold hearted some people perceive The Queen and/or Prince Philip to be, I don’t believe, for one minute, they would orchestrate the murder of their Grandsons’ mother.
By Arthur on October 4th, 2007 at 12:02 am
No matter how cold hearted some people perceive The Queen and/or Prince Philip to be, I don’t believe, for one minute, they would orchestrate the murder of their Grandsons’ mother.
I have a hard time believing that too. The queen also strikes me as a rather law-abiding gal.
By Aunt Pierre on October 4th, 2007 at 2:04 am
I tend to tune out when someone starts talking about a “conspiracy” surrounding a famous person’s death. Is this inquest to ascertain whether or not there was a conspiracy to kill Diana and Dodi, or is it to determine what happened that night? I know that Al Fayed wants it, but does anyone in Diana’s family want it (like her brother or sisters or sons)? Or does that matter – is it a judicial thing, done by the courts automatically?
I genuinely do not know – I haven’t paid much attention to this aspect of the story and therefore I become confused when reading details. John, if there is a post or article you have written previously that would explain this to me, please provide the link so you don’t have to re-hash it here.
By SadieBoo on October 4th, 2007 at 2:16 am
I think it is important to discover once and for all what caused the death of Princess Diana. As for the Queen, I never will believe that she was involved in any way. However, Charles wanted to marry again and he wanted to marry Camilla, something that would have been impossible for him to do, and be King, had Diana lived. That is a powerful motive for someone like Charles. I would not put it past him. Nevertheless, whatever the inquest concludes, I will accepttheir decision as the final verdict. I merely hope that it will be thorough, unbiased, and fair.
By Gigi on October 4th, 2007 at 2:50 am
Gigi, we’re not talking of murder here, but a tragic car accident. Scotland Yard’s protection team would have prevented that by a whole raft of measures which were lacking in the Fayed setup.
By John on October 4th, 2007 at 8:31 am
The original Coroner refused to hold an Inquest because of all the accusations flying around. We’re now onto the fourth Coroner to preside over this saga. Two lengthy police inquiries lasting around three years each, one by the French and one by Scotland Yard, failed to find any evidence of anything but a stupid, pointless, avoidable car crash.
Look at the new pictures of Henri Paul’s face when driving the car. He’s clearly having a whale of a time. He’s semi-drunk.
By John on October 4th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Sadie, an inquest is always about the cause of a death. This one has more carefully-laid red herrings than an Agatha Christie whodunit, so Lord Justice Scott Baker felt he had to dispose of the conspiracy theories before arriving at a verdict. Otherwise, all the nonsense would go on.
Fayed has apparently said he’d be happy with an open verdict. That, of course, would leave him in the clear. A definite verdict is not what he wants because that would point to the material cause of her death — lack of proper, sober, security arrangements.
By John on October 4th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Yeah. He’s lucky. If this had been the US, someone would have sued the pants off of him (and probably won). Even though we are the land of angels, UFOs, conspiracy theories, political obfuscation and astrology, the lawyers somehow almost always get their way.
By Panda on October 4th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
John, you are assuming facts not yet in evidence. We do not know what Scotland Yard could or could not have prevented. Nor do we as yet know that cause of death. That is what the inquest has been convened to discover.
By Gigi on October 4th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Gigi, Scotland Yard would have prevented all the security lapses that happened. They would probably have advised the couple to stay in the hotel, otherwise to give the paps their picture and then move out in force, with backup cars, to wherever they wanted to go.
The cause of death — as determined by two police inquiries — was a car accident caused by speeding by an alcoholic driver not trained to drive a powerful Mercedes, and no insistence that the passengers wear seat belts.
It’s all so obvious and really inexcusable. Diana’s vast army of fans should be screaming at the Fayed setup, not the Royal Family.
By John on October 4th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
If a vast army of fans are screaming at the Royal Family, I am not aware of it. I certainly am not doing that and neither, insofar as I am aware, is anyone else posting on this website. Some of us are grateful that the inquest has been convened, to determine once and for all the facts of the case. As for Scotland Yard, no doubt their intentions would have been to prevent the crash, but no one knows if they would have, in fact, been able to do that. As for the police inquiries, and the determinations they made, I am interested in the determination of the coroner’s inquest which has just recently been convened.
By Gigi on October 4th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I agree with you John an inquest is to determine the cause of death not to enter into conjecture about unsubstantiated rumours and possible plots by the RF and the secret service. To me the causes of death are 1. a drunken driver driving too fast 2. the presence of the paparazzi harassing the driver 3. the fact that the passengers were not wearing seat belts and 4. something that has received little or no comment but to me as a retired civil engineer the fact that the pillars in the tunnel were not ‘protected’ by crash barriers is significant. Had barriers been in place the car would not have buried itself round the pillar but would have been deflected.
The television is of the opinion that the inquest could last up to 6 months. I just feel for Dianna’s ‘boys’ having to go through all this again especially PW who is in a testing time in his personal reltionship with K. I think that he will need her comforting arms to help him through the next few months. She got him through his testing time at St Andrews and I am sure she will be able to do it again. It could be the making time of their relationship.
By Royalist on October 4th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Speaking of Prince William and Kate, I feel certain that they will not be able to announce their engagement until the inquest is completed, plus some amount of time to get past final discussions. You’re right, Royalist– in that period of emotional turmoil, William will need someone to help him be strong and sane. Much better that he rely on Kate than his drinking buddies.
By Evelyn on October 4th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
I haven’t really seen anything about Prince William’s ‘drinking buddies’ in the online British papers for some time. Apparently they are only of interest to the press when they are with Prince William.
By Gigi on October 4th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
“If a vast army of fans are screaming at the Royal Family, I am not aware of it.”
Charles is a member of the royal family.
Diana’s most extreme fans blame Charles for Diana’s death.
You do the math.
By Panda on October 5th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Gigi, I did see a story on Guy Pelly last week. Seems he and his girlfriend were invited to Las Vegas to discuss business (Guy works for Mahiki). The “business people” were actually reporters in disguise. They plied the pair with drinks and then tried to get Guy to tell all about his royal friends. It didn’t work, but his girlfriend’s parents have told her to put some distance between them for awhile….
By Evelyn on October 5th, 2007 at 2:55 am
I think that is really underhanded of the reporters to try to get information that way. I hope they at least paid for the airfare from the UK to Las Vegas. The media is just getting totally out of hand.
By Gigi on October 5th, 2007 at 3:58 am
Evelyn and Gigi, not only was Guy Pelly plied with alcohol, in an attempt to get information about the Royal Family, but he and his girlfriend, Suzanna Warren, were videotaped getting “lap dances.” Now Guy and Suzanne are petrified the videotape will be made public. John has the entire story posted on his other website, “Aristocracy Anecdotes.”
By Arthur on October 5th, 2007 at 5:39 am
Thanks for the plug, Arthur.
Yes, it’s an interesting story, Pelly falling for the Sophie gambit.
We don’t know who was behind it, but someone said a sheik may have been involved, so it’s probably the News of the World.
Kate did warn William off Pelly but, as development director of Mahiki, they’re bound to see him from time to time.
By John on October 5th, 2007 at 8:39 am
I am not a Guy Pelly fan, but this ‘entrapment’ caper is very unseemly and should be illegal, in my view. Whomever these outrageous reporters were, they need to read the Canons of Journalism, read them again, and then FOLLOW them. This type of behavior is one of the reasons why the reputation of the media is so diminished and falling further daily. Yes…I am pouty!
By Gigi on October 5th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
It was the inflammatory language I was questioning, Panda. An undetermined number of people blaming Charles for the death of Princess Diana does not accurately translate to “a vast army of fans screaming at the Royal Family.” As for ‘doing the math’ that does not add up.
By Gigi on October 5th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
“Look at the new pictures of Henri Paul’s face when driving the car. He’s clearly having a whale of a time. He’s semi-drunk.”
Semi? Try Stinkin’!
By On the Outside on October 5th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Numerous news reports put the number of Britons who believe that Diana was murdered and that her death was “covered up” at 27%. I tried yesterday to link to the news stories for you to see, but apparently long links are spammed out. Needless to say, if you Google the above information you’ll find plenty of evidence. For example, from CNN:
“The British coroner announced it will carry out an inquest almost at the same time a Sunday Express poll found that 27 percent of Britons believe the crash was the result of a plot and 49 percent believe there was a cover-up afterward. The British royals and government agencies have always vehemently denied any involvement in the crash or any alleged cover-up. Their denials were borne out by the French inquest.”
From ABC news:
“Asked if they believed Diana had been murdered, 27 per cent of respondents to an NOP survey replied “yes”, 51 per cent said “no” while the rest were unsure.”
From the Guardian:
“Whatever the hopes of the bishop of London, William and Harry, many Britons refuse to accept Diana’s death was an accident – shortly before the service began a Channel 4 News poll was released showing that a quarter of Britons still believe Diana was murdered.”
Please note that these are recent news reports (this year, in the past few months). There are plenty more and the comments section always yields additional interesting conspiracies.
Let’s take a conservative estimate–20% of the British believe that Diana was murdered. The current population of the UK is around 60,776,238 people. 20% of 60,776,238 is 12,155,248. Let’s be conservative again and assume that is 12 million people. Is that not a hoard?
I agree that it is worrisome when journalists resort to shady tactics to get their “news” stories. It is, however, important that the public actually researches and tries to understand the news for themselves, rather than basing opinion on what one “feels.”
By Panda on October 6th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
So tell me again, where is this vast army of fans screaming at the Royal Family, if only 20% of Britons believe Princess Diana was murdered?
By Gigi on October 6th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
“So tell me again, where is this vast army of fans screaming at the Royal Family, if only 20% of Britons believe Princess Diana was murdered?”
The Britons would be in the UK.
No seriously, you think that there are “only” 20% and that this isn’t a large number?
12 million people isn’t a hoard? In some countries, it qualifies as a small army. It’s half the population of Texas. 20% is a conservative estimate. Did you even go and look at the information I tried to share? Some polls put the number even higher. And given that it is such an unreasonable idea–that she was murdered–it’s somewhat unnerving that you would consider 20% “only” a small number.
If 2 or 5 percent of Britons believed that Diana had been murdered, then it might make sense to say, “Well, only 2% believe she was killed.” 20% is a lot.
I don’t want to put words in John’s mouth–and he can certainly correct me if need be–but for someone who sees this as a tragic accident, 12 million people believing that Diana was murdered–and yammering about it on numerous message boards which you are free to look up (I can’t include links in this message)–sounds very much like people screaming in a way that belies reason.
But I can see how this kind of judgment seems inflammatory to those who suspect that Diana was murdered and that her death wasn’t the result of a tragic traffic accident.
By Panda on October 7th, 2007 at 6:00 am
Panda, I saw your numbers but I drew different conclusions from them than you did. Further, I have a lifelong distrust of polls. Pollsters can make numbers say whatever they want them to say. Further, it is quite a different thing for a person to suspect that Princess Diana was murdered and for a person to be “yammering about it on numerous message boards.” We have no way of knowing who the people are who post on those message boards, no way of knowing what agenda they have or what or whom their posted views represent. Let’s take me as an example. I am a 60 year old university educated American who has been a devoted Royalist all my life and a student of Royal genealogy and British and European history. I adore the Queen and also greatly loved and admired Princess Diana. I am devoted to her two sons, Prince William and Prince Andrew. I have unanswered questions about how Princess Diana died, which I hope and believe the coroner’s inquest will answer. I post on one message board, Royal Anecdotes, and I absolutely dispute that I “yammer.”
I am merely stating my point of view, which, apparently, you perceive as a threat to the point of view you espouse. I have no problem reading the opinions of others on this site, whether they agree with me or not. I would appreciate the same courtesy from you. I understand what you are saying, I simply don’t believe that the facts as I understand them and the numbers you cite add up to ‘hordes of fans shrieking at the Royal Family.’ I have seen no evidence that such is the case. I am content to wait for the verdict of the coroner’s inquest, which I will accept as final.
By Gigi on October 7th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
And I say you are closing your eyes to the evidence because of some emotional connection you have to the subject. That kind of compassion is admirable–and I don’t doubt that you are a kind person who is in and always will be in Diana’s corner. It’s too bad more people were not there with her in her life.
But it’s scary when it means you don’t open your eyes to what is true. It is convenient to dismiss polls when they don’t mesh with feelings–and I challenge you to think of this using rationality and not your emotional connection the subject. I respect your feelings, but am asking you to think more critically and to realize that you are basing your opinion on a gut instinct instead of thinking through all the evidence.
Now, in all fairness, there isn’t a photo of a “horde” that is literally “screaming.”
Again, John is free to contradict me, but I suspect he wrote what he did as a metaphor to describe the large numbers of people who believe what is in so many ways a classic conspiracy theory meant to divert people from what is more likely.
By Panda on October 8th, 2007 at 1:08 am
As far as I am concerned, polls are not credible. I will accept the verdict of the coroner’s inquest, but not the conclusions based on polls. Also, unless we actually know, of our own knowledge, that there are large numbers of people who actually are excoriating the Royal Family over the death of Princess Diana, it is not prudent to put that in print, to my way of thinking. This very issue is how the media got started down the wrong path. When reporters couldn’t find a source that said what they wanted them to, they made up a source who insisted on being unanimous…and there went one Canon of Journalism. Unproven statementes couched in inflammatory language is another slippery slope and there goes another Canon. Many others followed. This has been going on for a very long time, and it seems to be escalating. It doesn’t do anyone any good and it does have the potential to be damaging. Let’s be honest, here. None of us knows, of our own personal knowledge, what caused Princess Diana’s death. None of us were present when it happened, witnessed the crash, nor were we in the hotel where Princess Diana and Dodi al Fayed had dinner prior to getting into the car. The closest we are going to get to the truth is the verdict of the coroner’s inquest, after they had heard the testimony of all the witnesses and seen the exhibits. Theirs is the conclusion I will accept.
By Gigi on October 8th, 2007 at 3:08 am
Playing devil’s advocate, how would you be convinced that large numbers of people were criticizing the Royal Family, other than a poll? What would be your methodology? Would you have to go to the UK and ask a representative sample of people on your own (which would be a kind of poll)? Or could nothing convince you? How do you know anything about what people in the world think or feel or gauge any trend at all? Or does that not matter at all?
“The closest we are going to get to the truth is the verdict of the coroner’s inquest, after they had heard the testimony of all the witnesses and seen the exhibits. Theirs is the conclusion I will accept.”
I’m glad you are open to this. I hope the verdict comes soon and the matter is put to rest. It’s been ten years and must be an absolute torture on the family.
By Panda on October 8th, 2007 at 4:11 am
Actually, it occurs to me that if you don’t believe in polls, don’t believe in that kind of fact finding, don’t believe in numbers, then it makes sense to me why you wouldn’t believe or accept the information I tried to present to you.
I don’t understand it, because all of that is part of how I try to make sense of the international world. If I want to understand why people in the UK no longer like Tony Blair, there are many editorials on the subject which are hepful, and polling information which paints a broad picture. This is how I was taught to start to learn about contemporary events.
But if it is not how your mind works or how you think or learn, then obviously nothing I say will convince you that there might in fact be a large number of people who are emotionally overwrought and convinced that Diana was murdered.
Similarly, if someone, for example, were to say to me that “God willed it” (“it” being anything), I would say, “I don’t believe it” because I don’t believe in God. It would be a meaningless explanatation to me. I couldn’t possibly reach a rational conclusion based on someone asking me to accept God’s will.
Likewise, polls and opinion finding mean nothing to you.
So, I can leave it there.
I share your hope that the inquest puts this matter to rest. It is about time.
By Panda on October 8th, 2007 at 4:29 am
The number of people who believe Diana was murdered has fallen dramatically in recent weeks. Only nine Dianistas (as they’re called here) turned up for the inquest last week, and a marquee erected outside for the overflow was completely empty.
Although this was a tragic accident, it was also an aggravated accident in that it’s now believed that Henri Paul was in the pay of some of the paparazzi, especially the one who has pulled out of the inquest.
The decision to stand down her Scotland Yard protection squad, apparently on the advice of her hosts, was the material cause of her death.
It’s a grubby story made worse by the counter-accusations and attempted cover-up by Fayed. Nasty stuff.
By John on October 8th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Gigi, that was an unfortunate phrase since it didn’t accurately describe the scenario, as you point out. However, here in Britain there has been a substantial number of “Dianistas” who will never believe other than that she was murdered by the Royal Family in one way or another. They have a major newspaper on their side too, the Daily Express, whose owner — the pornographer Richard Desmond — is a close friend of Fayed.
Given what’s coming out in the inquest now, and what some of us have realized for a long while, this is outrageous and should be stopped by any means possible. There are lives being ruined by this nonsense.
By John on October 8th, 2007 at 9:09 am
I never read the Daily Express, John, because it is what it is. I am only interested in credible statements by credible people, people I know to be truthful and who are not promoting a private agenda. As a journalism major who worked for a newspaper and whose Great Grandfather founded a newspaper, I am very aware of the proper process of news gathering and reporting and have seen, especially in America, how those processes can be corrupted. Exaggeration and outright mistatement of facts, which occur when those reporting do not care to check their sources, do not take the time to properly research, do great damage. There are those people, sad to say, who believe that telling a lie that benefits them or that promotes their agenda is the same as telling the truth. That type of twisted thinking needs to stop.
By Gigi on October 8th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Very true, Gigi. Let’s hope this will all stop in a few months. Alas, I doubt it.
By John on October 8th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Whenever the verdict of the Coroner’s Inquest is published, they will make an end, I hope and believe. Except for the two witnesses who have chosen not to testify (and apparently in Great Britain the legal mechanism providing legal compulsion for witnesses to testify, i.e. subpeona power, is not available for a Coroner’s Inquest), it appears as if the procedure is examining the evidence thoroughly. The reason that public outcry did not cease when the Warren Commission published their conclusions of the Kennedy Assasination is that some of the members of the Commission were known to have personal agendas and, further, that some of the conclusions published were thought to be utterly ill-founded. Then, to really set the cat among the pidgeons, there were photographs and moving picture film that, in the fullness of time, was able to be more thoroughly examined, frame-by-frame, when new technology became available. I was in first year of junior high school when Kennedy was killed, but I recall that, as dreadful as the occurrence was, as high as public emotions were, public feeling really escalated again after the publication of the Warren Commission Report. Frankly, it was a nightmare.
By Gigi on October 8th, 2007 at 8:02 pm