There will no doubt be the usual flurry of activity amongst the conspiracy theorists who will claim that the letter from Diana now produced by Paul Burrell, in which she claims a conspiracy was in progress to ensure her death in a car by sabotaging the vehicle in which she was travelling, in some way relates to the accident in Paris in which she was fatally injured. There may well be some truth in this, though not in any sense that conspiracy theorists would understand.

I was awake and listening to the radio when the accident happened and phoned an old friend in Paris. A classic case of 'destiny assisted suicide' was our agreed verdict, and nothing has emerged to alter this view. While it is absolutely beyond doubt that Diana's death was accidental to the extent it was not planned or executed by any group or individual, it was nonethless approaching the status of a required event in what we call history. As such it would feature quite strongly in what we might call the 'multidimensional matrix' and for this reason relate to all the possibility/probability resolutions, virtual resolutions, estimates and prognoses that would turn up in the subconscious of some of those involved (and, importantly, not others).

There may well have been persons who had hoped or contemplated that Diana would just disappear, even imagined her car being sabotaged and even spoken about it in jest. There may even have been someone who thought about it seriously. More significantly Diana, living in her version of the world,  would have thought of how she would go about getting rid of herself and decided this would be the classic way. She would not have voiced her fears publicly but would have written the letter we have now seen. That is what we would expect. It would be interesting to know if there are other letters in a similar vein yet to be revealed. Not that they would alter the actual course of events.

This was that Diana died as the result of an unplanned, accidental car crash.

It was not always inevitable. But as time went on it became increasingly probable and, eventually,  inevitable. Diana played her part in history, a part which depended on who she was, what she willed, what she did, and how this worked out in relation to all the other people in her life, whose influence would be proportional to the inverse of their effective distance and directly as a fraction of their number. Her influence on the world, a more complex calculation, was not inconsiderable. We need not complain about her failure to appreciate the classical role she was required to play - she played another, one that was required by the world. She obliged, and played it as only she could, including the vital classic essential of producing heirs to the throne. Her death was part of her life. It was not brought about by the plans or calculations of knowing, human conspirators. It was however a life and death the public challenged her to carry out and so, although it was she who took up the challenge, we are all, quite properly, implicated.

JB October 20th 2003

UPDATE FEB 06 2004
I caught the end of a Channel 4 programme that seemed well intended to inform viewers about the facts. Particularly commendable was the French policeman who explained how after careful examination and recording of every detail of the accident site, his immediate priority was to clean the place up, make sure it did not become a 'shrine', and get the traffic moving. If only our UK police were allowed to take such sensible priorities. As things stand, any accident on a busy British road is likely to cause traffic such congestion that more people die due to delayed ambulances on unrelated journeys than were victims (if there were any) in the accident in question.

After the programme there were numbers for listeners to register by SMS or voice their opinion as to whether Diana's death was an accident oe the resukt of a conspiracy. Result: 78% Conspiracy, 22% Accident. It is time to realise that deciding any national policy by referendum in this country is as irresponsible as putting lunatics in charge of an asylum. Let us hope that the inquest will finally put an end to this. I must say Channel 4 have slightly redeemed themselves from the state they were in after running (and repeating) the documentary that claimed men had never landed on the moon. Those of us who knew the astronauts and the science found this a bit offensive to say the least.

UPDATE MARCH 04
As has been pointed out today by close friends of the Princess and her husband (in the context of the absurd release of tapes made by Diana in one of her darkest and most self-pitying moments), in the year before her death they had become fully reconciled and very close friends, to the great happiness of their children. Diana herself was getting to grips with reality as never before.  If there was anyone trying to kill her, it was certainly nobody acting on behalf of the Monarchy or the State.

UPDATE DEC 07 2004
The latest videos being shown in the States and the revelations about Diana's love life will sadly only make most people come to the conclusion that if Diana was murdered, it was just as well - for her and all the rest of us. However the eviidence is, sadly, that at the time she died she had started to get her head together (relatively) and was on good terms with her husband and children. It is a complete waste of time now to harp on about her problems, which is all that can come out of any further enquiries.

---

DECEMBER 9th 2006
After a year of ridiculous speculation the former head of the Metrpolitan Police was commissioned to do an investigation and report on the whole saga. He started 3 years ago and will unveil the results next week. Then an inquest will be held in the UK and w can wrap all this tripe up. Preliminary hearings to prepare the inquest are due to start next month. Meanwhile......
LONDON (Reuters) - French investigators say new evidence confirms Princess Diana's driver Henri Paul was drunk on the night she died, the BBC reported in a documentary to be broadcast on Sunday.

Although the official French inquiry blamed the 1997 crash on the chauffeur being drunk and driving too fast, conspiracy theorists have always questioned that verdict.

Mohamed al Fayed, father of Diana's companion Dodi, who was killed in the crash, has repeatedly said the pair were murdered because their relationship was embarrassing the royal household.

He and Paul's parents said the driver was sober when the car hit a pillar in a Paris underpass.

They have said that blood samples taken from him after his death which showed he had been drinking might have been swapped in hospital to pin the blame for the crash on him.

The British Broadcasting Corporation's documentary says French police ordered DNA tests on Paul's blood sample to prove it was his and had not been switched in hospital.

The DNA profile was compared with samples taken from Paul's parents and the two matched, apparently ruling out the possibility of swapped samples.

"There is not a shadow of a doubt," French police commander Jean-Claude Mules told the BBC in extracts from the programme shown on Saturday. "Top British experts have confirmed the accuracy and the excellence of the analysis done by the French."

British and French authorities have dismissed the welter of conspiracy theories about the death of Diana.

Former London police chief Sir John Stevens was called in to investigate the crash and the theories surrounding it. He is due to unveil the results of his three-year probe next week. Newspapers say he will conclude the crash was a tragic accident.

Paul was a member of the security staff at the Ritz Hotel in Paris where Diana had dined.

In a newspaper interview on Saturday, French detective Martine Monteil, who led the French investigation, said there was "not a shred of doubt" the crash was caused by Paul's high-speed drunk driving.

"Those DNA samples and the test results were all sent to the British police," she told the Daily Mail. "Nothing was swapped."

British inquest hearings into the deaths of Diana and Dodi al Fayed are due to begin next month.

MY COMMENTS
Al Fayed has very good reasons to claim that it was a conspiracy, as he was almost certainly responsible himself for choosing who was driving at the time. He is arguing in self defence and self-denial. As for the disappearance of the Fiat Uno that collided with Diana's car, the same applies. Anyone discovering that they were involved in this accident, whether or not they were to blame, would make sure their car disappeared without trace if there was any way they could possibly devise to achieve this!.

---

JANUARY 16th 2006                         Reassuring evidence of sanity in experienced judiciary.

Judge Butler-Sloss has concluded that the judgement to be given must be reasoned. It is not a trial, where a jury is called upon to decide guilt or innocence. It is a decision based on all the evidence, which will be made public and is very considerable in extent, as to whether or not Diana and Dodi's death was accidental or could have been planned by any individual or agency. There is therefore no role here for a jury other than to observe the proceedings. Since the proceedings will be observed by the media and public as a whole, the observation by and of any 12 individual alone is irrelevant. What is relevant is the reasoning, given in public, of a highly qualified coroner on the weight and meaning of the evidence. That there are many people who do not understand that is yet further evidence that it is increasingly difficult to find rational individuals for jury service.

LONDON (Reuters) - The judge overseeing the inquest into the death of Princess Diana decided on Monday that the case would not be heard by a jury.

The country's former top woman judge Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, who came out of retirement specially to oversee the sensitive inquiry, has decided instead to handle the case on her own.

Butler-Sloss made her decision after reviewing legal arguments put before her at the High Court in London last week.

At last week's preliminary hearing, she ruled that it would be inappropriate to allow royal officials to sit on a jury deciding how Diana and her lover Dodi al Fayed died in a 1997 Paris crash.

Because Diana was part of the royal family when she died, any jury, according to a convention dating back to the 16th century, would usually be made up of members of the royal household.

Diana's children, Princes William and Harry, who are eager to put a decade of speculation behind them, have expressed the hope that the long-awaited inquest will be "open, fair and transparent" and completed as fast as possible.

Dodi's father, Harrods luxury store owner Mohamed al Fayed, had wanted the inquest to be held before a public jury.

Butler-Sloss had already decided that the inquests into the deaths of Diana and Dodi should run concurrently.

In the years since the accident, a host of conspiracy theories has flourished, suggesting the couple were murdered because their relationship embarrassed the royal family.

Three weeks ago, a police investigation ruled that their Paris car crash was an accident and the two were not the victims of an elaborate murder plot.

A two-year French investigation had already come to that conclusion, but under British law an inquest is needed formally to determine the cause of death when someone dies unnaturally.

An inquest cannot apportion blame but can rule that the death was "unnatural", due to violence or an accident.

The death of the "People's Princess" -- divorced from Prince Charles and the world's most photographed woman -- sparked an outpouring of grief.

Diana, who was 36, Fayed, 42, and their chauffeur Henri Paul died when their Mercedes limousine smashed at high speed into a pillar in a Paris road tunnel after they sped away from the Ritz Hotel, pursued by paparazzi on motorbikes.

---

MARCH  02 2007        Given the number of conspiracy-theory loonies on the loose it may be just as well the High Court has decided on legal technical grounds that Lady Butler-Sloss could not sit as 'Deputy Coroner to the Queen's Household'. That means her decsision to sit without a jury (a sensible idea, permitting her to give a reasoned verdict) cannot be taken by her and she (or whoever) will sit with a jury. That means, I assume, that there will just be a verdict, without reasons, which Al Fayed has already said he will accept.

Interesting. That will in theory shut him up, while leaving conspiracy theorists free to assure us and him that the jury was mistaken or misled.  Let's face it, unless the driver of Diana's car crashed it deliberately, suitably tanked up for a suicide mission, there is no case for anything except an accident. But since it seems Al Fayed was the person who decided Henri Paul should drive at the last minute, that's a difficult conclusion.

The High Court, while wrapping their decision in legality, have actually reached it for wider political reasons to set a precedent and remove it from any special or royal category. OK, I suppose.

Harrods boss Mohammed Al Fayed has won a legal victory which means a jury will hear the inquests into the deaths of his son Dodi and Diana, Princess of Wales. The ruling overturns the decision by coroner Baroness Butler-Sloss to hear the case alone.

She had argued it would be an "almost impossible task" for a jury to decide.

Diana, 36, and Dodi, 42, died when their car crashed in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel in Paris in 1997 as they were pursued by paparazzi photographers.

Mr Al Fayed insists that the couple were murdered.

Outside the High Court, he told reporters he was happy with the decision. "I am certain that when the jury sees the evidence they will prove my belief."

He said he would stand by any verdict they reached.

Lady Justice Smith, sitting with Mr Justice Collins and Mr Justice Silber, made clear that Lady Butler-Sloss cannot sit as the royal coroner They said: "We quash the decisions to conduct the inquests as deputy coroner for the Queen's Household and without summoning a jury" but made it clear that Lady Butler-Sloss could continue to conduct the inquests if she wished.

The Royal Courts of Justice said Lady Butler-Sloss would not stand down from the case.

A spokeswoman said: "We are intending that, as planned, part of the pre-inquest hearing before Baroness Butler-Sloss will take place on March 5."

She added that Lady Butler-Sloss will be sitting as coroner of "some sort", although they are still assessing the meaning of the ruling on her status in the case.

Prince William and Prince Harry have said they want the inquest to be prompt, fair and transparent.

A three-year inquiry, led by former Metropolitan Police chief Lord Stevens, found no evidence of a conspiracy to murder the couple.

The inquiry report said Dodi's driver Henri Paul was speeding and over the legal drink-drive limit.

---

MARCH 06 2007

Al Fayed's legal team have asked for more time to prepare 'their case', whatever that may be - apparently that the Duke of Edinburgh and MI6 managed to get Diana into the Mercedes, with Henri Paul as the driver, and then have him chased in such a way that while driving fast and trying to avoid a Fiat Uno he crashed. I can just imagine the Duke approving the plans, can't you, all worked out at the last minute when it was discovered that Diana was pregnant and about to marry Dodi?

The most brilliant part of the plot was surely organising all the paparazzi to chase the car but not be there to see the crash. Good to know we still have real magicians in our secret services like in the good old days when Jasper Maskelyne made the 8th army disappear just when Rommel was looking for it in the desert.

Quite rightly, Lady Butler-Sloss has given poor Al Fayed, who subconsciously blames himself for the crash, enough rope to hang himself. The inquest is put off tlll Ocotober. How Michael Mansfield has the brass neck to take his money and allow him to go on with this farce is a question that will one day need discussion.

---

APRIL 24th 2007
If you ask me, Lady B-S has decided she has better things to do. But she will at least do the pre-inquest hearings.

Baroness Butler-Sloss is to step down in June as coroner for the inquests into the death of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed, it has been announced.

Lady Butler-Sloss said she lacked the experience required to deal with an inquest with a jury.

Lord Justice Scott Baker will take over as coroner for the inquests, which were expected to take place in October.

The princess died in a car crash in 1997 in the Pont D'Alma tunnel in Paris along with Mr Al Fayed.

June 6th 2007

The Channel 4 documentary tonight was an excellent piece of journalism. It was only necssary because of the absurd conspiracy theories and innacurate evidence and allegations surrounding the events, shortly to be put forward before a coroner. The press as a whole, more than any particular photographers, were a party to the causation of the accident. The other party was Al Fayed and any other handlers who decided who should drive Diana's car on that night and under what circumstances and with what plans. To avoid an accident sooner or later when under such continual pressure from the press required a driver of exceptional judgement who would never, whether or not he had alcohol in his bloodstream, exceed his limitations. Even then, circumstances can sonspire against any driver. Such an accident was hardly a surprise, though the violence and fatality was due to the specially unforgiving characteristics of concrete pillars and tunnel walls.

---

JULY 1st 2007

The concert this afternoon at Wembly should help to put to rest the idea that Charles' marriage to Diana was, as a typical media commentator assumed, a mistake. William and Harry's initiative in organising this celebratory memorial and its immense success is evidence enough that her children are, in today's jargon, not just fit for purpose but capable of inspirational leadership. However, as far as R. Gervaise is concerned, I agree with B. Stiller (even if he was joking), The (brilliant) Office not withstanding. He's just a bore.

---

JULY 9th 2007

Now that the coroner has told Al Fayed what he can do with his request to call the Queen as a witness, the imagination strays onto whether, if Al Fayed was to be prosecuted for criminal negligence in organising the transport arrangements for his son and Diana, who might be called as witnesses in that case. Her death was an accident, but in the past that has never stood in the way of prosecuting people whose negligence certainly led to such an accident. Once this coroner's hearing has established that it was an accident the way should be open to hold Al Fayed to account.

---

AUGUST 31st 2007

Today we have a memorial service commemorating 10 years since Diana's death. This event, organised by Princes William and Harry, is clearly a great opportunity to gather together all those who supported the charities Diana did so much to help through her genuine care and, let us face it, her use of the media who so damaged her to positive ends. While the Daily Express and its diminishing readership continue the speculative feeding frenzy the rest of the world has moved on and can now look back on a life of great achievement as a mother and as a woman who, though coming unprepared for a public role, showed very considerable courage. Every trip-wire possible was put in her way by the media and by 'friends' and at times she stumbled. Today was a day to celebrate the positive, very great achievements. Harry's speech and the Bishop of London's address expressed between them the moving and greatly inspiring truth behind a life for which we can all be grateful. RIP.

---

SEPTEMBER 30th 2007

Inquest into Diana's death finally begins

By Paul Majendie Reuters

LONDON (Reuters) - Ten years after Princess Diana was killed in a high-speed car crash in Paris, a judicial inquest into her death finally begins this Tuesday.

Two major investigations by French and British police have concluded the crash was an accident caused by her speeding chauffeur, who was drunk. But they have not satisfied Mohamed al-Fayed, father of Diana's lover Dodi, who also died in the crash, or a small number of remaining conspiracy theorists.

Now it is the turn of the judicial system to stage what Diana's sons, princes William and Harry, passionately hope will be an "open, fair and transparent" inquest that will finally allow their mother to rest in peace.

Media and public interest are so intense that the jurors have been given police protection at the inquest, which could last up to six months.

The coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, told jurors he was "very anxious" they should not be harassed in any way.

Diana, 36, Dodi al-Fayed, 42, and chauffeur Henri Paul were all killed when their limousine smashed into a pillar in a road tunnel as they sped away from the Ritz Hotel in Paris, pursued by paparazzi on motorbikes.

Under law, an inquest is needed formally to determine the cause of death when someone dies unnaturally. It was delayed until the two police probes were completed.

Dodi's father, the Egyptian tycoon who owns the Paris Ritz as well as the London luxury store Harrods, is convinced his son and Diana were victims of a British establishment conspiracy to stop them marrying.

Al-Fayed, implacable foe of the House of Windsor and Diana's former husband Prince Charles, heir to the throne, told Reuters in a recent interview: "The royal family must have ice water in their veins."

The Egyptian, who fought a long legal battle to have the inquest held before a jury, pledged: "I will never rest until I have exposed the whole murderous conspiracy. My son and Diana were slaughtered."

So, will the inquest finally lay to rest the theories surrounding the death of the "People's Princess", one of the 20th century's most iconic figures?

Royal biographer Penny Junor told Reuters: "There are people who are obsessed with the idea that it was not an accident. How long can they go on? Mohamed al-Fayed has no intention of dropping it.

"I hope this will put an end to the conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't put too much money on it."

---

OCTOBER 3rd 2007

The inquest is now underweigh. In my view there are two possible conclusions.

1. The death of Diana was caused by an accident without any known deliberate human cause.
2. The death of Diana was caused by an accident caused by an unidentified driver who may or may not have wished to provoke a car crash to cause trouble to the couple. Death could not have been a certain outcome of this driver's action.

It is hard to imagine the driver of the other car being able to plan this event in view of the suddenness the couple left their hotel with an unstated destination. It is more likely this unfortunate driver was a victim of events and his own personality.

Whether or not some over keen policeman tried to enhance any post facto evidence, or some forensic work was sloppy, and whether or not Dodi was going to propose, it does not add up to evidence of a murder plot ordered by Prince Philip and carried out by MI6 - that theory is for people wh don't know anything about either.

---

OCTOBER 31st 2007
The inquest has now run for nearly a month and it becomes ever clearer that the death of Diana and Dodi was caused by the paparazzi and her driver, the first playing their endless game for money and the latter playing a game back to prove he could outwit them and outdrive them. The French authorities have decided not to compel any French paparazzi or their drivers to attend the inquest, as they sense quite rightly that they might be forcing them to incriminate themselves, even though this inquest has been declared as a forum in which such incrimination is not possible as it is not a criminal proceedings. Personally speaking, as the driver is dead and the only other people responsible for the accident are these paparazzi, I think the French government are right. These people are guilty as hell, but there is no pint in trying to attribute blame between them. The blame lies with the Sun and the ilk of Kelvin McKenzie and Rupert Murdoch and the readers who buy the tabloids in excessive numbers. We need a free press. The Sun and its writers can always exist, but when it sells enough copies to make its owners rich on printing rubbish, we have to acknowledge the public, just as at the Roman Circus, are responsible for its success. It is significant that the photographer first on the scene did not ask for £300,000 from a French paper, even though the French press had for years run many stories on the British Royal Family.

---

JANUARY 14th 2008
Paul Burrell lives in his own self-promotional dreamworld. He is right when he says that it is impossible that the Royal Family had anything to do with the death of Diana, but when it comes to his own role and status in this affair he will, if he is not careful, dig himself a big hole. He is almost certainly right that Diana was not contemplating marriage with Dodi, but it is also just as unlikely that his claim to be the guardian of secrets that he will take to the grave (that have any importance) is anything more than an insurance policy to keep his value as an author and a media personality now that his chances of employment based on his conventonal talents are virtually zero. His value to this inquest as a credible witness may rapidly diminish.

At the time Diana went to see her lawyer, Lord Mishcon, she was at a low point in her morale an a high point in her confusion. Mishcon took notes, now read out at this inquest, which show clearly how the Diana's image of herself and her importance in the world around her was running wild in her head. Her opinions on the Queen's abdication, and the roles she wanted for other members of the Royal Family, were absurd, but because she believed them and took herself seriously they help to explain why she thought someone would bother to murder her. It is a classic case of transferred motivation.

JANUARY 15th 2008
Back in court today, Burrell reveals his brain is as much a mess as was that of his former employer. They must have made a fine pair. I think his value as a credible witness is finished.  There is no doubt that the pressure of public attention and the UK media can send those who take public opinion or the media and its gurus seriously into a seriously deluded state.

---

FEBRUARY 15th 2008
Now we getting to the truth. Macnamara, clearly the source of most conspiracy theories, will I hope be prosecuted when this is all over. As for his boss, Al Fayed, who is the source of Macnamara's corruption, he should be made for the full and complete cost of these proceedings as well as being prosecuted for slander, libel and maybe (let us wait and see) perjury. Perhaps we can deport him when he gets out.

Mohamed Al Fayed's former head of security has told the inquest into Princess Diana's death he lied about how much alcohol Henri Paul had drunk.

The former top police officer - sent to Paris after the crash that killed Diana and Mr Al Fayed's son - found driver Mr Paul had two Ricards that evening.

John Macnamara had previously told a US TV programme he drank pineapple juice.

He also told the court his claims that Diana was pregnant when she died were based on what a journalist told him.

FEBRUARY 18th 2008

MARCH17th 2008

First read this ITN report:

'Burrell removed dead Diana's ring'

ITN - Monday, March 17 03:37 pm

A witness at the Princess Diana inquest has said Paul Burrell took an engagement ring off her dead body. 

The claim has been made by Michael Faux, who was employed as Mr Burrell's bodyguard for a year until 2003.

He told the jury in central London that the former royal butler also kept documents, including papers note-headed with the Buckingham Palace crest, and burnt them.

Mr Faux said he saw Mr Burrell take "one or two" bin bags with property he had "hidden" at a neighbour's home in Farndon, Cheshire, and "frantically" burn them in his back garden in November or December 2002.

He claimed that an anxious Mr Burrell was "upset and virtually crying" when he at first refused to sign a confidentiality agreement.

No sooner had he agreed to sign, than Mr Burrell told him that he had an engagement ring, which Mr Faux said he was "led to believe" was Diana's.

Under questioning from Nicholas Hilliard, for the coroner, Mr Faux told the court: "He said that he took it from the body in Paris."

Mr Hilliard said: "Did he have any way of demonstrating this was hers?"

Mr Faux replied: "Yes, there was still blood on the ring and he could prove it was her by the DNA."

Mr Faux said that he thought it "was not right that he had taken it off her finger", probably in the hospital, and that he felt "disgusted" with him.

The jury has heard that Diana had received a gold Bulgari friendship ring from lover Dodi Fayed which she wore on her right hand.

There was also a £11,500 Repossi ring, which some claim was an engagement ring, bought in the weeks before the couple died.

Mr Burrell, who is now based in the US and refuses to return to the witness box, has rejected Mr Faux's claims.

In a written statement to the court, Mr Burrell said there had been no conversation about a ring.

He said: "I have never referred to the Bulgari friendship ring as an engagement ring. This is not my opinion of what the ring was.

"I have never told anybody that I have had possession of that ring. I am not in possession of that ring."

In his evidence in January Mr Burrell recalled being given a given a brown envelope containing the jewellery, minus one earring, which Diana wore when she died. He thinks that Colin Tebbut, Diana's security consultant, later gave him the ring that Diana was wearing.

Mr Burrell accepted that he had documents that headed with the Buckingham Palace crest but said that was because papers sent to him would have been addressed like this because he used to work there.

He said he did burn papers, such as old bank statements, in a brazier in his garden, but never anything "significant".

Mohamed al Fayed is convinced his son Dodi and Diana were engaged and believes their fatal August 1997 car crash was an MI6-led murder plot to stop the marriage going ahead.

Points to note:

In a written statement to the court, Mr Burrell said: "I have never told anybody that I have had possession of that ring. I am not in possession of that ring."

Note that he did not say that he never had possession of the Bulgari Friendship ring, but that he never took a ring off her finger. He thinks he was given it by Diana's Security Consultant, but is not now in possession of it

Now consider the possibilities
1. Faux is lying and Burrell is telling the truth about this matter.
2. Faux is telling the truth, but Burrell was lying when he spoke to Faux, exaggerating his role in order to appear a key player in Diana's life, protecting her memory etc., guardian of her closest possessions. Now he is lying about not speaking to Faux to avoid coming over as a habitual liar who poses as a man of mystery and her closest confidant to remain a celebrity as he is unemployable.
3. Faux is telling the truth, Burrell was telling the truth when he spoke to Faux and is lying now when he says he never spoke to Faux about a ring at any time.

What are the possible outcomes?

The Coroner will have to decided on the balance of all the evidence, given and still to come, barring any tangible proof, which of the above is true and which false. He will then have to decide if one of the witnesses that he is convinced is lying did so to the court and is therefore liable to prosecution for slander, libel or perjury.

Faux's allegations are so extreme and damaging that in my view 1 above is impossible as the consequences for Faux are too dire for him to risk a total fabrication unless he has been bribed by Fayed with a million or more, relying on the fact that Burrell's credibility is shaky.

2 above Is possible and in some ways consistent with Burrell's performance to date

3 above opens up a can of worms which could require this inquest to call more witnesses and recall others who have testified already. However, there is not the slightest chance of any involvement by the Royal Family or MI6 even in the case of 3 above being true.

The fact remains that even if Diana was wearing a secret engement ring and Burrell removed it thinking it might have been an engagement ring, the purpose of this Coroners Court is to find out if the cause of death was a driving accident. That has never been in any doubt in the minds of those who have looked at all the evidence so far. There is no matching set of Motive+Means+Opportunity, and no evidence either.  On those grounds the case for murder or manslaughter and the execution of a conspiracy by anybody, let alone Prince Philip, fails totally and comprehensively.

But then there actually were those who could not work out that the MacCann's could not have murdered their own daughter. Not only was there no motive at all, it was a physical impossibility once the corroborated evidence on actions, times and distance were computed. So the crazy theories will not die in the minds of seriously confused and mentally deficient people who have been damaged by life and get some sort of relief out of the idea that the life of others is a complete mess also.

---

MARCH 31st 2008
The judge has left the jury to decide between the possible verdicts:
1. Accidental death
2. Unlawful killing by criminal negligence on the part of the driver, the paparazzi or both
3. An open verdict (though given the evidence that it was not a 'staged accident' it is hard to see what this openness allows for)

I would have like to see a fourth possibility: accidental death contributed to substantially by the arrangements for the transport of Diana by Mohamed al Fayed.

---

APRIL 1st 2008

Coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker halted his summing-up to the jury after receiving an email from France referring to a possible sample from the body of Henri Paul.

Tests on blood and other samples from Mr Paul, the Paris Ritz Hotel's acting head of security, showed that he was three times the French drink-drive limit when he crashed the Mercedes in which Diana and her lover, Dodi Fayed, were killed.

It had been believed that the samples were lost or destroyed and questions remained over a DNA test on one which appeared to show it was from Mr Paul.

After briefly adjourning for legal argument, the coroner brought the jury back into court to send them away for an early lunch while an accurate translation of the email from France was obtained.

About the email, the Coroner told the jury: "Whether this contains anything that is new seems very doubtful. Whether it does contain anything that is relevant also seems pretty doubtful.

"But having gone six months down the road it seems desirable that we should bottom out this problem before we go any further."

(Press Association extract)

"Bottom out"? Groovy lingo, M'lud.

---

APRIL 07 2008
The jury have come to the right decision. That is number 2 listed above on March 31st: Unlawful killing due to the criminal negligence of the driver and the paparazzi. They noted too the absence of seat belts as a contributory factor. As I said at the time, and at the start of this file, it was something that as time went on was every more likely to happen. That is why I called it 'destiny assisted suicide'. This verdict does not attribute criminal liabilty. There is no doubt that without the agression of the paparazzi and the bad driving of Henri Paul, there would have been no accident, but there will be no criminal charges unless France wishes to prosecute the paparazzi in Paris.

Mohamed al Fayed, true to form, reneged on his agreement to accept the verdict. The two things the jury ruled out were conspiracy and murder. Al Fayed pretends today that their verdict is that Diana and Dodi were murdered and conspiracy is not ruled out. I thi9nk by now we all have this man's number.

nnnn