Unfortunately the laws that are accompanying the inquest are rather strange, to be totally honest I have to quote a part of the opening of the inquest:
When answering the question " how ... the cause of death arose ", we are told by Sir Thomas Bingham, Master of the Rolls, sitting in the Court of Appeal in 1994, that "'how' is to be understood as meaning ‘by what means'. It is noteworthy that the task is not to ascertain how the deceased died, which might raise general and far-reaching issues, but ‘how .... the deceased came by his death', a more limited question directed to the means by which the deceased came by his death ".Well my understanding of English language as you know is pretty good, and if I understand the statement correctly it is almost saying:
If the deceased came to it's death by an organized assassination that caused and accident, that would mean that the deceased came to it's death by accident.Please correct me if I am wrong, but following my inquiries on the inquest a discussion broke out in my own living room with my husband (who is as you all well know - English) discussing whether Lady Diana along with her boyfriend (or almost fiancé) Dodi were murdered or it was indeed an accident. I must admit my opinion is rather obscure in this situation. The possibility of it being an assassination is there but my maybe simple mind does not permit me to think that the Royal Family and the British Government would organize such a crime, yet there is however another part of me, the more sceptical one, that does take notice of the disappearance of some dossier in Paris, lack of investigation right after the crash and the rushed embalmment of the princess.
I am not stupid, nor I am blind. If I committed a crime tomorrow, and was caught and taken to court, hardly any of the evidence would disappear for my personal benefit, therefor documents disappearance on such an important case sounds rather fishy to me.
I asked my husband, after quoting a few things I found rather strange related to the case, and he simply answered:
Princess Diana was assassinated, and there is nothing to talk about. If you asked a million people in England tomorrow what they thought of the whole inquest, they'd tell you that it is just a cover up, and Princess was murdered.I started wondering, what people really think. I do agree that it seems like the inquest is just a waste of time procedure, that took 10 years to happen in the first place. After half of the evidence is either missing and the key witnesses long forgot the important little details.
This post is not expressing my personal views, it is asking what do you (especially if you are British) think about the whole inquest and in fact whether the princess was assassinated or it really was just a tragic accident, caused by taking the wrong car, asking the wrong person to drive it and leaving the hotel at the wrong time.
2 comments:
I doubt very much her death was the direct result of assassination. Maybe I am overly naïve, maybe I want to believe too much in the goodness of humanity, perhaps growing up with parents of East European descent and friends whose parents came from Eastern Europe has dulled my appetite for conspiracies.
In most cases, human stupidity and blundering can account for most things that look conspiratorial. People all too often imbue mythical efficiency for institutions like the police, the civil service, pathologists and other various "professionals". The reality is that most people do a mediocre job. The go through the motions and as long as everything fits the standard protocols, they run on automatic pilot. Something like the death of Princess Diana can’t slip between the cracks, can’t just be written off - somebody actually has to do something, but they are so used to not doing anything, to just filling in forms with standard responses, that when the time comes to actually do something, they are clueless.
When people are clueless, they tend to overreact, to overcompensate and suddenly they start making more mistakes. A simple example is threading a needle. The harder you try to keep your hand steady, the harder to try to put the thread through the needle, the more you concentrate on the task, the harder it gets - not easier.
Professionals are no different from non-professionals (aside from earning more money and having more status). The people involved in the investigation were not imbued with some super level of competence. No. They were about as competent as the mail clerk in the post office open 1 hour each day. The only difference is better marketing, presentation and packaging.
As for the wording on the scope of the investigation, it is typically obscure legal / political type talk. It is not designed for clarity or to communicate information; it is designed to promote ambiguity. I should know, I am married to a lawyer.
I have nothing to say - that's unusual!
Post a Comment