DIANA AND DODI : THE JURY'S VERDICT

Let's strip away the spin of the media that we know for a fact are controlled by military intelligence, and look at the text of the verdict itself as read by the jury foreman.

=============================================

From http://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/verdict.htm

The deceased is Diana, Princess of Wales.
24 The cause of death is chest injury, laceration within
25 the left pulmonary vein and the immediate adjacent

6

1 portion of the left atrium of the heart.
2 Diana, Princess of Wales, died La Pitie-Salpetriere
3 Hospital in Paris at around 4 am on 31st August 1997 as
4 a result of a motor crash which occurred in the Alma
5 Underpass in Paris on 31st August 1997 at around
6 12.22 am. The crash was caused or contributed to by
7 the speed and manner of driving of the Mercedes,
8 the speed and manner of driving of the following
9 vehicles, the impairment of the judgment of the driver
10 of the Mercedes through alcohol. Nine of us are agreed
11 on those points, sir.
12 In addition, the death of the deceased was caused or
13 contributed to by the fact that the deceased was not
14 wearing a seat-belt, the fact that the Mercedes struck
15 the pillar in the Alma Tunnel, rather than colliding
16 with something else, and we are unanimously agreed on
17 that.

=================================

"The crash was caused or contributed to by the speed and manner of driving of the Mercedes, the speed and manner of driving of the following vehicles, the impairment of the judgment of the driver of the Mercedes through alcohol."

Why use the term "following vehicles"?

Why have the media immediately taken this to read "paparazzi"?

"following vehicles" is a very vague term, and should not have been accepted in an inquest of this importance, considering that one of the witnesses testified that he saw a bright, white flash and a high-speed motorcycle arrive at the scene of the crash to check the carnage well before the rest of the "following vehicles".

Why didn't Scott Baker ask for a more accurate description of what the jury believed constituted the "following vehicles"?

This is what Katherine Witty, al Fayed's spokeswoman, referred to when she said, as quoted by The Guardian,

"The jury have found that it wasn't just the paparazzi who caused the crash, but identified following vehicles. Who they are and what they were doing in Paris is still a mystery."

And as for the leader of The Guardian, entitled "Let it be";

"Lord Justice Scott Baker has done his best" - Knight Scott Baker refused to have Phil and Liz as witnesses, even though Liz talked about 'dark forces'. Evidence from the NSA and other intelligence services gathered from surveillance, legal and illegal, admitted and denied, has not been allowed or remained secret.

"The system bent over backwards to allow him to have the process on his own terms." - the inquest was going to be held in private, but al Fayed had to fight to get it heard in public. Plus, al Fayed has been fighting for an inquest for over TEN YEARS.

The cost of all the investigations etc could have been saved if an inquest had been heard within days of the deaths of Dodi and Diana, as it is with 99.99% of deaths.

But no, not in this special case. TEN YEARS it took.

TEN YEARS for witnesses to be 'suicided' (Andanson), and for evidence to 'disappear' (boxes and letters).

It wasn't al Fayed who decided it would take TEN YEARS to get an inquest held in public.

There are only a very small number of people who can arrange that. And guess who they work for.

I feel really sorry for the princes too. They are being used, and they obviously have no idea as to the warmongering and all the other crimes their ancestors have been involved in and fronted for in order that they live such priviliged lives.