ChatterBank3 mins ago
Diana Inquest
A court has ruled that the Diana and Dodi inquest must be heard by a jury. Do you think this is the right decision, or do you think that the public are too emotional over the tragedy to make an unbiased judgement?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.I would trust the decision of a jury. It has been many years since Diana's death and although the nation felt a bond towards her, I think that enough time has passed and that people given the responsibility of deciphering such a complex case would treat it with the seriousness it deserves.
I hope this case comes to a close soon. I'm sick of hearing about it after all this time!
I hope this case comes to a close soon. I'm sick of hearing about it after all this time!
You know what?
I love a good conspiracy theory, but I have to concur with flip-flop.
If the secret services wanted to off Diana and Dodi, a car crash is the absolute silliest way to do it. I mean, there are too many variables that they couldn't control.
They died in a tragic car accident.
That's it.
However Elvis is still alive, Marilyn Monroe was killed by the mafia and Rod Hull faked his own death.
I love a good conspiracy theory, but I have to concur with flip-flop.
If the secret services wanted to off Diana and Dodi, a car crash is the absolute silliest way to do it. I mean, there are too many variables that they couldn't control.
They died in a tragic car accident.
That's it.
However Elvis is still alive, Marilyn Monroe was killed by the mafia and Rod Hull faked his own death.
The question was 'do you think the public will make an unbiased judgement?', not what the outcome will be.
I asked because I was watching a debate where the pompous participants seemed to think that a jury wouldn't be capable of coming to a reasoned decision because of the emotional out-pouring that occurred at the time of the crash. I thought that was quite insulting.
I asked because I was watching a debate where the pompous participants seemed to think that a jury wouldn't be capable of coming to a reasoned decision because of the emotional out-pouring that occurred at the time of the crash. I thought that was quite insulting.
I think it only right that the Deputy Royal Coroner of the Queen's Household Baroness Butler-Sloss should not be allowed preside over the inquest without a jury. It could be the thin end of the wedge for British Justice, that has served us well for many a year. And what kind of message would this have conveyed over to the conspiracy theory supporters?
This is certainly a slap in the face for the establishment, why should we have yet another whitewash inquest/inquiry presided over by yet another official that has been hand picked by the establishment ?
Perhaps we would have done better if all those other inquiries that have taken place since the war in Iraq had also been heard by a jury.
This is certainly a slap in the face for the establishment, why should we have yet another whitewash inquest/inquiry presided over by yet another official that has been hand picked by the establishment ?
Perhaps we would have done better if all those other inquiries that have taken place since the war in Iraq had also been heard by a jury.
Every British citizen who dies abroad - for whatever reason - is entitled to an Inquest being held in Britain. Why has it taken 10 years for Diana's Inquest? Doesn't matter if there are no 'suspicious' circumstances, i.e. drunk driver, etc. Can't help feeling something is amiss for an Inquest to take TEN years to be held. Why so long? What's the problem? Who doesn't want an Inquest? And why not? If it were a relation of mine, I would be unhappy too!
-- answer removed --