#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7322204.stm

What happened to getting Burrell to explain himself? And what happened to trial by jury rather than trial by Lord?

Not that I have an opinion either way, I wasn't there- but doesn't it all seem to have been handled strangely? Not allowing witnesses, etc.

I invite you to....

Discuss!
Quote by aaron13
well i get on the net and chat with hot chicks alot.
most of them want to see me naked.. and they are over 18..
#3
That isn't the decision, that is the Judge summing up the evidence for the Jury to decide.

Also, Burrell couldn't be compelled to come backa s he was out of the country and out of the the nation's jurisdiction.
Terms and Conditions apply.
#4
why is everyone still going on about this? nothings bringing her back....
Dancing In Your Dust
#5
That isn't the decision, that is the Judge summing up the evidence for the Jury to decide.


But he's effectively decided-

Lord Baker gave the jury five verdict options, and added: "I have determined that it is not open to you to find that this was unlawful killing by the Duke of Edinburgh or anyone else in a staged accident."


why is everyone still going on about this? nothings bringing her back....


Maybe we can get rid of the royals!

Am I the only one that finds it a bit wrong to judge a trial by the amount of money it's costing- while it's still in progress?
Quote by aaron13
well i get on the net and chat with hot chicks alot.
most of them want to see me naked.. and they are over 18..
#6
No, he hasn't decided. He has merely decided the available options after weighing the evidence.

A jury of lay-persons does not possess the ability to be able to weigh evidence to assess it's legal permissability.
Terms and Conditions apply.
#8
Quote by cagnius
No, he hasn't decided. He has merely decided the available options after weighing the evidence.

A jury of lay-persons does not possess the ability to be able to weigh evidence to assess it's legal permissability.


Aye, but he's decided there's no evidence for that verdict after stifling the prosecution all the way- not allowing witnesses for no reason, etc. And allowing verdicts with equally little to support them from the inquest (That just seems to me like a poorly carried out inquest).

EDIT: By the way I'm just playing devils advocate- I don't know whether she was killed or not, just the way the whole thing was handled seems completely wrong.
Quote by aaron13
well i get on the net and chat with hot chicks alot.
most of them want to see me naked.. and they are over 18..
Last edited by Hobolad at Mar 31, 2008,
#9
Quote by Hobolad
Aye, but he's decided there's no evidence for that verdict after stifling the prosecution all the way- not allowing witnesses for no reason, etc. And allowing verdicts with equally little to support them from the inquest (That just seems to me like a poorly carried out inquest).


I really don't think you (or anyone, save those involved) are able to make that decision just yet.

The inquest hasn't been concluded, nor published in its entirety outlining the reasons in evidence why witnesses and statements were not allowed.

From what I've read, the Judge has done a very good job in pretty nebulous circumstances.

He's simply narrowing the parameters to ensure that this doesn't go on any longer than it has to.
Terms and Conditions apply.
#10
Yawn. When they decide once again that no foul play was involved, the people who have been calling for these ridiculous inquiries for years will still continue to shout about a conspiracy.
<Dobzilla> because "when you were born, they thought yo' momma shit herself."
<Frehnchy> ...
<esther_mouse> ...
<Rankles> ...
<RaNdOm-FeLiX> ...
<Dobzilla>
#11
I don't wanna sound like an ignorant moron, but could someone explain to me why the world made such a big deal out of her death?
#12
Quote by MastaBassist10
I don't wanna sound like an ignorant moron, but could someone explain to me why the world made such a big deal out of her death?

She was apparently a big 'Mother Teresa' type figure.
I'm not really sure though, I know more about other countries than I do of my own.
#14
Quote by Rankles
Yawn. When they decide once again that no foul play was involved, the people who have been calling for these ridiculous inquiries for years will still continue to shout about a conspiracy.


Exactly my thoughts- and stifling the prosecution by not allowing witnesses and such isn't gonna help that. Hell, an inquest with a Lord at it's head isn't gonna change that.

I just think if they were gonna do it, they could have made the effort to explore the argument and convincingly disprove it on Al Fayad's terms rather than not allowing witnesses and such.

I don't wanna sound like an ignorant moron, but could someone explain to me why the world made such a big deal out of her death?


'Cause she was rich and a celebrity I'm afraid. Also she said multiple times that she thought the Duke of Edinburgh was planning to have her killed in a car crash, so it's easy fuel for conspiracy theories. Plus no one really likes the royals.
Quote by aaron13
well i get on the net and chat with hot chicks alot.
most of them want to see me naked.. and they are over 18..
Last edited by Hobolad at Mar 31, 2008,
#15
Anyone with half a brain can see that Mohammed Al Fayed has gone mental and is spouting crap because he's upset about the death of his son. There was quite obviously no conspiracy at all, it was simply caused by paparazzi chasing them and causing the driver to crash. Al Fayed proved his own case was bulsh when he called everyone a Nazi and said that virtually everyone ever was a member of MI6.

There is absolutely no reason why this shouldn't have been worked out straight away, but instead it's dragged on for 10 goddamn years.
#16
I really can't believe this is still going on. It's been 10 years since it happened and still people continue to refuse the fact that she is dead. What is the point in this endless circle of rumours and nonsense? The tabloids are completely obsessed with printing the same old crap everyday.
#17
Anyone with half a brain can see that Mohammed Al Fayed has gone mental and is spouting crap because he's upset about the death of his son. There was quite obviously no conspiracy at all, it was simply caused by paparazzi chasing them and causing the driver to crash. Al Fayed proved his own case was bulsh when he called everyone a Nazi and said that virtually everyone ever was a member of MI6.

There is absolutely no reason why this shouldn't have been worked out straight away, but instead it's dragged on for 10 goddamn years.

The thing is, he's not alone. He's got the French ex-President and ex members of MI6 who agree with him. The evidence is there- whether it's misunderstood or fabricated or just a coincidence or not we don't know- but while there's an inquest it should be fully proved or disproved, rather than the inquest being so narrow.

I mean, you might think an inquest is a waste of time and money- and I might agree- but while it's going on you may as well do it properly and "once and for all".

Who is it in the UK that still cares about this lady..


True, honestly I didn't care when she was alive. Photo opportunities and touching lepers do not a saint make.
Quote by aaron13
well i get on the net and chat with hot chicks alot.
most of them want to see me naked.. and they are over 18..
#18
Quote by Hobolad
The thing is, he's not alone. He's got the French ex-President and ex members of MI6 who agree with him. The evidence is there- whether it's misunderstood or fabricated or just a coincidence or not we don't know- but while there's an inquest it should be fully proved or disproved, rather than the inquest being so narrow.

I mean, you might think an inquest is a waste of time and money- and I might agree- but while it's going on you may as well do it properly and "once and for all".

The evidence isn't ther, just as Lord Baker said. Al Fayed was asked to provide evidence and he didn't have any. The onus is on Al Fayed to prove it was a conspiracy and if he can't then it's proved that it isn't one. Otherwise it's pretty much impossible to directly prove a negative. When the verdict is decided, it won't declare that it's an MI6 plot and that'll hopefully put it to rest.
#19
Quote by Hobolad

I mean, you might think an inquest is a waste of time and money- and I might agree- but while it's going on you may as well do it properly and "once and for all".


But the thing is, this is going to continue regardless of what the outcome of this inquest is. I do however, think that Paul Burrel is an absolute idiot who blatantly rapes the memory of Princess Diana.
#20
Quote by blue_strat
I'm just wondering how long this is going to go on for ...



ditto that. it happened years ago, can't the media find something else to obsess over?
MEMBER OF THE LAUGAM BRITISH HIT SQUAD! HONORARY MEMBER OF THE SWEDISH LAUGAM HIT SQUAD!
I'M JUST SEE THROUGH FADED, SUPER JADED, AND OUT OF MY MIND
<//////>~ dA
Esther is officially awesome and smart - Frenchy
#21
In short, no they can't.

The want to sell papers.
Terms and Conditions apply.
#22
Quote by Rankles
Yawn. When they decide once again that no foul play was involved, the people who have been calling for these ridiculous inquiries for years will still continue to shout about a conspiracy.

A conspiracy? Who ever said anything about a conspiracy?

Is there something you aren't telling us, Rankles?

*Gets reporter's notebook out*