Diana's Death: Conspiracy Theories Abound
Considering literature still lines bookshelves with conspiracy theories, 43 years after John F. Kennedy's assassination , it should come as no surprise that conspiracy theories continue to flourish about the circumstances under which Diana, the Princess of Wales, and her companion, Dodi al Fayed, died on August 31, 1997, shortly after tearing away from a Paris restaurant with flock of paparazzi in tow.
On Tuesday, an inquest into the death of Diana officially got under way in London, one that is expected to last about 6 months before a jury of six women and five men.
So why has it taken so long for an inquest to begin?
As this Q & A from The Independent points out, since Diana died an unnatural death on foreign soil, British law requires an inquest must take place, regardless of the circumstances.
The French took two years to complete their investigation, which concluded Diana and Fayed died as a result of their driver (Henri Paul's) reckless driving, and identifed with having an excessive amount of alcohol in his system, three times over the legal limit.
Then the British Metropolitan Police conducted their own investigation, which took another 3 years to complete and reached the same conclusion.
The investigation was further delayed by a series of resignations by Coroner's of the Queen's Household.
If you think this is an open and shut case; don't tell that to Mohamed al Fayed, the father of Dodi, who continues to believe the star-crossed couple were murdered by M16 agents at the request of the royal family, as way of preventing Charles' ex from marrying a Muslim. Another theory holds a white Fiat Uno, a car that was never tracked down, forced Paul to crash his Mercedes into an underground pillar.
Is Oliver Stone in the house?
When asked about the inquest, and what possible new revelations will be learned by yet another investigation, Robert Bucholz, Professor of History at Loyola University of Chicago, thought ``these suspicions were and are bound to go on for the same reason that people have trouble accepting that a single gunman killed President Kennedy, that the Twin Towers were destroyed by exploding aircraft fuel, or that the Titanic was sunk by a lone, albeit very large, piece of ice: it is natural to want to believe that there is a deeper story to these big events. ‘’
But one striking difference between this inquest and the other two investigations, is the possibility that the royal family will be called to testify, a scenario Lord Justice Scott Baker has not ruled out, but one not likely to happen, according to Bucholz, who advised me not to hold my breath.
-Bill Lucey
billlucey@bellsouth.net
On Tuesday, an inquest into the death of Diana officially got under way in London, one that is expected to last about 6 months before a jury of six women and five men.
So why has it taken so long for an inquest to begin?
As this Q & A from The Independent points out, since Diana died an unnatural death on foreign soil, British law requires an inquest must take place, regardless of the circumstances.
The French took two years to complete their investigation, which concluded Diana and Fayed died as a result of their driver (Henri Paul's) reckless driving, and identifed with having an excessive amount of alcohol in his system, three times over the legal limit.
Then the British Metropolitan Police conducted their own investigation, which took another 3 years to complete and reached the same conclusion.
The investigation was further delayed by a series of resignations by Coroner's of the Queen's Household.
If you think this is an open and shut case; don't tell that to Mohamed al Fayed, the father of Dodi, who continues to believe the star-crossed couple were murdered by M16 agents at the request of the royal family, as way of preventing Charles' ex from marrying a Muslim. Another theory holds a white Fiat Uno, a car that was never tracked down, forced Paul to crash his Mercedes into an underground pillar.
Is Oliver Stone in the house?
When asked about the inquest, and what possible new revelations will be learned by yet another investigation, Robert Bucholz, Professor of History at Loyola University of Chicago, thought ``these suspicions were and are bound to go on for the same reason that people have trouble accepting that a single gunman killed President Kennedy, that the Twin Towers were destroyed by exploding aircraft fuel, or that the Titanic was sunk by a lone, albeit very large, piece of ice: it is natural to want to believe that there is a deeper story to these big events. ‘’
But one striking difference between this inquest and the other two investigations, is the possibility that the royal family will be called to testify, a scenario Lord Justice Scott Baker has not ruled out, but one not likely to happen, according to Bucholz, who advised me not to hold my breath.
-Bill Lucey
billlucey@bellsouth.net
Comments