The verdict of the jury (official conclusions) are supported by enough evidence.
But Mohamed Al Fayed says different...
Al Fayed's spokesman Michael Cole told
GMTV today: "When he made that
declaration, it was on the assumption
that the jury would be allowed to hear
everything. They weren't." --source
What the jury didn't hear was Al Fayed's last minute attempt to change his story...
Al Fayed's allegations at the start of the inquest:
...Mr Al Fayed’s core belief, and his
express evidence at the inquest that
the Duke of Edinburgh was a “murderer”
who organised the assassination by the
SIS of both Diana, Princess of Wales
and his son.
During the last month of the inquest Al Fayed's legal advisers submitted an application for permission to apply for judicial review of...
...a decision of the Assistant Deputy
Coroner of Inner West London (Lord
Justice Scott Baker) who refused an
application to call His Royal Highness
The Duke of Edinburgh to give evidence
and to request Her Majesty The Queen
to answer a number of specified
In the application they proposed a new theory....
...suggested, was that the jury should
determine “whether the Royal Family
and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
particularly (in respect of whom
Diana, Princess of Wales expressed
fears) contributed to a climate in
which rogue elements in the SIS “took
matters into their own hands” to
ensure that Diana, Princess of Wales
was killed, injured or frightened in a
This suggestion, advanced for the
first time by Mr Mansfield*, was based on what was
described as a “troublesome” or
“turbulent” priest thesis, a reference
to the consequences of King Henry II’s
denigration of Thomas Becket, and the
hasty rush in 1170 by four knights to
murder him in Canterbury Cathedral.
The argument is summarised in the
letter before claim from Mr Al Fayed’s
solicitors dated 14 March 2008:
“This thesis is based on the
proposition that those who are
committed to the interests of the
Monarchy may form their own view as to
what would be best in the Monarch’s
best interests, and how best to
protect it from perceived threats.
Action may be taken to that end
without orders to that effect from any
member of the Royal Family; those
actions may include acts which would
never be countenanced by the Royal
Family if they were ever consulted.”
The application was dismissed 18 March 2008.
For some years, Mr Al Fayed has
expressed the firm belief that his son
and the Princess of Wales were
murdered in furtherance of a
conspiracy to kill them or do them
In the light of the
evidence, Mr Mansfield QC has, quite properly,
accepted that there is no direct evidence that the Duke played any
part in the deaths and has accepted
that there is no direct evidence
of any involvement of the SIS...
--Ruling on Verdicts
**Mansfield QC: Al Fayed's attorney*
Links of interest:
Coroner's ruling on the verdicts
Directions and decisions