Diana Inquest: Expect a spate of attacks in media against the jury 'system'!

AADHIKARonline backing KHOODEELAAR! No to 'Crossrail hole Bill' [House of Lords] | 07.04.2008 15:42 | Analysis | Social Struggles | London

The INQUEST:

The Diana 'death' was 'unlawful killing', the jury in the High Court in London has decided!

By©Muhammad Haque
1538 Hrs GMT
London
Monday 7 April 2008

How incredible! The juries have 'misbehaved' ! They have tended for the truer side of the 'story'
and have ignored more than 10 years of media brainwashing over the tragic death - an unlawful killing - of Diana!

The mainstream media will go into overdrive and find all manner fo pretexts and even 'evidence' to damn the jury system!

[To be continued]

AADHIKARonline backing KHOODEELAAR! No to 'Crossrail hole Bill' [House of Lords]
e-mail: aadhikarlaw@yahoo.co.uk
Homepage: http://khoodeelaarlookingforarealparliament.blogspot.com

Comments

Hide the following 15 comments

Do you want to bet?

07.04.2008 16:17

Only one newspaper has been dogged in its suggestion that Diana's death was a result of a massive conspiracy: the Daily Express.

The rest have dipped their toes into it occasionally, but will be far more happy to have a big go at Fayed tomorrow for wasting tax-payers' money on this exercise, which his lawyers dragged out for years longer than was necessary.

So no, M Haque, I don't think the mainstream media will be attacking the jury system.

Tell you what, though - I'll look at the Sun, Mirror, Mail, Express, Times, Independent, Guardian and Telegraph tomorrow. I'm happy to place a bet with you that the tenor of the reports will be anti the conspiracists / Fayed, and pro the jury's decision. I'll post you a fiver if I'm wrong.

Norville B

The jury were lied to by the coroner

07.04.2008 18:10

They were told they couldn't return a verdict of murder. That is not true, a jury can return any verdict it choses to. The law is what a jury decides the law is, not what they are instructed it is. That has been true since magna carta, and it is worth mentioning to any jury that you face.

Danny

The Coroner's direction was wrong

07.04.2008 21:38

Absolutely. This whole inquest was massively skewed. There is masses of evidence that the Coroner's direction that the jury could not find for 'unlawful killing by persons unknown' is utterly wrong
It makes the whole thing a complete whitewash and cover up.
The Stevens Inquiry was more to the point
The same questions remain unanswered
The culpability of MI6, the 'military-industrial complex' and the European royals is in little doubt. Al Fayed is a ridiculously overrich liying little man, but his opinion on the Royals and the way this was carried out is about correct
Diana was no saint, but what she was chosen for and how it all turned out is a sickening perception of how things are in this society, and the horrors towards which we are being propelled.
Do I need to list it or spell it out?

No Philip, you can't blame our photographers

08.04.2008 01:29

Murdered photographer James Andanson

It's now all there on the record. Unfortunately for the British Royal family this execution is not going away.

Paparazzi were not to blame, exonerated in the Channel 4 documentary which Charles and Philip tried to pull their tatty strings to ban. And it proved beyond reasonable doubt premeditation to FRAME the photographers.

So that leaves the whole case hanging on Henri Paul's blood sample. The great British public don't and won't believe this degree of hype.

Princess Diana - The Witnesses In The Tunnel

8 Minutes long

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7dDaZR8X1Y

48 Minutes long

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2288050629836277278

Here's the exposee

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8263501370427267909
_________________
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=producer-info&uid=2149

http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf

Tony Gosling
Homepage: http://www.public-interest.co.uk

Danny

08.04.2008 07:51

In all fairness, and this has not been reported by the press at the time as far as I am aware, the coroner also told the jury that if they believed Diana and Dodi had been murdered in a staged accident, then they should choose an open verdict.

skunk

As I thought

08.04.2008 08:46

Yup - had a flick through the papers this morning and all the one's I've seen are saying that the jury's verdict was right. Their irritation is directed at Fayed for dragging the whole thing out so long, and they suggest he should pay for it.

So the central thrust of your piece was totally wrong, Mr M Haque. Wish you'd taken me up on my bet.

Norville B

Murder in the First

08.04.2008 13:54

Al Fayed has expressed his backing for the jury's verdict of murder.

It calls into question Lord Steven's verdict. No wonder he had sometghing to hide. The Met hold an archive of photographs of what happened in the tunnel b4 the crash which have never been seen! That's all in the youtube link Tony gave above which includes the report by the Royal photographer having his house raided by secret agents on 01/09/1997.

Here's are some more revelations about the white fiat car and the suscipious suicide of that car's owner - the shadowy papparazzi figure by the name of Andeson, who was in the company of Diana only 2 weeks before the crash:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJhM68U-_yA&feature=related

See also:

http://judicial-inc.biz/Diana.htm

Mark

big boys did it and ran away

08.04.2008 21:48

i'm sickend, the joy that filled me when that doe eyed parasite connected with the dashboard all those years ago has been decimated in the face of that legal bill, can't we at least save a bit of cash when we get rid of one of the fuckers?

Travis Bickle

@Skunk - jury duty

08.04.2008 23:53

I think it is important as often as possible to keep the fact that juries, not judges or coroners or politicians, decide what is actually law. A coroner has no ability to force an open verdict on a jury determined to convict for murder - even though he can and will claim that is so. Juries can do what they are brave enough to do.

Someone could be accused of burglary. If a jury want to find him guilty of murder, then he is guilty of murder regradless of whether he is even charged. Conversely, each jury should know if they are trying someone for a SOCPA offence or something else that they personally don't find offensive, perhaps a drugs offence, you can effectively tell the judge to go fuck himself regardless of his direction and find someone innocent. I know this is a childishly simplistic interpretation of Magna Carta but it is essentially accurate in the UK and the US. Curiously also in Russia, for different reasons ( the freed serfs just found everyone innocent). Juries have the final decision on what is legal, not judges. Naturally the judges/sheriffs etc don't tell the jury that, they tell you you have to obey them.

But - and this has been proved time and time again - what the fuck can a judge do to a rebellious jury ? Nothing. A politician will pass laws, judges will prosecute them, but only a jury gets to decide what is just and unjust. The times judges have tried to prosecute juries there have been armed rebellion, so Magna Carta promised no more of that. Even in the dark ages juries stood up to judges but although a historical fact this gets flushed down the memory hole. I should really spray-paint that outside of courts or at least put it on a banner. Sorry if I'm off topic here.

Eh, I'm sorry for Mr F's loss, and I'm sorry for the English princes that the wrong parent died.

Danny

Danny

09.04.2008 02:57

I am not an expert in law but from what I understand this was not a trial but a only a coroner's inquiry into the causes of the death of some persons. I think it has been emphasized by the Scott Baker itself who was not sitting as a judge but as coroner. I am not sure the Magna Carta applies in this case. Also it is well known that coroners have the broadest powers to actually do what they want to do, to the extent that some politicians want to curtail coroners' powers generally speaking, so that they would operate within a framework of known and predetermined rules and not according to rules of proceedings they themselves define.

As for the verdict, I believe that legally speaking, it is not a verdict of guilt of such or such person but rather accusations only which should be normally followed by prosecuting those whom the coroner (or it's jury in this case) believes responsible, as well as those who lied under oath (Burrell).

What I find very interesting now is that none of that will happen apparently.

As for rebelious juries, well I don't know who they are, nor under which criterias, official or unofficial, they have been selected.

And despite the transparency of the proceedings, many things have been witheld from the public and even the jury, and not only fragments of the Duke's letters but also apparently all sorts of forensic documents that are only very partially visible if at all.

skunk

Why is this on

09.04.2008 12:56

This is just Haques opinion.I thought that was against Indy rules.But then again the rules apply to some and not to others.

whoa

Just when you were made to believe

09.04.2008 15:28

we've covered every possible significant issue; this article is posted and blows our minds away.

But really...who gives a fuck. Im her death means nothing and i wont care about the death of any other 'royal' scum or indeed rich and powerful figurehead. To hell with all of them.

A21

@Skunk - Rebel juries

10.04.2008 10:35

"Among the most famous of these was the trial following his arrest with William Meade for preaching before a Quaker gathering. Penn pleaded for his right to see a copy of the charges laid against him and the laws he had supposedly broken, but the judge, the Lord Mayor of London, refused—even though this right was guaranteed by the law.

Despite heavy pressure from the Lord Mayor to convict the man, the jury returned a verdict of "not guilty". The Lord Mayor then told the jury, "If that be your verdict, your verdict be damned." and not only had Penn sent to jail again (on a charge of contempt of court), but also the full jury. The members of the jury, fighting their case from prison, managed to win the right for all English juries to be free from the control of judges and to judge not just the facts of the case, but the law itself."

Danny
Homepage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Penn#Persecutions

Jury nullification

10.04.2008 10:55

"Jury nullification is a de facto and traditional power of juries, not normally disclosed to jurors by the system when they are instructed as to rights and duties."

The jury can overturn the law, but the judge doesn't have to tell them this ! We should really be distributing printouts of that wikipedia article in courrts. It also cites the more recent example of Clive Ponting being freed during the Falklands war after whislte-blowing.

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” Thomas Jefferson, 1789 letter to Thomas Paine

Danny
Homepage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Danny

10.04.2008 12:13

Well the jury of the Diana inquiry HAVE rebelled apparently as they have delivered a majority verdict when the coroner specifically ordered them to deliver an unanimous one.

I also suspect they delivered a verdict based on the balance of probability and not one based on 100% certainty as asked from them.

skunk