How can the public have any faith in the result of the inquest into the death of Princess Diana if there is no jury? To say that a jury would not understand the issues is to denigrate the justice system.
Would we be happy with murder trials that were decided by a judge and not a jury?
2007-01-15 09:18:28 · 21 answers · asked by Barrie G 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
There are truths that the "Establishment" don't want us to hear.
I don't believe all the conspiracy theories but there is more to the whole incident than we will ever know
2007-01-15 09:27:38 · answer #1 · answered by coolkebab 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
One of the main reasons for the judge deciding on no jury was that with a jury you only get a "yes / no" answer. You've no way of knowing how they came to their decision, or what they believe the individual facts were having listened to both sides. That's why an inquest is different to a criminal trial, it's not the decision that's reached which is important, it's the true facts of what happened that night. When the judge decides the case she'll have to give a lengthy judgment summing up all the evidence she's been given and deciding which she believes and why. The verdict she reaches isn't so important, as all of the evidence will have come out, been summed up by her, and you can make up your own mind having read her judgment. If there's a jury trial you won't get this chance.
2007-01-15 13:59:53 · answer #2 · answered by Joe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They cannot really put a jury in as the story has been in the media for about ten years or more I think, can't remember. So everyone has made up their mind about what happened and therefore it wouldn't be fair, it would happen whether she was Royal or not.
Although I think it's not at all surprising and the trial should have happened at the time not years later.
2007-01-15 09:47:05 · answer #3 · answered by NIKAAY.. 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes our Princess Diana and Mr Dodi Al fayed should have a jury inquest. Both Britain and Paris have tried to cover up and brush the accident all under the carpet. We will never know the truth what happened that night, but i personality think there is more too it and All the best Mr Mohamed Al fayed keep up your fight as you know more than most. Yes i think they where murdered.
2007-01-15 09:49:39 · answer #4 · answered by kiarakitty 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
in my opinion I see no reason the prevalent public Taxes are to be spent on an inquest in any respect! If there exchange into something to signify it exchange into different than an accident it could have been chanced on by the French. The French hate us and could be greater possibly to usher in an open verdict or recommend a conspiracy theory so by the very certainty they did not is all of the evidence i choose. i don't even understand why human beings would desire to care! She knew precisely what she exchange into doing while she married Charles and it exchange into her place as his spouse not his love that she exchange into after. How can people who for sure dislike or hate the royals, seek for to somebody who willingly joined their ranks? Its her sons i've got faith sorry for! How could you prefer to be of their footwear? You lose a mom you adore and then will desire to placed up with human beings announcing your Father or Grandmother who you moreover would LOVE did it!
2016-10-20 06:08:30 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So it's easier to extend the cover up. If there is a jury it must because of the circumstances contain a member of the royal family and they are still trying to distance themselves from it eventually it will go away.
2007-01-15 09:30:09 · answer #6 · answered by Joel 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just in case the Jury return an OPEN verdict !! It was Prince William and Harry's wish that a jury should be made up of members of the public. Their wishes are being ignored. By doing this,the conspiracy theories will continue!
FOR BIG R......................
You have your opinion,others are entitled to theirs!!! Why should others be ignored because their opinion differs to yours? Everyone has a right to an opinion, not just you!!!!
2007-01-15 10:39:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
its no surprise you could see it a mile off , for me its time will and harry step up its there mother that was murdered knowone elses they need to step up and make sure there is a jury and that the proceedings get the questions asked that need asking . you hit the nail on the head how will the public have any faith in the conclusion the simple answer is they wont , its another pointless exersize costing tax payers money.
2007-01-15 10:22:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
A jury might return an unwanted verdict "murder by persons unknown"
2007-01-15 10:16:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
they have ruled out a ROYAL jury (i.e made up of royal staff) but they have not ruled out a jury of ordinary punters. they will make a decision at the next hearing
2007-01-15 09:30:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is no need for an inquest it would be pointless to have a jury
2007-01-15 09:28:36 · answer #11 · answered by gina 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋