Diana, Princess Of Wales. An Inquest

• The official verdict of an inquest produces the result that there was no evidence of collusion to cause death. This clearly considers only the evidence produced. There could be evidence to show at least doubt in the verdict due to evidence not considered. How many times has a conviction been later overturned as material evidence had been withheld from the defense counsel in the original trial? Examination can only be made of the evidence presented.

• Many questions remain unsatisfactorily examined, but mainly that the Princess had been embalmed. By allowing this to happen, the pathologist had ensured that any evidence of pregnancy would be destroyed. This procedure is possibly illegal in France, but again when an authority breaks the law, transgression will be ignored. The 'establishment' (whatever it imagines itself to be) is pulling the strings. The ego that goes with 'power' is dangerously small. Generally, this is known as stupidity. A clever dwarf is more of an adversary than a stupid giant. Hence the concept of David and Goliath.

Dodi Fayed was not embalmed.

Why not?

• Paradoxically, the 'establishment' sets a precedent for everyone to follow. Lie under oath and nothing ever happens. Living in those days of old when the working class were expected to doff their hat to an upper class toff. History, but those who consider themselves better than everyone else is living in denial and that past. Respect for authority went a long time ago and has been replaced with absolute contempt. It's so obvious where the roots of 'attitude' are sown.

• Jean Monceau, testifying via videolink from Paris told the inquest in London’s High Court that no one ordered him to embalm the body. Monceau said he himself suggested it after Keith Moss, the British consul general in Paris, told him to prepare the body for viewing by Prince Charles, the princess’s former husband.

• Why should a court accept the word of a friend who stated (presumably under oath) that Diana had recently experienced a normal period, so denying the possibility of pregnancy. Swearing under oath does not mean much. The question to be asked here is why should Scotland Yard wait until a verdict has been returned in the Diana inquest? It would, of course, be an easy ruse to deceive someone of a real pregnancy by stating that a period were taking place. Who would ask to see actual evidence of such an event? And why should an alleged 'friend' doubt the word of another 'friend'?

• The 'establishment' would want this affair to go away. The 'establishment' would want to crush any investigation. The 'establishment' does itself no favours, but they wouldn't really care anyway. As long as they don't get caught out. Shame has no meaning, but loss of freedom by incarceration would be very significant. The trapped ego always feels psychological pain. Overwhelming pain.

• This will not rest. Perhaps an unfortunate accident did happen, but until authorities begin to show some integrity, honesty and probity, doubts will always remain. If Diana had been murdered, then doubts will be quite acceptable to those culpable. If a question remains unanswered, the doubt is placed sometimes by design since there is much to be gained by silence.

• The whole concept of suggesting 'conspiracy theory' is the crude attempt to ridicule and avoid difficult or unanswerable questions. All questions can be answered, but some answers are not desirable. It shows complete contempt, yet seems to be acceptable.

• It is a paradox that those who want the questions to stop and the matter to be closed are those very ones who keep the 'conspiracy' alive and well. This demonstrates that there is something to conceal.

• The ego swells to outrageous dimensions. This is similar in principle to wealthy celebrities (there are no non-wealthy celebrities) who have a surgical solution to a cosmetic issue that was not a problem so creating a problem. More surgery is needed to 'correct' the manufactured problem and it gets worse. Breast enlargement followed by breast reduction followed by another cut as the result isn't quite right. When it's considered an appropriate time, but is never appropriate. A rear-end adjustment. As though it's like getting a haircut. Dangerous, pathetic and stupid. These celebrities are so convinced they are special and have a different body-type to anyone else that can sustain abuse. When the heart is cut out of a poor or rich person the result is the same:

Death

• The deluded won't understand this. It's just too boring and complicated. An easy option would be to have a double mastectomy then a suitable prosthesis (artificial attachment) strapped to the chest. Women who really need a mastectomy to save their life would surely look upon stupid women who voluntarily undergo surgery as imbecilic. Like this engineered double, treble... size zero craze. Insanity to follow someone else's concept of being 'cool'. More like simple frozen out stupidity. As far as having the rear-end re-shaped?

Just sew it up