From: steuart@btinternet.com   
      
               832 pages - and I've read it before   
               Mick Hume: Notebook   
               December 15, 2006   
      
               Diana's death - the unanswered questions:   
      
                           a.. Why has Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington wasted   
   three years and £3.69 million investigating crackpot conspiracy theories   
   about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed almost a decade   
   ago?   
      
                           b.. Why did the former Metropolitan Police chief   
   have to go to Paris and re-create the crash scene "to an accuracy of one cm"   
   , in order to "reveal" that Diana died after not wearing a seat belt in a   
   Mercedes driven at twice the speed limit by a driver who had been drinking?   
      
                           c.. Where does his team get the nerve to demand that   
   we study their 832-page report "in total" when the 6,000-page French police   
   report said it all years ago?   
      
                           d.. Who does the ex-Scotland Yard man think he is   
   kidding if he seriously imagines that his report will "draw a line" under   
   the Diana arguments?   
      
                           e.. What does it say about the state of public life   
   that the accidental death of a celebrity princess can dominate the news for   
   ten years?   
                           Lord Stevens's inquiry was always an accident   
   waiting to happen. Never mind his conclusions: that it was launched in the   
   first place only lent credibility to the gossip about political   
   assassination. After all, if "Britain's top cop" was on the case, there must   
   have been something in it, mustn't there? The widespread feeling that there   
   is more to the Diana story than meets the eye has little to do with any   
   facts. It feeds off the deep mistrust of authority at a time when the   
   official version of events is always believed less than the internet one. So   
   if Lord Stevens spoke to MI6, it must be a cover-up; we've all seen Spooks.   
      
                           The Stevens circus has revealed less a lack of   
   certainty about what happened in that Paris road tunnel than a lack of   
   confidence within British officialdom. Of course, there are always   
   conspiracy theories. But the authorities rarely take them so seriously. It   
   is as if Congress had set up an inquiry into whether the US Government   
   really did fake the Moon landings.   
      
                           At yesterday's press conference, Lord Stevens noted   
   the "extraordinary" fact that "even some friends of mine have questioned   
   whether, if I came across something, I would disclose it". When doubts about   
   the Establishment have spread into establishment circles, there was never a   
   chance that Lord Stevens could close the book on Diana's death. Why, the man   
   himself only admitted that no evidence "currently exists which can   
   substantiate allegations of conspiracy to murder". It is likely to turn out   
   to be a mere stage-setter for the theatrics that will run and run at the   
   inquest, due to open next year.   
      
                           Just about the only way any of this might serve "the   
   public interest" would be if they used those unpublished post-crash pictures   
   of Diana as part of the "wear-your-seatbelt-and-don't-drink-and-drive"   
   campaign this Christmas.   
      
      
   http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1054-2505430,00.html   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)