Has this inquest become a predictable establishment whitewash?

When it was announced that, after all, there would be a formal inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and her boyfriend Dodi Fayed, I raised a cynical eyebrow about the use of such an inquest - not because I believed an inquest was unnecessary, but because I believed the establishment would rally round and ensure that nothing unpalatable was revealed. My judgment has proved sadly accurate.



I posted some time back on this blog about the procession of coroners who all found something better to do than sit on this enquiry. They all valued their careers. Eventually Lord Justice Scott Baker agreed to take the enquiry and it has been conducted with the anticipated inevitability.



Of course, Muhammed Al Fayed is a gift from the Gods to all those who want to rubbish any kind of conspiracy theory for he is a man of somewhat extreme views who was allowed to let rip in the courtroom, his every word exploited as lunacy by the national press, presumably with the complicit pleasure of the Crown's agents.

But, regardless of Al Fayed, there are significant issues which have not been properly resolved and now Lord Scott-Baker has ruled that neither the Queen nor Prince Philip should be asked to answer any questions 'as it would not serve the furtherance of ascertaining the facts of the case'. Well no one expected the Queen or Prince Philip to actually appear in court but a royal statement on some of the issues posed would not seem unreasonable to me. Is Lord Scott-Baker simply saying he wants to trundle this sham to a conclusion as quickly as possible giving the impression that some serious attempts to investigate the case have been made? Because that's what it looks like.

We have learned, during the enquiry, that MI6 did have a presence in Paris on the day the Princess was killed. We have testimony that the Princess was pregnant, apparently known to at least one of her friends and advisors, denied by the Royal doctor. There were questions about whether the hospital in Paris knew one way or the other. They did no such tests they said, which sounds pretty strange to me when you have a dying woman on your hands. I accept it would not be their first priority but I can't believe they would not find out.

We have Diana's own letters where she feared a plot on her life. Now this might have been the ramblings of an emotionally distressed young woman but an inquest really ought to explore these. We have the 'camp confidante' Paul Burrell who minced himself back to New York confessing that he had been a 'naughty boy' and not told the whole truth to the inquest. Ths guy is a key witness yet there seems to be no means of - and no real enthusiasm for - getting him back and wringing the truth out of his fat neck.

We have had tales of the amount of drink Henri-Paul had consumed, which was then disputed. It is clear that, right from the off, the aim, by the British establishment, has been to point the finger at the driver. The involvement of the white Fiat has never been fully explained either. It was witnessed yet never traced, though the vehicle suspected to be the car involved as later identified as belonging to a man later found dead.

All in all this inquest has been a waste of time. It shouldn't have been, but its course has been predictable. The Great and the Good have closed ranks, shut up shop and whatever stink hangs around the circumstances of the Paris crash will lie forever buried, along with the tragic Princess of Wales.