A tale of two inquests: Daniel in The Bahamas, Diana & Dodi in the UK

British authorities announced this week that the inquest into the tragic deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi al Fayed will convene next week – summoning all to recall their deaths ten years after they died. Meanwhile, Bahamian authorities also announced this week that the inquest into the sudden death of Daniel Wayne Smith, son of late surreality-TV star Anna Nicole Smith, will convene on 30 October – summoning all to recall his death only one year after he died.

But this coincidence is such that no one can ignore. After all, no deaths in modern times have generated more conspiracy theories about nefarious and mercenary deeds than that of Diana, Dodi and Daniel.

Beyond this coincidence, however, the two inquests will differ greatly in terms of their legal relevance and the criminal consequences they portend. And this, notwithstanding the fact that the purpose in both cases will be a limited fact-finding inquiry to establish answers to “who, what where and how” these three came by their deaths; ie, the purpose will not be to determine blame or assess criminal or civil liability.

Notably, despite all of the conspiracy theories still surrounding the deaths of Diana and Dodi, I suspect that the jury empanelled at the Westminster Coroner’s Court will merely ratify the findings of Lord Stevens’s report.

Therefore, recall his findings that Diana and Dodi died in a terrible car accident that was caused when their chauffeur, Henri Paul, lost control because he was “as drunk as a pig on a combination of booze and tranquilizers”. And, more importantly, that this accident was not engineered or precipitated by any criminal mischief whatsoever!

Accordingly, since the jury is likely to return a verdict of “accident”, this will effectively stamp “Case Closed!” on this notorious tragedy - at least in so far as any criminal proceedings are concerned.

By contrast, the jury empanelled at the Nassau Coroner’s Court will have to contend with more drama, intrigue and damning insinuations than any jury on Perry Mason ever faced. And, with all due respect to the fine investigative work of the Bahamian police, this is due in large measure to the fact that this jury will not have a report, like Lord Stevens’s, to distill fact from fiction amongst the plethora of tabloid stories and infectious local gossip about this case.

Indeed, one wonders whether or not the seven women on this jury have already made up their minds - not only about “who, when, where, how ”, but also about who was responsible for Daniel’s death. Not to mention the extra-judicial motives some of them may have to seize their 15 minutes of fame (and whatever fringe benefits that might bring).

At any rate, many of the critical facts that will be presented at this inquest are already a matter of public record. Specifically, the star witness will undoubtedly be Dr Cyril Wecht, the internationally-renowned forensic pathologist who was invited to conduct an independent autopsy on Daniel’s body.

But I suspect that every juror is already familiar with Dr Wecht’s findings, which he seemed all too willing to broadcast to the world as soon as he completed his examinations. Nonetheless, knowing that Daniel died from a drug cocktail made up of two different prescription anti-depressants and methadone will do nothing to help this jury answer the more suspenseful questions about how he came to ingest these drugs and the manner of his death.

In fact, jurors are likely to determine that Dr Wecht’s findings are consistent with an accident, a suicide, and an unlawful killing.

Therefore, their real interest will be in the testimony of the other 39 witnesses who will give evidence about the nature of the relationship between Daniel and his Mummy (co-dependents and mutual enablers?), between Daniel and Howard K Stern (junkie and supplier?) and, perhaps most intriguing of all - in light of recent developments, between Stern and Larry Birkhead (gay lovers and co-conspirators?).

In particular, the jury will want to ascertain their drug-related habits prior to Daniel’s arrival in The Bahamas, and determine what transpired amongst the three of them (and others) on 20 September 2006 in Anna Nicole’s room at Doctors Hospital in Nassau that that may have been the proximate or precipitating cause of Daniel's sudden death.

And, no doubt, for every criminal mischief cited or alluded to in this context, Stern’s name will figure prominently (as facilitator, procurer and / or perpetrator) in the testimony of each witness.

Nevertheless, I suspect that the jury will find that the manner of Daniel's death was eerily similar to that of his mother's, namely: accidental drug overdose.

(A verdict which I’m sure would be a terrible disappointment to millions who have already convicted Stern of being not only a money-grabbing, baby-stealing Svengali, but also a double murderer…!)

However, it will then be for the Attorney General to decide whether - in arriving at this verdict - the jury established sufficient facts to either charge Stern (or investigate his activities further) for drug-related offenses, criminal neglect, fraud and / or obstruction of justice.

(Therefore, notwithstanding the likely verdict of the coroner’s inquest, Stern’s critics should derive some consolation from the fact that his primrose path to island paradise could still lead him to HM Majesty’s Fox Hill Prison for a significant amount of time….)

NOTE: Given that the Diana / Dodi inquest took over 10 years to convene, don’t be surprised if there’s yet another postponement in the Daniel inquest after procedural motions are argued on 30 October.

Related Articles:
Final verdict on Diana’s death…
Resolving the legal mess Anna Nicole Smith left behind

Princess Diana inquest, Daniel Wayne Smith inquest