Princess Diana -accident or murder.

by Andy Wed Aug 24, 2016 5:04 pm

Already posted this elsewhere, but I am uneasy to 100% commi to the the accident theory.
There is a lot of contradictory evidence.
I shan't post links- there are too many and some are just bunkum, but I did a lot of research on this a while ago and there IS doubt.
Feel free to discuss and evidence either side of the argument- I am not wholly committed to being convinced one way or the other.
Was it sanctioned by the Government at the behest of the royal family.
Were Mi5/SAS involved.
Was she pregnant by a Muslim.
Was she engaged to Dodi.
Were the loose ends not completely cleared up.

by Guest Wed Aug 24, 2016 5:12 pm

Well, since this was such a fascinating incident that long Labor Day Weekend; could you at least start us off with a #1 common link that we could all read and discuss that particular article.

See, over here we didn't get the same finite info that you did and that was pre-Internet WWWeb as we know it now. Indeed, there are plethora of sights and all sorts of 'rag/useless gossip blogger' type locations; I'd prefer to start with something seriously loaded with facts and data!
If you could HA, that would be greatly appreciated.

by Andy Wed Aug 24, 2016 5:31 pm

Fairly fact based,but it does raise the subject of the conspiracy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales

by Syl Wed Aug 24, 2016 5:32 pm

Murdered....no doubt in my mind.

All they had to do to quell any logical doubt was to find one little white fiat.
In a run of the mill RTA the majority of cars are traced.
Yet this elusive car, the one that caused the death of the most famous woman in the world... vanished into thin air till years later, where oddly the owner of the car at the time of the accident had been murdered.

Now either the French and English police forces combined are bungling idiots, or it was a well timed assassination.

Anyone remember a couple of days prior to her death she had announced that she had some big news to reveal?

by eddie Wed Aug 24, 2016 5:34 pm

Just want to get this in early: if you can believe in a massive murder of a massive TV celeb and Royal to boot and subsequent cover-up, then there's no reason to disbelieve any other conspiracy cover-up....

Just saying.

by Syl Wed Aug 24, 2016 5:39 pm

eddie wrote:Just want to get this in early: if you can believe in a massive murder of a massive TV celeb and Royal to boot and subsequent cover-up, then there's no reason to disbelieve any other conspiracy cover-up....

Just saying.

Conspiracy theorist is just a blanket term .... implying that the people who are not taken in by the official outcome are nutters of some kind.

Some things we are fed are true others aren't.

by eddie Wed Aug 24, 2016 5:41 pm

Syl wrote:
eddie wrote:Just want to get this in early: if you can believe in a massive murder of a massive TV celeb and Royal to boot and subsequent cover-up, then there's no reason to disbelieve any other conspiracy cover-up....

Just saying.

Conspiracy theorist is just a blanket term .... implying that the people who are not taken in by the official outcome are nutters of some kind.

Some things we are fed are true others aren't.

Well said. I prefer to call them 'alternative truths'.

by Andy Wed Aug 24, 2016 5:42 pm

Probably the most sinister aspect was that Diana herself predicted her own death by car accident, caused by the "Dark forces".
I guess she meant the hidden secret society that lurks between Royalty ,the Freemasons and government.

by eddie Wed Aug 24, 2016 5:50 pm

Handy Andy wrote:Probably the most sinister aspect was that Diana herself predicted her own death by car accident, caused by the "Dark forces".
I guess she meant the hidden secret society that lurks between Royalty ,the Freemasons and government.

A higher power. It's obvious there is one.
I'm glad you think outside the box.

by 'Wolfie Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:11 pm

Handy Andy wrote:
Probably the most sinister aspect was that Diana herself predicted her own death by car accident, caused by the "Dark forces".
I guess she meant the hidden secret society that lurks between Royalty ,the Freemasons and government.

COME out and say it, Handy...

We all know that Prince Phillip ordered the possible assassination, don't we ???
Or so the Conspiracy.. er, "Alternative News" sites like to propose..

Ever see that episode of the 'Spooks' TV show where they assassinated a corrupt politician by having a motorcyclist follow his Jag' into a tunnel, and lob a grenade into or under the car ? Even though fiction, it still showed how easily it could be to cause an "accident", or alternatively make something look like a terrorist or criminal attack, if need be.. bom

by Andy Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:13 pm

Phillip cannot be ruled out as having knowledge of her death.
Let us say it was a convenient death

by eddie Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:17 pm

I'm not sure I think Phillip had anyhing to do with it.

by Andy Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:20 pm

I guess the establishment didn't want Muslim kids as heirs to the throne.

by eddie Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:23 pm

Handy Andy wrote:I guess the establishment didn't want Muslim kids as heirs to the throne.

Possibly yes, it would've been really, really messy if a royal was born half-Muslim.

by nicko Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:34 pm

She got into a car driven by a drunk, did not wear her seatbelt,
THAT'S the official line.
Why did her body guard not object to this?
He did but was overruled by Dodi
Accident, yes.
Murder, no.

by Andy Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:40 pm

Nail on head Nicko.
That's the OFFICIAL line.
the one they wanted everyone to believe.
There ARE,however, inconsistencies that have never been explained thoroughly.

by Guest Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:52 pm

Handy Andy wrote:Fairly fact based,but it does raise the subject of the conspiracy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales

Hmmm, interesting reading {some of this has been updated since the last time I'd reviewed it} but it's a great place to start ...TY for the suggestion.

While she blamed Camilla Parker Bowles for her marital troubles because of her previous relationship with the Prince, the Princess at some point began to believe that he had other affairs. In October 1993, she wrote to a friend that she believed her husband was now in love with his personal assistant (and his sons' former nanny) Tiggy Legge-Bourke and wanted to marry her. Legge-Bourke had been hired by the Prince as a young companion for his sons while they were in his care, and the Princess was resentful of Legge-Bourke and her relationship with the young princes.
Diana's aunt-in-law, Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, burnt "highly personal" letters that Diana wrote to the Queen Mother in 1993 because she thought they were considered to be "so private". Biographer William Shawcross wrote: "No doubt Princess Margaret felt that she was protecting her mother and other members of the family". He considered Princess Margaret's action to be "understandable, although regrettable from a historical viewpoint".

I - Inserted this section in for emphasis **edited**

Personal life after divorce
After the divorce, Diana retained her double apartment on the north side of Kensington Palace which she had shared with the Prince of Wales since the first year of their marriage, and it remained her home until her death. She continued to use two offices at St James's Palace.
Diana dated the British-Pakistani heart surgeon Hasnat Khan, who was called "the love of her life" after her death by many of her closest friends. In May 1996, Diana visited Lahore upon invitation of Imran Khan, a relative of Hasnat Khan, and visited the latter's family in secret. Khan was intensely private and the relationship was conducted in secrecy, with Diana lying to members of the press who questioned her about it. Their relationship lasted almost two years with differing accounts of who ended it. According to Khan's testimonial at the inquest for her death, it was Diana who ended their relationship in a late-night meeting in Hyde Park, which adjoins the grounds of Kensington Palace, in June 1997.
Within a month Diana had begun seeing Dodi Fayed, son of her host that summer, Mohamed Al-Fayed. Diana had considered taking her sons that summer on a holiday to the Hamptons on Long Island, New York, but security officials had prevented it. After deciding against a trip to Thailand, she accepted Fayed's invitation to join his family in the south of France, where his compound and large security detail would not cause concern to the Royal Protection squad. Mohamed Al-Fayed bought the Jonikal, a 60-metre multimillion-pound yacht on which to entertain Diana and her sons.
Death

East entrance to the Pont de l'Alma tunnel in Paris
Main article: Death of Diana, Princess of Wales
On 31 August 1997, Diana was fatally injured in a car crash in the Pont de l'Alma road tunnel in Paris, which also caused the deaths of her companion Dodi Fayed and the driver, Henri Paul, acting security manager of the Hôtel Ritz Paris. The funeral saw the British television audience peak at 32.10 million, one of the United Kingdom's highest viewing figures ever, while millions more watched the event around the world.
Conspiracy theories, inquest and verdict
Main article: Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories
The initial French judicial investigation concluded the accident was caused by Paul's drunken loss of control. In February 1998, Mohamed Al-Fayed, owner of the Paris Ritz where Paul had worked, publicly maintained that the crash had been planned, accusing MI6 and the Duke of Edinburgh. An inquest in London starting in 2004 and continued in 2007–08 attributed the accident to grossly negligent driving by Paul and to the pursuing paparazzi. On 7 April 2008, the jury returned a verdict of 'unlawful killing'. The day following the final verdict of the inquest, Al-Fayed announced he would end his 10-year campaign to establish that it was murder rather than an accident, stating that he did so for the sake of the princess's children.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales

But this doesn't provide much in the way of the heart and feelings from the Dodi Fayed families investigation; just dry facts and zero personal insightful notations is what I'd like to read. So I'll do some scrolling through the archrivals on WWW and see what strikes my antenna for interesting.

So for starters:
a.) why would Princess Margaret gain access to Diana's personal hand written letters so easily that she could destroy them without any prior authorization from the historians? Not that I'm all agog about who/what/where you British keep such personal family notations ...but those were 'HER HAND WRITTEN LETTERS' - they had to have had some significant historical value and Margaret burned them Suspect

Now that just feeds my gut wrenching thoughts that the Royal House might have been all about putting on a 'good face' for the public but were busy keeping Diana under as firm a controlled environment as possible! And the very aura that Margaret gave off when in the same photo with Princess Diana - well it was pretty obvious to this Kanas woman - Margaret despised beautiful Diana and everything that Diana stood for.
b.) rather heart breaking that Diana broke it off with the Dr. Hasnat Khan but that just makes me think that the Dodi Fayed family was doing nothing more then 'wishful dreaming' that there was going to be anything between Dodi and Diana so soon after her long term relationship with Dr. Hasnat Khan
c.) was anyone else as distraught about that huge overly processed voluminous fluffy wedding dress that did nothing for the petite young Diana's wedding day ...but the ever so helpful current wife of Prince Charles was soooo kind to aide Diana in her choice of material/pattern/design and style?
Ya, that worked out well for the future wife of good ole' Charlie! Suspect

by nicko Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:02 pm

Diana certainly "put it around a bit" herself.

by Guest Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:07 pm

Handy Andy wrote:Nail on head Nicko.
That's the OFFICIAL line.
the one they wanted everyone to believe.
There ARE,however, inconsistencies that have never been explained thoroughly.

So nothing came from this reported incident from 2013?

An inquest in 2008 found that Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed were unlawfully killed due to the ‘gross negligence’ of Mr Paul, a security manager at the Paris Ritz Hotel, who had been drinking.

The families of Henri Paul and Dodi al Fayed have always believed there was a murder plot. However, the driver’s mother Gisele said she believed her son was murdered together with Diana and Mr Al Fayed when the Mercedes he was driving crashed in an underpass.

Mrs Paul, 83, said: ‘We believe there was a plot to kill the Princess that terrible night in August 1997.
‘We know in our hearts that our son was murdered and we still live with the hope that one day the truth will be known.’
The new information was also welcomed by Dodi’s father, former Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed, who also insists the couple were murdered. He said he trusted the Metropolitan Police would investigate the new claims ‘with vigour’.
Sergeant Nightingale, 38, was found guilty last month of illegally possessing a pistol and ammunition at a Hereford house he shared with Soldier N.
Soldier N, who is serving a custodial sentence for possessing firearms at the same address, was originally reported to the police by his wife, from whom he is now separated.
The letter was sent to Soldier N’s commanding officer in September 2011 and passed to the Service Prosecuting Authority before the start of the Nightingale trial.
All references to the SAS were removed by the SPA.

The paragraph referring to the death of Diana says: ‘He also told her (his wife) that it was the XXX who arranged Princess Diana’s death and that has been covered up.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396791/Princess-Diana-death-driver-Henri-Pauls-family-delighted-police-probe-murder-claims.html#ixzz4IH3XIEPs

Was there ever any autopsy reports released during any of the trials - was the drive Paul really as drunk as the rumors or had his blood been tested?

by Guest Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:09 pm

nicko wrote:Diana certainly "put it around a bit" herself.

translation ? I don't know what you mean, Nicko?

by Andy Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:12 pm

She was a good looking girl. If she spread her legs for you, you would, wouldn't you.
I would have.

by Ben Reilly Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:13 pm

I thought it was common knowledge that Diana was sacrificed by the Illuminati so that William or Harry could become the Antichrist. Princess Diana -accident or murder. 2190311264

Princess Diana -accident or murder. 2190311264

by Ben Reilly Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:13 pm

Handy Andy wrote:She was a good looking girl. If she spread her legs for you, you would, wouldn't you.
I would have.

Too pale!

by Andy Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:16 pm

What's the difference between Princess Diana and a counterfeit dollar?
One is a phoney buck.

by Syl Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:17 pm

nicko wrote:Diana certainly "put it around a bit" herself.

Well she was married to a man who was in love with another woman...no doubt she was looking for love herself, who could blame her for that?.

by Guest Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:25 pm

Syl wrote:
nicko wrote:Diana certainly "put it around a bit" herself.
Well she was married to a man who was in love with another woman...no doubt she was looking for love herself, who could blame her for that?.

Oh, Nicko meant that she was fornicating during her marriage; seems to me that the Heir Apparent had his 'P-P' in that tramp Carmella long before Diana was even with the next in line - his baby!

I'm surprised that Diana was having to be treated for STD's ...but then again; that falls back on the required gender issue of a virginal wife while the hubby has slept his way through all of the 'ladies in waiting'!

by Syl Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:34 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
Syl wrote:
Well she was married to a man who was in love with another woman...no doubt she was looking for love herself, who could blame her for that?.
Oh, Nicko meant that she was fornicating during her marriage; seems to me that the Heir Apparent had his 'P-P' in that tramp Carmella long before Diana was even with the next in line - his baby!

I'm surprised that Diana was having to be treated for STD's ...but then again; that falls back on the required gender issue of a virginal wife while the hubby has slept his way through all of the 'ladies in waiting'!

I have never read she contracted any STD's...if she did, and her OH was the giver of them, how tragic that would be.
Surely it's hard enough for any woman to know your husband wants to be a tampon so he can get inside his mistress.
I defy any wife to stay loyal after finding that out.

by Guest Wed Aug 24, 2016 9:22 pm

Syl wrote:
4EVER2 wrote:
Oh, Nicko meant that she was fornicating during her marriage; seems to me that the Heir Apparent had his 'P-P' in that tramp Carmella long before Diana was even with the next in line - his baby!

I'm surprised that Diana wasn't having to be treated for STD's ...but then again; that falls back on the required gender issue of a virginal wife while the hubby has slept his way through all of the 'ladies in waiting'!
I have never read she contracted any STD's...if she did, and her OH was the giver of them, how tragic that would be.
Surely it's hard enough for any woman to know your husband wants to be a tampon so he can get inside his mistress.
I defy any wife to stay loyal after finding that out.

OOPS, left a typo --- it should have said 'wasn't' ...as in Diana had' been exposed to any STD's by ole' Charlie!

by nicko Wed Aug 24, 2016 9:41 pm

4ever, I meant that after she found out about Charlie screwing Camilla she had it off with at least a dozen men.

by Guest Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:03 pm

nicko wrote:4ever, I meant that after she found out about Charlie screwing Camilla she had it off with at least a dozen men.

Ya, Syl ...translated that confusion for me; but at least Diana had the good graces to wait until she'd finished giving the Crown the heirs to the throne.
I couldn't imagine how ugly all that family drama would have been for such a naïve young girl Rolling Eyes

by eddie Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:18 pm

She was bullied, that much I believe to be true, but I also think she was shrewd.

by HoratioTarr Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:20 pm

eddie wrote:
Handy Andy wrote:I guess the establishment didn't want Muslim kids as heirs to the throne.

Possibly yes, it would've been really, really messy if a royal was born half-Muslim.

Why?

by HoratioTarr Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:21 pm

nicko wrote:She got into a car driven by a drunk, did not wear her seatbelt,
THAT'S the official line.
Why did her body guard not object to this?
He did but was overruled by Dodi
Accident, yes.
Murder, no.

Yeah, that's what I think.

by HoratioTarr Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:24 pm

Handy Andy wrote:What's the difference between Princess Diana and a counterfeit dollar?
One is a phoney buck.

FILTH!

by HoratioTarr Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:25 pm

Syl wrote:
nicko wrote:Diana certainly "put it around a bit" herself.

Well she was married to a man who was in love with another woman...no doubt she was looking for love herself, who could blame her for that?.

It must have been a terrible blow to her ego that Charles preferred Ol' Horseface to her. Just goes to show, looks aren't everything.

by HoratioTarr Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:31 pm

Syl wrote:
4EVER2 wrote:
Oh, Nicko meant that she was fornicating during her marriage; seems to me that the Heir Apparent had his 'P-P' in that tramp Carmella long before Diana was even with the next in line - his baby!

I'm surprised that Diana was having to be treated for STD's ...but then again; that falls back on the required gender issue of a virginal wife while the hubby has slept his way through all of the 'ladies in waiting'!
I have never read she contracted any STD's...if she did, and her OH was the giver of them, how tragic that would be.
Surely it's hard enough for any woman to know your husband wants to be a tampon so he can get inside his mistress.
I defy any wife to stay loyal after finding that out.

That was a cringeworthy moment, wasn't it? Charles should have put his foot down and refused to marry Diana, he didn't love her and didn't want her. It backfired on the Royals in a big way.

Diana knew exactly how to manipulate the media. She knew she looked great on camera, and that human nature loves good looks. Do you think for one moment, that, had she looked like Camilla, the media would have hung on her every eyelash bat, and the public would have adored her so?

by eddie Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:32 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
eddie wrote:
Handy Andy wrote:I guess the establishment didn't want Muslim kids as heirs to the throne.

Possibly yes, it would've been really, really messy if a royal was born half-Muslim.

Why?

A Royal Muslim child?
Come on Horatio - think of the fat worms coming out that can...?

by HoratioTarr Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:33 pm

eddie wrote:She was bullied, that much I believe to be true, but I also think she was shrewd.

She was also vengeful. An iron fist in a velvet glove.

by eddie Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:57 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
eddie wrote:She was bullied, that much I believe to be true, but I also think she was shrewd.

She was also vengeful. An iron fist in a velvet glove.

Yes. Lots of clever women are like that.

by HoratioTarr Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:59 pm

eddie wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

Why?

A Royal Muslim child?
Come on Horatio - think of the fat worms coming out that can...?

She was no longer royal. She lost her royal status.

by eddie Wed Aug 24, 2016 11:00 pm

Doesn't matter! That baby would've been half-sibling to a future king.

by HoratioTarr Wed Aug 24, 2016 11:02 pm

eddie wrote:Doesn't matter! That baby would've been half-sibling to a future king.

So what? What do you suppose would have happened?

by eddie Wed Aug 24, 2016 11:17 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
eddie wrote:Doesn't matter! That baby would've been half-sibling to a future king.

So what? What do you suppose would have happened?

With the hoo-ha we have about Muslims at the moment? Do you really need me to imagine it for you?
Listen, I have no idea if she was killed or pregnant or even serious about Dodi Fayed, I just think having a Royal Muslim would have created some huge problems.

by Ben Reilly Thu Aug 25, 2016 12:34 am

eddie wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:
eddie wrote:Doesn't matter! That baby would've been half-sibling to a future king.

So what? What do you suppose would have happened?

With the hoo-ha we have about Muslims at the moment? Do you really need me to imagine it for you?
Listen, I have no idea if she was killed or pregnant or even serious about Dodi Fayed, I just think having a Royal Muslim would have created some huge problems.

I think I need you to imagine it for me; I can't see how it would change anything.

by Original Quill Thu Aug 25, 2016 2:51 am

Princess Diana -accident or murder. James-hewitt

???

http://www.celebdirtylaundry.com/2015/prince-harry-paternity-scandal-princess-diana-lover-james-hewitt-met-di-18-months-before-harry-was-born/

by Andy Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:32 am

Original Quill wrote:

???

http://www.celebdirtylaundry.com/2015/prince-harry-paternity-scandal-princess-diana-lover-james-hewitt-met-di-18-months-before-harry-was-born/

That would mean Diana had the gestation of an elephant.
They do look like brothers , though.

by 'Wolfie Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:32 am

nicko wrote:
She got into a car driven by a drunk, did not wear her seatbelt,
THAT'S the official line.
Why did her body guard not object to this?
He did but was overruled by Dodi
Accident, yes.
Murder, no.

I DON'T think there's much doubt about how Diana died...

Even most conspiracy theorists seem to agree that the cause of her death was face-planting into the back of the front seat, when their car came to a sudden and catastrophic stop..

And why -- because she wasn't wearing her seatbelt, and their driver was drunk.

THAT'S probably why most conpiracists seem to concentrate on those bigger questions : was that crash caused by a third party; and if so, were the Royals, MI5 and/or SAS involved ?

While I don't buy any of the conspiracists' arguments, there are still a couple of unanswered questions and doubts to keep them going for a good while yet...

by 'Wolfie Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:42 am

Handy Andy wrote:
I guess the establishment didn't want Muslim kids as heirs to the throne.

"heirs to the throne" ???

HOW MANY relatives to the Royals would have had to be bumped off (including all those distant cousins in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and other parts of the globe..), before a possible future bastard child to Diana might have been in line to ascend to the throne ?

by Andy Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:54 am

Wouldn't be many Wolfie. It's boys first. Chuck,Wills then Harry. Not sure how divorce alters the succession line, but clearly any insemination of the horse Camilla by Chuck would have been a failure.
So the blood line of eligible males would have stopped with Chuck ,Wills and H unless any further male offspring from Diana were considered, be she divorced or single.
Possibly Anne's Peter Phillips would have elevated to the line - I think he is still next after Harry.
It is without precedent. It would have have the courtier lawyers reaching for their very old and dusty rule books.
Hers was a most convenient death

by veya_victaous Thu Aug 25, 2016 6:24 am

Handy Andy wrote:Wouldn't be many Wolfie. It's boys first. Chuck,Wills then Harry. Not sure how divorce alters the succession line, but clearly any insemination of the horse Camilla by Chuck would have been a failure.
So the blood line of eligible males would have stopped with Chuck ,Wills and H unless any further male offspring from Diana were considered, be she divorced or single.
Possibly Anne's Peter Phillips would have elevated to the line - I think he is still next after Harry.
It is without precedent. It would have have the courtier lawyers reaching for their very old and dusty rule books.
Hers was a most convenient death

Diana is a no one
the line doesn't go through her

and think you forget Andrew and his kids

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Beatrice_of_York

by Sponsored content