Was Diana murdered?

magica wrote:Also there was a car blocking the way to go around the tunnel, so they had to go in it. This was planned imo.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

If someone was waiting in the tunnel to deliberately cause mayhem it wouldn't really matter how fast he was driving would it. CCTV was turned off and  bystanders said they saw an odd flash in the tunnel before the crash.

How could a flash be guaranteed to cause an accident?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How could a flash be guaranteed to cause an accident?

Don't you think that if a car was travelling at speed at night in a narrow tunnel and  something flashed in the drivers eyes it could be very possible he would be blinded momentarily and lose control.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Don't you think that if a car was travelling at speed at night in a narrow tunnel and  something flashed in the drivers eyes it could be very possible he would be blinded momentarily and lose control.

It couldn't be guaranteed. How did this person who flashed know where they were going?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How could a flash be guaranteed to cause an accident?

Don't you think that if a car was travelling at speed at night in a narrow tunnel and  something flashed in the drivers eyes it could be very possible he would be blinded momentarily and lose control.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

Don't you think that if a car was travelling at speed at night in a narrow tunnel and  something flashed in the drivers eyes it could be very possible he would be blinded momentarily and lose control.

Don't you think that if someone wanted her bumped off, they wouldn't use a method that was so hit and miss?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It couldn't be guaranteed. How did this person who flashed know where they were going?

The arrangements re which exit they were leaving the Ritz, at what time,where they were going etc were being transmitted via hand held mobiles (this is all caught on cctv)....they could have been bugged.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Don't you think that if someone wanted her bumped off, they wouldn't use a method that was so hit and miss?

It wasn't hit and miss though was it....she's dead.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

So, you've just called Camilla ugly old trout because she's not beautiful to the eye?   She can't help the way she looks and can't help her age either.   But Charles still loved her.   What does that tell you?   It's not all about looks you know.  Also, Diana knew about Camilla before she married Charles.   Anyone with any sense would have backed off.   Diana was, by her own admittance, thick.

Camilla is seen as an ugly old trout because that's the way she acted, like a wicked witch....ugliness doesn't always have to be physical.
Had Diana lived she would be mid 50's...hardly a youngster, but she would still be loved.

I don't believe Diana knew for sure Camilla was still sniffing around before she married, didn't she find engraved cufflinks from her to Charles  on her honeymoon which made her suspicious?
She was young and in love, she believed he loved her, though all the signs were there he didn't....."Whatever love is"...remember that remark?

Raggamuffin wrote:Why would they want to bump her off? She was no threat to Charles or the Royal family. She was divorced, and was merely the mother of a future heir to the throne.

Raggamuffin wrote:What's wrong with the way Camilla looks?

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Don't you think that if someone wanted her bumped off, they wouldn't use a method that was so hit and miss?

It wasn't hit and miss though was it....she's dead.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

James Andanson: MI6 agent and photographer

Diana was kill by a flash that disoriented a drunk driver, as they entered a narrow tunnel with concrete pillars.

Diana obviously knew secrets that would have destroyed the royal family, including Charles being gay and Andrew being a paedophile.

Thorin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:https://myoffice.bt.com/login.aspx?TYPE=33554432&REALMOID=06-81e616e5-bd4b-1030-a828-83aaa3f30cb3&GUID=&SMAUTHREASON=0&METHOD=GET&SMAGENTNAME=$SM$XtcKbcaDAsFGomQHUgp2FUIC%2blNzh7gDn5t9hX6m1en52Pxt0vpA4KIG36Hv15oX&TARGET=$SM$https%3a%2f%2fmyoffice%2ebt%2ecom%2fyouraccount%2f

James Andanson: MI6 agent and photographer

Diana was kill by a flash that disoriented a drunk driver, as they entered a narrow tunnel with concrete pillars.

Diana obviously knew secrets that would have destroyed the royal family, including Charles being gay and Andrew being a paedophile.

You given the wrong link there zack?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:It's ok. No personal info in it. Thanks.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

Camilla is seen as an ugly old trout because that's the way she acted, like a wicked witch....ugliness doesn't always have to be physical.
Had Diana lived she would be mid 50's...hardly a youngster, but she would still be loved.

I don't believe Diana knew for sure Camilla was still sniffing around before she married, didn't she find engraved cufflinks from her to Charles  on her honeymoon which made her suspicious?
She was young and in love, she believed he loved her, though all the signs were there he didn't....."Whatever love is"...remember that remark?

So you're blaming Camilla when it takes two to tango?     Don't forget Charles had his chance to marry Camilla and blew it.   She then went off and married someone else.   As for her being a witch, is that why she gets on so well with Diana's children?   I don't think she's an ugly person at all.  I think she's much maligned...mostly because of the way she looks.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

So you're blaming Camilla when it takes two to tango?     Don't forget Charles had his chance to marry Camilla and blew it.   She then went off and married someone else.   As for her being a witch, is that why she gets on so well with Diana's children?   I don't think she's an ugly person at all.  I think she's much maligned...mostly because of the way she looks.

I don't excuse Charles behaviour at all....but a woman who befriends another whilst shagging her husband is ugly, on the inside definitely....and the outside reflects that.

Its obvious her and Charles have a connection he never had with Diana, and why should they not get on...they suit each other.

William and Harry may or may not get on with her....in no way does that alter the facts of how she became Charles wife.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't excuse Charles behaviour at all....but a woman who befriends another whilst shagging her husband is ugly, on the inside definitely....and the outside reflects that.

Its obvious her and Charles have a connection he never had with Diana, and why should they not get on...they suit each other.

William and Harry may or may not get on with her....in no way does that alter the facts of how she became Charles wife.

What do you mean the outside reflects that? I do think you're a bit too judgemental about the way people look, and you're too impressed with "beauty".

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What do you mean the outside reflects that? I do think you're a bit too judgemental about the way people look, and you're too impressed with "beauty".

I mean she has a face like a battered crab.....imo.

Why do you think I am too impressed with beauty? I said that beauty captures the publics imagination...and it does.
But beauty can shine from the inside as well as the outside...physical beauty is nothing if a person is  nasty inside.

But...... why did you have Claudia Cardinale's pic as your avi for years? She was known for her looks not her acting ability.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I mean she has a face like a battered crab.....imo.

Why do you think I am too impressed with beauty? I said that beauty captures the publics imagination...and it does.
But beauty can shine from the inside as well as the outside...physical beauty is nothing if a person is  nasty inside.

But...... why did you have Claudia Cardinale's pic as your avi for years? She was known for her looks not her acting ability.

A battered crab? She's 69 years old so do you expect her to look like a young girl? Physical beauty seems to impress you too much for some reason. People are born with the physical features they have, so I don't know why you judge them so much if they're not to your liking.

I thought Claudia Cardinale was great in the Pink Panther!

Raggamuffin wrote:

magica wrote:Also there was a car blocking the way to go around the tunnel, so they had to go in it. This was planned imo.

What car? There are no reports about another car being smashed up, which it would have been if they'd crashed into it.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

A battered crab? She's 69 years old so do you expect her to look like a young girl? Physical beauty seems to impress you too much for some reason. People are born with the physical features they have, so I don't know why you judge them so much if they're not to your liking.

I thought Claudia Cardinale was great in the Pink Panther!

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and  if someone is lovely imo I am not frightened to say that they are, whats wrong with that.
It doesn't impress me unduly...but neither am I afraid to comment on it.

Age has absolutely nothing to do with beauty by the way....so maybe we consider "beauty" differently.

Yes she was quite good in the Pink Panther, and exceptionally beautiful I thought.  

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

So you're blaming Camilla when it takes two to tango?     Don't forget Charles had his chance to marry Camilla and blew it.   She then went off and married someone else.   As for her being a witch, is that why she gets on so well with Diana's children?   I don't think she's an ugly person at all.  I think she's much maligned...mostly because of the way she looks.

I don't excuse Charles behaviour at all....but a woman who befriends another whilst shagging her husband is ugly, on the inside definitely....and the outside reflects that.

Its obvious her and Charles have a connection he never had with Diana, and why should they not get on...they suit each other.

William and Harry may or may not get on with her....in no way does that alter the facts of how she became Charles wife.

magica wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What car? There are no reports about another car being smashed up, which it would have been if they'd crashed into it.

No it was on the outside, so they had to go through the tunnel to avoid it

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Don't you think that if a car was travelling at speed at night in a narrow tunnel and  something flashed in the drivers eyes it could be very possible he would be blinded momentarily and lose control.

It couldn't be guaranteed. How did this person who flashed know where they were going?

Raggamuffin wrote:

magica wrote:

No it was on the outside, so they had to go through the tunnel to avoid it

Oh I see. Got a link?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and  if someone is lovely imo I am not frightened to say that they are, whats wrong with that.
It doesn't impress me unduly...but neither am I afraid to comment on it.

Age has absolutely nothing to do with beauty by the way....so maybe we consider "beauty" differently.

Yes she was quite good in the Pink Panther, and exceptionally beautiful I thought.  

Well then why are you judging her for allegedly having a face like a "battered crab"? She has the face and the features she was born with.

magica wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't excuse Charles behaviour at all....but a woman who befriends another whilst shagging her husband is ugly, on the inside definitely....and the outside reflects that.

Its obvious her and Charles have a connection he never had with Diana, and why should they not get on...they suit each other.

William and Harry may or may not get on with her....in no way does that alter the facts of how she became Charles wife.

Shame was he loved Camilla but because she wasn't a virgin, he got sorted out with Diana. Being young she thought he loved her, he didn't. Before this Camilla was married off.


Shows their love was pure, still together now. If he could've married her back in 1974, none of this would've happened.

magica wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It couldn't be guaranteed. How did this person who flashed know where they were going?

They followed them into the tunnel, easy.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then why are you judging her for allegedly having a face like a "battered crab"? She has the face and the features she was born with.

Really...she must have been an exceptionally ugly baby then.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Really...she must have been an exceptionally ugly baby then.

Fancy calling a baby ugly. Even I wouldn't do that.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What do you mean the outside reflects that? I do think you're a bit too judgemental about the way people look, and you're too impressed with "beauty".

I mean she has a face like a battered crab.....imo.

Why do you think I am too impressed with beauty? I said that beauty captures the publics imagination...and it does.
But beauty can shine from the inside as well as the outside...physical beauty is nothing if a person is  nasty inside.

But...... why did you have Claudia Cardinale's pic as your avi for years? She was known for her looks not her acting ability.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I mean she has a face like a battered crab.....imo.

Why do you think I am too impressed with beauty? I said that beauty captures the publics imagination...and it does.
But beauty can shine from the inside as well as the outside...physical beauty is nothing if a person is  nasty inside.

But...... why did you have Claudia Cardinale's pic as your avi for years? She was known for her looks not her acting ability.

I think the thing here is how people are influenced by physical beauty in that they make judgements on their character based purely on that person's face.    Beauty does open doors, and yes, we all admire it and perhaps wish we had more of it, but it's still sad that people who don't possess looks or have better looking competition, get judged or pushed aside.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I mean she has a face like a battered crab.....imo.

Why do you think I am too impressed with beauty? I said that beauty captures the publics imagination...and it does.
But beauty can shine from the inside as well as the outside...physical beauty is nothing if a person is  nasty inside.

But...... why did you have Claudia Cardinale's pic as your avi for years? She was known for her looks not her acting ability.

I think the thing here is how people are influenced by physical beauty in that they make judgements on their character based purely on that person's face.    Beauty does open doors, and yes, we all admire it and perhaps wish we had more of it, but it's still sad that people who don't possess looks or have better looking competition, get judged or pushed aside.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's really not a very efficient way to murder someone. She might easily have survived a crash.

nicko wrote:Eddie asked if I was there,   no,-----were you?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How could a flash be guaranteed to cause an accident?

Don't you think that if a car was travelling at speed at night in a narrow tunnel and  something flashed in the drivers eyes it could be very possible he would be blinded momentarily and lose control.

Don't you think that if someone wanted her bumped off, they wouldn't use a method that was so hit and miss?

Raggamuffin wrote:

magica wrote:

They followed them into the tunnel, easy.

Then how did they flash in front of the car in order to dazzle the driver?

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I mean she has a face like a battered crab.....imo.

Why do you think I am too impressed with beauty? I said that beauty captures the publics imagination...and it does.
But beauty can shine from the inside as well as the outside...physical beauty is nothing if a person is  nasty inside.

But...... why did you have Claudia Cardinale's pic as your avi for years? She was known for her looks not her acting ability.

I think the thing here is how people are influenced by physical beauty in that they make judgements on their character based purely on that person's face.    Beauty does open doors, and yes, we all admire it and perhaps wish we had more of it, but it's still sad that people who don't possess looks or have better looking competition, get judged or pushed aside.

Exactly, and it's all based on DNA which they can't control anyway.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's really not a very efficient way to murder someone. She might easily have survived a crash.

Perhaps she did and was finished off by the "doctor".
Anything is possible.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Exactly, and it's all based on DNA which they can't control anyway.

I would say that it isn't based on DNA but by the person looking. The eye of the beholder.  I'm not being flippant either. There are so many people who others claim are beautiful and I sinpky don't see it and vice versa.  Also people can become "uglier" to you if you fall out of love with them, for example. It really is all about perception.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:


I would say that it isn't based on DNA but by the person looking. The eye of the beholder.  I'm not being flippant either. There are so many people who others claim are beautiful and I sinpky don't see it and vice versa.  Also people can become "uglier" to you if you fall out of love with them, for example. It really is all about perception.

Yes, so can anyone really say that Camilla looks like a "battered crab"?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, so can anyone really say that Camilla looks like a "battered crab"?

Sorry, in hindsight I realise I was being unfair to battered crabs.