Suffragette1 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 At least you realise that it sound plausible. It is fantastical nonsense. How does one mastermind the disposal of someone plus persons when they were not supposed to be where they were, at the time of the 'murder', after endless last minute changes of plan? Why not just blow up the Ritz or a private aircraft, or yatch and try and pin it on the IRA, who were responsible for Mountbatten's death? That would be the way to do it. The so called underpass theory has as many holes in it as the cheese grater carpark in town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnese Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 It is fantastical nonsense. How does one mastermind the disposal of someone plus persons when they were not supposed to be where they were, at the time of the 'murder', after endless last minute changes of plan? Why not just blow up the Ritz or a private aircraft, or thatch and try and pin it on the IRA, who were responsible for Mountbatten's death? That would be the way to do it. You believe what you wish to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 If you are not interested in the truth then do not bother . So you're not interested in debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 The onus is on people who are interested in the truth to research it. If people are not interested then let them continue to be deluded. "Where ignorance is bliss tis folly to be wise":) If that is your view than it highlights how you must have doubts yourself, otherwise you'd be presenting the evidence. I wouldn't like you as my defence barrister. 'Members of the jury, google is your friend. Research the facts and you will soon know that I am right'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnese Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 If that is your view than it highlights how you must have doubts yourself, otherwise you'd be presenting the evidence. I wouldn't like you as my defence barrister. 'Members of the jury, google is your friend. Research the facts and you will soon know that I am right'. I am not a barrister and never intend to be. I know the truth because I have researched this subject at length. If you can't be bothered to seek the truth that is a failing that you have, not I! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mort Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Provide links to the evidence please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Why was there no inquest until 10 years after? Why did Why did Lord Justice Slevens bow out of an inquest in 2004? Why did Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss also refuse to continue in 2007? Why was she replaced with tame toady Lord justice Scott Baker? Michael Mansfield is also a man known for his integrity. Why did he agree to appear for Fayed? Evidence was not found, tampered with, and misreported. Questions received unsatisfactory answers but were allowed to go unchallenged. The jury was misdirected. Books have been written, films made... an awful lot of very serious people still believe Diana was assassinated, not just conspiracy nuts. If MI5 don't want to be found out, they won't be - it's what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 I am not a barrister and never intend to be. I know the truth because I have researched this subject at length. If you can't be bothered to seek the truth that is a failing that you have, not I! What a cop out! I have given reasons as to why I do not believe that Diana was murdered. If you believe the contrary to be the case, then the onus is on you to provide this so called evidence rather than making wild claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnese Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Why was there no inquest until 10 years after? Why did Why did Lord Justice Slevens bow out of an inquest in 2004? Why did Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss also refuse to continue in 2007? Why was she replaced with tame toady Lord justice Scott Baker? Michael Mansfield is also a man known for his integrity. Why did he agree to appear for Fayed? Evidence was not found, tampered with, and misreported. Questions received unsatisfactory answers but were allowed to go unchallenged. The jury was misdirected. Books have been written, films made... an awful lot of very serious people still believe Diana was assassinated, not just conspiracy nuts. If MI5 don't want to be found out, they won't be - it's what they do. The evidence is overwhelming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mort Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 closed for review Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.