Longcol Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Al Fayed had every chance at the inquest, with the whole worlds press in attendance, represented by Michael Mansfield QC, to present evidence. He didn't present any. After all the money he spent and could find zilch - exactly what evidence is there for a conspiracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 He's in on it, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 If this was a 'hit' then the method used was a totally unreliable hit & miss fiasco. One of my old boss's retired a very rich man about ten years later he & his wife were traveling toward Liverpool on the East Lancs road. He had a heart attack which killed him instantly the car veered across the road & had a head on collision with a van traveling in the opposite direction killing the two occupants. My ex boss's wife stepped out of the vehicle without a scratch on her. They were traveling in a an S model Mercedes. The plan as outlined by Anna B required a gunman on a motorbike to carry it out, the car accident merely being used to set it up. Diana died in an unfortunate accident in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 What kind of 'assassination conspiracy" involves a car wreck in central Paris with the world's press and photographers assembled to record the details?n A risky expensive massively complicated intricately detailed far-reaching conspiracy which would have failed had the victim worn her seat belt. If the Royal Family really wanted to avoid embarrassment, they'd have got the sas to bump off Prince Phillip years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 The one thing that did strike me as a little strange was that the man who survived was her bodyguard. Wouldn't part of his job have been to insist she wore a seatbelt? Also shouldn't he have noticed the driver was drunk? Would an alcoholic appear to be drunk with 3 times the DD limit in his system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Al Fayed had every chance at the inquest, with the whole worlds press in attendance, represented by Michael Mansfield QC, to present evidence. He didn't present any. After all the money he spent and could find zilch - exactly what evidence is there for a conspiracy? You have to remember this was an inquest, not a trial. Certain rules apply which limit cross examinations, calling witnesses, etc. Paul Burrell for example didn't attend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 btw ,there is another side to this story quote/ The city of Paris was built by the Merovingians, a medieval dynasty which ruled France for numerous generations. Before converting to Christianity, the Merovingian religion was a mysterious brand of paganism. The Pont D’Alma Tunnel ('Pont' meaning bridge and 'Alma' meaning soul / Bridge of the Soul) was a sacred site dedicated to the Moon Goddess Diana, where they used to practice ritual sacrifices. During those ceremonies, it was of an utmost importance that the sacrificed victim died inside the underground temple. Right on top of the Pont d’Alma Tunnel is a golden torch mounted on a black pentagram. This torch is an exact replica of the one being held by the Statue of Liberty and was placed above the tunnel in 1989 as a gift. This wasn’t placed as a tribute to Princess Diana but it has become, over time, the unofficial memorial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 You have to remember this was an inquest, not a trial. Certain rules apply which limit cross examinations, calling witnesses, etc. Paul Burrell for example didn't attend. If it was a "hit" then there was a lot left to chance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Would an alcoholic appear to be drunk with 3 times the DD limit in his system? Since when was the driver an alcoholic? The blood samples were switched, hence the lethal dose of Carbon monoxide in his blood, which was never explained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Since when was the driver an alcoholic? The blood samples were switched, hence the lethal dose of Carbon monoxide in his blood, which was never explained. "It has been claimed that the level of alcohol reported to have been found in Henri Paul's blood was not consistent with his sober demeanour, as captured on the CCTV of the Ritz that evening.[12] Professor Robert Forrest, a forensic pathologist, has said that an alcoholic like Paul, with a higher tolerance of alcohol, would be able to appear more sober than he was in actuality" "In the two French TOXLAB tests, Henri Paul was found to have 12.8% carbon haemoglobin saturation, a combination of blood's iron-carrying pigment and carbon monoxide; a smoker normally has about 10%, so the result is not, in fact, unusual.[18] Paul had been smoking small cigars, Cigarillos, in the hours before the multiple fatalities." Both from Wiki I admit but the same reports can be found on the web.. There are also reports that the DNA of the blood tested was compared to that of Pauls' parents and was a match so the "blood switching" doesn't appear to be true..yet another conspiracy eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.