Investigating Diana: Death In Paris

[Anna B]

1 hour ago, cressida said:

I remember Henri Paul the driver telling the paparazzi that they'll 'never catch me tonight' which resulted in the car chase,  also a car coming towards him with its lights on that dazzled him - either may have caused the crash.

The white Fiat Uno, which has at last been considered real, has never been found, but is now thought to have maybe caused the crash. There are certainly traces of it on the Princesses car and in the tunnel, but they said it was impossible for a little car like this to shunt the back end of a heavy car and make it lose control / direction. However I remember at the time watching a video on youtube or facebook of a small car doing just that to a much bigger car, staged to show it clearly was possible. So that wasn't true for a start. 

 

IMO Not one of the 'conspiracy ' theories has been explained satisfactorily, and certainly not beyond the scope of MI5/MI6. 

[PRESLEY]

Edward had to abdicate to marry divorcee Mrs Simpson, Princess Margret wasn't allowed to marry divorcee Townsend  but Charles can be King even though he has married a divorcee and Camilla, it stinks.  

[Anna B]

The programme participants kept saying '...but there's no evidence to prove it...'

Well of course there's no evidence. That's how the secret service operate. In the shadows and leaving no trace.... They're professionals, and know exactly what they're doing.

[The_DADDY]

3 minutes ago, Anna B said:

The programme participants kept saying '...but there's no evidence to prove it...'

Well of course there's no evidence. That's how the secret service operate. In the shadows and leaving no trace.... They're professionals, and know exactly what they're doing.

I became suspicious when I first heard how quick the French authorities were to clean the tunnel. Then I found out how long the ambulance took to get to hospital. Then I heard she had been embalming before a postmortem could take place. I also heard how the driver had been made a patsy and wasn't drunk at all.  I heard a bunch more but it's that long ago I've forgot most of it.  

But the mainstream media say otherwise so we best hush up now for fear of being labeled. 

[PRESLEY]

My take on all this is, the driver lost control of the car trying to lose the Paparazzi, tbf,  the only thing the Phillip, Charles and the Queen were guilty of is, being non sympathetic and more relieved that who they deemed as a nuisance and could cause a lot of damage to their bent system was no longer.  

[ECCOnoob]

22 hours ago, Anna B said:

I believe she wants justice. 

Leaving the note that said she knew she was going to be killed in a car accident said as much, and should have been enough, but they trashed her credibility by claiming she was deranged.

She wasn't.  

Who wants justice? The dead woman?   The dead woman who allegedly detested the media really wants to be subject to this continued barrage of gutter press sensationalised speculative lowbrow documentaries 25 years on? 

 

Horse crap.

 

She was a mentally disturbed woman who courted media attention when it suited her and balled her eyes out when it didn't. She was manipulative. She was a hypocrite. She was a master in playing victim.  There were two unhappy parties in their doomed marriage but she knew exactly how to stir up things and get people on her side.  She knew exactly what she was doing and certainly wasn't the only party partaking in a bit of shagging around.  

 

I haven't seen the documentary but if you are sampling such fantastical stats as 85% of the population believed she was murdered that tells me more than enough. If that's the sort of credibility, then I might as well watch Star Wars or Lord of the Rings since they have the same amount of reality.  

 

Diana was killed by a drunk driver. A drunk driver whom she had entrusted and was part of her staff sod all to do the royal family and instead employed to the other rich powerful establishment family that she had chosen to to embroil herself with.   She was running away from the very paparazzi that she courted whenever it suits her to build a profile and make money.

 

That's it. That's all it was back in 1997 and it's all it is now.

 

25 years on in the conspiracy theories are still being churned out by the hysterics and the anti-establishment agenda.... which you are clearly a part of.

 

Tragic accident suffered by clearly disturbed woman being exploited and manipulated for decades for people to make money.  

[ECCOnoob]

15 hours ago, Anna B said:

The programme participants kept saying '...but there's no evidence to prove it...'

Well of course there's no evidence. That's how the secret service operate. In the shadows and leaving no trace.... They're professionals, and know exactly what they're doing.

Or maybe, just maybe, there's genuinely no evidence to prove the wild theories spewed out by such participants.  Participants who of course has been very carefully selected, questioned and edited to maintain whatever narrative angle the documentary wants to put forward.

 

But of course, if one is so firmly deluded and attached to the conspiracy theories no explanation, no matter how well supported with evidence or how credible will ever be true in their minds.  That's the joy of dealing with such moronic people, they only ever hear what they want to hear and will never be satisfied until they get the conclusion that they have decided is the right one. 

 

Still, as long as one keeps talking about (irrelevant to any bearing with reality) they will still get their paycheck and their TV exposure and their newspaper articles.......

[Anna B]

3 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Or maybe, just maybe, there's genuinely no evidence to prove the wild theories spewed out by such participants.  Participants who of course has been very carefully selected, questioned and edited to maintain whatever narrative angle the documentary wants to put forward.

 

But of course, if one is so firmly deluded and attached to the conspiracy theories no explanation, no matter how well supported with evidence or how credible will ever be true in their minds.  That's the joy of dealing with such moronic people, they only ever hear what they want to hear and will never be satisfied until they get the conclusion that they have decided is the right one. 

 

Still, as long as one keeps talking about (irrelevant to any bearing with reality) they will still get their paycheck and their TV exposure and their newspaper articles.......

I wouldn't say QC Michael Mansfield is a moron, actually he's a rather clever man with all the facts at his disposal and he believes a miscarriage of justice took place.  

 

So Diana is 'mentally disturbed,' and 'knew exactly what she was doing.' Bit of a dichotomy there don't you think? Which is it? Well she certainly knew who she was dealing with when she wrote that letter to her personal Lawyer, had it recorded and also gave a copy to her loyal Butler just in case. Which is just as well as it laid undisclosed in a safe for 9 years until finally at the inquest when Paul Burrell drew attention to it.

 

As for leaving her in peace, she's part of history now, and people will wonder about this for ever more. far from sidelining her to a footnote, she looms even larger. Much the same as people still debate what happened to the two Princes in the Tower, popularly believed to have been murdered by King Richard lll.  Monarchy has always been a dirty and precarious  business, and the winners have to have a strong streak of ruthlessness in them to survive. Our monarchy is no different and won't let anyone tarnish the 'brand.' 

[ECCOnoob]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

I wouldn't say QC Michael Mansfield is a moron, actually he's a rather clever man with all the facts at his disposal and he believes a miscarriage of justice took place.  

 

So Diana is 'mentally disturbed,' and 'knew exactly what she was doing.' Bit of a dichotomy there don't you think? Which is it? Well she certainly knew who she was dealing with when she wrote that letter to her personal Lawyer, had it recorded and also gave a copy to her loyal Butler just in case. Which is just as well as it laid undisclosed in a safe for 9 years until finally at the inquest when Paul Burrell drew attention to it.

 

As for leaving her in peace, she's part of history now, and people will wonder about this for ever more. far from sidelining her to a footnote, she looms even larger. Much the same as people still debate what happened to the two Princes in the Tower, popularly believed to have been murdered by King Richard lll.  Monarchy has always been a dirty and precarious  business, and the winners have to have a strong streak of ruthlessness in them to survive. Our monarchy is no different and won't let anyone tarnish the 'brand.' 

Well given Mansfield was a big Corbyn champion..... Hmmmmm.  On a more serious point, he was representing the Al-fayeds during the inquest so hardly impartial.  He was clearly looking for a head to roll, the more privileged and elitist all the better.   He has been cashing in playing the same old record ever since and as we all know from his very outspoken and public opinions, clearly has a leaning over whom he supports and those who he constantly seems to criticise. It sticks out a mile. In the legal circles his reputation precedes him.

 

....And don't even get me started on the "loyal butler". Jesus, that prat is the ultimate definition of fame hungry, money grabbing, pot stirrer.   He's made a career out of her death.

 

 If that's the sorts of faces wheeled out in this documentary then it's even more aligned with exactly the sort of one-sided agenda I thought it would have.

 

Out of interest, how many talking heads in the documentary were bluntly stating that all these theories are a load of nonsense or suggesting that Diana was far from being this perfect angel everyone adored?    .......... Sorry was that "none" ........   what a surprise.

Edited August 31, 2022 by ECCOnoob

[Longcol]

On 30/08/2022 at 19:59, Anna B said:

The white Fiat Uno, which has at last been considered real, has never been found, but is now thought to have maybe caused the crash. There are certainly traces of it on the Princesses car and in the tunnel, but they said it was impossible for a little car like this to shunt the back end of a heavy car and make it lose control / direction. However I remember at the time watching a video on youtube or facebook of a small car doing just that to a much bigger car, staged to show it clearly was possible. So that wasn't true for a start. 

 

IMO Not one of the 'conspiracy ' theories has been explained satisfactorily, and certainly not beyond the scope of MI5/MI6. 

If you remember a video on facebook or youtube in 1997 can you tell me where you bought your time machine please 😎

 

I agree none of the conspiracy theories have ever been explained satisfactorily - they are all nonsense.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Longcol