• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Diana Death Conspiracy?

Dark powers at work? Ask Al-Fayed...

from the daily mirror 2/5/2003
MOHAMED AL FAYED'S TEARS AS HE QUITS UK


May 2 2003


EXCLUSIVE

By Sue Carroll


BEFORE I even meet Mohamed Al Fayed I feel I've been thoroughly checked out.

His Chief of Security offered advice on what his boss might like to discuss. At Harrods, the senior press officer has briefed me - while Frank Klein, president of the Ritz Hotel in Paris, greets my arrival there with an update on the ongoing investigation into Dodi and Diana's death.

To a man, they sing the praises of their employer and are, I suspect, genuinely concerned that I may misunderstand or misinterpret him.

It is easily done.

Al Fayed's account of why he quit Britain last month is like a bicycle ride up a mountain. You know it'll be worth it when you get to the top ... but boy, does it wear you out.

The reason I'm in Paris on this fine spring day is because the Harrods boss is here on business, commuting regularly between the prestigious Ritz hotel he's owned for 24 years and a home in Switzerland.

He feels angry and embittered about his self-imposed exile, and speaking for the first time about his departure he isn't pulling any punches.

"Why have I left?" he asks. "Because I had no choice, effectively I've been forced out. I've been confronted with people with the ultimate power ... the establishment, those bloody gangsters who made a vendetta against me which was never going to end."

He is referring to the titled aristocracy, the elitist clique who hang around the gentlemen's clubs of Pall Mall, the Royal family - in particular Prince Philip - and most importantly, MI6. He's not wild about the government either, but more of that later.

Its a formidable list of opponents who, he claims, at one time or another have made his existence in Britain troubled.

IN fact, his departure was prompted by the loss of a long-running battle with the Inland Revenue over an agreement relating to his overseas capital and income which, he says, was suddenly terminated "out of the blue".

"It was the final straw. There are others who are still allowed to continue with this arrangement," he says. "But not me. You tell me that's not a witch-hunt. Why have I been singled out? Because it's a conspiracy. The fascist group who run the country are afraid because I am exposing the truth about my son Dodi and Princess Diana.

"I am victimised in Britain, the country I love, where my children were born and where I lived for 40 years. No one shows any appreciation of the things I've done, the money I brought in, the jobs I provided."

He is quick to point out that in over 20 years he and his businesses paid no less than £100million a year to the British Exchequer and that thousands of tax-paying people depended on him.

Were it not for Harrods, 6,000 people would be seeking employment. Fulham FC would doubtless be in deeper trouble, Manchester's Francis House hospice and Liverpool's Alder Hey hospital would be looking for funding while London's Great Ormond Street Hospital would be poorer by £6million.

"Anyone else would be thanked," he says. "Instead, there's a conspiracy against me. I left because I never let anyone step on my foot or treat me unfairly. I've had enough hassle. Illegal immigrants are treated better in Britain than me."

We are sitting in a sumptuous suite at the Ritz, the last place Princess Diana and his son Dodi were seen alive. Outside, in Place Vendome, tourists hover, taking pictures of the swing doors where the Princess was captured on closed circuit TV entering the building.

"They don't forget her," he says. "And nor do I. Not like the rest of those bastards at Buckingham Palace."

How the royals must cringe as he doggedly pursues his belief that Diana and his son were murdered by British Intelligence Services. Prince Philip, he insists, was the leading "thug" who wanted to see off his former daughter-in-law.

"I believe the majority of people in Britain are sick of the scandals surrounding the royals," he says. "It's time to say goodbye and hang the lot of them. I've met the Queen, she's a nice woman, a good woman, but she doesn't have any life experience.

"That Charles, he's an idiot. How could he have left Diana, a lovely woman, for Camilla, a woman with a face like a crocodile?"

Oh, go on, Al Fayed, tell us what you really think. At 70, he is fit, immensely dapper and less overbearing than one imagines. He switches from a defiant battler one minute to a concerned, almost patriarchal, host the next.

"So, do you need the toilet?" he asked before I left.

He laughs often at his own outrageous wit - but during the interview he bursts into tears. I suspect he's as grief-stricken today about the loss of his son as he was five and a half years ago.

"How often do I think about him? More than half my life. It's like somebody chopped off your leg. One of the worst things about leaving England is that he is still there, in the grave.

"His apartments in London and Paris are just as he left them.

Al Fayed has, of course, the immense wealth to continue probing and searching for clues which will back up his conspiracy theory.

Last year he produced a video called The Alma Tunnel Mystery, recording his version of events of what really happened to Dodi and Diana.

It's an intriguing documentary, citing the mystery of the white Fiat which sped by, the unexplained levels of carbon monoxide in chauffeur Henri Paul's blood, and the fact that it took the emergency services more than an hour to cut Diana and Dodi out of the car.

IT RAISES several questions. Some are extreme, far-fetched even. Others are fascinating - and many are unanswered.

"It's my firm belief," he says, "that the day after they left Paris they were going to announce their engagement. I know Diana was pregnant.

"I know the names of the MI6 guys involved in the killing. I know also they used the blueprint of a plan devised to kill Slobodan Milosevic in a tunnel.

"But it was a bungled job and the more lies that are told, the harder it will become for the culprits to answer questions.

"We have proof now, from Sir John Stevens' report, that the MI6 killed people in Ireland. It's taken 13 years to uncover that but, finally, the truth is out."

I suggest that there are many who would prefer to let the souls of their loved ones rest in peace. I'm thinking particularly of Diana's sons, William and Harry.

"If it takes years I will find justice for my son," he says. "Look at Julie Ward, killed in Kenya. It took her father over a decade to find out the truth and secure the convictions of her murderers, but he never gave up.

"Diana knew that her life was in danger. She told me. I also knew that she had recorded all her thoughts on video, telling the truth about these people who call themselves aristocrats.

"She alone knew that they live in this strange colonial world, so far removed from real life and it scared her. All she ever wanted was sanctuary. Dodi was able to give her that. But they deprived her of happiness, for sheer prejudice and envy."

It's hard to see how anything will change to Mr Fayed's satisfaction. He has so many bones of contention about the country he's left that it's hard to know where to start.

Spitting out his words in a final furious torrent of expletives he says: "Tony Blair? That man's not one of the ordinary people.

"How is it that in Britain, a country full of hugely respected business people, scientists and pioneers these lightweights are allowed to rule?

"John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, doesn't know his back from his front. I wouldn't employ him as a Harrods' doorman.

"Tony Blair must know what I've done for the Labour Party."

He is referring to his involvement in the downfall of Tory MP Neil Hamilton and his colleague Jonathan Aitken, whom he claims was responsible for turning Downing Street into a "nightclub for arms dealers" during the Thatcher Years.

"When I know something stinks, nobody is going to silence me," he says.

"And in fairness, an army of New Labour spin doctors could only dream of inflicting the sort of damage Al Fayed unleashed on the Conservative Party.

"And what thanks did I get from that guy Blair?" he asks. "Not an ounce of appreciation. When I asked him to help me launch a public inquiry here into Dodi and Di's death, do you know what response I got? Silence!"

So does he believe that his words are forever fated to fall on deaf ears?

"No," he says. "The ordinary people of Britain, the decent, hard-working men and women who loved Diana, they hear me."

On that, I think he may have a point.

I am of the opinion that Diana was probably killed as a result of a conspiricy, what I find interesting in veiw of the suddern and highly suspicious end to the
Paul Burrell trial is the tape that Al fayed refers to. Pure groundless speculation on my part of couse but could this tape be one of the things that went "walkabouts" with Burrell? A lot of ifs here but, if this tape exists and if it's as damming about certain people as alfayed seems to think if it should have come into Buerrells posession and if he had made several copies that could have been released to the press should he have been convicted, maybe thats why the queen sudenly remembered her dark powers with Burrell where she gave him cart blanche to take as much of Di's stuff as he wanted:hmm:
 
Reckon you may have something there.
The end of the Burrell case is certainly suspicious.
 
garrick92 said:
And, my all time favourite 'Wh-o-o-o!' fact -- on March 22, 1996, Diana was nearly killed in a 5-car pile up in Kensington after being hit by a DRIVERLESS white Fiat Uno ... I shit you not.

Ive never heard this b4, where'd u get that from?
 
Re: Dark powers at work? Ask Al-Fayed...

Lord_Flashheart said:
Pure groundless speculation on my part of couse but could this tape be one of the things that went "walkabouts" with Burrell? A lot of ifs here but, if this tape exists and if it's as damming about certain people as alfayed seems to think if it should have come into Buerrells posession and if he had made several copies that could have been released to the press should he have been convicted, maybe thats why the queen sudenly remembered her dark powers with Burrell where she gave him cart blanche to take as much of Di's stuff as he wanted:hmm:
But if Burrell had such a damning tape against the royals, which outlined Diana's fears, the question is "why hasn't he revealed ity to the world (or at least The Mirror)?"

If the Mirror is to be believed, Burrell was the selfless servant of Diana who had her best interests at heart. Why keep this piece of evidence to himself, unless
a) It doesn't exist, or
b) he is part of "the conspiracy"(tm)

As an aside, its good to see that The Mirror is no longer acting as the mouthpiece for Al Fayed, and the tone of the article was somewhat sceptical. :)
 
Re: Re: Dark powers at work? Ask Al-Fayed...

Fortis said:
But if Burrell had such a damning tape against the royals, which outlined Diana's fears, the question is "why hasn't he revealed ity to the world (or at least The Mirror)?"

If the Mirror is to be believed, Burrell was the selfless servant of Diana who had her best interests at heart. Why keep this piece of evidence to himself, unless
a) It doesn't exist, or
b) he is part of "the conspiracy"(tm)

As an aside, its good to see that The Mirror is no longer acting as the mouthpiece for Al Fayed, and the tone of the article was somewhat sceptical. :)

If Burrell was loyal to Diana he would not want anything to get out that would harm her rep or taint her name.
Thus he keeps schtum.
However, with him about to get busted he would prob risk exposing a load of stuff to save his skin. With this threat in place Queenie (a shape shifting lizard apparently) saves his bacon and he returns to keeping his secrets exactly that.
Personally I reckon he is a self-important bozo who prob knows as much more about Diana as Kermit does.
 
1) Can you name your source, Garrick?

and on a more general topic

2) Has there ever been a celebrity or prominent person that has died prematurely as the result of an accident or whatever that has not come under scrutiny as the possible victim of a conspiracy/murder/faked their own death .etc.etc.?
 
Rod Hull - okay, not exactly 'A' list. Not exactly a prime candidate for a conspiracy, or possessing a particularly fervent following.

My point was that rather than potentially over-analysing a case such as this, we could look at the human interest behind the story. Princess Di had a major following, as did many other celebs, the classic example being a certain Mr. Presley. It seems that the public at large has a reluctance to let go of such characters, especially if they're deemed to have gone "before their time." Another parallel can be drawn to JFK - it's profoundly unsatisfying that the Leader of the Free World can be topped by a lone gunman, therefore there "must" be a conspiracy.
What I'm driving at, is this case is in danger of having the facts manipulated to support a hypothesis, rather than reaching an independent conclusion.

I'm not pouring cold water on your evidence, Garrick, but the angle above seems the most likely to me. We've all had a couple of prangs at one time or another - it's not always an assassination attempt, no matter how freakish.
 
garrick92 said:
Marc Bolan. Jayne Mansfield. Princess Grace of Monaco. Michael Hutchence. Paula Yates. Myra Hindley. Paul McCartney (just kidding! :D) ... Depends. It's a bit like trying to prove a negative, this one.
Yep, I guess I'm aiming at the creme de la creme here. Marc Bolan and Paula Yates doesn't really come into that.

Jayne Mansfield - there were allegations of Satanic curses and dalliances with prominent Satanic figures (rather than a straightforward car crash)
Princess Grace - who was driving the car, Stephanie or Grace? Stephanie has never spoken publicly about the events, which leads to further (probably misplaced) speculation.
Michael Hutchence - auto-erotic asphyxiation or tragic suicide attempt based upon a combination of personal events and medication.
Myra Hindley - who cares.

Point being, there are always so-called "question marks" about celebrity deaths of this nature. No-one will question Bing Crosby keeling over on a golf course, but someone smashing into a telegraph pole in a Porsche will have a mythology spring up around them (James Dean and his 'haunted' Porsche). So that's what I'm driving at with your question
Yes, the public has a reluctance to let go of such characters. So what? What, exactly, does that prove?
It proves precisely nothing, but the pattern is significant (to me) if inadmissable in a court room.
I think the difference is that Diana was genuinely causing an upset or several parties (not just the Windsors, I mean) and her death solved several very large problems at one stroke.
This is the piece I don't buy. Maybe I'm naive. Maybe I don't believe the Royal's are influential enough to have someone knocked off. But that's one of the things I'd point to - are they really that influential any more? And was Diana really such a thorn in the side of the Royal Family and others that they'd go to these lengths? I doubt it. I think they'd be better off targeting the editor of The Sun. Facetious perhaps, but I sincerely doubt if Diana would have made the slightest bit of difference to the Queen's way of life, riches, or tiny influence she currently has. 300 years ago, perhaps, but not now. Why MI6 or the government would give a toss is beyond me.

I don't doubt there are anomalies in this case, but then again, how many cases are truly clear cut?

Anyways, appreciate your input :)
 
Same here but I'm probably in a very different time zone ;)

If you want to give me the lowdown via the long post, please go ahead. I'd love to hear it, though I don't profess to anything like the research you appear to have done. I'll just criticise from my armchair :D
 
Thanks for posting that, Garrick. There's a lot to digest there so I hope to get back to you later with any questions...
 
Dark Detective said:
Rod Hull - okay, not exactly 'A' list. Not exactly a prime candidate for a conspiracy, or possessing a particularly fervent following.
...BUT had an uncanny resemblance to...Camilla Parker-Bowles!

I think we should be told!
 
Gor Blimey, Garrick, you writin' a book or somfink!
I can't believe you went to all that effort just for our humble little MB!

Just to sum up, then, you reckon THEY DUN IT ! Motive certainly seems strong.

I liked Her Maj's comment about greasing the brakes - she worked as a driver in WWII, IIRC...

And Phil the Greek's comment about the 'oily bed-hopper' raised a smile, and thoughts about his own early reputation...


Luckily there isn't room in The Tower for all of us.. :D
 
OK, Garrick, I’ve had a read through and I must say it’s opened up some new avenues of thought. I think the information above does a lot to argue that there were indeed ‘motives’, but this in itself doesn’t prove a conspiracy, though certainly adds a lot of weight. On a personal level, I’m not quite as convinced as you are yet.
I’ve never done any research on this topic, just followed the story, but I have a few questions which you may or may not be able to answer…I’ve grouped them below:

Quotes and Events after the Event
All very interesting, but I need to know why I should believe this and where it originated from. Who gets to listen in to these phonecalls and pass on the details? Can they be trusted? The exchange between Blair and Campbell seemed rather over dramatic to me (but this doesn’t mean it was made-up knowing those two ;) )

The Privy Council
An interesting piece of background there, but if there is an implication (along with the other implications) that this special group was acting to preserve the monarchy in order to maintain its potential control over the armed forces during a time of national crisis/insurrection, it’s rather hard to swallow.

The assassination
Mr. Bingo makes the point
a car crash would be a very poor way of assassinating anyone, as they are so very rarely fatal (in proportion to the total), even high speed ones.
Though Tomlinson’s account of a planned attempt on Milosevic was interesting. I’m assuming this is the method being suggested, i.e. disorientating strobe light. I recall this theory being reported by Dermot Murnaghan IIRC on an ITV news report, but the witness who claimed to see it was somehow debunked (I’m grasping here as I don’t remember). Does this hypothesis still stand up?
It also seems a bit of a gamble, as the car involved was a pretty darn safe model and would have to have been driven wildly at a considerable rate of knots with none of the targeted passengers strapped in. Does this not support the suggestion of recklessness by a driver under the influence of debilitating medication and intoxication?

Henri Paul’s blood
Why does HP’s blood contain an implausible amount of CO? Is this a whistleblower, is it (deliberately or accidentally) the wrong blood (was a suicide victim via CO poisoning also autopsied the same day?) or… what? I’m still baffled by this and what it means (if anything).

Landmine ban
There is the suggestion that Diana’s support for a ban on landmines would raise the ire of the British military-industrial complex as a pretext for her murder. Yet landmines were banned anyway a year later.
Aren’t landmines relatively cheap armaments, and don’t most of them originate from manufacturers in the Far East where they are approximately three quid a pop?
The implication that this was a pre-emptive strike before she moved on to oppose other types of armament or policies seems extreme.

Brake line
Was this an official finding of the investigation? Is 7.5% water a dangerous level (not disputing it)?

Accuracy of forensic examinations
I think I made the point earlier that forensic evidence might not necessarily be clear cut in establishing what happened in a case. The earlier anecdote about how French authorities changed their mind from saying the Fiat Uno paint flecks were white rather than black seems to bear out that this is a fallible process, and maybe the CO in HP’s blood and brake line examination are products of this? How many accidents result in the testing of brake fluid? Isn’t that a rather Dynasty-esque way of knocking someone off? Was there any brake fluid left in the car after the accident?

Maintaining the Cover-up
With the large number of people that might have been involved in the conspiracy, why hasn’t there been some kind of leak?

Was there the will?
This is the key question for me. The information supplied above does good work in establishing that there are influential people who saw Diana as a thorn in the side, she was going to cost military business money, and the damage to the monarchy may also have contributed to this, and she potentially was going to seek a politicized role.
BUT – Was this sufficient to instigate an assassination?
The only way of really answering this, is providing a proven precedent, short of proving without a reasonable doubt the Diana was murdered.
 
rynner said:
Luckily there isn't room in The Tower for all of us.. :D

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!! :p

I'm impressed with the erudite comments above, very impressed!

Carole
 
Thus, the conversation is not a direct transcript but a reliable reconstruction
Does the same apply to the reaction of the Queen? Her first words on receiving the news were unbelievable alright.
The bit about the Privy Defence Council was to overcome the common objection about the Monarch having "no real power" (quite wrong).
Pedantic point, but we’re not really talking about the Monarch as such though are we?

CO poisoning – thanks for the additional detail. You probably can’t answer this, but if it was deliberate poisoning I wonder how it was administered, and in such a way as to not incapacitate HP too early. It’s a neat way of poisoning someone, but has the added drawback of showing up in an autopsy – is this a plausible toxin? Wouldn’t intelligence forces use something less detectable, or would they simply not care about forensic fall-out as the job was done, or perhaps hoping the CO from the engine hypothesis would be bought by the inquiry.

Diana is described as commanding “massive support”.
I hesitate to post this as I think I know what you’re going to say (interest in her brand of car, newspaper circulation with her picture on, .etc.) but I truly don’t believe that Diana’s support for a particular policy would lead to a shift in the national way of thinking on government issues. Diana may have things in common with Labour, but this wasn’t because Labour was aligning itself with her (though it seems later opportunism was leading in that direction). If she were to have a politicized role, I’d be more inclined to believe her use was merely to highlight certain issues, not necessarily to shape the public’s opinion on them. Or maybe I give the Great British public more credit than it deserves ;)
"Massive support" probably not, "Massive publicity" certainly. "Massive support" implies a big chunk of society would follow her line, which I don't believe would happen. However "massive publicity" can be pretty damaging too, depending on the issue.

Given that Diana's relationship was with the Labour Party, and that Cook's intention was to promote an "Ethical Foreign Policy" (including banning of contentious arms exports), I really don't see how this idea is "extreme".
This doesn’t quite stack up for me – like landmines, the “Ethical Foreign Policy” was dropped because it was unrealistic given the nature of government and the British economy, which was probably going to happen anyway (and did). Diana’s support for it would therefore seem irrelevant. It may be an additional reason to get rid of her, but not one which would trigger such a decision to bump her off IMO.
This is a hoary old chestnut! And since it is predicated on "might have been", I can't really answer it.
Yes it is, but it’s still relevant. I’ll rephrase it, do we have any idea how many figures would have been directly involved in taking the decision and planning the assassination of Diana? 6, 60, 600?
If you don't think you have just answered your own question, I cannot help any further.
:p It’s probably a question which boils down to opinion, but my question regarding precedents is, I think, important. Is this really how “The Establishment” operates (in extreme circumstances) – by knocking off prominent public figures who pose such a threat? Or are we dealing with a unique case?

Anyway, Garrick, it’s been a pleasure talking with someone who’s conducted genuine, thorough and credible research and be able to explore it with them. So often we get opinionated, overly-defensive researchers on here who take umbrage and then flight at the mere suggestion of dissent. Thanks:yeay:
 
Huh? You'll have to fill me in -- what do you mean, here?
The Monarch, you know "The Queen". We're not strictly saying The Queen gave the official order, more those officials with ties to the Privy Council.
Further research, by persons more skilled in chemistry than the present author, would be of interest.
A key point. If this could be tested and replicate the autopsy report it would be compelling.
I think, myself, that you are simply assuming Diana's irrelevance, and arguing backwards from there.
You're probably right to be fair, but it's not to protect a firm opinion but kick the hypothesis around a little. I should look at this from a different viewpoint other than my own.

Cheers.
 
Going out on a limb here but...

Is there not the posibility that H.P. was poisoned?

Depending on the size of the dose and the build of the person strychnine for example (one of many poisons that may fit the bill) takes between 15 minutes and 30 minites to take effect.

The symptons of strychnine poisoning include agitation, hyperreflexia and hyperreactivity to stimuli. death comes with intence pain and asphyxia or medullary paralysis and leaves little visual sign.

this might go some way towards explaining the mad dash through paris that led to Di, Dodi and his own death. no driver with someone as important as his bosses son and someone as famous as diana is likly to drive as iraticly on his qwn accord unless something is effecting their judgement and reactions, strychnine poisoning is as good a candidate as any for what could have caused this. It could also be administered not long before the final journey which might explain the cctv pics in which H.P. appears as sober as a methodist minister.

Pure speculation and cercomstantial evidence of course but a hypothosis that I don't recal having heard before... might be worth futher speculatin and investigation should it stand up.

clynical effects of strychnine
 
If I may reverse the questioning, why do you find the idea that Diana was murdered so difficult?

A good question. In answering it, I’m not going to be able to respond with facts and figures, but focus more on who Diana was, and the context of all this. It’s based purely on opinion and is probably an attempt to explain my mindset.

When I think of conspiracies involving governments, intelligence agencies and vested interests, the usual suspects spring to mind. People like the Kennedys, Jimmy Hoffa, Sadat. These are people in a position of hands-on power. Then there are other kinds, people like Martin Luther King, who didn’t have power but was able to mobilize masses of people into visible and effective resistance to Government. Georgi Markov, perhaps, but as a dissident he was motivating a resistance movement to a highly repressive government which reached a plausible conclusion that he was better off dead. Pim Fortuyn, perhaps, but he existed on the extreme end of politics.
Putting Princess Diana alongside these kinds of figures isn’t, in my view, comparing apples with apples. She made news because of the dress she was wearing (which tended to get more coverage than the actual charity she may have been promoting) or the revelations about her private life which sold tabloids. She didn’t have any true power in the real sense, apart from the kinds of influences signaled above. Was this enough to get her bumped off should that influence jar against the vested interests of the Establishment?
The evidence presented above makes that question mark loom larger for me now than before this discussion began, but I’m still not there yet. King, Markov and co. were killed because they were a large and clear threat to a status quo which needed protecting – similar charges are leveled at Diana, but I guess it boils down to one’s perception of how large that threat really was.
Another potential reason for this which may apply to others is that it’s actually difficult to come up with a comparable contemporary British “assassination” in the sense of the word (maybe we’re just better at it!). I think that makes it more difficult to accept – perhaps there is a thought in our national psyche that “this couldn’t happen here” because in modern times I don’t think it has. Sure, the intelligence forces are capable of being underhand, see the recent “Dirty War” accusations in Northern Ireland, though this was an effort against a well-organised, violent movement which were causing huge amounts of carnage, not an individual who, though high-profile, didn’t have any hands-on ‘power’ or comparable visible influence.
And finally there’s that aspect of irrelevance. When she died, although the human element was sad, particularly tragic for the children, I wasn’t particularly concerned. Neither were any of my peers. The scenes at the funeral although unprecedented were not in my opinion representative of the majority of the nation. I base that on the response of everyone I knew, but I don’t think I’m that far off the mark. For most of us, life went on. “Millions watched at home” – who had no choice due to the blanket coverage.

In dealing with the minutiae of that night in Paris, as a story I suppose it is quite satisfying (as compared to something like JFK), though I accept the investigation has come to a rather ragged end with a number of inconclusive and in some cases bizarre findings. Apart from a conspiracy, there could be other factors. Mistakes made by pressured scientists, doctors and witnesses: this was probably the biggest investigation in terms of public scrutiny ever undertaken. Would things remain clear, impartial and accurate? Or would things get muddied up so much that it would never be clear cut whether this was an accident, leaving the door open for accusations of an assassination?

I guess this sums up my attitude to all things Fortean. I don’t like it when, for example, a plate flies across a room some people take the stance “I can’t explain it, therefore it must be the angry spirits of dead people, then.” I need to exhaust the probable before I conclude the improbable.
And in that respect, I guess I need proof. :D

Don’t get me wrong, the above isn’t pissing on what’s already been posted, my stance has shifted significantly towards conspiracy due to the above, but I’m not yet ready to share your opinion. :)
 
I don't really care who did it; I'm just irritated that even rotting in the ground, she is still an object of obsession for the Danbury Mint and their ilk.

If it was a Royal-ordered hit, well that's all part of being a monarch, isn't it?

'Many a king on a first class throne,
If he wishes to call his crown his own,
Must somehow manage to get through
More dirty work than ever I do...'
 
garrick92 said:
Depends, doesn't it? I think, myself, that you are simply assuming Diana's irrelevance, and arguing backwards from there. Again, I really don't mean to sound snotty, but it seems to be a common occurrence. "Diana = Royal = Anachronism" .... Yes, for you and me, perhaps ... "no", for the people who swear allegiance to the Monarch!
That suggests a whole new set of motives and possible assassins. How about (engage wild speculation ;) ) Diana was assassinated by a small group of her fans and supporters?

A number of people have speculated that if JFK had died a natural death after eventually losing the presidency, then he would not be held in the high esteem that he is today.

And what would people have thought about 2000 year-old tales of a preacher who died of old age?

Perhaps Diana's death was actually an attempt by her "followers" to achieve a level of immortality for her. (Let's be honest, her standing prior to her death seemed to be on the wane...) ;)
 
Re: Going out on a limb here but...

Ruddy the dwarf said:
Is there not the posibility that H.P. was poisoned?
[/URL]

A good point Ruddy, people have tended to focus more on the fact that the autopsie apears inconsistent with other evidence, rather than actully thinking about what it could be telling us.

While looking at the odd nature of the case (those deatails that have been released) another thing that demands attention (in addition to Paul's autopsie) is the silence of the Body guard on the subject of what happened in the car.
Aparently he's lost his memory, just like in the cartoons when someone gets bopped on the head :rolleyes:
 
I have struggled my way thru this thread, and it seems to be a huge collection of motive and little substance. People have thrown in figures for moisture in brake fluid, CO levels in blood and missing Fiats etc etc.

Just a cursory glance at a couple of the figures given as evidence of "something"

7.5% moisture in brake fluid. Said to be dangerous. Not desirable of course but consistent with an older vehicle that had not been properly serviced. A 2.5 year old car will have around 3.5% My old car probably has way more. http://www.csaa.com/global/faqdetail/0,8054,1004010401%7C226,00.html

CO blood level @ 20%. Said to be impossible. Quote from link - normal cigarette smoke contains enough CO to result in carboxyhemoglobin levels in smokers of 4% to 20%, with a one-pack-per day smoker having an average of about 5%. http://www.meridianeng.com/codata.html

If the first two things I check, given as indicators of foul play, are normal, should I bother to check the rest of the 'evidence' or write it off as rubbish now?

Of course the best way to kill someone is to cause a car crash just in front of a load of camera wielding journos, so you cannot go back and finish them off. Why not just blow them up and blame it on an extreme Islamic sect or whatever. Silly me
 
SatyrUK said:
Why not just blow them up and blame it on an extreme Islamic sect or whatever. Silly me

Yeah, that would make much more sense.
 
SatyrUK said:
If the first two things I check, given as indicators of foul play, are normal, should I bother to check the rest of the 'evidence' or write it off as rubbish now?

Of course the best way to kill someone is to cause a car crash just in front of a load of camera wielding journos, so you cannot go back and finish them off. Why not just blow them up and blame it on an extreme Islamic sect or whatever. Silly me

the problem is as you rightly point out that people are paying too much attention to what has been told to the public rather than what has not been...

There has never been any public investigation into the insident, a little odd when you consider that there are huge amounts of pressure on the french government to do so...

The uno was never traced, this of course has led to people saying it didn't exist, but seing as it was talked about independently by several witnesses in the imediate aftermarth saying it dosent exist is like trying to out stare the sun insisting that you won't go blind because it's not there. The only controvery as far as the uno go's is just how involved it was, it could have just been an inosent bystander...

2 motercycleists were never traced either, 2 of the cars persuers never identifyed. could be that they were scared and ran off or it could be that they were 'involved'...

(the reward is still on offer for info on the uno and the 2 motocycleists btw)

This and the eerie silence of the bodygaurd is certainly enougth of a case of circomstatial evidence to sugest that there is something that is not being told to us in full about this case. make of that what you will because it may be yet more evidence of the incometence of the french police when investigateing the deaths of forieners or a state sanctioned murder.

one thing I should point out though is if you want to make something look like an accident what could seem more inosently tragic than a car crash? If she survived the crash too she would have been likly to have disfigureing injerys, and would have certinly 'got the message' that the 'dark forces at work' may have been trying to get through...
 
Not much of a theory...

Why is is so difficult to accept that sometimes even famous people die in pointless stupid accidents?

Or that political assassins sometimes are just a lone nutter with a telescopic sight?

I think we've got a nascent UK conspiracy theory to rival who killed Kennedy (40 years on this November) here.

I hope it doesn't rival Jack the Ripper for longevity (people, we are not likely to solve this one over a 100 years after the event).

Or the 'Princes in the Tower' 500 years and counting.

If they'd really wanted Diana to vanish, letting her f*ck-up her credibility in her own time would have been the best way.
 
I refute the moisture level of 7.5% as not unusual in an older vehicle (3.5% in a 2.5 year vehicle being usual) and as a response garrick92 wrote:

The Mercedes was a 1994 model, with just 26,660km on the clock.

It had also recently been completely rebuilt, after being stolen and stripped for parts in April 1997.
Exactly - at 3 years old it would have over 4% anyway, and I would not be surprised if during the rebuild the system had not been topped up with fluid from a previously opened container. Poor but not unusual practice. A highly inefficient way to kill someone, so why believe it indicates tampering.

The uno was never traced - well I was shunted by a vehicle a year ago, the driver sped off and was not traced. So what?

She may have been murdered, I don't know, and to be honest dont care either way, but my point is that quoting figures like those does not support the case. She may have been assassinated, but the very slightly iffy brakes and dodgy driver were just coincidence!

What is so hard to swallow about an accident? The pair of them were living an odd lifstyle, playing cat and mouse with journos the response was to run, often at high speed (in a overweight limo, not a sports car).

Lets face it, how much influence was she going to retain if she married Dodi. (racism?, distancing herslef from royalty, further kids etc) How much real influence did she have anyway. The way some of these posts read to me you'd think she had single handedly disarmed the world, and arm dealers were blubbing into their hankies, while the masses swore allegiance and bowed before her. How many less land mines are there in the world because of her really. How many governments said "oooh perhaps we should persue a more humanitarian policy, because Di said we should".
She was a celibrity, not a mover and shaker.

Well I'm off to do something constructive, reply comment to the above, do as you will because I'm not gonna waste time viewing this thread anymore!
 
I remember Diana dropped hints that there was more to tell after me friendship with Dodi became public knowledge. Some suspected that she was going to announce her marrying Dodi, but what if it was that she was pregnant? The future king having a Muslim half brother! I don't think the establishment could handle that.
 
garrick92 said:
Yes, it might have resulted from sloppy rebuilding. That is perfectly possible. But this commonplace explanation should have been easily happened upon by the French investigative team. As it is, the watered-brake-fluid was suppressed from Herve Stephan's report, and was only discovered by a leak to CNN a year later.
Why did the French investigation suppress this information? What was the motivation? If the French investigators have been trying to cover something up, who are they covering up for? (Agents of the British secret services?)

It all sounds a bit strange really. I can imagine the British establishment covering things up, but the French doing it on behalf of the British sounds odd. Maybe if there was a conspiracy it was actually the French government behind it. After all, it did happen in France. Was there any evidence of British involvemnt inb the case? (As far as I'm aware, all of the evidence that has been presented only indicates that the death was suspicious, but doesn't point at a British suspect.) Was it to protect the French arms trade?

This is not targetted at the French as I do not really believe they were involved in an assassination plot against Diana. If you do believe in an assassination though, you have to ask yourself "based on the evidence, who did it?" :)
 
Back
Top