Diana's Murder - Latest / Analysis

News & Views on All Topics
Post Reply
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:45 pm

Don Smith wrote:Her activism against land mines, her focus upon AIDS, much more...
She was a threat to the status quo.
Just because one is wealthy, it does not follow that the person is evil. The Red Terror sent people to Siberia because their family was aristocratic. Are we to follow the same perverted logic?
Oh, come on! One does NOT carry out such a risky black op for such nebulous and lightweight reasons. There had to be far more serious, concrete reasons that posed her as a risk to the British monarchy ITSELF. And it was not because she was planning to marry Dodi, thus providing Islamic in-laws to the Royal Family. She was no longer a member of the Royal Family. Far more serious than that. How about blackmail........How about secret video tapes in her possession that, if made public, would have destroyed Prince Charles' chances of becoming king .....?
Posts: 840
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:50 pm
Location: minime-rica

Last edited by Nat on Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:51 am
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

Hey fellas--the reason they had to kill Diana is quite obvious.

Divorce was her death warrant, because of the heirs she'd produced.
She had produced an heir and an 'heir to spare'. If she'd been the type who'd be a good little princess and play the public role of the contented consort and dutiful wife and mother, she could have made little photo ops for aids (which is an op anyway), and so on--she could have even had a separate private life with MI5 approved studs.
Her wrong move was to shoot her mouth off about Charles silly dirty laundry, express her contempt for the Queen and Queen Mother, and totally fuck up that fairy tale presentation Royals had set up so carefully with the 'fairy tale' wedding nonsense for the proles. They were in much need of restoring Royal credibility and awe. I'm sure that people in the UK were privately envying the French for beheading theirs in the 17th century. The institution was in question as to whether their status should be maintained, or downgraded to the anachronism it is, like everybody else had in Europe.

I think they would have endured her antics as long as she'd at least not divorce. But divorce changed everything to a situation in which Diana became 100% liability.

Once divorced, there was a custody issue---the heirs. What Diana didn't realize was that divorce was her death warrant. They could not let the boys grow up spending visitation time with her, and the certain public tug of war Diana would have put them through. She and Charles had already made a 'royal' mess out of the public relations -- they couldn't permit the boys growing up caught up in Diana's manic-depressive escapades.

Taking years of heat and suspicion that they had her executed was more advantageous to them than letting her fight over the sons and ruin their credibility too.
Notice that the chaos about the Royals pretty well stopped with her leaving the picture. The questions over murder linger on, and Charles will forever be tarnished by Diana's exposure of his private behavior, but it's Billy boy (William) that matters now. He's got the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha traits of ruthlessness, but they needed that Stewart injection of genuine English royal bloodline and nice looking genes that only Diana could provide. As I recall she was the only dolly in the world who had the right set of genes, and they had to conscript her as Royal breeder in spite of her known personality disorders of emotional instability.

And Prince William's come along nicely as a good little Nazi. He'll be crowned.

I recall that long ago that my grandmother said they'd never let Charles be king. He was slow and retarded as a teenager, he just didn't inspire the right image. One younger brother was bad headlines from his penchant for shacking up with strippers and Italian porn starlets, and the other brother was gay with a thing for young military officers.

William seems motived, knows which side his bread is buttered on, and the most ruthless looking male House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to come along since the evil King Edward VII.

Image House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Image

The Saxe-Coburg-Gotha line only produced one dangerous king. Prince Charles was another example of thinning bloodline, in the line of succession of 20th century Winsor dorks. The infusion of Stuart genes seems to have altered that long run of gene decay...This kid William scares me.
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:35 am

This story just in from the cbc.ca website:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/03/0 ... quest.html
"The inquest into the deaths of Diana, the late Princess of Wales, and her friend Dodi Fayed will be postponed until October, more than a decade after the couple died in a Paris car crash, a coroner said Tuesday.

The long-awaited inquest had originally been scheduled to begin in May. But Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, a retired judge who is overseeing the hearings, decided that they will begin "on or about" Oct. 1. It is expected to last at least four months, but could stretch to double that.

At a procedural hearing Monday, lawyers for Fayed's father, Harrods department store owner Mohamed al Fayed, argued that they needed more time to gather experts and documentation.

Lawyers for the family of chauffeur Henri Paul backed up the request, which was initially resisted by Butler-Sloss.

"I would be very sad if I was obliged to delay the start of the main proceedings for another six months," she said. "I feel that would be very, very hard on the families."

Michael Mansfield, who represents al Fayed, called the delay "a pebble on the beach" compared to the 10-year wait to begin hearing evidence. He also said Diana's ex-husband, Prince Charles, and Prince Philip should be called to give evidence.

Diana, 36, and Fayed, 42, were killed along with chauffeur Paul when their Mercedes crashed in the Pont d'Alma tunnel on Aug. 31, 1997. The only survivor, bodyguard Trevor Rees — formerly known as Rees-Jones — was badly hurt.

A French investigation ruled that Paul was drunk and in his efforts to evade photographers, lost control of their car, which careened into a column in a tunnel.

The inquest could begin only after the investigations into the deaths were complete. A two-year French investigation, a three-year Metropolitan Police inquiry in Britain and repeated legal action by al Fayed have delayed the inquest."

It seems the coroner will allow Fayed's lawyers time to gather expert witnesses and sift through the evidence. Interesting how the wire story pins the delays on the police investigations and on al Fayed.

I think her death was necessary as a prelude to 911. She would have been very outspoken about this "war on Terror" psy-op and would not have toed the party line. Indeed her disdain for the royal family and the secrets that she had likely sealed her fate.

Her death sent a very strong message to the rest of the elite that they had best NOT criticize TPB, unless they too wished to be sacrificed in a public manmner.
There are souls in the boots
Of the soldiers America
Fuck your yellow ribbon
If you want to
Support your troops
Bring them home
And hold them tight
When they get here
-Andrea Gibson - For Eli
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:05 am

MichaelC wrote:I fail to see what importance Diana could have had to "G8 business".

I mean, she was just sort of an annoying character who was a pain in the ass for the British Royal family.

But cetainly no $$billions were hanging on whether she remained breathing or not.

I guess I just don't get it.

I found your comment interesting :shock:

I mean like THINK for a minute:

Diana was the mother of a future King of England, Charles and his family most likely looked at what 'influence' she could have, and already had, on her children!! They needed her 'OUT OF THE WAY', especially if she married a Muslin!!

Now do you get it?
User avatar
Posts: 2950
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:54 pm
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

Tonight the latest parameter of 'offense is the best defense' reared it's ugly head. The MSM is reporting that Diana's kids are upset over plans to publish photos and/or video from the car crash that killed her.

I believe this tactic is called "feeding the controversy burnout factor", by promoting a harmless, easily dismissed controversy - based on empathy towards the hyper-pathetic surviving children - before any real controversy comes above ground. Like the credible possibility that their Mother was deliberately murdered.

What I'd like to know is - how do they keep Harry and William off the Internet sites spewing rumors about the truth?
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
User avatar
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:55 pm
Location: Surfing The Waves

No conspiracy,
Diana coroner concludes after £10m inquest

Mohamed Al Fayed claimed the Duke of Edinburgh ordered MI6 to kill his
son and Princess Diana

By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor
Tuesday, 1 April 2008

The Duke of Edinburgh and MI6 have been cleared of arranging the deaths
of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed after the coroner Lord Justice
Scott Baker said there was not a shred of evidence to support a
conspiracy theory.

The coroner demolished the central claim by the Harrods boss Mohamed Al
Fayed, telling the jury that the suggestion that Prince Philip had ordered
MI6 to arrange for the couple to die in a Paris road tunnel on 31 August
1997 was without foundation.

Dismissing Mr Fayed's theories, he said: "Foremost among them is the
proposition that Diana was assassinated by the Secret Intelligence Service
(MI6) on the orders of the Duke of Edinburgh. There is no evidence that
the Duke of Edinburgh ordered Diana's execution, and there is no
evidence the Secret Intelligence Service or any other government agency
organised it

He said the lengthy inquest, estimated to have cost £10m, had played a
crucial role in testing those theories but that some people would believe in
the murder theory no matter what the verdict was. He told the jury:
"There are no doubt those who genuinely believe this to be the case and
will continue to do so regardless of any verdict you return. You have heard
the evidence and it is your decision that matters."

But the coroner added: "You will have been reassured to have heard that
Mohamed Al Fayed told you on oath that he will accept your verdict; no
doubt the other interested persons will do likewise."

After discounting any credible evidence to support a conspiracy theory,
Lord Justice Scott Baker said the jury could only return verdicts of
accidental death or death by gross negligence. If the evidence did not
support either conclusion then they could leave the verdict open.

The jury were also told that three of the witnesses had lied. Lord Baker
said it was regrettable that there had been some witnesses "who it
appears have told lies in the witness box or elsewhere", naming former
butler Paul Burrell as one of those who were "liars by their own

Mr Burrell appeared at the inquest for three days in January, but in a video
recording obtained by The Sun newspaper he apparently claimed he
introduced "red herrings" during his evidence and held back facts. He
refused to re-appear at the inquest to explain discrepancies between his
evidence and the newspaper report. At the time, the coroner said he could
not compel him to give evidence because he lives outside the court's
jurisdiction in the US.

On the question of whether Princess Diana was pregnant, the jury were
told that there was no conclusive medical evidence to indicate that was the

The only witness to fully support this claim was Mr Fayed. "The [telephone]
conversation involved three people but only one can tell us about it now,"
the coroner said. "Sadly the only other people who can confirm or deny it
are no longer alive, so this fairly and squarely raises the issue of
Mohamed Al Fayed's credibility. Is this a man on whose word you can

Dealing with whether Diana and Dodi were or were about to get engaged,
the coroner highlighted a mass of, at times, conflicting evidence about
their previous relationships. And he asked the jury: "At the end of the day
does the precise state of the relationship between Diana and Dodi really

The coroner will continue his summing up today.

Diana inquest warned of witness 'lies'

By Helen William

THE inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales heard from
witnesses who had lied, the coroner said yesterday.

Lord Justice Scott Baker said there was "not a shred of evidence" that the
Duke of Edinburgh ordered Diana's death or that it was organised by MI6.

But he said it was regrettable some witnesses had been untruthful, and
named Paul Burrell, the former royal butler, as one of those who were
"liars by their own admission".

"One of the regrettable features of this case is the number of people who it
appears have told lies in the witness box or elsewhere," Lord Baker told
the jury as he summarised the evidence.

"Some are liars by their own admission – I refer to James Andanson, Paul Burrell and John Macnamara.

"Others have either admitted telling half-truths, or part of their evidence
may have shown in one respect or more that either in court or previously
that they were not telling the truth," the coroner said.

Mr Burrell, 49, has refused to return to her inquest to answer allegations
that he lied to the jury. After giving evidence in January, Mr Burrell was
filmed in New York claiming that, despite being under oath, he had not told
the whole truth.

Lord Justice Scott Baker asked him to return and explain himself, but as
Mr Burrell now lives mainly in Florida he is outside the jurisdiction of an
English court and cannot be compelled to appear.

Mr Andanson, a photographer, wrongly claimed to have taken infamous
pictures of the Duchess of York sucking the toes of her financial adviser,
John Bryan.

Mr Macnamara, Mohamed al-Fayed's head of security, admitted lying about
what the princess's driver had to drink the night she died. In a TV
interview, he said Henri Paul had drunk only "a pineapple juice".

But the former Metropolitan Police chief superintendent told the inquest he
knew the Frenchman had drunk two shots of Ricard before the crash.

The coroner told the jury: "You must first decide whether the person
whose evidence you are considering has lied rather than having made an
honest mistake."

Laying out five options for the verdicts expected this week, he ruled that a
staged accident orchestrated by the Duke of Edinburgh was not one of

Describing Mr Fayed's theories as "worthless" without evidence, he urged
the jury not to be swayed by sympathy.

Diana, her lover, Dodi Fayed, and their driver, Henri Paul, were killed
when their Mercedes crashed in Paris on 31 August, 1997.

The coroner said that after hearing around 250 witnesses the most the
Fayed legal team was putting forward was that the duke had helped create
a "climate of hostility" toward the princess.

"That, you may think, is a long way removed from an allegation that
Prince Philip ordered the murder of Diana by MI6, with whom he secretly
runs the country," he said.

The inquest jury is expected to be sent out to consider its verdict

Claims of execution

"There is no evidence that the Duke of Edinburgh ordered Princess Diana's
execution, and there is no evidence that the Secret Intelligence Service or
any other government agency organised it
," Lord Justice Scott Baker said

In one sentence he demolished the case pursued for more than a decade
by Mohamed al-Fayed that the Duke of Edinburgh had orchestrated the
murders of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed.

Mr Fayed has maintained that Diana was pregnant and that the Royal
Family wanted to prevent them marrying and stop Dodi, a Muslim,
becoming the step-father of the future king.

Jurors had heard evidence that the princess feared dying in a car crash,
but also had speculated about death in a helicopter or plane crash. There
was testimony that she felt intimidated by Prince Philip, her former

Untruths in the witness box

Paul Burrell, Diana's former butler, was branded a "liar" by Lord Baker.

As he began to summarise the evidence, the coroner remarked: "One of
the regrettable features of this case is the number of people who it
appears have told lies in the witness box or elsewhere."

He said that Mr Burrell, the photographer James Andanson – who owned a
white Fiat and claimed to have been in the tunnel – and Mr Fayed's former
head of security, John Macnamara were all "liars by their own admission".

Mr Burrell appeared at the inquest for three days in January, but in a video
recording obtained by the Sun newspaper he apparently claimed he
introduced "red herrings" during his evidence and held back facts.

He then refused to re-appear at the inquest to explain discrepancies
between his evidence and comments reported in the newspaper. At the
time, the coroner said he could not compel him to give evidence because
Mr Burrell lives outside the court's jurisdiction, in the United States.

The jury heard that Mr Andanson wrongly claimed to have taken the
infamous toe-sucking pictures of the Duchess of York.

And Mr Macnamara, Mr Fayed's head of security, admitted lying in a
television interview by saying that the couple's driver, Henri Paul, drank
only "a pineapple juice" before the fatal crash.

Doubts over pregnancy

Mr Fayed, the Harrods tycoon, was described as the man who shone the
spotlight on some of the most private details of Diana's love life because
of his claim that she was pregnant.

Lord Baker acknowledged that Mr Fayed was among a group of relatives
who had lost loved ones in the car crash which killed his son Dodi, Diana
and Mr Paul.

Witnesses, including friends Rosa Monckton, Lucia Flecha De Lima and
Lady Annabel Goldsmith, have stated there was no chance that Diana was
pregnant. They noticed she had her period within the weeks before she
died. Her former lover, Hasnat Khan, said the princess was "assiduous" in
taking the contraceptive pill.

No tests to check if she was pregnant were conducted and embalming her
body would not have hidden signs of a baby, experts have told the court.

The experts involved in the post-mortem examination did not notice a
pregnancy, despite Mr Fayed's claim that the couple had told him of one on
the telephone an hour before they died.

Uncertainty over engagement

Stuart Benson, Mr Fayed's solicitor, claimed Dodi had told him he had
"exciting news", leaving him in no doubt that the couple were about to get

However Lord Baker pinpointed a mass of, at times, conflicting evidence
from those who supported this view.

"It may be that some of those who spoke about the relationships in fact
said more about their own evidence than they did about either of the
relationships," he remarked.

He highlighted how Dodi's former butler, Renee Delorm, claimed to have
seen Dodi down on one knee, touching Diana's belly, on the night of their

Mr Delorm did not mention the incident in his subsequent book about his
life with Dodi, something he told the court was because he did not want to
exploit the situation.

But there was laughter as the coroner observed: "He then agreed that he
had no difficulty in giving that fact to a film company."

The coroner conceded that it was quite possible Dodi may have been
considering proposing to Diana on the night of their deaths.

But he asked: "At the end of the day does the precise state of the
relationship between Diana and Dodi really matter?"

Ring's meaning will never be known

Referring to comments from Mr Fayed's long-standing spokesman, Michael
Cole, Lord Baker said: "Perhaps Mr Cole got it right on this occasion when
he said in Churchillian style on 5 September and repeated it on ITV on 27
September, 1997, that if the planet lasted for another thousand years,
people could still be wondering about the significance of the ring."

Mr Cole, sober-suited, and with his clipped style of public speaking, has
often appeared in stark contrast to Mr Fayed's emotional style of address.

Five options for cause of death – and Prince Philip plot is not one of them, jury told

LORD Justice Scott Baker told jurors yesterday they could find Diana,
Princess of Wales, and her lover Dodi Fayed had died accidentally or
because of negligence.

Addressing the jurors after six months of evidence, the coroner said: "You
have heard the evidence and it is your decision that matters and not
anyone else's.

"You will have been reassured to have heard that Mohamed al-Fayed told
you on oath that he will accept your verdict. No doubt the other interested
persons will do likewise.

But he also warned: "Your duty is to find the facts and reach a conclusion
on the evidence, and that transcends any desire, for example, to mark
your disapproval of anyone's behaviour or to make a statement of some

He said he and the jury – plus one Diana fan who sat through all the
proceedings with the words "Diana" and "Dodi" painted on his face – were
the only ones to have heard every word of the evidence.

Lord Baker then laid out for the jury the five verdict options but added: "I
have determined that it is not open to you to find that this was unlawful
killing by the Duke of Edinburgh or anyone else in a staged accident."

The five options are:

• unlawful killing by grossly negligent driving of the paparazzi in the following vehicles;

• unlawful killing through the gross negligence of the driver Henri Paul;

• unlawful killing by the grossly negligent driving of both the following
vehicles and Mr Paul;

• a verdict of accidental death could be returned if none of the above
verdicts are established;

• the jury was also given the option of an open verdict.

He said the jury could add a sentence to any verdicts to draw attention to
further factors behind the tragedy such as drink-driving, speeding or
failure to wear seatbelts.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Diana-inque ... 3932498.jp
User avatar
Posts: 2950
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:54 pm
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

Any chance we could someday take a vote and strike the word THEORY from the English language?

They are discussing the existence of a CONSPIRACY in the courtroom, not discussing whether or not there was a THEORY. Of course, when you attach that to the end, suddenly it all sounds to the Average Joe like a news spot from Art Bell.

No evidence of a conspiracy theory. If these weren't trained (and I do mean trained) journalists, I'd excuse it as incompetence. They know exactly the deliberate, misdirectional mistake they are making.

Fucking bullshit word-association psy-ops. For centuries now. :evil:
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:49 am
Location: AU

No conspiracy, Diana coroner concludes after £10m inquest

Mohamed Al Fayed claimed the Duke of Edinburgh ordered MI6 to kill his
son and Princess Diana

By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor
Tuesday, 1 April 2008

Just saying..
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:20 pm
Location: USA

[font=Times New Roman][/font]Isn't it a little funny when a former spy chief in Britain says "All conspiracy theories are mad" ? It makes you wonder if the conspiracy theories against Romanians or was it Bulgarians (umbrellas) and later Russians (plutonium) were just something she and her colleagues made up. But if they did decide that these unnatural deaths were caused by conspiracies, by Them...then I guess they are admitting that they are mad. The alternative is to believe they have lied about the causes of death so as to score propaganda points. But if they did, they'd have conspired to kill someone. Even to think such a thing is to be mad.

On the subject of the Project for a New American Century, the plans for invading the Mideast after a necessary "new Pearl Harbor"--- those plans were drawn up in the 90's, and Diana was killed in September 1997 (Labor Day Weekend in the US). Her popularity, her Adopt-a-Minefield approach, her embrace of AIDS sufferers, her friendship with gays, her involvement with not just one Muslim male (which could have begun a trend in Britain), etc. Yeah - she was in the sights of someone. I believe it was Esquire Magazine or perhaps Vanity Fair, which published an article by the author of Rumpole of the Bailey (I think it was he), entitled "Off with Her Head" about why Charles should emulate Henry VIII. I remember being appalled that this victim of royal shenanigans should be considered the source of the problem -- but of course, must curry favor with the heir apparent. Now he has his "lovely" Camilla, he got what he wanted. Nothing too good for a future monarch, apparently.

Terrible "accidents" like dreams, are overdetermined. There are scores of motives. But I know where the Pont d'Alma is and also Salpetriere. If my cousins who live in that district had an accident, they would have been rushed there. In fact the traffic accidents across the bridge at the Invalides train station (afternoon drinking probably) always involved quick ambulance trips, and not leaving people gasping beside their motos in the sun...from my memory. What advanced country would leave someone on the scene for two hours? They say it was to stabilize Diana, but I think you have to look statistically at how other patients are treated. And from one month in the area (where I saw a nasty lot of accidents), no bodies were left to die that I ever remembered. The sirens were going right away.

Your common sense tells you that something is a little odd in a story you are told, a "Just-So" story by the people who want you to say black is white if they say it, and then you kind of are inclined to listen to "conspiracy theories". Cui bono?
User avatar
Posts: 3265
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: Capacious Creek

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 9044
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:46 pm

After discounting any credible evidence to support a conspiracy theory,
Lord Justice Scott Baker said the jury could only return verdicts of
accidental death or death by gross negligence. If the evidence did not
support either conclusion then they could leave the verdict open.
His Honour Lord Baker wasn't taking any chances, eh?
That's an interesting legal manuver he just pulled.

I'd imagine his summing up went like this:
ImageLord Justice Scott Baker's Impartial Summing Up

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury.

You have heard the evidence on both sides.
And now must decide for yourself.

After I have summed up the issues.

Simply to guide you... ...in an impartial way, ...of course.

You have heard from the Crown, most capably represented, that
this most tragic accident in Paris happened exactly as they have explained
before to us in official statements. They showed you evidence which only
a gibbering idiot would think does not fully and entirely support the
existing judicial status quo on Diana's untimely death.

You have also heard from that wild-eyed lunatic Mr Fayed, and his
legal counsel (some drooling idiot who must have barely scraped
through the Bar exam).

Laurel representing Hardy. [pause for laugh]

They have amused you with ludicrous conspiracy theories. No doubt we
may now presume that even aliens were involved. [pause for laugh]

So, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, you must choose.

Either the sound official position, or the wild conspiracy ramblings.

It's your choice Jury members. And yours alone. But let me just add one
little clause to your decision process. You may NOT choose the lunatic
conspiracy theory as your verdict.

Outside that, you have a complete right to return any verdict you wish.

Please don't think that I am in any way restricting your rights as a
soverign, convened jury of peers. Far from it!

I am merely safeguarding your rights..... by assisting you not to
deliver a verdict that could lead one to believe you are the kind of low-life
scum who are a pestillence on any landscape and should be jailed
forthwith for Contempt of Court.

If I make myself clear.

So, thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury.

You may retire to consider your verdict.

Very, very carefully.
Last edited by Fintan on Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:06 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Post Reply