New info about Princess Diana death

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yes, and the CIA planned 9/11 and the moon landings were faked

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

This has been done to death and far too much money wasted on it. An accident: A drunken driver, going too fast, being chased by paparazzi and the princess not wearing a seat belt.

I groaned when I heard it on the news this morning as there'll be yet another feeding frenzy by the media.

Nothing to see. Move along.

Exactly!

"Just because it's official doesn't mean it's true" is correct - however, when three separate inquiries (one of them French, one by the Met, and the last being a formal inquest) come to the same conclusion, and hundreds of journalists from multiple countries have done in-depth investigations, and when governments can't even "cover up" their own wrong-doings, do we really think that if this had happened, with lots of people involved in the planning and cover-up, something wouldn't have been leaked before?

People aren't believing it because it's official and they are gullible - they believe it because they have followed through a chain of events, read about the investigations into them, and agreed with the official verdict.

Occam's Razor - usually the simplest explanation is also the most likely.

There are a lot of things the special forces and secret services do that we never get to know about. Just because our government is inept does not mean they are. Just saying

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Hugh

"Just because it's official doesn't mean it's true" is correct - however, when three separate inquiries (one of them French, one by the Met, and the last being a formal inquest) come to the same conclusion, and hundreds of journalists from multiple countries have done in-depth investigations, and when governments can't even "cover up" their own wrong-doings, do we really think that if this had happened, with lots of people involved in the planning and cover-up, something wouldn't have been leaked before?

People aren't believing it because it's official and they are gullible - they believe it because they have followed through a chain of events, read about the investigations into them, and agreed with the official verdict.

Occam's Razor - usually the simplest explanation is also the most likely.

I'm not just on about Diana's death but the whole 'conspiracy' thing in general. Those that do not believe in any kind of conspiracy at all and just follow the official line.

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

There are a lot of things the special forces and secret services do that we never get to know about. Just because our government is inept does not mean they are. Just saying

You may be confusing fiction (Andy McNab et al books) with reality, imho - when these people do stuff, it is authorised and logged somewhere; the logistics don't just happen by themselves.

Things do happen that we don't know about - but there has been a chain of command which authorised these things, and the more people involved in a secret, the more likely it is to leak.....

---------- Post added at 10:22 ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 ----------

Originally Posted by peanut

I'm not just on about Diana's death but the whole 'conspiracy' thing in general. Those that do not believe in any kind of conspiracy at all and just follow the official line.

There's a conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories, in that most of them are created by governments to hide the real conspiracies.....

[Derek]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

There are a lot of things the special forces and secret services do that we never get to know about. Just because our government is inept does not mean they are. Just saying

The type of operation proposed for Diana's death would be fine for an African dictator or Eastern European criminal where if it doesn't work or evidence is left the government can shrug its shoulders and say "The security services do not kill people"

If the state were involved in the death of the mother of a future king can you imagine the storm that would occur if their involvement came to light?

They would need to have people in place to ensure there was no CCTV or photographs (of the most photographed woman on the planet), they would need people in place in the first responders or hospital to kill her in case the initial crash didn't do the job, they would need to ensure her bodyguard was killed as well to stop him talking, they would need to have access to the drivers body to tamper with the bloodwork in such a way that's undetectable and then keep the whole lot undercover for ever whilst manipulating official inquests in several different countries to keep them to the official story.

Then any records would need to be redacted forevermore just in case the ex parents-in-law of a soldier decide to spill the beans

Or it could have been a drunk driver crashing his car at speed during a tricky part of the road.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Derek

Or it could have been a drunk driver crashing his car at speed during a tricky part of the road.

Just work on that one and it'll all work out fine, no need for all of the other complications you mention.

I mean. you want to get from A to B without being noticed. so instead of walking where there's a chance of being seen along the way. and instead of sitting in the passenger seat where there's a chance of being seen.

you hide in the boot.

Originally Posted by Hugh

You may be confusing fiction (Andy McNab et al books) with reality, imho - when these people do stuff, it is authorised and logged somewhere; the logistics don't just happen by themselves.

Things do happen that we don't know about - but there has been a chain of command which authorised these things, and the more people involved in a secret, the more likely it is to leak.....

---------- Post added at 10:22 ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 ----------

There's a conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories, in that most of them are created by governments to hide the real conspiracies.....

Once again you say I am confusing something well NO.

Secondly I made a simple statement which I believe is true talking to me like I am an idiot does not alter the fact my statement still stands true even with your requisites

---------- Post added at 11:04 ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 ----------

Originally Posted by Derek

The type of operation proposed for Diana's death would be fine for an African dictator or Eastern European criminal where if it doesn't work or evidence is left the government can shrug its shoulders and say "The security services do not kill people"

If the state were involved in the death of the mother of a future king can you imagine the storm that would occur if their involvement came to light?

They would need to have people in place to ensure there was no CCTV or photographs (of the most photographed woman on the planet), they would need people in place in the first responders or hospital to kill her in case the initial crash didn't do the job, they would need to ensure her bodyguard was killed as well to stop him talking, they would need to have access to the drivers body to tamper with the bloodwork in such a way that's undetectable and then keep the whole lot undercover for ever whilst manipulating official inquests in several different countries to keep them to the official story.

Then any records would need to redacted forevermore just in case the ex parents-in-law of a soldier decide to spill the beans

Or it could have been a drunk driver crashing his car at speed during a tricky part of the road.

all of which however implausible could still be achieved.

I have no idea how the secret service work I am sure it is not as glamorous as James Bond but I am sure its gonna be dark whatever goes on

[Derek]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

all of which however implausible could still be achieved.

I have no idea how the secret service work I am sure it is not as glamorous as James Bond but I am sure its gonna be dark whatever goes on

The more implausible the more unlikely it is to have happened.

A smallish team to take out a person no one in the UK is likely to have heard of or miss? Possible.

A team of tens of people on the ground plus planning, logistics and the subsequent coverup to kill possibly the most famous woman in the world in a built up area and a lifetime of keeping quiet? Into tinfoil hat territory.

If they wanted to kill Diana there would have been ample opportunity to do it in a far more discreet and definately fatal way.
Her bodyguard survived thanks to a seatbelt, people survive high speed crashes every day in modern cars. Again why risk an operation if you have to ensure the target is dead to prevent them pointing fingers.

Originally Posted by Derek

The more implausible the more unlikely it is to have happened.

A smallish team to take out a person no one in the UK is likely to have heard of or miss? Possible.

A team of tens of people on the ground plus planning, logistics and the subsequent coverup to kill possibly the most famous woman in the world in a built up area and a lifetime of keeping quiet? Into tinfoil hat territory.

If they wanted to kill Diana there would have been ample opportunity to do it in a far more discreet and definately fatal way.
Her bodyguard survived thanks to a seatbelt, people survive high speed crashes every day in modern cars. Again why risk an operation if you have to ensure the target is dead to prevent them pointing fingers.

Maybe they wanted it to appear to be so impossible that no one believes it.

No one here can categorically say either way we can all believe its impossible but none of us knows for sure.

My statement was a simple one the replies more complicated

I have a suggestion.Let the conspiracy enthusiasts have this thread.

Those of us who are actually sane and sensible should just bow out and leave them to it.

Then they can just let rip and get it out of their systems..and we can quietly laugh at the more outlandish suggestions.

That's it.I'm walking away and I'll only come back if there is a moderating issue.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I have a suggestion.Let the conspiracy enthusiasts have this thread.

Those of us who are actually sane and sensible should just bow out and leave them to it.

Then they can just let rip and get it out of their systems..and we can quietly laugh at the more outlandish suggestions.

That's it.I'm walking away and I'll only come back if there is a moderating issue.

I am not saying I believe they had her killed but I am open enough to say I do not know for sure.

I find it deeply insulting that you think those who think different to you are both insane and foolish where your totally closed mind makes you sensible and sane

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

I am not saying I believe they had her killed but I am open enough to say I do not know for sure.

I find it deeply insulting that you think those who think different to you are both insane and foolish where your totally closed mind makes you sensible and sane

accepting the most likely and and most evidenced based solution as the truth is not being closed minded .Why would the Government of the day risk a crisis of the magnitude it would have been to murder Diana or Dodi ?

Originally Posted by martyh

accepting the most likely and and most evidenced based solution as the truth is not being closed minded .Why would the Government of the day risk a crisis of the magnitude it would have been to murder Diana or Dodi ?

Accepting that not everything we are told is the truth is open minded everything else is closed

I have no knowledge of how the secret services work who pulls the strings or anything. I believe they operate often outside the law but to what extent I do not know.

This case has been reopened for a reason I am sure it will be closed again soon with the same outcome. Whether that is the truth or not I can not be 100% sure