New info about Princess Diana death

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

ok for an event to happen does not need someone there to see it for a start. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around does it make a sound ?

If the only persons savvy to the plan were those involved and none of them ever spoke about it does that mean it could not happen?

For this thread to exist a story has been in the papers and the case I believe is opened? then there obviously is another plausible cause

Make up your mind. Earlier you posted the following in response to my desription of the accident.

So here we must have an eye witness statement because only someone who witnessed the event themselves know for definite what happened.

So what is it to be. For me stating what I believe to have happened, you claimed I need to be an eye witness yet now you state it doesn't need to be witnessed to have taken place?

If there was a plot to bump someone off then in a tunnel in a busy City is probably not the best way to go about it. As mentioned by Derek then an accident in the country would be a far better plan as there would be next to no witnesses or near by hospitals in case the collision didn't actually kill the intended victim(s).

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Russ

As you'd get in any court case but people generally seem to accept the verdict there.

to be fair, there are many cases where miscarriages of justice have been recorded. an official verdict still does not mean fact 100% of the time. if there is any room for doubt, we must not dismiss other options - however to progress, we must assume one opinion or another, thus we accept the 'most likely' according to the evidence presented to us. I'm pretty sure that not a single one of us here was in the car Diana was in that night. this means we have gotten the information we are basing our opinion on from the second hand sources we have either been presented, or found ourselves - myself included when I say I believe this was an accident. but that doesn't mean it was an accident.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

excuse me? get over myself? right-o. as for it being a joke, I shall repeat something that has been said to me in the past here on more than one occasion... you were missing the smiley to signify it was a joke. lastly, if you don't care and it doesn't interest you, then your post can only have been borne from a want to antagonise and stir. again, not very mature. and yes, if she wasn't wearing a seat belt, she should have been.
c.

If you need to signify a joke with a smiley then it probably wasn't worth telling in the first place and it wasn't to antagonise just to raise a smile and point out I wouldn't have opened the thread if it's title remotely referred to it's contents.

Yes she should've been, the one person in the vehicle who was survived, it's something that all the conspiracy theories overlook but something I'm sure highly trained assassins wouldn't, that the whole plot could fail if the potential victim is wearing a seatbelt.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

y
perhaps a car crash in another country would appear all the more circumstantial and terrible in terms of getting the public on-side to believing what the media says? it would also distance our own governments and agencies in the minds of the public as it happened abroad and not in our own back yard. by appearing as an 'accident', people are far less likely to question it. people would definitely start asking more questions if she was abroad and had a bullet put in her head, I'm sure.

I'm not saying it would be a car crash but a nutjob assassin passing by with a gun, easily blamed by that country's government (or our own) as a local idiot wanting to make himself famous. An entire backstory could be 'invented'. When Diana was out helping clear landmines, why not a suicide bomber?

Assassination by car crash in the middle of Paris? Not likely.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Russ

I'm not saying it would be a car crash but a nutjob assassin passing by with a gun, easily blamed by that country's government (or our own) as a local idiot wanting to make himself famous. An entire backstory could be 'invented'. When Diana was out helping clear landmines, why not a suicide bomber?

Assassination by car crash in the middle of Paris? Not likely.

agreed. but then I also concede I may not know the full story, if at all there is one, therefore I do not know what motives or reasonings may have been applied. perhaps it was simply opportunistic for reasons such as someone in power with something to hide who didn't want her putting her nose in? who knows what she or her efforts may have uncovered in terms of what was going on with aid transfers in the third world, where a lot of her good work was carried out? or maybe she was planning to present information publicly that would have changed world views on someone or something which would have had a major effect on something big?

but yes, all in all, I believe it was an accident. regardless of why, how or what happened, I still think it's sad that no one in this thread so far has mentioned the fact that 2 young boys lost their mother and the world lost someone with the influence and backing to make a rare, positive difference.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

agreed. but then I also concede I may not know the full story, if at all there is one, therefore I do not know what motives or reasonings may have been applied. perhaps it was simply opportunistic for reasons such as someone in power with something to hide who didn't want her putting her nose in? who knows what she or her efforts may have uncovered in terms of what was going on with aid transfers in the third world, where a lot of her good work was carried out? or maybe she was planning to present information publicly that would have changed world views on someone or something which would have had a major effect on something big?

We may not know the full story but we've had 3 major investigations and numerous smaller ones, all coming back to the same conclusion. Reasonable doubt and all that?

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

but yes, all in all, I believe it was an accident. regardless of why, how or what happened, I still think it's sad that no one in this thread so far has mentioned the fact that 2 young boys lost their mother and the world lost someone with the influence and backing to make a rare, positive difference.

I think that's because the thread is about an apparent revelation about how she died, not about who she left behind.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Russ

We may not know the full story but we've had 3 major investigations and numerous smaller ones, all coming back to the same conclusion. Reasonable doubt and all that?

well, like i said....

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

an official verdict still does not mean fact 100% of the time. if there is any room for doubt, we must not dismiss other options - however to progress, we must assume one opinion or another, thus we accept the 'most likely' according to the evidence presented to us.

Originally Posted by Russ

I think that's because the thread is about an apparent revelation about how she died, not about who she left behind.

true. I still think it's a little sad that 'revelations' become more prevalent and important than the upset it can cause as a result of them.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

I still think it's a little sad that 'revelations' become more prevalent and important than the upset it can cause as a result of them.

It's not that at all, what you're talking about (whilst a valid subject) would be pretty much a different topic. If revelations had come out about how the boys were treated, dealt with etc regarding her death then yes you'd have a point. Whilst I'm sure William and Harry won't be pleased about it they are both fully grown men now.

Originally Posted by Stephen

Make up your mind. Earlier you posted the following in response to my desription of the accident.

So what is it to be. For me stating what I believe to have happened, you claimed I need to be an eye witness yet now you state it doesn't need to be witnessed to have taken place?

If there was a plot to bump someone off then in a tunnel in a busy City is probably not the best way to go about it. As mentioned by Derek then an accident in the country would be a far better plan as there would be next to no witnesses or near by hospitals in case the collision didn't actually kill the intended victim(s).

misrepresentation
you said

It was a tragic incident cause in part by the paparazi and a driver that had a few drinks.

It really is/was as simple as that!

you did not say you believe it happened you said it is/was. If you was to have said you believe it was then you would have a point but you did not so you do not

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Russ

It's not that at all, what you're talking about (whilst a valid subject) would be pretty much a different topic. If revelations had come out about how the boys were treated, dealt with etc regarding her death then yes you'd have a point. Whilst I'm sure William and Harry won't be pleased about it they are both fully grown men now.

fair point - yes it would be another topic.

---------- Post added at 15:26 ---------- Previous post was at 15:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Stephen

If there was a plot to bump someone off then in a tunnel in a busy City is probably not the best way to go about it. As mentioned by Derek then an accident in the country would be a far better plan as there would be next to no witnesses or near by hospitals in case the collision didn't actually kill the intended victim(s).

perhaps the 'plot' wasn't necessarily to kill, but to 'send a message', but it went wrong...? there are so many different questions and options open that we realistically, as members of the public who are in no way able to get ALL the information on this case, able to certifiably guarantee that what we have been told is the whole fact of the matter.

to believe we do get told absolutely everything about absolutely everything is naive in my opinion. we can certainly make a personal judgement and create our own beliefs on any given topic, but these will always be built on the information provided or available to us. I think this is what Tizmeinnit is trying to get at. just because you have been told something does not mean it contains the facts, either as a whole, nor in part. He is not necessarily trying to say something underhand IS at play, but that we cannot definitely say there ISN'T. the point is, we simply do not know. however, we can form our own opinion and beliefs but should allow for the possibility that other conclusions, although not always likely, are still plausible. (apologies to Tizmeinnit if this isn't what you mean!)

[Russ]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

to believe we do get told absolutely everything about absolutely everything is naive in my opinion.

I think there's quite a difference between not believing everything we're told - which is fair enough - and refusing to accept the findings of multiple investigations, with zero evidence to back it up with.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Russ

I think there's quite a difference between not believing everything we're told - which is fair enough - and refusing to accept the findings of multiple investigations, with zero evidence to back it up with.

yes, which is why I said earlier if there is any room for doubt, we must not dismiss other options - however to progress, we must assume one opinion or another, thus we accept the 'most likely' according to the evidence presented to us. things cannot remain unresolved for ever. we may not like it, we may not believe it, the conclusion may not even be the facts, but we have to get on with it. we can, however, still hold onto that bit of doubt and continue to question. that in itself is no bad thing. how we hold onto it and how we question it is another story.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Lets look at it this way. Someone in high government take orders off the royal family, as it is stated in the media today - not one, but several papers, have said that they have a letter from a soldier.

It is claimed an SAS officer killed Diana, that order only comes from high office.

I still believe she was murdered, to stop her getting married to Dodi.

[Russ]

What if the letter was written by David Cameron, would you believe it then?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Lets look at it this way. Someone in high government take orders off the royal family, as it is stated in the media today - not one, but several papers, have said that they have a letter from a soldier

Except they don't. What they have is a letter from the EX parents in law of a soldier.