unlawful killing- on the death of Princess Diana

reply to post by tpg65

You state that there is no conspiracy/ cover up .

Either offer some proof or go back to your nice cosy little cell

I say there is no evidence of a conspiracy, you say there is, why is it on me to prove a negative?

Nevertheless, as I have already said, there have been three official investigations into the death of Diana, one by a foreign nation and one including scrutiny by a jury and none concluded that there was any reason to believe that Diana had been murdered. There is your proof, your turn.

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by tpg65

 

You state that there is no conspiracy/ cover up .

Either offer some proof or go back to your nice cosy little cell

I say there is no evidence of a conspiracy, you say there is, why is it on me to prove a negative?

Nevertheless, as I have already said, there have been three official investigations into the death of Diana, one by a foreign nation and one including scrutiny by a jury and none concluded that there was any reason to believe that Diana had been murdered. There is your proof, your turn.

I'm sorry , but just to state the findings of "official Investigations" offers little proof.

I was asking for proof of your credentials .

reply to post by tpg65

I'm sorry , but just to state the findings of "official Investigations" offers little proof.

Why? They more than adequately answer the claims of the conspiracy theorists.

What would you consider to be proof for the statement “there is no evidence”?

And again, why is it on me to prove my opinion but yours can be taken as fact?

I was asking for proof of your credentials .

Then you’re a fool that needs to look up the definition of the word facetious.

is mike_A the name used by queen elisabeth? gotcha!
anyway, if you don't take proof, there is nothing behind your words....

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by tpg65

 

I'm sorry , but just to state the findings of "official Investigations" offers little proof.

Why? They more than adequately answer the claims of the conspiracy theorists.

What would you consider to be proof for the statement “there is no evidence”?

And again, why is it on me to prove my opinion but yours can be taken as fact?

I was asking for proof of your credentials .

Then you’re a fool that needs to look up the definition of the word facetious.

And you are obviously a huge mammary gland .

Now we have established your credentials ( none ) , it may be a good time for you to go and troll elsewhere.

Peace

The term is called "sacrafice".

It has been known that we are just energy and our bodies are just containers.

Sacrafices have been going on for eons, what is new with this one?

reply to post by tpg65

it may be a good time for you to go and troll elsewhere.

You came into this thread with support for the film and gave your opinion that if you “fook” with the Windsors you might end up dead; when I gave my equally valid opinion that the film was an exploitation of Diana’s death and that the conspiracy theories held no merit you came back with the arrogant and dismissive command “do some research” and then called me pompous and blinkered.

You have asked for proof to back up my opinion and I have given it whether you agree with it or not, I’ve asked you to back up your opinion and you’ve given nothing, I’ve asked you what is wrong with my proof and you have failed to answer, I have asked what you would consider proof and you have not replied.

If anyone in this thread is a troll, it the arrogant little # who seems to think that anyone with an opinion that diverges from his own must prostrate themselves before him with offerings of proof while his own word is to be taken as that of an internet god, infallible and eternal. That’s you by the way.

Now please, tell me what is wrong with the three investigations, tell me what you would consider proof if not these investigations and tell me what evidence you think there is in favour of a conspiracy; then we can have a discussion. Otherwise, please just # off. I’d strongly recommend the latter.

i come from a land where investigations means nothing, judges can be paid, and killers are never found: italy. so you say: there have been investigations. so what?
just useless blabbering, words with nothing behind.

The documentary looks promising. I think there are a lot of questions concerning her "accidental death" and the fallout that will remain unanswered for years, if not decades, to come. I find it pertinent that the trailer notes "...the entire world witnessed her death" and that's exactly how the criminal elite or TPTB operate, that is, to hide the truth in plain sight from the JFK assassination to the 9/11 conspiracy. It adds to "cognitive dissonance" in the audience by doing the deed right in front of their eyes while at the same time telling them something else actually happened.

reply to post by mutante


The UK isn’t Italy, nor is the UK the only place where this was investigated, France also conducted an investigation as I have already pointed out; both of these nations are nowhere near as corrupt as Italy. Transparency International rates the UK as 7.6 and France as 6.8 (where 10 is totally clean and 0 is totally corrupt), Italy is rated as 3.9.

More over the conclusions and in most cases the evidence is open to public scrutiny.

I’ve read these reports and the conclusions seem reasonable to me. For there to be a conspiracy they would have to have a hell of a lot of people in their back pocket including jury members, witnesses, employees of both Diana and Al Fayed and even Diana’s close friends and family members. It is also a fact that Al Fayed has paid some of his own employees to lie to the media; making the claim that Dodi and Diana were looking to decorate a baby room in a new villa, this was exposed by one of Al Fayed’s own employees and backed up with CCTV footage; that certainly doesn't incline me to take him seriously.

If the above is just useless babbling then please come up with your own argument in favour of the conspiracy or give solid reasons why the conclusions of these investigations are incorrect.

If we’re going to give credence to conspiracy theories then why just target the Royals? How do you know that Dodi and Diana weren’t killed by Al Fayed? Maybe it was an honour killing, perhaps Al Fayed couldn’t stand the thought of his son marrying and having a child with a non muslim and now his constant attacks on the Royals is his way of deflecting the blame? It’s not like he doesn’t have the resources to do it, he has a motive, and like I said he’s already been caught lying. Or maybe it was an accident or whatever.

Unlawful Killing - The film the British won't get to see.

Interesting article written by the guy who did the film.

Long before the inquest started, the eminently sane Mansfield had persuaded me that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the crash, and signs of a cover-up by the authorities. Many journalists agreed, but as the inquest drew near, I noticed that British newspapers (several of which had regularly run "Was Diana Murdered?" pieces) suddenly fell into line, and started insisting that the inquest was a waste of time. They raised no protest when virtually all the key French witnesses refused to participate, nor did they find it odd that not one senior royal was ordered to appear, even though Diana had stated in a lawyer's note that the Windsors were planning an "accident" to her car. Nor did they raise the issue of possible bias when legal proceedings involving the integrity of the royal family were to be heard in the royal courts of justice before a coroner who'd sworn an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

Strangest of all was the media coverage of the verdict. Inquest evidence showed conclusively that the crash was caused by an unidentified white Fiat Uno and several unidentified motorcycles, vehicles that were certainly not paparazzi, because uncontested police evidence confirmed that the paparazzi were nowhere near the tunnel at the time of the crash. The jury understood this, bringing in a verdict of "unlawful killing" by unidentified "following vehicles"; yet within seconds, the BBC was misreporting that the jury had blamed the paparazzi, and the rest of the media meekly followed suit. Which is why – three years on – barely anyone realises what the jury's troubling verdict really was.

I just came across this. Thanks for posting, its def gonna be something that I will be watching. It will be interesting to see what evidence they have dug up.

The fact I cant get a copy of this film makes me want to see this film. Ive been searching the web to see where I could buy a copy but I cant even find "where I cant buy it from" (Im in the UK where it is banned) ...... has anyone seen the film? Was it worth watching?

My suspicion is that one of the "following vehicles" that the jury concluded caused Dodi's Mercedes to crash was the white Fiat Uno owned by paparazzo James Andanson,
www.onlinepublishingcompany.info...
who years later bragged to friends at dinner parties that he had been in the Alma tunnel that night (there is a video on YouTube investigating the crash that has the widow of one of Andanson's friends saying this:
www.youtube.com...=102
The person who took this photo:
blog.nationmultimedia.com...
IN FRONT OF the Mercedes has never been traced. I suspect it was someone with a powerful flashgun being driven by Andanson in his car, which overtook and finally bumped the Mercedes, causing reported damage and leaving white car paint and shards of a Fiat Uno tail light.
www.youtube.com...=102
Andanson's charred corpse was found in his locked, burnt-out car by fireman Christophe Pelat, who said that he spotted two bullet holes in Andanson's head.
www.express.co.uk...
He was of course never called to the inquest (in fact the French police still call Andanson's death "suicide", a conclusion that his wife regards as laughable). This is because a proven murder of the driver of the car suspected by some (including French Special Branch) to have been involved in the death of Diana would have blown open the case. What looked like an intelligence dossier on Andanson archived in a magazine (no longer available) said that a Yugoslav agent, code-named "T", assassinated Andanson:
dianaunlawfullkilling.blogspot.co.uk...
The crucial passage, badly translated by Google, is:

"According to the confidential report ¹ d ³ a kind of group studies ² ¹, formed after the death of Andanson ¹ by friends that the photographer was able to do in an Anglo-Saxon ¹ d investigative and security services near the British photographer has been murdered by a man Peaceful Yugoslav ¹, T. .., usually operating under the pseudonym d ¹ a large family of French nobility, also known to the singer Amanda Lear."
Now sceptics may argue that Andanson's murder might have had nothing to do with Diana because he knew many secrets involving politicians and celebrities that the French police and intelligence agencies shared with him. On the other hand, his wife said that he had started to brag about being in the tunnel on the night of Diana's death. He is suspected by some as having spied for MI6 as a freelance photographer. It looks like he had become a loose cannon who had to be silenced....