Ed Does anyone here believe that Princess Diana's car crash was suspicious?

[Cosmic Yak]

Literally everything you said is just false. I already HAVE heard both the official story and the unofficial one.

A classic conspiracist term. What is the "official story"? Which government official created it, and which released it?

I've already heard both sides of this! I already know the "full picture." As I said, I used to (ironically) be the person arguing FOR the official story. I already questioned this multiple times. I am NOT being brainwashed at all.

Yet you display an almost total lack of knowledge of any of the facts of the numerous incidents about which you believe conspiracy theories. Why is this?

A witness later committing suicide is evidence.

No. It is a witness committing suicide. Unless you can show that this was in some way not a suicide, or whatever it is you are claiming, then it will remain just that. Any interpretation you are putting on this incident is your own cognitive bias, nothing more- unless you can provide evidence.

Cameras failing to work is evidence. Previous attempts to mess with the Lover Boys and humiliate them is evidence. A history of surveillance upon Diana and these dudes is evidence.

All of these, too, are the same thing.
Unless you can show that these were in some way the result of malign actors, or whatever it is you are claiming, then they will remain just that. Any interpretation you are putting on these incidents is your own cognitive bias, nothing more- unless you can provide evidence.

It doesn't make me feel better AT ALL. I wish it weren't true.

No. It is a character trait of conspiracy theorists that believing that major events are not random, but are being orchestrated and controlled from behind the scenes. This provides a source of comfort- it's better, in this view, than accepting that chaos exists, and that sometimes bad things just happen. I strongly suspect you are included in this category.

Eta: Even mainstream papers said "What!? No!" at the idea that the driver was a suicidal drunk.

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/21/world/to-those-who-knew-diana-s-driver-his-actions-are-an-unsettling-puzzle.html

Paywalled.
So far, all you have are suspicions, fuelled by paranoia. Sorry, but that's how it looks. If you want to convince anyone here, you need more than 'it looks fishy to me'. You need evidence. Do you have any?

 

[BartholomewWest]

The old 'I used to believe BUT...' we have heard all so many times before here from conspiracy believers....
Put forward the EVIDENCE- not your assertions....

You are the one making the claims, up to you to provide the evidence...

But that's exactly what happened. I never, ever believed this stuff. I would mock the people who believed it.

Take the driver, Henri Paul. First, they said he was suicidal cause a woman (a single mother, IIRC) had dumped him. Then they said that wasn't true. Then he was supposedly an alcoholic. Then he supposedly wasn't. Then he was depressed and taking Prozac. Then he supposedly wasn't. Then they supposedly found carbon monoxide in his lungs and blood, enough to kill a man. Then they said the gas was from the airbags and the tobacco. Then they said there was no gas in the airbags. Then they said the samples were from his corpse. Then, it was possibly from a different corpse, that of a different suicide victim.

Paul blood samples 'could have been cooked'

Clinical pharmacologist tells inquest one of the blood samples appearing to show chauffeur had drunk alcohol was probably not his

www.theguardian.com

Then they said he was dead broke and begging his parents for money. Then they said he had 15 different bank accounts, with a million francs secretly stashed away. A really rich guy. They said the money was "from tips at the hotel", even though guests tipped him 100 at best, then they said he was a secret agent and a spy and had earned the money that way. Someone claimed to have seen his file, even, and then that was challenged, too. They said he was spying on Al-Fayed and then they said he wasn't. Then they said it was actually the British bodyguards that were spies (but spying on Diana for Charles.) Then they said the paparazzi were possibly spies.

They couldn't agree on the speed of the car, either. At first, it was reported as 125 mph. Then 100 mph. Then less than that.

I still can't wrap my mind around it. It's a really confusing story, with lots of twists and turns.

 

[BartholomewWest]

The plot thickens even more. Now they say Henri was a spy....but he wasn't spying on Diana or the Fayeds. Just on the hotel guests in general.

Diana inquest: 'Henri Paul worked for French secret service'

Death crash: Driver Henri Paul had strong links to French police

www.standard.co.uk

 

[Puppycow]

Yeah- when you are banging another officer's wife!

Excuse me, but I served in the military and was posted overseas, and I never banged anyone's wife (save my own).

Come on dude, are you just going to ignore the fact that your original claim (that he was "deported") was proven wrong and move the goalposts? Overseas postings are par for the course when you serve in the military. It's probably more rare if you have a military career where you never get posted overseas (at least in the US and UK).

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I still can't wrap my mind around it. It's a really confusing story, with lots of twists and turns.

Which is exactly why you need to learn critical thinking skills.
For example: "They said". Who is "they"? By looking at the sources of this information, you can get an idea of how trustworthy they are. Tabloid newspapers are not trustworthy. Moreover, initial reporting of any major event is inevitably going to be patchy. The full facts take time to come out, but the public wants answers now, so the papers will publish speculation, unfounded rumours and unverifiable "sources". Details of any police investigation are-rightly- kept confidential while that investigation is ongoing. There are many valid reasons why what is reported changes over time. None of them point to a conspiracy. Learn how to fact-check, learn how your own biases (which we all have) hamper your efforts to evaluate evidence properly. That way, your confusion will diminish.

 

[BartholomewWest]

Excuse me, but I served in the military and was posted overseas, and I never banged anyone's wife (save my own).

Come on dude, are you just going to ignore the fact that your original claim (that he was "deported") was proven wrong and move the goalposts? Overseas postings are par for the course when you serve in the military. It's probably more rare if you have a military career where you never get posted overseas (at least in the US and UK).

It wasn't proven wrong. At all. Everyone on the face of the planet assumed Hewitt was sent to Germany to get him away from Diana.

Except for members of this forum. And Hewitt.

 

[BartholomewWest]

Which is exactly why you need to learn critical thinking skills.
For example: "They said". Who is "they"? By looking at the sources of this information, you can get an idea of how trustworthy they are. Tabloid newspapers are not trustworthy. Moreover, initial reporting of any major event is inevitably going to be patchy.
That way, your confusion will diminish.

I am not confused because I'm biased. I am confused because this whole thing makes literally zero sense. This story gets REALLY convoluted. It's an incredibly confusing story to follow.

Also, the witnesses would constantly make contradictory remarks. The driver's parents said he had zero money- but other people said he had a fortune tucked away. That's just one example.

An odd detail. The driver was one of 5 kids. Somehow, 3 of his brothers ALSO died prematurely.

Another odd detail. You won't believe who Dodi's cousin was. It was Jamal Khashoggi.

Who died in a different incident in which "all of the cameras failed."

 

[BartholomewWest]

Another thing. It's true that when reporters initially report on an event, they will get it wrong. That the first draft of history is often incorrect.

However, with the passage of time, this already murky story has gotten even murkier! Even more twists and turns pile on and each one is more bizarre than the next.

Like, at one point, the NSA revealed that they were spying on Diana but wouldn't say why and wouldn't release the documents.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I am not confused because I'm biased. I am confused because this whole thing makes literally zero sense. This story gets REALLY convoluted. It's an incredibly confusing story to follow.

No. You are biased. We are all biased. It's part of human nature.

Also, the witnesses would constantly make contradictory remarks. The driver's parents said he had zero money- but other people said he had a fortune tucked away. That's just one example.

So let's see where this came from, then. That way, perhaps we can find out why there was a contradiction. Can you link to the sources of these statements?

An odd detail. The driver was one of 5 kids. Somehow, 3 of his brothers ALSO died prematurely.

One of cancer, another of a heart attack. Can't immediately find out anything about the third. A tragedy for the family, to be sure, but if you are going to attach some sinister significance to this, then you need to back that up with actual evidence, not dot-connecting speculation.

Another odd detail. You won't believe who Dodi's cousin was. It was Jamal Khashoggi.

Who died in a different incident in which "all of the cameras failed."

Citation needed for this claim about the cameras. And it wasn't an "incident": it was an assassination. This could be an instructive example for you. How do we know that Khashoggi was murdered? What do we know about this case? Now compare the amount of evidence inculpating the Saudis with the quality and amount of evidence that Diana was murdered. Are they the same? Think about it.

 

[zooterkin]

The plot thickens even more. Now they say Henri was a spy....but he wasn't spying on Diana or the Fayeds. Just on the hotel guests in general.

Diana inquest: 'Henri Paul worked for French secret service'

Death crash: Driver Henri Paul had strong links to French police

www.standard.co.uk

"Now"? Are you in a time warp? That article is from 2012.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

The plot thickens even more. Now they say Henri was a spy....but he wasn't spying on Diana or the Fayeds. Just on the hotel guests in general.

Diana inquest: 'Henri Paul worked for French secret service'

Death crash: Driver Henri Paul had strong links to French police

www.standard.co.uk

He wasn't a spy. He was the head of security at the Ritz in Paris. His job meant that he sometimes had to liaise with the police regarding the movements of imprtant guests. I see nothing remotely sinister here.
What significance do you see in this detail? How is it a part of a plot?
https://spyscape.com/article/the-french-connection-spy-secrets-of-princess-diana-driver-henri-paul

 

[Carrot Flower King]

I do so love it when someone who lives in country A, who demonstrates thoroughly that they have no working knowledge of the history, politics and institutions of country B, proceeds to lecture natives of country B about their country and said history, politics and institutions.

It must be far easier to absorb a pile of nonsense than to read some actual decent history and the rest.

I mean, someone will be along to tell me that Martin Sheen was never Pres of Merkinania next and that Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford didn't assassinate Nixon or somesuch...

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Another thing. It's true that when reporters initially report on an event, they will get it wrong. That the first draft of history is often incorrect.

However, with the passage of time, this already murky story has gotten even murkier! Even more twists and turns pile on and each one is more bizarre than the next.

Like, at one point, the NSA revealed that they were spying on Diana but wouldn't say why and wouldn't release the documents.

Completely untrue. They weren't spying on her at all. They had some documents that mentioned her name. These documents were released to the public.
You really, really, really, really need to learn about critical thinking.

AP

newsroom.ap.org

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Didn't 10 or 14 traffic cameras mysteriously "malfunction" that day in Paris? That alone makes me wonder.

Did they? Or is this another "bugged from top to bottom" tall tale?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

they only seem to break down when a celebrity is killed.

Ah. You keep a constant record of the condition of the Paris traffic cameras, so you can confirm they only seem to break down when a celebrity is killed.

 

[Darat]

Drunk driver has an accident. Sadly, nothing at all unusual.

 

[Darat]

It's pretty laughable to think that the head of the country and the head of the military WOULDN'T have influence in the military!

Admittedly, he doesn't run the government itself, except in a symbolic way-
but he's literally the head of the armed forces!
In what way is the clan that ruled for 800 years "newcomers" !?

No - it is not the USA where the POTUS is the C-in-C. Plus of course he wasn't king back then, so it is doubly wrong.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Drunk driver has an accident. Sadly, nothing at all unusual.

Yep. All occupants not wearing seatbelts died. One wearing their seatbelt survived. Not at all a guaranteed result, but unsuspicious.

But let's imagine it was some sort of assassination: How did it work? The car was being driven by the Paris Ritz hotel's security guy. He'd had a drink and was speeding. He didn't put on his seatbelt, which might have saved him.

How did 'they' cause him to crash in the manner and place where he did?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Did they? Or is this another "bugged from top to bottom" tall tale?

Like all conspiracy theories, it has to keep growing

 

[Carrot Flower King]

It's pretty laughable to think that the head of the country and the head of the military WOULDN'T have influence in the military!

Admittedly, he doesn't run the government itself, except in a symbolic way- but he's literally the head of the armed forces!

In what way is the clan that ruled for 800 years "newcomers" !?

As already addressed: Chucky wasn't any of "head of the country" or "head of the military" or "literally the head of the armed forces" at the time in question; the same "clan" has not "ruled for 800 years".

The regimental colonel of the Life Guards at the time in question was Major-General Lord Michael Fitzalan-Howard, the younger brother of the 17th Duke of Norfolk, a family of English aristocracy far older than upstart newcomers like the Saxe-Coburg Gothas.

FFS, our local robber baron descendants, the Percies (y'know, Harry Hotspur in several Shakespeare plays was one), not to mention others like the Nevilles and Tankervilles, have been around the English scene far, far longer than the Saxe-Coburg Gotha/Windsors or the Hanoverians.

Seriously, try learning some basics of history.