• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

BartholomewWest said:

Affidavit of Richard Tomlinson | The Truthseeker

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk www.thetruthseeker.co.uk
Click to expand...
What exactly is that meant to prove?

Also, one of the regular correspondents on that site is Christopher Bollyn, the neo-nazi 9/11 truther.

Another is the absolute moron Gonzalo Lira, who regularly pontificates on stuff he knows less than nothing about.

You've also got Paul Craig Roberts who described Holocaust denier David Irving as one of the best historians on WWII.

Oh! There's also Gilad Atzmon who has suggested that blood libel is a real thing and that Hitler might well have been right in his persecution of the Jews and has circulated Holocaust denial.
 
Vixen said:
The simplest answer is that he was in the pay of Fayed or even the French secret services, given the type of high status characters passing through the Paris Ritz. Tips? He was not a low grade bellboy hauling luggage to rooms.
Click to expand...
He was an employee at Fayeds hotel. He was literally in the pay of Fayed. His job gave him mutually useful access to rich people.

Why do you imagine he got rich off payments from some spy agency rather than from the super-rich people he ran errands for? Do you think spies are rich?


I had a flatmate who was a maternity nurse in central London. She was quite open about how they all prized getting the chance to nurse wealthy middle-eastern mothers because, all being well, the father would feel culturally obligated to give them expensive gifts, like jewellery or gold watches.
 
Vixen said:
Could have been a papparazza. There is a lot of money to be earnt from that type of pap. "Di and Dodi", just newly engaged - supposedly - and what have you. There was paintwork scraped on the Merc which was used to identify what type of vehicle had swerved into it.
Click to expand...
Paint transfer would show what type of vehicle may have been in collision with the big Mercedes. It would not show that the other car swerved into the Merc, or vice versa for that matter. That detail is completely imaginary.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Also further reading that article indicates that he walked back his own nonsense later:

"At the Coroner's Inquest into the death of the Princess, on 13 February 2008, speaking by video-link from France, Tomlinson conceded that, after the interval of 16 or 17 years, he "could not remember specifically" whether the document he had seen during 1992 had in fact proposed the use of a strobe light to cause a traffic accident as a means of assassinating Milošević, although use of lights for this purpose had been covered in his MI6 training. On being told that no MI6 file on Henri Paul had been found, Tomlinson said that it "would be absurd after 17 years to say I can positively disagree with it, but... I do not think the fact that they did not manage to find a file rules out anything either". He said he believed MI6 had an informant at the Paris Ritz but he could not be certain that this person was necessarily Henri Paul."

So absolutely no evidence for any of his nonsense at all.



In what universe is that the simplest answer?
Click to expand...
An 'informant' for MI6 would indeed be called an 'agent'
 
As a crowd sourced reference Wikipedia is pretty good, but articles can vary greatly in quality, that one on Richard Tomlinson seems pretty bad, for example, one part jumped out at me so I followed up the 'supporting' article.

The book detailed various aspects of MI6 operations, alleging that it employed a mole in the German Bundesbank and that it held a "license to kill", the latter later confirmed by the head of MI6 at a public hearing
Click to expand...

Following the reference takes you to a Spectator article, which doesn't even mention the Bundesbank, making the idea that the article confirmed that the mole there had a "license to kill" obviously false, but the article itself doesn't say that ANYONE has a "license to kill" rather that -:

[H]e admitted that, under the Intelligence Services Act, agents were allowed to conduct illegal activities - such as breaking and entering and planting bugs - in the interests of national security.
To do so, he revealed, they had to seek the written permission of the Foreign Secretary for a "Class Seven authorisation".

Sir Richard confirmed that this included using "lethal force" but insisted - to the clear disbelief of some in the public gallery - that this had never happened during his career in the service and "played no part in the policy of Her Majesty's government".
Click to expand...

That's like trying to tell the traffic police that contrary to their information and your inability to produce it, you actually do have a driving license because if you applied for it and demonstrated that you fulfilled the necessary criteria you would be issued one.
 
BartholomewWest said:
Confirmation bias doesn't apply here at all.
Click to expand...
This alone should cause you to reflect. Anyone who utters an absolute statement like this is out of touch. Here, try something like this next time...

Not BartholomewWest said:
I dont think this is true but I realize it's a possibility and I'll try to be mindful.
Click to expand...
 
BartholomewWest said:
...Cameras do mysteriously fail to function when famous people die.

To be honest, I have no idea how you are even disputing this. This is information you can just Google.
Click to expand...
We did, and posted it. No cameras were even reported to have failed to function in Diana's crash. It's a lie. And you are spreading it. Knowingly, and willfully, or vacuously.
 
zooterkin said:
You were claiming the crash was caused deliberately. Are you saying a paparazzo caused the crash on purpose? If not, why are you changing the subject?

Also, 'papparazza'; were you trying to suggest the driver was female, or what?
Click to expand...

Citation please of where I claimed the crash was caused deliberately.


Could it be you are wrong (yet again)?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
He was an employee at Fayeds hotel. He was literally in the pay of Fayed. His job gave him mutually useful access to rich people.

Why do you imagine he got rich off payments from some spy agency rather than from the super-rich people he ran errands for? Do you think spies are rich?


I had a flatmate who was a maternity nurse in central London. She was quite open about how they all prized getting the chance to nurse wealthy middle-eastern mothers because, all being well, the father would feel culturally obligated to give them expensive gifts, like jewellery or gold watches.
Click to expand...

I read it in the News of the World (re about how Henri received regular large sums of money into his bank account). Who knows what the money was for. Perhaps he was a drug dealer or an arms dealer. However given he worked at the Ritz in Paris - great place for an operative to work undercover, is it not...? Especially if he was a relative of rich oil barons from Saudi Arabia (accoriding to Bartholomewwest).

ETA Bear in mind what was £8K in 1997 is nearer £10K if we assume compound inflation of 2% pa. £10K per calendar month deposited into your account in addition to your salary is obviously not 'a tip from a rich Arab staying at the Ritz'.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Citation please of where I claimed the crash was caused deliberately.


Could it be you are wrong (yet again)?
Click to expand...
In fairness to Vixen I don't believe she has said it was caused deliberately. I don't agree with her suppositions on MI5 and what-have-you but she's not, to the best of my recollection, claimed this was a hit or that the crash was deliberate.
 
Vixen said:
I read it in the News of the World (re about how Henri received regular large sums of money into his bank account). Who knows what the money was for. Perhaps he was a drug dealer or an arms dealer. However given he worked at the Ritz in Paris - great place for an operative to work undercover, is it not...? Especially if he was a relative of rich oil barons from Saudi Arabia (accoriding to Bartholomewwest).
Click to expand...
It's not clear to me whether these large sums (was it 8,000 3 months in a row?) were cash deposits by Paul himself or payments from someone else. If they were considered potentially suspicious* then I'd expect the authorities to have follow up who paid them unless it was cash deposited by Paul himself.

I'm sure his job would have been an ideal position for a bit of drug dealing or pimping to wealthy clients, which would explain large amounts of cash. I'm less convinced the pampered guests at the Paris Ritz often find they have a craving for weapons. I'm not sure what lucrative thing he might have done as an "undercover operative". That sounds rather like a movie playing in your head, I'm afraid.

I've already asked but let's try again: Do you suppose that spies are especially highly paid?

* I vaguely remember there's a threshold amount where banks report on large cash payments or transfers. Might be $10,000 in the US, that sort of amount. If he was depositing multiple sums a bit less than that it might well be to avoid attracting attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom