• 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?

Andy_Ross said:
So the absence of evidence is the evidence?
Click to expand...
It is not possible to prove a negative so the whole thing is on a sticky wicket from the outset. But neither does it prove the whole thing was innocent. Certainly, Prince Harry himself, who will have background insider information, states there is a lot that is unexplained.
 
Vixen said:
We could perhaps consider the Mohammed Fayed aspect of it. Despite living in England for over fifty years and owning Harrods and was it Fulham FC, [iirc]? he was repeatedly refused British citizenship. Clearly, when vetted he was deemed dodgy and a persona non grata. Then there was his 'playboy' son trying to charm the future King's mum into marriage. Some sniffy courtier might have thought this most unsuitable and improper.

<shrug> Who knows.
Click to expand...
Embarrassing the royal family is not a constitutional crisis.
 
Vixen said:
I haven't said there was an assassination. But if there was, yes, it would have been arranged with their involvement.
Click to expand...
Does the manner of her of death help you decide how plaudible or not it was to be an assassination?

On a scale from (1) struck by lightning while standing on a bare hilltop in a thunderstorm to (10) shot in the back of her head with her ex-husband standing behind her holding the smoking murder weapon and yelling that he'd done it, where do you think this fits?
 
If the people on this forum were prosecutors, they'd never convict anyone. On the grounds that they didn't personally see the defendant murder his wife in front of the jury. "Your Honor, he didn't do it in the courtroom, in front of my eyes, so how do I know he did it?"

Murder convictions have occurred, even when the prosecution is lacking a motive, a murder weapon and in some cases even a body.
 
BartholomewWest said:
If the people on this forum were prosecutors, they'd never convict anyone. On the grounds that they didn't personally see the defendant murder his wife in front of the jury. "Your Honor, he didn't do it in the courtroom, in front of my eyes, so how do I know he did it?"

Murder convictions have occurred, even when the prosecution is lacking a motive, a murder weapon and in some cases even a body.
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have that there was a plot to murder Diana?
 
So, let me get this straight: Andrew was obviously sent to the Falklands to fly helicopters in order to get shot down and avoid all that unpleasantness with Epstein, 'cos Brenda had a time machine; Harry was sent to Afghanistan to get shot and avoid all that unpleasantness with Markle and arguments with his bro, again 'cos of that time machine; and I cannot believe that anyone would dispute this, as it would so obviously have saved the Royals a whole heap of embarassment, aka a constitutional crisis, and there isn't any evidence that this happened, so it must be true because that is itself evidence of a cover up and the inconvenient facts that neitherr Andrew nor Harry got shot just shows that the plot was incompetent.

Is that it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom