• 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?

Vixen said:
That's because you are treating it as a right-first-time incident. It could have been the 99th attempt, for all you know. It didn't even have to be a tunnel, it could be anywhere a car can be swerved off the road and into a solid unyielding structure. Anyway, this is moving into the realms of 'what-if'.
Click to expand...
Glitch in the matrix causing double post.
 
Vixen said:
That's because you are treating it as a right-first-time incident. It could have been the 99th attempt, for all you know. It didn't even have to be a tunnel, it could be anywhere a car can be swerved off the road and into a solid unyielding structure. Anyway, this is moving into the realms of 'what-if'.
Click to expand...
Not one syllable did I understand of this.
 
Vixen said:
That's because you are treating it as a right-first-time incident. It could have been the 99th attempt, for all you know. It didn't even have to be a tunnel, it could be anywhere a car can be swerved off the road and into a solid unyielding structure. Anyway, this is moving into the realms of 'what-if'.
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have of the previous attempts?
 
Thermal said:
Not one syllable did I understand of this.
Click to expand...
Imagine a Roadrunner cartoon, where Diana is the Roadrunner, Charles is Wile E Coyote and MI5 are Acme.

We just don't know how many previous times Charles plunged into a canyon with a giant boulder tumbling after him. He only needed to get lucky once.

Are we entirely sure the "tunnel" wasn't a black circle stuck onto a solid wall?
 
Thermal said:
Sidebar (as if the thread is anything else), but MM&O is a misleading criteria. You need to show a suspect has all three, but having all three doesn't make you a suspect. It just means it is possible that you did it. Lacking opportunity could rule you out, say, if you were not in the area when it was committed.

{ETA: like, you could say a cop has as much MM&O as any given suspect in a murder. Motive: he's a cop, and a psychopath by nature. Means: lots of weapons and techniques. Opportunity: just needs to be on patrol alone when it happened}

Motive is the most slippery. You could commit your crime with no actual motive other than you wanted to, yet you could have a damnn good motive but be morally impervious to the temptation. Means, well, most people could have the means to commit a lot of crimes. Opportunity can be entirely unrelated to the crime, if you happened to be around, like others were.

Even better, just the "how". Creating a single car crash with targeted fatalities is a ridiculous gamble at best.
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact, though a good prosecutor will try to show some motive for a crime so the jury can get a full picture of it, it's not required in US law. So BW is basing his whole "prosecution" on an element that's not necessary and ignoring the actual elements (means and opportunity- the "how") that are. That might be good enough for him and the average CTist (and I'd argue that, based on what I've read here, he's not even that), but he'd certainly never convince any half-bright jury to convict anybody of anything.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
Imagine a Roadrunner cartoon, where Diana is the Roadrunner, Charles is Wile E Coyote and MI5 are Acme.

We just don't know how many previous times Charles plunged into a canyon with a giant boulder tumbling after him. He only needed to get lucky once.

Are we entirely sure the "tunnel" wasn't a black circle stuck onto a solid wall?
Click to expand...
Yeah...I get that part. I guess where I'm getting lost is how you attempt multiple brazen public executions and... no one notices?

Actually I'm still not clear on Chucky's motive. Why does he want to kill his ex-wife again? People divorce all the time and it's pretty much casual. Especially if you have ample financial means to go about your life. I mean, maybe I have this Royals stuff all wrong, but I thought Diana was like...an acquisition, more than some intense all-consuming passion that Charles would murder over?

Then again, I don't know exactly what Wile E wants with the RR either. He could just order take out, what with his apparently endless credit line at Acme.
 
Thermal said:
Yeah...I get that part. I guess where I'm getting lost is how you attempt multiple brazen public executions and... no one notices?
Click to expand...
I'll bet it was like that scene in The Pink Panther Strikes Again when all the nation's assassins are trying to kill Clouseau at Oktoberfest.
 
I think I've BartholomewWested out. I can't absorb even the simplest explanations any more without seeing an anomaly grazing nearby that derails the forward moving train of thought.
 
Thermal said:
Yeah...I get that part. I guess where I'm getting lost is how you attempt multiple brazen public executions and... no one notices?
Click to expand...

Come on, you know how it is. You're walking down the street and are narrowly missed by a falling safe, a wrecking ball and a grand piano being hoisted on a freyed rope you don't even notice because, like, they missed, didn't they?
 
Thermal said:
Yeah...I get that part. I guess where I'm getting lost is how you attempt multiple brazen public executions and... no one notices?

Actually I'm still not clear on Chucky's motive. Why does he want to kill his ex-wife again? People divorce all the time and it's pretty much casual. Especially if you have ample financial means to go about your life. I mean, maybe I have this Royals stuff all wrong, but I thought Diana was like...an acquisition, more than some intense all-consuming passion that Charles would murder over?

Then again, I don't know exactly what Wile E wants with the RR either. He could just order take out, what with his apparently endless credit line at Acme.
Click to expand...

It's not just flawed reasoning. There are flawed axioms of how people behave involved too. Conspiracy theories project their own world views of how "people" (themselves) make decisions.

This was a key insight from the 9/11 conspiracy theory discussion years ago. One of the more outspoken "Truthers" explained that the reason he was willing to believe that large numbers of people would keep their knowledge of treason secret indefinitely for small payoffs, was that all people are motivated entirely by self interest. As an example he stated, as simple fact, that any brain surgeon who discovered some effective alternative to brain surgery would keep it secret, because if put into practice it would reduce the demand for their lucrative services. Not just some hypothetical particularly scummy or financially distressed brain surgeon, but any brain surgeon in the real world, would do so.

This wasn't easy to get an admission of, obviously. It had gone unmentioned by this individual through thousands of posts in scores of threads up until then. But it had been the unspoken necessary principle behind all of their beliefs and arguments.

Since then, whenever someone argues that it's natural to assume that someone with sufficient power to get away with it would murder anyone who embarrassed or inconvenienced them, I read it as them admitting: "If I had sufficient power to get away with it, I would murder anyone who embarrassed or inconvenienced me."
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
It's not just flawed reasoning. There are flawed axioms of how people behave involved too. Conspiracy theories project their own world views of how "people" (themselves) make decisions.

This was a key insight from the 9/11 conspiracy theory discussion years ago. One of the more outspoken "Truthers" explained that the reason he was willing to believe that large numbers of people would keep their knowledge of treason secret indefinitely for small payoffs, was that all people are motivated entirely by self interest. As an example he stated, as simple fact, that any brain surgeon who discovered some effective alternative to brain surgery would keep it secret, because if put into practice it would reduce the demand for their lucrative services. Not just some hypothetical particularly scummy or financially distressed brain surgeon, but any brain surgeon in the real world, would do so.

This wasn't easy to get an admission of, obviously. It had gone unmentioned by this individual through thousands of posts in scores of threads up until then. But it had been the unspoken necessary principle behind all of their beliefs and arguments.

Since then, whenever someone argues that it's natural to assume that someone with sufficient power to get away with it would murder anyone who embarrassed or inconvenienced them, I read it as them admitting: "If I had sufficient power to get away with it, I would murder anyone who embarrassed or inconvenienced me."
Click to expand...


They're also admitting their own lack of subtlety & long term planning.
 
Myriad said:
ISince then, whenever someone argues that it's natural to assume that someone with sufficient power to get away with it would murder anyone who embarrassed or inconvenienced them, I read it as them admitting: "If I had sufficient power to get away with it, I would murder anyone who embarrassed or inconvenienced me."
Click to expand...
That's my disconnect, I guess. I don't bridge that gap to "...and so it's reasonable to murder. I mean, wouldn't you?" No. No I wouldn't.
 
Mojo said:
If you were a prosecutor, you would never convict anyone.
Click to expand...
@BartholomewWest , this one is for you: Prosecutors never convict anyone. Their job is to convince a jury (or judge) to convict someone.

You're the prosecutor here. So far, you haven't even reached preponderance of the evidence, let alone beyond reasonable doubt.

You have circumstantial at best, entirely speculative for most of your argument. It's no surprise you can't secure a "conviction".

Let's try it this way: What are the elements of the crime you're alleging, in UK law? Who among your suspects do you believe satisfies those elements? What evidence do you have, that they satisfy the elements of the crime?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Prosecutors never convict anyone. Their job is to convince a jury (or judge) to convict someone.

You're the prosecutor here. So far, you haven't even reached preponderance of the evidence, let alone beyond reasonable doubt.

You have circumstantial at best, entirely speculative for most of your argument. It's no surprise you can't secure a "conviction".

Let's try it this way: What are the elements of the crime you're alleging, in UK law? Who among your suspects do you believe satisfies those elements? What evidence do you have, that they satisfy the elements of the crime?
Click to expand...
I think you may have misinterpreted Mojo's post.
 
Foster Zygote said:
So the driver intentionally died so he could take Diana and her boyfriend with him?
Click to expand...

Do keep up. It was a white Fiat that supposedly caused Henri Paul to swerve. If you don't think this happens, look up youtube of how people run others off the road (usually road-ragers or stalkers). The Fiat driver was probably a papparazzi... but was he? Was he even relevant. He was never brought in for questioning. Think about it. If Henri Paul was doing 65mph (107kph), how fast was the Fiat, to scrape into the merc at all, presumably overtaking?
 
Last edited:
Incidentally, why is it that conspiracy theorists are all up on bogus conspiracies like this one, but sleep like the dead on stuff like Gaiman and Cosby and Epstein?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom