• 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?

theprestige said:
@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?
Click to expand...


Small point, but the death occured in France, so presumably "French Law" although in this case I don't think there would be many significant differences.
 
Okay, so I'm Cleffchin Squarejaw, SAS. I'm ordered by her Majesty to kill Diana and Fayed. I choose Paris. I have all sorts of options to carry out my mission, poisons being the easiest for this kind of job. I could dress as a Serbian, and shoot them with a weapon that traces back to Serbian war criminals. I could just plant a bomb on Fayed's yacht.

But no.

My brilliant plan is to follow their car - into a tunnel - and force it to crash. No car bomb, no ambush. Just run them into concrete supports. The success of my mission hinges on weather Diana is wearing her seatbelt. If she's not, maybe she dies. Maybe.

Okay. Sure. That's a solid plan right there.
 
Vixen said:
...Think about it. If Henri Paul was doing 65mph (107kph), how fast was the Fiat, to scrape into the merc at all, presumably overtaking?
Click to expand...
My understanding was that the Fiat was just inside the tunnel already, putting along at under 50km/hr in the right hand lane, when the Mercedes came in barrel assing at 125 and swerved to the left to avoid running over the Fiat.
 
Last edited:
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...
We passed "what if" so long ago all you can see in the rearview mirror is "wtf".
 
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...
Hearsay is not usually admitted as evidence in court.
 
Vixen said:
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?
Click to expand...
That's nonsensical. It isn't necessarily for another vehicle to be going fast to cause another fast moving vehicle to have an accident trying to avoid it. Most road collisions involving a vehicle traveling at excessive speeds involve another vehicle being driven at normal speeds. Why would you think that the white FIAT would have to be going fast for the Mercedes to hit, or nearly hit it? And this happened in Paris. Are you now suggesting that the Parisian police were complicit in the plot to assassinate Diana?

Oh, and keep up with what, exactly? If you're reasoning were any slower you'd have to speed up to come to a complete stop.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom