Reasons why Princess Diana had to go

Discussion in 'Other/Miscellaneous' started by PottersvilleUSA, Jan 29, 2011.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. PottersvilleUSA

    PottersvilleUSA New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Messages:
    251
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let's revisit this very good point.

    "Consider just a fraction of what transpired. Over 100 significant witnesses were not called to the inquest, or refused to appear. Blood tests allegedly proving the drunkenness of the driver Henri Paul were deemed "biologically inexplicable" by a toxicologist. A British crash expert found that Diana's seat belt had not been working. And so on."
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/07/unlawful-killing-film-you-wont-see

    From a recent article in The Guardian on the new documentary "Unlawful Killing" on the cover-up after Diana's murder.
     
  2. catalinacat

    catalinacat Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    6,922
    Likes Received:
    1,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    It does look good.


    CANNES, France – According to a provocative new documentary at the Cannes Film Festival, Britain's royals are racist "gangsters in tiaras" and Prince Philip is a womanizing psychopath.

    The movie "Unlawful Killing" revives claims that Princess Diana — adored by millions as the "people's princess" but viewed in royal circles as an embarrassing loose cannon — was murdered by the British establishment. The film was screened Friday for the first time at the festival.

    It bills itself as "the antidote to 'The King's Speech'" and depicts the royal family as feudal relics presiding over a network of official cronies at taxpayers' expense. Director Keith Allen says, however, it's "not an attack on the monarchy."

    "I don't think it's anti-monarchy," he said. "I think it may be questioning capitalism."

    The film takes its title from the verdict of an official British inquest into Diana's 1997 death in a Paris car crash. The jury ruled the princess was unlawfully killed, but deflated claims of a conspiracy, blaming "grossly negligent driving" by her drunk and speeding driver and pursuing vehicles.

    But the movie by actor Allen — father of singer Lily Allen — revisits conspiracy theories put forward by Mohamed Al Fayed, whose son Dodi was Diana's boyfriend at the time and died in the same crash.

    Fayed, the billionaire former owner of London's Harrods department store, funded the 2.5 million pound ($4 million) documentary. He has long maintained that his son and Diana were killed by the British secret service at the behest of an establishment horrified by her romance with a Muslim man.

    The film begins with Diana's prediction in a 1995 letter to a friend that "my husband is planning an 'accident' in my car" and attempts to expose holes in the coroner's inquest.

    It poses more questions than it answers. Who was in the white Fiat that witnesses saw in the Alma Tunnel just before the crash? Was driver Henri Paul really drunk or did someone tamper with his blood samples? Why did a French ambulance take so long to arrive?

    "I didn't want to make a sensationalist film," Allen said, calling the documentary a "forensic account" of a legal process that "doesn't add up."

    The film certainly doesn't pull punches. Critics would say it lashes out in all directions, scattering accusations of royal racism, judicial complicity and media laziness.

    It includes an array of high-profile talking heads: talk show host Piers Morgan, actor Tony Curtis, celebrity biographer Kitty Kelley and psychologist Oliver James, who brands the husband of Queen Elizabeth II a psychopath.

    Al Fayed spokesman Conor Nolan said the businessman had seen the film and was "absolutely delighted" with it.

    Others remain decidedly unconvinced. Martin Gregory, author of "Diana, the Last Days," said the movie was "simply regurgitation of everything Mohamed Al Fayed has been saying since the year 2000."

    "Nothing in the film is new," he said, taking Allen to task at the film's Cannes press conference.

    The film was screened Friday for journalists and buyers. It's unlikely to find one in Britain, where it cannot be shown in its current form for legal reasons. Allen said he had declined to make any of the 87 cuts recommended by the film's lawyers before it can be shown there.

    The documentary already has been criticized for including a picture of Diana after the crash that has never been shown before in Britain.

    So does Allen agree with Al Fayed that Diana was murdered?

    Not exactly. He said he thought her death was the result of an attempt to scare and discredit her that "went massively wrong."

    "I do believe Diana was in a position to rock a lot of boats," he said. "You could argue it's a warning and any statements she made after the crash would be put down to 'She's had a nasty crack on the head.'"

    "What I'm saying is, don't necessarily believe the hype," he added.



    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110513...DeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2Nhbm5lc2RpYW5hZg--
     
  3. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think the picture of her dying is already on the internet and has been for ages. I've seen it, lots of blood, and its obviously her. I don't think any other images should be shown though.
     
  4. three_lions

    three_lions New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Utter rubbish, all of it.
     
  5. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But its all true.
     
  6. three_lions

    three_lions New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is all the same recycled nonsense that conspiracy theorists and haters of the monarchy have been going on about for 14 years now. All this sort of rubbish does is defame her in her death.
     
  7. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it gets people to question what really happened to her that night.
     
  8. PottersvilleUSA

    PottersvilleUSA New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Messages:
    251
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes. On the night that it took two hours to transport her to a hospital 3.25 miles away.
     
  9. I_Gaze_At_The_Blue

    I_Gaze_At_The_Blue New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,988
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Take it you've never been to France ... for if you did you would know that France has a completely DIFFERENT sort of emergency system to you, instead of being whisked off to the nearest hospital as fast as possible, they are treated MORE at the site and then taken to the BEST facilities for the type of injuries.

    Also in Paris hospitals run a rotational system of emergency cover ... and the best emergency facilities or qualified staff on duty may not be at the nearest hospital.

    Ambulances are also staffed with fully qualified doctors and nurses and specialists as opposed to paramedics and routinely travel slowly instead of racing sirens blaring to the nearest hospital ... as said the French way is to treat MORE fully at the scene and to pick the BEST hospital for the injuries than the nearest.

    "SAMU (short for Service d’Aide Medicale d’Urgence) is a specialized public emergency service that works in close alliance with other emergency services as well as with the emergency and intensive care units of the public hospitals. Its ambulances are manned by teams of trained medical personnel and equipped with miniature emergency rooms equipped with all the materials necessary to treat emergency situations at the scene, including cardiac and respiratory arrest. In essence, they bring the emergency room to you."

    http://postedinparis.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/in-case-of-emergency/

    "The French philosophy on emergency medical care is to provide a higher level of care at the scene of the incident, and so SMUR (Service Mobile d'Urgence et Reanimation[8]) units are staffed by a qualified physician along with a nurse and/or emergency medical technician. This contrasts with systems in other parts of the world, notably the Anglo-Saxon countries (United Kingdom, United States, Australia etc.) where care on scene is conducted primarily by paramedics or emergency medical technicians, with physicians only becoming involved on scene at the most complex or large scale incidents.

    The result is that a SMUR unit will typically spend a long time on scene compared with a paramedic ambulance in a different system, as the physician may conduct a full set of observations, examinations and interventions before removal to hospital
    "

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_medical_services_in_France

    " ... To maximise the chances of recovery, it is believed important to cut down on transportation time, and bring a fully equipped and qualified team to the patient, rather than sending an ambulance to pick up the patient and double the travel back to hospital. To this effect, Mobile Intensive Care Units (MICU depending of Hospital SMURs) are equipped with both a fully qualified emergency physician: nurse and ambulance technician and Portable Intensive Care medical equipment"

    " ... This doctrine also simplifies greatly the Emergency department of hospitals (eliminating the need for a "smaller hospital within the hospital"), and ensuring that the stabilised patient will receive care from a specialist rather than an emergency generalist"

    Many find it impossible to think that she was taken past the much closer Hôpital Necker - Enfants Malades but instead to the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital.

    But the Necker is a CHILDRENS TEACHING hospital ... which had neither the facilities nor expertise to deal with her injuries !!!

    See what at first glance may "seem" suspicious is only so because it is unusual to how you understand these things happen in your own country ... different countries have different ways of dealing with things and when you know that is removes the supposed suspicion.

    France also has been consistently ranked No.1 in health care provision globally.

    http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

    http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf
     
  10. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Apparently she was taken to the hospital with the best equipment to treat her injuries, but I believe that is what killed her in the end. She had the kind of injuries that simply couldn't wait.
     
  11. I_Gaze_At_The_Blue

    I_Gaze_At_The_Blue New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,988
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    France still rates at better than other countries medically speaking and have far superior facilities and staff at the scene, so if she still died with the best possible medical care at the scene, then she would never have survived under any other system of care.

    She died in a car accident with injuries too far gone to survive, it happens ... and that it happened to one of the most iconic figures doesn't make it conspiracy or murder.

    Even those that are considered special people can die in mundane and ordinary circumstances !!!
     
  12. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't buy it though. Something has just never felt right about it.
     
  13. I_Gaze_At_The_Blue

    I_Gaze_At_The_Blue New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,988
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yet you STILL need more than it just doesn't "feel" right !!!

    There is the simple philosophical point that suspicion alone demonstrates nothing, you need proper proof, not supposition and "feelings" ... my general take on conspiracy theories (including this one) is that they usually require a government/business/perputrator that is ALL-powerful to the point of pulling off the conspiracy ... while at the same time being so INCOMPETENT as to leave so many supposed "clues" for NON experts and random internet "armchair" detectives to "discover".

    The idea that the British Monarchy was under any real or genuine threat from anything she did or said is just simplistic and naive, nothing she said or did was capable of toppling or damaging them to any great degree ... they have weathered a lot, lot, lot worse, surviving for centuries. Some ex-wife spouting against them is nothing really. Like I said before, it is more a simple psychological inability to accept that iconic figures can die in mundane circumstances ... for some, extraordinary events require equally extraordinary reasons, to them it is inconcievable that ordinary things happen to extraordinary people ... which is silly really !!!
     
  14. chestern

    chestern Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can you believe it is fifteen years since the death of Princess Diana (or at least it will be on August 31)? Conspiracy theories have all but disappeared since the London inquest delivered its “unlawful killing by grossly negligent driving” verdict four years ago. But despite the thoroughness of that inquiry, many intriguing questions remain unanswered – questions such as why was driver Henri Paul driving so fast? He had been drinking and was being followed by the paparazzi but was there another reason why he was so frantic to take a route which was taking him away from Dodi’s apartment? Where had he been for three hours that evening? Who gave him the $2,000 cash later found in his pocket, and what for? Who were the two men caught on security cameras hanging around outside the Ritz Hotel for hours that afternoon and evening? They have never come forward despite many public appeals. What was the true extent of Henri Paul’s involvement with the British and French security services? What was the connection between chief paparazzo James Andanson and the British, French and American security services? What were the spooks really up to on the fateful night? We know that the Americans had been bugging Diana in the months leading up to her death. We know that the British had been bugging Diana and playing dirty tricks on her for most of her married life and beyond. Could it be that she became inadvertently embroiled in something bigger and even more sinister that was going on in Paris that night? For a possible explanation read my ‘faction’ thriller ‘The Decoy’ which is available now on Kindle – a kind of JFK meets The Da Vinci Code approach. The background to the book is explained more fully on my website www.chesterstern.com.
     

Share This Page