'Brit Police told me Diana was MURDERED'

I think the death of Diana was the event that first sparked my interest in conspiracies.

Over the years and despite looking into the subject quite a bit, I am still undecided on whether or not she was assassinated or this was a tragic accident. Now yes there are some very interesting factoids that contribute to a interesting conspiracy however I would point out that after lots of investigation no conspiracy has been proven although lots of interesting information has came out.

Specifically relating to the topic raised in the OP, that the father of Henri Paul claims that the British police informed him they believe his son had died as a result of a conspiracy to assassinate Diana. There are a few pretty big problems with this claim, the main one being that the met have not verified this claim. Another big issue is that Henri Paul according to the official narrative had been drinking on the night of the crash, was speeding and also had connections to the French intelligence services so to me it is to be expected that his grieving father is going to try to make claims like this. Sadly this proves absolutely nothing because he has no real proof.

If there was any proof of his claims then it should have came out during the 2008 inquest.

There are lots of claims around Diana's death many of them have been discredited such as the claims of Richard Tomlinson. There is also this idea that continues that Prince Philip ordered Diana's assassination, again just a claim that does not add up to scrutiny. The Royal Family simply do not have that kind of power. It did come out during the inquest into her death that the Foreign Secretary does have the ability to issue something called a "Class Seven Authorisation" to SIS which is passed through courts and in essence is a kill order. However during his time as head of SIS Sir, Richard Dearlove said that he had never received such a order.

Over the years I have came to think that quite a lot of the conspiracies around Diana have evolved through peoples lack of understanding around the role of the Royal family.

Did they kill her, I honestly do not know, there is a lot of stuff that suggests that yes they could have had her assassinated, however at the same time I do not believe that the information in the OP provides any proof to support the idea that Diana was assassinated.

a reply to: badw0lf

I am so distracted by your pic that I can't take anything you write seriously. That's a disgusting pic. And Diana was killed. Past time to dismantle this joke of "royalty" - can all those British be that stupid? Guess I know that answer.

I echo what was said upthread about knowing that "no good would come" of Di's fling with Dodi. A few days before her death, I was listening to a radio news broadcast which featured audio from outside Dodi's London pad, and it was a chaos of people shouting and cameras whirring. She was the news, and had been for a fortnight. Everyone was expecting an engagement announcement, whatever they now say. The realisation about what this would mean for the monarchy struck me as clear as daylight and the precise words that went through my head were: "They are never going to let you get away with this."

I never particularly liked her. She was an expert at media manipulation, PR and ridiculous staged photo ops. When she died I was more saddened at how pathetic the public outpouring of grief was towards this woman that had meticulously managed her media profile than anything else, we're a nation of suckers but I don't doubt for a second she was murdered.

The whole institution is archaic and needs to be done away with. Am not fooled by the Princes vapid attempts to rebrand the monarchy either, it's all carefully orchestrated to provide legitimacy for the continuation of an idea that is long past its sell by date.

originally posted by: growler
the only people that wanted her dead were the tabloids that supported her.
had she have married al fayed, how could the mail, express, telegraph, sun and star explain to their readers interracial marriage was a good thing when they still show it disdain.

in what way would the royal family have benefitted from her death?
you would have to believe in some seth rich style lies to believe the claptrap that gets thrown around.

she was vacuous and shallow, the royal family a leach to the country, we don't need any off them, but to believe a drunk drive smash was anything more is fanciful at best.

The family benefitted from her death by removing her ability to bring scandal into the House of Windsor by making public the damning videos she had made of homosexual behaviour involving Prince Charles - what in a letter to her personal butler Paul Burrel she called her "insurance". This story came out after her death but was officially dismissed as the fantasies of a drunk palace footman. The Royal Family would have been also very worried that she might use the tapes to blackmail them in return for demands, such as returning her royal title. They tried hard without success to recover the missing tapes, employing the same private detective/security company, Kroll Associates, that was in charge of security of the WTC towers before it handed over control to Securacom shortly before 9/11.

There is NOTHING fanciful in believing Diana's car crash was NOT due to a drunk driver. There is far too much evidence indicative of a conspiracy. For example, investigate the FACTS surrounding James Andanson, owner of the white Fiat Uno that hit her Mercedes in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel:
img.dailymail.co.uk...
The millionaire paparazzo bragged to his friends that he had been following the car at the time to take photos, having been invited personally by Diana a week before to take photos on Dodi's yacht. He was found in another car of his, on fire with its doors locked and no car keys inside it, with two bullets in his head (see here. This was explained as a sucide by the French police (a conclusion that his wife found laughable). But an intelligence dossier found in the archives of Luxprivat, a Luxembourg society scandal magazine (clearly quoting verbatim from a report probably leaked from within the police itself), revealed that he had been murdered by a Yugoslav agent code-named "T" who had been used by certain intelligence agencies in previous assassins of internationally well-known businessmen. I cannot give the link to this anymore as the relevant webpages were removed some years ago from this archive. But here is the crucial passage:

"Selon le rapport confidentiel d¹une sorte de ³groupe d¹études², constitué, après la mort d¹Andanson, par des amis que le photographe avait su se faire dans une société anglo-saxonne d¹investigation et de sécurité proche des services britanniques, le photographe a été assassiné par un homme de main d¹origine yougoslave, T...,évoluant habituellement sous le pseudonyme d¹une grande famille de la noblesse française, connu aussi de la chanteuse Amanda Lear."
www.investigateur.info...
(my emphasis in boldface). (Link does not work anymore)
Its English translation, somewhat garbled by an internet translator, is:

"According to the confidential report, a kind of studies group, made up, after Andanson death, by friends whom the photographer had known to be made in a Anglo-Saxon company investigation and of safety close to the British services, the photographer was assassinated by a henchman origin Yugoslav, T…, usually evolving/moving under the pseudonym of a great family of the French nobility, also known in connection with the singer Amanda Lear."
(Notice the reference to "Anglo-Saxon" and "British services". In other words: Intelligence services.)

That this man "T" was connected to intelligence agencies is strongly suggested in the following translated passage (garbled somewhat) from the same article in "L'investigateur":

"But information of the British from now on came to a service French information, attached to the Ministry for Defense. They could have unexpected developments. (Old) connections of T… with Amanda Lear feed from the interrogations on death by fire - a mania - D¹ Alain-Philippe Malagnac, the husband of the singer, on December 28, 2000. T. would have worked a little, also, a front year, on the Safra file - name of the owner of national Républic bank of New York, asphyxiated in a fire with L¹ interior of its building-fortress of Monaco, on December 6, 1999. According to L¹ official investigation, fire had been lit in a dustbin by an old green beret (commando of the special forces) American, Ted Maher. It came D¹ to be recruited as male nurse, and lived a love disappointed with one of his colleagues… "

Notice the reference to working on the "Safra file". This refers to the murder of Edmond Safra, the founder of the Republic National Bank in New York, in 1999 (two years after Diana's death), for which an ex-Green Beret, Ted Maher, was convicted.
en.wikipedia.org...
Safra employed security guards trained by the Israeli Mossad and had contacts with the FBI. So his murder was of great interest to intelligence agencies because he had made enemies with the Russian mafia. We see that the man codenamed "T", named by the society scandal-reporting website as Andanson's killer, was therefore very likely either an intelligence agent or a free-lance hitman who carried out 'wet jobs' for intelligence agencies.


So, you don't have to be credulous in order to take seriously these newspaper stories. You have merely to be well-researched and informed about the material sometimes accessed by or leaked to journalists upon which they are based. "Deny ignorance".

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
There are lots of claims around Diana's death many of them have been discredited such as the claims of Richard Tomlinson.

I would submit that just because it has been discredited ...doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. I say that having bumped up against Tomlinson's matter some years back and communicated with some peripheral players. High degree of weirdness going on there...and yet another case from which I backed away slowly.

I believe she was murdered. She predicted it and even said how it would happen.

She had the inside track on governmental machinations.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

The British Metropolitan Police tracked down old drafts of Tomlinson's manuscript for the tell-all memoir he was writing (eventually published in Russia, entitled The Big Breach). They found that the description of an MI6 plan to assassinate Slobodan Milosevic in a staged RTA was added around a year after Diana's death. That's the bit that everyone latched onto and it looks like it was bunk (the plan was to hire mercenaries and the target for the assassination, as the Met found, wasn't even Milosevic).

Tomlinson is an interesting whistle-blower, but he was a bit prone to flights of fancy among the genuine stuff he knew about. David Shayler, before he became the cross-dressing Messiah we have come to know and love, described Tomlinson as: "A bullsh1t artist."

originally posted by: Konduit
Dodi's father, the king of Monaco, claims to this day that Diana and his son was killed by MI5 on the orders of Prince Phillip, probably because she was pregnant and it would have been an embarrassment to the British Royal Family.

Duh! Al Fayed is the self proclaimed King of Knightsbridge ...not Monaco.

As some of you may have found already, (it is actually The Mirror's front page story today)
www.mirror.co.uk...

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Over the years and despite looking into the subject quite a bit, I am still undecided on whether or not she was assassinated or this was a tragic accident.

I feel the same, the CT evidence is circumstantial and I sit on the fence. But I'm reasonably comfortable sitting on there and resist being pushed onto the 'official' side by tactics which exploit our natural human desire not to be considered outsiders. I see them used by the media and to some extent here. Those of us who lean towards, or sit firmly upon the CT side tend to do so on all such matters where there is sufficient volume of suspicious circumstance.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Now yes there are some very interesting factoids that contribute to a interesting conspiracy however I would point out that after lots of investigation no conspiracy has been proven although lots of interesting information has came out.

Ditto the assassination of Kennedy, ditto 9/11, etc. Did the Warren and 9/11 Commissions impartially analyse all the available evidence or were they set up to mold public opinion? Part of an honest personal investigation into all such issues is ignoring noise and grappling with details.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
...the father of Henri Paul claims that the British police informed him they believe his son had died as a result of a conspiracy to assassinate Diana. There are a few pretty big problems with this claim, the main one being that the met have not verified this claim.

That dismissal is based upon a rather sweet but naïve notion that the met is not beholden to the state. It is quite inconceivable that they would unilaterally announce they believed Diana was assassinated, particularly if they believed it was the work of MI5.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Another big issue is that Henri Paul according to the official narrative had been drinking on the night of the crash...

He claimed his son’s blood sample could have been swapped or tampered with to make it appear he had drink in his system.

To be fair, if it was an assassination by secret services, one would expect that tampering with evidence would have to be part of the plan to dress it as an accident.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
If there was any proof of his claims then it should have came out during the 2008 inquest.

See my comments re. Warren Commission etc. It should have come out, but would it?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I do not believe that the information in the OP provides any proof to support the idea that Diana was assassinated.

Indeed it does not. You will never move from whichever side of the fence you started upon if you require proof. In such matters, questionable evidence is all we have to work with.

a reply to: EvilAxis

I have never believed that Diana's death was an accident. I still remember exactly what I was doing and who I was with when the announcement came over the radio that Princess Diana had been killed. She was my childhood idol. And even as a child, I could see the sadness in her eyes. She always looked haunted by something, that beautiful smile never quite reached her eyes. Even on her wedding day, she looked haunted...not what you'd expect from a new princess at her own fairy tale wedding. Everyone said it was just because she was shy, but I didn't believe that then, and I don't believe it now. They can tell all the lies about her that they want...her eyes told the truth, always.

I must admit, toward what turned out to be the end of her life, I quite fancied Princess Diana. She was a gorgeous bit of womanhood, and she had that old 'vulnerability' thing about her that made me want to protect her. I'm a bit of a sap like that. And yes, I know most of that image was contrived by her - but I don't think it was much of an exaggeration on her part, just selective presentation of some of her characteristics. By all accounts, she could be an absolute nightmare if things weren't going her way.

I've not seen the Mirror's splash yet, but am expecting it to be very inconclusive. My bet is that the entire story is based on views expressed by copper in an unguarded moment. If it's anything more significant than that, I'll be mildly amazed that it didn't come out sooner.

a reply to: micpsi


From your link ....

James Andanson, who followed the Princess’s every move in the week before her death, was thought to have committed suicide when his burnt corpse was found in the wreckage of a car in the French countryside.

But now the fireman who discovered the body, Christophe Pelat, has said: “I saw him at close range and I’m absolutely convinced that he had been shot in the head, twice.”

Information re. Barry Mannakee shortly after leaving his position as Diana's

personal bodyguard....

Mannakee was born on June 1, 1947, in London and was a police officer with the Royal Protection Squad before being assigned to Princess Diana as a bodyguard in 1985.
He was moved in 1986 from his royal duties at Kensington Palace to the Diplomatic Protection Group in central London.
Shortly after 10pm on May 15, 1987, Mannakee was returning home to Loughton in Essex on the back of a Suzuki 400cc motorcycle being driven by friend and fellow officer PC Steven Peat.

As the pair hurtled down the rain-soaked A11 from central London, 17-year-old Nicola Chopp left her home in South Woodford in a Ford Fiesta to meet a pal at a nearby pub.

The beauty therapist, who had only passed her driving test just weeks before, waited at a junction for a car to turn left before pulling out into the main road and swinging right.
Suddenly, she saw a motorcycle heading towards her so she slammed on her brakes
The bike – approaching head-on at around 35mph – swerved and skidded and Mannakee was catapulted from the pillion seat and through the Fiesta’s rear driver’s-side window.

PC Peat and Chopp survived the crash – but Mannakee’s broke in two places and he died almost immediately.

And then the only survivor of the Paris crash Trevor Ress Jones, had lost his

memory and can remember nothing?? .... convenient??


Seems like a lot of coincidental *road traffic accidents* with no conclusive evidence

originally posted by: EvilAxis
Indeed it does not. You will never move from whichever side of the fence you started upon if you require proof. In such matters, questionable evidence is all we have to work with.

You mean that the driver of the car having an inexplicable level of carbon monoxide in his blood is not strong evidence that his blood sample was secretly switched for a sample taken from an alcoholic showing a high level of alcohol that could explain why the driver hit a pillar in the de l'Alma tunnel? Call that "questionable evidence? A forensic scientist testified at the inquest that he could not explain how so much carbon monoxide got into the blood sample except through deliberate contamination or sample switching. Either way, it IMPLIES a conspiracy. That's not debatable.

You mean someone invited by Diana to photograph her on Dodi's yacht who owned a white Fiat Uno, paint from which was found on the side of Dodi's Mercedes, was found two years later inside a locked burning car with two bullet holes in his head is still "questionable" evidence of conspiracy? What's questionable about it? All this is FACT and was reported in the British press. Had the French firefighter, who arrived on the scene, been invited to give evidence at the coroner's inquest into Diana's death, it would now be well-known to the public. Instead, it was suppressed because it amounts to PROOF of a conspiracy to silence a man who had bragged about being at the crash scene with all the paparazzi. It was testimony that could not be explained away, for no car keys were found either inside the locked, burning car or outside it, which is impossible, as is the ability of someone to shoot TWO bullets in his head. Such evidence points towards James Andanson's murder, confirmed explicitly by the report I found in the archive of a Luxembourg magazine. But why would he be murdered unless his bragging about being at Diana's car crash was TRUE and he had to be silenced because he knew too much (he was suspected by many close to the investigation to have worked for MI6) and had become a loose cannon?

What someone calls "questionable" evidence is highly subjective and influenced by what the person WANTS to disbelieve. The perps behind assassinations of highly public people exploit this psychological factor by creating circumstances that are grey enough to allow multiple, alternative explanations to their act of murder. Everyone ends up believing what they want to believe. The proof is there, but those who don't want to accept it will always find alternative ways of dismissing it. The question is: are these alternative explanations plausible? In the case of Diana's death, the weight of evidence consistent with murder overwhelms the explanation of a simple car accident.

a reply to: EvilAxis

Aye but British Police are lying bastards known to get up to all sorts ranging from protecting paedophiles/refusing to pursue prosecution to the odd bit of drug dealing aka a significant percentage of the Smack and Cocaine on our streets.

Just a thought when considering whatever they have to say about anything in particular really.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: EvilAxis

...........

She was pregnant. She was usurping the throne with a child not of the windsor bloodline.

edit on Sun Aug 6 2017 by DontTreadOnMe because: trimmed overly long quote IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS

She wasn't usurping any throne. The queen passes the throne to her first child Charles and he in turn passes it to his first child William. No child born to Diana and another man could change that succession!

What she knew about the Royals though would probably see the end of them........I think that's why she was killed.

Re: Falsification of blood-acohol content:

originally posted by: EvilAxis
To be fair, if it was an assassination by secret services, one would expect that tampering with evidence would have to be part of the plan to dress it as an accident.

I wondered about this for a while. Then, in 2008, pretty much exactly the same thing happened to fascist-lite Austrian politician Jörg Haider. He was the sort of pre-Brexit face of the rising new nationalism in Europe.

After the single-vehicle crash that killed him, it was announced that he had been something like three times over the Austrian drink-drive limit and travelling at 142kph (!). But the strange thing was, he had been socialising just before he got in his car to travel across country (he was travelling to see his mother it was her 90th birthday) so he was surrounded by independent witnesses, not all of whom would have been fans in a political sense so would have had no reason to whitewash Haider's conduct.

Everyone around Haider at the venue where he had been denied that he had touched anything more potent than a few mouthfuls of white wine spritzer, and even that was doubtful. Not one member of bar staff could be found who recalled selling him any booze. CCTV from the venue was allegedly seized by police and never disclosed or returned.

So I wonder: is there some potent piece of chemistry in the spook arsenal, not known to the public, which can cause rapid elevation of blood alcohol? I have no idea, but you can see why it would be keenly desired by spooks the world over.

For perspective, the old KGB developed an antidote to alcohol that could be privately self-administered by officers and agents, meaning that they could drink whatever they liked and remain stone cold sober. You can immediately see numerous espionage scenarios in which this would be useful, and the value of the reverse effect should be just as obvious.

a reply to: EvilAxis

I believe the car was junk had been wreaked before should have not been on the road. That's just my opinion sad but true..

a reply to: judydawg

If the car was a "write-off" then it should indeed never have been on the road.

Or do they have different health and safety codes at play regarding France where motor vehicles are concerned?

Then again it was a while back, might have been perfectly legal if somewhat stupid back when this incident transpired.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: judydawg

If the car was a "write-off" then it should indeed never have been on the road.

Or do they have different health and safety codes at play regarding France where motor vehicles are concerned?

Then again it was a while back, might have been perfectly legal if somewhat stupid back when this incident transpired.

Would someone, Al Fayed who owned Harrods, the Ritz Paris, owned one

or more yachts and so on ..... run a wreck of a Mercedes car I wonder?