Breaking: Diana Death: Police Passed New Information

reply to post by wrabbit2000


Very true wise words dude - very little difference between cynicism and realism these days, a really sorry state of affairs..

reply to post by jroduk


Hey its not just Dodi and the possible engagement / pregnancy there are a whole host of possible reasons for her to have been bumped off - some slightly more realistic than others but all viable in their own way. i.e. mines, Charles and his history, Charles and his bid for the crown after the divorce and now I have been reading she knew something about vaccines?!

reply to post by Freeborn


Thats it though - like with Dr Kelly as noted above, it will never be proven that Charles or Philip had any involvement as that would cause outright anarchy and give the republicans every trump card they have ever needed. If anything it may get blamed on some renegade SAS officer by way of a bid to put all the conspiracy theories to bed once and for all.

Your mention of William and Harry got me thinking though - the media have been so careful not to cause them distress with such stories about Diana especially on 24 hr news, so why do so now when William has enough on his plate with baby etc.

Feels like a very high risk strategic poker bluff of sorts!

Shadows of JFK
No-one will find the truth here.

reply to post by EleniG


But there is a difference between the suppression of the truth surrounding Dr Kelly's death and Diana's.

Dr Kelly was allegedly about to reveal the truth behind the deliberate mis-direction of Parliament and the public by the government of the day relating to Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction which directly contributed towards the UK's involvement in the Iraq War.
If proven then that would have had serious implications on each and every UK citizen and would have been a deliberate attempt to by-pass UK Law and parliamentary procedure.
That would have had a direct impact on me, my life and that of friends, family and almost everyone I know and as such would have demanded that nothing like that could happen again; a major reform of our parliamentary procedures.

As callous as this may seem but Diana's death had absolutely zero impact or effect on me, my life and that of almost everyone I know.
We have enough on our plate simply trying to get by and live our lives the best we can under what are at times quite testing circumstances.
The Royal Family mean nothing to me other than being some sort of cultural figure head - a symbol of the UK.
As long as they don't try to interfere in the governing of this land then I have more important things to occupy myself with.
They are like the expensive set of china that we get out when 'special' guests call round but once gone are put away in the cupboard and forgotten about till next time.

Yes, if proven that she was murdered then those responsible should be prosecuted under either French or UK Law and punished in accordance with that law, they should not be given any more severe or less sentence than anyone else convicted of a similar crime.
And those proven to be involved in any conspiracy to commit murder or to cover-up facts should also be treat accordingly.
And it would be vital that we, as a nation, fully understood the reasons and motivations etc.
But it wouldn't signal the removal of The Royal Family and the introduction of a Republic or something similar.
But even if it did we would still have the same old network of 'the establishment' governing and controlling things through the same old electoral and parliamentary systems.

Full disclosure of the circumstances behind Dr Kelly's death could show once and for all the true depths of the control these people have and the contempt they have for the British people.
Full disclosure of the circumstances behind Diana's death will merely confirm what many believe about the Royal Family.

As I said earlier, William and Harry's response could be crucial.

But then again, maybe there is nothing much more to Diana's death than what has already been revealed - it's certainly possible, not everything is a conspiracy.
And to be fair the same could be said about Dr Kelly's death.

That's just my take on things, I don't think for one minute that I speak for the majority within the UK and my assessment could be well wide of the mark.

reply to post by Freeborn


Nice post Freeborn and as another Brit I like your 'best china' analogy. I can agree with you up to a point, that being that Diana clearly did know stuff which could rock the monarchy and the government. Remember the Burrell trial and the last minute impromptu meeting with the queen? It was said at the time that he was about to discuss the story about George Smith the footman who cried rape however in light of the recent Savile revelations and alleged connections he had with the royals, in addition to the Butler who was found guilty of being head of a paedo ring, I cant help but think what Burrell knew about that and may have been about to hint at.

Its not just about the fact she was murdered its the motive behind it which could bring down both establishments...

My general feelings on the reporting of most the media are this: they put out the information they are told to, fact. There are so many 'insiders' covering the asses of whoever, in so many facets of society, that if something is deemed potentially damaging to those with the means for hiding it, it is hidden.

Remember when the Queen stepped in at the last minute breaking all protocol in the Diana's butler case with some 'information' or ahem, clout to do whatever she wanted to with the case, did just that and it all but stopped.

If there is anything 'damaging' in this new information chances are it wouldn't be disclosed, just hushed and those that know shushed.

Nice, little planet we are on huh? (sarcasm face)

Originally posted by EleniG
reply to post by Freeborn

 

Thats it though - like with Dr Kelly as noted above, it will never be proven that Charles or Philip had any involvement as that would cause outright anarchy and give the republicans every trump card they have ever needed. If anything it may get blamed on some renegade SAS officer by way of a bid to put all the conspiracy theories to bed once and for all.

Feels like a very high risk strategic poker bluff of sorts!

Hardly. Those responsible for Diana's death don't need to create a patsy. There is no clamour to re-open the case because the majority of British people believe the lies they have been fed and are oblivious of the glaring discrepancies and damning omissions in the official story that it was simply a car accident. So they would never initiate such a high-risk stategy in order to put to rest the conspiracy theories. Quite apart from the obvious fact that such a ludicrous scenario involving a maverick SAS soldier would never be believed by most British people.

reply to post by EleniG


To be honest I'd forgotten about George Smith and the Burrell 'connection'.

The things that immediately strike me about the Smith case are why would he have been offered money to drop his case if there wasn't an element of truth in it and what did he die of?

Playing devils advocate I've got to say there is a lot of conjecture, leaps of faith and blind assumptions - but as with most good conspiracy theories there are enough holes in the official version of all related issues to suspect that there is much that we don't, and probably never will, know.
But as is generally the case it's the wild accusations that lack substance that are given exposure - it's almost as if someone co-ordinates these 'revelations' and theories in an effort to deflect from what should be investigated and discredit any mention of a conspiracy.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by EleniG

 

To be honest I'd forgotten about George Smith and the Burrell 'connection'.

The things that immediately strike me about the Smith case are why would he have been offered money to drop his case if there wasn't an element of truth in it and what did he die of?

Playing devils advocate I've got to say there is a lot of conjecture, leaps of faith and blind assumptions - but as with most good conspiracy theories there are enough holes in the official version of all related issues to suspect that there is much that we don't, and probably never will, know.
But as is generally the case it's the wild accusations that lack substance that are given exposure - it's almost as if someone co-ordinates these 'revelations' and theories in an effort to deflect from what should be investigated and discredit any mention of a conspiracy.

The Smith case is very intriguing and I have wondered about it for a few years. The one I had forgotten about was the Butler who was convicted of running a paedo ring. Re: Smith, he apparently refused the money because he wanted to stand by the truth, i suspect this was why there was a kind of character assassination in the press about him. Wiki says death was of unknown cause.... again intriguing given he was apparently an alcoholic and presumably a high suicide risk.

Agreed on the rest of your post too - question is what is it that should be getting investigated??

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by EleniG
reply to post by Freeborn

 

Thats it though - like with Dr Kelly as noted above, it will never be proven that Charles or Philip had any involvement as that would cause outright anarchy and give the republicans every trump card they have ever needed. If anything it may get blamed on some renegade SAS officer by way of a bid to put all the conspiracy theories to bed once and for all.

Feels like a very high risk strategic poker bluff of sorts!

Hardly. Those responsible for Diana's death don't need to create a patsy. There is no clamour to re-open the case because the majority of British people believe the lies they have been fed and are oblivious of the glaring discrepancies and damning omissions in the official story that it was simply a car accident. So they would never initiate such a high-risk stategy in order to put to rest the conspiracy theories. Quite apart from the obvious fact that such a ludicrous scenario involving a maverick SAS soldier would never be believed by most British people.

Gosh - such confidence in that statement. I wasnt suggesting they need a patsy for her death but perhaps for what she knew and was in this diary that has been mentioned in the recent report. I would also hesitate to add that you may be slightly underestimating the brits - not all of us are sheeple especially in light of the Keith Allen documentary which quite a few people have seen now.

Note to self on this first occasion of posting on ATS: do not hypothesise out loud as it may provoke condescension!

Just thought I'd throw this into the mix. I can always depend on David Icke to put a whole new light on things.



www.youtube.com...

reply to post by wrabbit2000


The majority of British people couldn't give a hoot about the monarchy – it is just the rest of the West that has wet dreams over them.

reply to post by LarryLove


You all could have fooled the world by the way Royal Births are treated like the second coming. Royal weddings are a MAJOR state event by all accounts and general family events within that one make news, first in British papers then world wide to follow.

For a group the locals don't give a hoot about, the degree of viewership and attention given is just staggering. People running the coverage don't do it for empty ratings and TV's turned off. People seem to be watching?

reply to post by wrabbit2000


But go and look at the ratings and tv coverage in your country over a swollen royal vagina and tell me I am not wrong!

Tomorrow's Telegraph sheds a little more light on this.

Link to Image

I'm British, and I remember the death of Diana like it was yesterday. No word of a lie, at 4:07am I woke up for no apparent reason, and felt mildly uncomfortable - as though something wasn't quite right.

When we got up later in the morning to the news that she was dead, I was shocked - but even more so when I later found out that she had apparently died a few minutes after 4am in the morning (I think it was pronounced as 4:07am even, but I can't quite remember the exact time).

I agree with the idea that the resurrection of the story is likely misdirection - or perhaps there is an undertone, a nod to those who perceive the corruption of the Elite; though as with the David Kelly inquiry, ultimately we won't learn anything grand that points to actual conspiracy.

Who knows? Only Time will tell.



ETA - the above image of Diana in the minefields is almost symbolic of the reasons she was killed. She challenged the power brokers and the arms dealers, and didn't fit with what was expected of a member of the Royal section of the Elite.

A quick Wiki recap of how Barry Mannakee met his demise (car craxh- phantom car with dazzling lights) followed by a review of "Squidgygate" and the apparent tapping of a royal phone exchange gives the reader a sense of the paranoia she might have felt about the well organised forces moving her....

Note I say paranoia but making someone think they are mad is usually the first step in getting them there.

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by wrabbit2000

 

The majority of British people couldn't give a hoot about the monarchy – it is just the rest of the West that has wet dreams over them.

Speak for yourself. That is not what polls show :-

www.telegraph.co.uk...

reply to post by Alfie1


Well, you can take one poll and believe whatever you want but actually spending a half decent amount of time talking to 'every day' folk reveals a different story. It is just like the Olympics – a novelty factor that wears off very quickly. The English are all too predictable and view most Royal occasions and events as a soap opera which, for a couple of days, removes the mondanity of life and propels them into an alternative universe only to come crashing back down to real life when the show is over.