Did the SAS Assasinate Diana?

reply to post by TheIceQueen
you are correct but throw enough darts at the dart board , one or two will be a Bullseye, not saying this is the case but one must remain open to any possibility no matter how far out there it might be.
One possibility the form ex Husband the Prince was jealous if he could not have her no one could. other jealous Husbands have done it, a prince is no exception. Here is a link few things one may not know about Diana history1900s.about.com...

one other possibility she knew she "was going to go out" her life was to end this night and this was why she did not have on her seat belt.

Or it just might be... she died in a tragic car Accident, and that is the end of it.

Originally posted by SprocketUK
While I'm not sold on the idea of an assassination, the seat belt thing is a bit of a red herring. After all, it's entirely probable that Diana may have been in the habit of refusing to wear a seat belt and this would have been reported by her cp guy so would not be such a far fetched bit of chance for any plan to rely upon.

This kind of sums up where i am on this topic.

I am not sold on the idea she was assassinated based on our current knowledge yet like with everything my views are subject to change based on new information. So if this turns out to be credible then my views regarding her death will change.

A long chain of events planned well in advance by demonic hordes.

1. Get the prince to cheat on her.

2. She loses faith in his love and divorces him.

3. The people call her Lady Di which sort of sounds like a term of endearment, when really is was a demonic plan from the adultery to the association with a big shot who runs with a drunk chaffeur who has more concern for outrunning the paparazzi than for Lady Diana's safety.

Lady Die. It wasn't a term of endearment. It goes to show you just how far dark forces are in control of the world. Even people like royalty. People in high places are well under the control of demonic forces. I've seen low ranking enlisted men in the military show more respect for their wives and the gift they were given at the altar than Prince Charles.

You want to know who got Lady Diana killed. Her own husbands philandering. Why marry a woman you don't love?

I doubt that other than philandering that the royal family had anything to do with her death. If Prince Charles would have put anyone on her after philandering he'd probably be dead. God wouldn't tolerate that. Philandering with a woman as great as she was, was bad enough.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Again like i have said i usually side with the official story

That's why I like you....

reply to post by CatherineWheel


This is an example of how Lady Di's philandering got a guy killed.
Barry Mannakee, her bodyguard (before Rees Jones) and lover.

In 1987, Mannakee was killed when the Suzuki motorbike he was riding as a passenger, driven by a fellow police officer, crashed into a Ford Fiesta driven by 17-year-old Nicola Chopp, in Woodford, east London. As an estate car turned left in front of the motorbike, Chopp pulled out from a side road, turning right across the motorbike's path. An unknown car with dazzling lights was quoted at the inquest as a contributory factor to the crash, but the vehicle has never been traced. The inquest recorded a verdict of accidental death.
Diana never truly believed that it was an accident and thought that someone had killed him because "he knew too much". Video tapes were broadcast by American television network NBC, the Princess said: "I was quite happy to give all this up ... Just to go off and live with him. Can you believe it? And he kept saying he thought it was a good idea." Also in the tapes, Diana said she believed the man with whom she was "deeply in love" was "bumped off" by security services.

Could've been an accident, who's to say.

reply to post by abdel


I suppose it is possible. But I don't think that Diana would intentionally set out to harm anyone, anymore than I think that Prince Charles knew that his philandering could lead to his wife's death.

Sometimes calculating the eventual possibilities is beyond human comprehension. Unless you have seen a precedent set in real life and know the behaviors varying consequences and seriousness, having seen it first hand as it is able to be seen. There is a thin correlation to alienating the affections of your wife and the loss of life or at the very least the spiritual demise of your spouse.

But I'd like to think that the members of the royal family are not capable of murder except for self defense.

I'd like to think that God has enough sense of justice that an actual attack on her would result in a plane crash or something like that, unless she made a move on his life by philandering first. Retaliatory philandering on her part is understandable. How retaliatory philandering on her part if it exists fits into judgement, who knows? I really don't think the woman given her status in life would have been capable of cheating on the prince first. I think she was well above that kind of behavior and above that kind of lack of respect for the royal family.

There are a couple of occasions where I can think that philandering by the husband might be justifiable to an extent. If she was denying him affection, or he was deployed in combat. The Playboy thing doesn't cut the mustard. If you don't love the woman, have the physical fun then let her go. But Lady Diana was not a tramp.

Also, I think that the Princes sons at least one of them. I think he married for love. I think that will keep him from making the same mistake. I think that Lady Diana was a sexual attraction and fitting of status. A lady with excellent morals and a prince when I think his heart was elsewhere.

Have to say if anybody could pull this off its the S.A.S!

After all there are unquestionably the best at what they do.

I have no idea if Diana was murdered or not. I know she feared that she would be.
But I have no doubt that the palace wasn't exactly sad to see her go ...
I'll be watching the details of this come out. It should be interesting.

reply to post by abdel


After reading the details of the Barry Mannakee incident, calling it a conspiracy might be stretching it when you consider the facts. It was dark (after 10:00 pm at night), the seventeen year old driver only had her driver's license for six weeks, and she claims she didn't see the motorcycle because it was right behind another car. I can easily see from this scenario how it would be easy not to spot the motorcycle. I can't tell you how many close calls I've had with motorcyclists when they just happen to hit my "blind spot", regardless of what direction they're coming from, or whether it was day or night.

According to this article, Princess Diana was very prone to believe in conspiracy theories (and probably for good reason), and I can see where she might have thought that they were trying to "bump him off" since she was still married to Prince Charles at the time, but when she had her fatal car accident, they were already officially divorced.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I don't really believe this story, mainly because the ex SAS sergeant in question appears to be something of a fruitloop with a history of extremely bizarre behaviour, mentioned in various reports to his commanders (according to media reports anyway, as well as his family).

However, as it costs well over £1 million to train each individual SAS soldier, they are often loathe to write off their investment so will continue to use them when and where necessary (hence his continued service despite concerns on his behaviour).

Additionally, the SAS ran the protection teams for Princess Dianna so any SAS involvement would have also been against SAS members. Like any organisation, there will be people that dislike each other but i cannot honestly see them actively targeting each other.

Originally posted by NeoParadigm
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

Ok, I misunderstood.

Still strange they would use a Fiat Uno for anything though.

"They" did not use it. It was owned by notorious paparazzo James Andanson, who later bragged to friends that he had been in the Alma tunnel on the night of the crash. Here is Andanson in front of it:
www.onlinepublishingcompany.info...
He worked freelance for MI6, according to some investigators, and was invited by Diana to take photographs on Dodi's yacht a few days before she was killed. By getting Andanson to be in the tunnel, the perps moved back their involvement one stage, i.e., it could be admitted if necessary that he accidently bumped the car whilst taking this photo:
www.smh.com.au...
and caused it to crash, i.e., HE was responsible for Diana's death. But of course he didn't. He was merely there amongst the paparazzi. And now he is dead, shot twice in the head and turned to cinders in his burnt-out car.

Originally posted by Deetermined
I can see where she might have thought that they were trying to "bump him off" since she was still married to Prince Charles at the time, but when she had her fatal car accident, they were already officially divorced.

... but she was into Muslim guys (Dodi .. and another fella who is a Muslim doctor) ... and it is thought that the palace didn't want the future king of England (William) to have a Muslim step daddy. It was too much for the palace to be able to handle.

That's the conspiracy anyways. Like I said, I don't know if I buy it or not.
I'm keeping an open mind on this. It could go either way ....

reply to post by micpsi

"They" did not use it. It was owned by notorious paparazzo James Andanson,

Actually, that was never proven either. In the meanwhile, another couple who were in the tunnel that night identified Lee Van Thanh as the driver in the white Fiat Uno, from a picture line up. They identified his dog as being in the backseat too. They did not recognize James Adanson as the driver of the Fiat they saw.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I have no doubt that the Royal family disliked Diana's taste for Arabs, but according to the Police Chief in the original investigation, it was the white Fiat that set this whole accident into motion. The driver was a 22 year-old Vietnamese kid who refuses to speak to the British investigators. If accounts are true, and he was indeed the driver of the white Fiat, I don't suspect that he was a paid patsy while having his dog in the backseat of his car.

As for the bright lights or "flash", has anyone been able to determine what caused it? Were there multiple photographers flashing their cameras right before the crash, or could the bright flash have been caused by sparks and impact of the crash itself? I haven't heard or read any reports on where the bright flash came from.

reply to post by stumason

I agree with you on this, the whole episode was decidedly amateurish, and left too many of the variables involved in ensuring that the desired outcome was achieved to chance. The fact that the SAW (subversive action wing) of the SAS(referred to as the "increment" in the op) would be used in this instance doesn't quite make sense as both MI5 and the SIS have highly covert "wet" ops units of their own, as noted in previous responses, why take the risk of having a member of the SAS or SBS talking about the operation at some point in the future when there is already a proficient "assassination" team available for just such an occasion?

Princess Diana is not dead. They parodied her death in the movie "2012". There is obviously places on planet earth all these famous "dead" people go that we cant find on a map. Disneys "Its a small world" could have a meaning we didn't previously suspect.

Originally posted by r666evolution
Princess Diana is not dead. They parodied her death in the movie "2012". There is obviously places on planet earth all these famous "dead" people go that we cant find on a map. Disneys "Its a small world" could have a meaning we didn't previously suspect.

what so Diana is living it up on some island somewhere because famous people dont die?

Originally posted by stumason
Ah, right, how silly of me.... MI5 had a plant in the French Ambulance service..... Of course...

Is it really that hard to believe that if someone was powerful enough to have a member of a royal family assassinated, they couldn't possibly have contacts high up in a neighbouring country?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
... but she was into Muslim guys (Dodi .. and another fella who is a Muslim doctor) ... and it is thought that the palace didn't want the future king of England (William) to have a Muslim step daddy. It was too much for the palace to be able to handle.

That's the conspiracy anyways.

I got a better one. Heard of the Panorama interview?

When it was aired here in Adelaide on TV, I remember clearly her being asked something about the Queen Mother to which she replied "she's a lizard" with a very serious look on her face.

I remember saying to my girlfriend at the time "that's a bit below the belt!" (not knowing anything about "reptilians" at the time.)

I found the video on Youtube and the transcripts of the interveiw, and just as she starts talking negatively about the royal family, it suddenly cuts out and changes to another subject. This is when it happened.

The only reason I'm bothering to mention this is because this WILL come out sometime in the future. Somehow, someone stuffed up and the "uncensored" version of the interview was aired here. Which means there are quite a few dusty boxes in garages around here with that on a VHS tape in them...

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by micpsi

 

"They" did not use it. It was owned by notorious paparazzo James Andanson,

Actually, that was never proven either. In the meanwhile, another couple who were in the tunnel that night identified Lee Van Thanh as the driver in the white Fiat Uno, from a picture line up. They identified his dog as being in the backseat too. They did not recognize James Adanson as the driver of the Fiat they saw.

That's because Andanson was not in the lineup, so they chose whoever best fitted their memory. But witnesses have unreliable memories and one cannot rely just on one couple's testimony, particularly when there is evidence that contradicts it:
1. Andanson himself said he was in the tunnel;
2. Le Van vehemently denied that he was in the tunnel at the time and said that he resprayed his car several hours before the crash. Even if he had done this after the crash, this might have been because he had heard that the police was talking about a white Fiat Uno being involved, so he quickly resprayed it so that he would not become a suspect. Le Van was a convenient candidate chosen by Lord Stevens to replace the REAL culprit - James Andanson, who was never questioned by the police;
3. Al-Faed's investigators traced his sold car to a garage and found its rear wing had been repaired, so it WAS proved that his car was in the tunnel, as the white paint found by the French police matched the white paint from Andanson's car, whilst the repair had been to the wing light whose splinters had been found by the police. The continuing claim by the French police that his car was never found is a plain lie;
4. At the time, the Paris Criminal Brigade, which led the investigation into the crash that also killed Dodi Fayed and driver Henri Paul, ruled out Vietnamese-born Le Van because they found no evidence he had replaced a rear tail light (the remains of a Fiat Uno light were found at the crash scene). This is damning, despite Lord Stevens' pathetic attempt to dismiss it.
Point 4 proves beyond question that Le Van's car was irrelevant to the investigation and was chosen by Lord Stevens simply as a diversion from the real culprit.