Diana, Princess of Wales death: no evidence SAS was involved, says Met

Sky News reported that the Metropolitan olice had said there was "no credible evidence" the SAS was involved. The network said it had obtained a letter written by AC Rowley that said: "Whilst there is a possibility that the alleged comments in relation to the SAS's involvement in the death may have been made, there is no credible or relevant evidence to support a theory that such claims had any basis in fact.

Diana, Princess of Wales death: no evidence SAS was involved, says Met

It was understood the allegation was made by the former parents-in-law of a former soldier based on information that the ex-soldier talked about in the past, according to a military source. It is believed the information was passed to the Metropolitan police through the Royal Military police.

I have no idea what happened that tragic night but I've read a conspiracy or two that everyone from her husband the Prince to the SAS were involved in her death but the latest and greatest from the authorities have officially ruled out any military involvement in her death. I'm surprised they even investigated such claims but I'm not surprised they found no evidence, and that's because I really don't trust the authorities, especially concerning such high profile cases.

So.... as far as the official story goes...

Related ATS Threads,

Did the SAS Assasinate Diana?

New revelation: SAS assassinated Diana by shining light in driver's face.

reply to post by Swills


I think this guy has just been lying in the past and its come back to bite him (in-laws ex's ect)

But i think they have opened the case knowing there is nothing to this he said she said story so they can say case closed, Taking peoples eyes off what did happen that day.

If they did order it done, i think it would be above even the SAS.
Top players don't get caught out.

Or it was a drunk drive car crash and an accidental death? I dont think we will ever know for sure.

reply to post by Swills


As the news anchor says at the end of this clip, "there will always be those people that believe it was a conspiracy"

I would say YES, just about everyone!

and lets remember this was NO accident, the verdict was 'UNLAWFUL KILLING'

Swills
I have no idea what happened that tragic night but ...

What happened that tragic night has been exhaustively investigated, including a comprehensive public inquest. There was no conspiracy. It was a tragic accident caused by excess driving speed, a solid concrete wall and a drunk chauffeur, Henri Paul, who was also killed.

Regards

greywolf45
and lets remember this was NO accident, the verdict was 'UNLAWFUL KILLING'

Your statement is a lesson on how to mislead. You missed off the (unlawfully killed) ... by the gross neglect of her, chauffeur Henri Paul. So yes, let’s please remember that this was an accident. The verdict says it all.

Regards

I disagree this was just an accident. Princess Diana would never have got into a car driven by a drunk.
No way, particularly as she was worried about her safety as she was outside the Royal circle and simply a nuisance for them to have around because she was more of a media pull than any other royal. Once Charles's and Camilla's behaviour was infront of public scrutiny, they could hardly promote family values and honour for marriage vows - which many of the public expected of them, however naive.

Camilly is there in her place and probably had Prince Charles had his way, would have been his first choice and wife. Diana did a marvellous job of putting that lack-lustre family back infront of the cameras, but she eclipsed them and stood for the betterment of the people, not the royals. She promoted getting rid of land mines,caring for the poor and the Children in Gaza so you can bet there was probably a joint effort to get rid or her but, and its a big but, it would have had to have had the royal stamp of approval.

reply to post by Glz00


even if they do get caught...all you need to do is stick out some puppet and "officially deny it".

That's the end of it...

We are supposed to believe the institutions when they investigate themselves...and trust them with the results.

The investigations will never, ever reveal anything, ever!

no credible evidence

of course not.. you murdered a royal because she was having the baby to an Arab billionaire.
A royal the people LOVED.

Why would you leave evidence behind for future generations to hang you with?

burn it all, destroy it all, deny it all and hopefully history will cover it all.

To examine the credibility of such allegation SAS carried out killing Di I would be looking to get a positive confirmation on two things mainly

1. Did anyone in Royal family have a genuine motive.(and not liking her cause she dumped Charles is a real motive). I mean something much bigger than that.

2. If the SAS were hypothetically and secretly ordered to carry out such crime would they follow through, or refuse it on grounds its unlawful.

She was also murdered because even in Bosnia she wasn't one sided like the rest of her family is.

I would like to point out,even though i speak with no authority,the S.A.S would never murder a #ing princess.If the princess was murdered it was mercenarys.probably working for the duke of edinborough,the scottish black mass(all reptillian Glaswegians)[VERY. VERY. NASTY])
Do they own us? is it only thanks to them i breathe this air?or fight for my food,is that what the cruel masters want?200 jobs down the toilet,thats another payment on the bugatti, will cull another 200 to safeguard MY future payment on the stables.lol.
Now, the scary reptiles may not be enslaving you but slimy toads definately are.
They do offer security for you and yours,while it suits them and they play a round of global golf,
all at your expense of course!night.

reply to post by Swills


In my opinion they run this story so that they can claim they have run a conspiracy story. Course their whole point was to laugh at the whole story themselves, it will portray the conspiracy pepople as nutters.

It's quite possible for somebody to be really very drunk, but not outwardly apparently drunk. So I can totally accept that they'd have gotten in the car with a drunk driver, and not realised it.

Plus of course, these are elites we're talking about, they probably barely even recognise the existence of somebody as menial as a driver. Let along get close enough to smell his breath and look in his eye.

As for assassination? I don't buy it, if you're going to assassinate somebody you don't do it in the public eye surrounded by dozens of photographers. If they wanted her dead she'd have gone to bed one night and suffered a tragic and unexplained death from a hitherto unknown heart condition in the middle of the night. They would not have engineered a drunk driver, a high speed chase, and a collision with a concrete pillar.

Which, apart from anything else, would well have been very survivable if she'd had her seatbelt on.

Agit8dChop
The investigations will never, ever reveal anything, ever!

... of course not.. you murdered a royal because she was having the baby to an Arab billionaire.
A royal the people LOVED.

Sorry, hate to let facts get in the way of fantasy, but the investigations and Inquest found that she was not pregnant. Of course you can disagree with the evidence, but the investigations did reveal that small and inconvenient little ditty. Besides, who would care if she was pregnant? Diana was at that time no longer part of Royalty - she was a celebrity.

Regards

reply to post by Painterz


Except of course everybody that knew Henri Paul including his family, friends and work colleagues said Henri Paul was 'Teetotal' and for anybody who doesn't know what that means? It means he did not drink alcohol!

So this one night was the one night he started drinking??? And nobody noticed???

If someone doesn't drink regularly they will become obviously drunk very quickly if they start drinking heavily one night, so people think? Think!

reply to post by paraphi


Whether she was pregnant or not, she had the possibility of becoming pregnant and producing a half muslim heir to the Royal throne, half brother to the future king William! Especially given her history and preference for Muslim men.

There is enough rumour that even Harry was not Prince Charles seed but that of Harry's lookalike Capt. James Hewitt (one of Diana's former affairs).

However, one of the reasons I was given by someone I cannot reveal unfortunately (a good friend) was that her campaign against landmines was a huge embarrassment for British industry and a Royal family heavily invested along with many other VIP's who all had a vested interest in seeing her silenced! Money is a big motivation as we know but there were apparently several reasons they wanted her put to rest.

I also know for a fact that SAS perfected hits using remote control units that they could control from a short distance away (there is proof of this when a previous hit on a military commander went wrong) from another car, perhaps a Fiat???

There are so many mysteries involving this for example why it took so long to get her to hospital, why the ambulance drove so slow and took a roundabout route and why it did not take her to the nearest hospital?

So many questions, so few answers, why?

Finally, if TPTB want to sell a story that it was an accident and no one from the media, Police or otherwise will question it!

Unless you still believe the Warren Commission, that the Gulf of Tonkin incident took place and that Saddam Hussein and Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda???

reply to post by paraphi


I wouldn't say any 'investigation' contained facts..


there's ''facts'' everywhere

Author Alan Power has revealed in his book 'The Princess Diana Conspiracy', that the radiologist Dr Elizabeth Dion and a nurse saw a "clearly visible" 6-10-week old fetus in her womb, when she was taken to the Paris hospital after her fatal accident, the Daily Star reported.

its just a case of which ones YOU want to believe.

Hongkongphooey
Whether she was pregnant or not, she had the possibility of becoming pregnant and producing a half muslim heir to the Royal throne, half brother to the future king William! Especially given her history and preference for Muslim men.

I am afraid that you completely misunderstand how Royalty works. Had Diana had a baby it would have had zero right to the Throne, it would not have been an heir to anything and would not have been a prince or a princess. It would have been the child a very rich man and an ex Royal - a celebrity.

However, the point is moot. She was not pregnant.

Agit8dChop

I wouldn't say any 'investigation' contained facts..

Well, I suggest you read the Inquest and the notes of the myriad investigations - all in the public domain. The facts come from witnesses, and it would have been impossible to bribe them all. The whole "Diana was pregnant" was a fantasy invented by Mohamed Al-Fayed and people like "Author Alan Power has revealed in his book 'The Princess Diana Conspiracy'" are just out to profit by peddling the conspiracy, in the face of the evidence.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


Paraphi, I am English and I do understand how royalty works, I never once said the (possible) baby would have any claim on the British throne, did I? My point is that it would still be very embarrassing to the Royal family especially as they are of German descent and some of the older members are very racist (without mentioning any names, but well documented),

isnt the entire point of the sas that they dont leave any evidence they were there?