Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
ali smack

Who Killed Princess Diana?

94 posts in this topic

Princess Diana did not die at the hand of another. No one killed her.

She chose to be a sacrifice at the Alma Bridge because going back to ancient times whoever died there goes straight to heaven and then can influence what happens on Earth.

I thought you didnt believe in crazy conpiracies? That one is up there with the best of them.

Diana had true royal blood, she was selected for a reason, the Royal family loved her. They are able to control their feelings in public. Regular people would not understand that. She was loved by them and us.

LOL, wow. This post helps me to better understand you and how you feel about other subjects we have spoken about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite obviously it was the gunman on the grassy knoll.

NOTE TO SELF: never drink coffee while reading witty posts.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite obviously it was the gunman on the grassy knoll.

With a Directed Energy Weapon. :unsure2:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who do you feel killed her and Dodi Fayed?

And do you think they were killed?

I think they were killed but not by the Royals, like a lot of people seem to think.

Who killed her?

A concrete tunnel support in cahoots with a BMW.

Frankly, I realize that lots of folks in Europe and the UK are still interested in this story even today, but I've never really seen the conspiracy aspects of it. If you're going to off somebody, setting up a car accident in hopes that it killed your target is about as inefficient as you can get.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they didn't all die though...

the bodyguard survived and he is my main suspect....(if it wasn't just an accident)

........count the pillars.....approaching the 13th.....quickly turn round and release the seat belts of the other three.....

yank the steering wheel to smash into the 13th pillar......

The bodyguard survived because he had a seatbelt on and his airbag was working?

Speculation of course.

R.I.P. Diana....

.

How exactly does someone "quickly turn round and release the seat belts of the other three" while traveling at the speeds they were traveling? Frankly, how would one do that sitting completely still in a parking lot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who Killed Princess Diana?

Princess Diana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly does someone "quickly turn round and release the seat belts of the other three" while traveling at the speeds they were traveling? Frankly, how would one do that sitting completely still in a parking lot?

what speed were they travelling at? No one seems to know for sure...

http://en.wikipedia....les#pagetreport

Initial media reports stated Diana's car had collided with the pillar at 190 km/h (120 mph), and that the speedometer's needle had jammed at that position. It was later announced the car's actual speed on collision was about 95–110 km/h (60–70 mph), and that the speedometer was digital; this conflicts with the list of available equipment and features of the Mercedes-Benz W140 S-Class, which used a computer-controlled analogue speedometer, with no digital readout for speed. On the other hand, Daimler Benz, producer of the car, reported that "when a Mercedes crashes, the speedometer automatically goes back to zero."[citation needed] At any rate, the car was certainly travelling much faster than the legal speed limit of 50 km/h (31 mph), and faster than was prudent for the Alma underpass. In 1999, a French investigation concluded the Mercedes had come into contact with another vehicle (a white Fiat Uno) in the tunnel. The driver of that vehicle has never come forward, and the vehicle itself has not officially been identified.

And if I remember right the camera in the tunnel was said to be not working at the time of the crash.... :unsure2:

So no visual confirmation of anything including the speed of the car.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bee ,Sweet bee ! Our Sweet Loving Princess Diana was taken by the powers of Fate,nothing more,nothing less ! THe Idiot driving the motor car was the Blame. Infacto Regreta !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I believe prince phillip was behind it all. He did not want a half muslim grandchild and the scandal that would have rocked the royals. The ambulance stopped at the side of the road instead of rushing her to the hospital. There was also someone with a strobe light who blinded the driver. And speaking of the driver the French start their children on watered wine at the age of three. So that at his age would have a great tolerance to alcohol. All the talk of a simple "accident" is just a fairy tale they want you to believe.

Why the heck would he care? For one, Phillip is a ring in himself who went so far as to abandon his Greek and Danish royal titles and converted from Greek Orthodoxy to Anglicanism. He also became a naturalised British subject, adopting the surname Mountbatten from his British maternal grandparents just to marry Queen Elizabeth.

Once divorced, Diana was technically no longer a part of the Royal family. It would be very undesirable to have her at major functions, charity in particular, with a new British Husband, right in the faces of Charles and Camilla. It would be a never ending embarrassment for the Royal family, if anything, an International Husband that would whisk her far away, and whom had an endless supply of money to provide the very best for her and her charities would be by far the most desirable option for Charles and the Royals. Dodi was an easy out for them from this entire mess.

It matters not what you tolerance to alcohol is, your judgment is impaired at the lowest levels. 0.05 is the limit here. It sounds more like you are trying to convince yourself to be honest.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What a peculiar view to claim the Royals desire easy outs even if just one.

Edited by The world needs you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what speed were they travelling at? No one seems to know for sure...

http://en.wikipedia....les#pagetreport

And if I remember right the camera in the tunnel was said to be not working at the time of the crash.... :unsure2:

So no visual confirmation of anything including the speed of the car.

.

How fast were they traveling? Well, fast enough to do this:

post-106978-0-32330300-1371652312_thumb.

I'm no crash expert, but that's not the result of a 10 mph fender bender.

But fine, I'll buy your counter. Let's say they were sitting completely still with the engine off in that tunnel. Explain how a driver can "quickly turn round and release the seat belts of the other three". Try it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't help the brakes were defective either, a common problem at the time with that model.

The regular driver of that car had returned it earlier to the hotel complaining the brakes were not good, the warning light was on and the handling on the car was iffy.

The white Fiat was a red herring. They were pretty sure they traced the exact one which belonged to a freelance reporter. He said he had a small accident in the tunnel earlier.

That guy committed suicide a few years later, there were stories at the time he had been locked in the car from the outside and a hose put in the car. Apparently he couldn't have got out, which is of course rubbish as I have never been in a car that can be locked from the outside which you couldn't have got out of from the inside. Some reports the keys were left in the outside of the door, I would argue how did the engine run without the keys in the ignition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't help the brakes were defective either, a common problem at the time with that model.

The regular driver of that car had returned it earlier to the hotel complaining the brakes were not good, the warning light was on and the handling on the car was iffy.

The white Fiat was a red herring. They were pretty sure they traced the exact one which belonged to a freelance reporter. He said he had a small accident in the tunnel earlier.

That guy committed suicide a few years later, there were stories at the time he had been locked in the car from the outside and a hose put in the car. Apparently he couldn't have got out, which is of course rubbish as I have never been in a car that can be locked from the outside which you couldn't have got out of from the inside. Some reports the keys were left in the outside of the door, I would argue how did the engine run without the keys in the ignition.

It was actually more dramatic than that...

James Andanson died in May 2000. The official verdict was suicide. His body was found in a black, burnt-out BMW in a forest in the south of France, the doors were locked - with no sign of the car keys. Andanson's death was attributed to problems in his private life and evidence was uncovered from his friends and associates that he had talked of suicide long before the death of Diana and he had even mentioned details of the social circumstances in which he would take his life and the method by which he would do it. Their testimony was consistent with the way Andanson actually took his life.

The Paget report states that when the car was found, Andanson's body was in the driver's seat of the car, his head was detached and lay between the front seats. There was also a hole in his left temple. The French pathologist concluded this was caused by the intense heat of the fire rather than, for example, a bullet wound.[31]

Operation Paget found no evidence Andanson was known to any security service and, contrary to Fayed's claims, his death was thoroughly investigated by French police. (Although the whereabouts of the car keys has never been explained). A break-in at his former workplace in June 2000 alleged to have been carried out by security services was found to be unconnected to his death as no items related to him were stolen. The break-in was investigated by French police who to this day have not found the criminals responsible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diana,_Princess_of_Wales_conspiracy_theories#Possible_suicide

:hmm:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a peculiar view to claim the Royals desire easy outs even if just one.

I beg your pardon, could you extrapolate. I do not understand why one would not accept and easy solution if it fell into your lap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How fast were they traveling? Well, fast enough to do this:

post-106978-0-32330300-1371652312_thumb.

I'm no crash expert, but that's not the result of a 10 mph fender bender.

LOL, I dare say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg your pardon, could you extrapolate. I do not understand why one would not accept and easy solution if it fell into your lap.

As providential as that may seem it too is as speculative as assuming the conspiracy of dispatching one to their death over what others imagine was a disgrace.

It is doubtful they were grateful or resentful because public imagination wishes to assign either narrative onto them. It is likely each had their own mixed sentiment.

Private affairs do not always work out and each party involved has to then make do the best they can with what they have. The Royals do not seem to act based on what others think, their protocols whether observed or broken are not based on the opinion of outsiders, but are longstanding traditions that allow cohesion within their own circle and partially framed by the past task of ruling a nation. Now that is only a partial responsibility we can see some flexibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As providential as that may seem it too is as speculative as assuming the conspiracy of dispatching one to their death over what others imagine was a disgrace.

It is doubtful they were grateful or resentful because public imagination wishes to assign either narrative onto them. It is likely each had their own mixed sentiment.

Private affairs do not always work out and each party involved has to then make do the best they can with what they have. The Royals do not seem to act based on what others think, their protocols whether observed or broken are not based on the opinion of outsiders, but are longstanding traditions that allow cohesion within their own circle and partially framed by the past task of ruling a nation. Now that is only a partial responsibility we can see some flexibility.

I am afraid I remain perplexed, I agree they would be neither grateful nor resentful because nothing had actually happened, the only emotion I suspect they might have had at the time was grief.

Is this not in line with that which I proposed? Marriage to Dodi would remove Diana as a royal, as well as from Charles sight altogether, and any upcoming function the royals are expected to attend. If they are not concerned with the opinions of others (and I have to say that the Queens reluctance to hand the crown over to Charles doers not seem to indicate that view) then this would be the perfect situation would it not? She would be removed from this very circle and effectively ousted from the family, to eventually fade away into the background. Everyone wins. I never said the Royals desired an easy way out, one forced itself upon them. I doubt even a royal would look a gifthorse in the mouth?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I am afraid I remain perplexed, I agree they would be neither grateful nor resentful because nothing had actually happened, the only emotion I suspect they might have had at the time was grief.

Is this not in line with that which I proposed? Marriage to Dodi would remove Diana as a royal, as well as from Charles sight altogether, and any upcoming function the royals are expected to attend. If they are not concerned with the opinions of others (and I have to say that the Queens reluctance to hand the crown over to Charles doers not seem to indicate that view) then this would be the perfect situation would it not? She would be removed from this very circle and effectively ousted from the family, to eventually fade away into the background. Everyone wins. I never said the Royals desired an easy way out, one forced itself upon them. I doubt even a royal would look a gifthorse in the mouth?

It seems really clear that there were and are no clean lines or breaks. The mother of a future king could never be totally removed from the circle or ousted from the family much less fade away whether in life, death, or the space existing between the two. Diana will be forever remembered and whether she is honored by many or desired to be forgotten by a few not does not depend on public ceremony or memorial.

Consider that in times past the desire to forget one could have materialized in public execution as ceremony. That of course might be why many pursue the conspiracy theory because our collective memory remembers that. In their minds the events are an execution.

It does seem plausible that many should be grateful that each continued to pursue love in their own way. Since your view differs with the conspiracy theory but could include that possibility, that each continued to pursue love in their own way, and as the conspiracy theory can also include that view, I cannot totally agree or disagree with either in the end but only consign them to the public imagination because that is where those views originated from and that is who owns them: they are public domain.

The Royals might still feel otherwise than how we imagine them to, expect them to, or want them to feel.

Edited by The world needs you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't help thinking accident, however there are so weird factors. The big flash in the tunnel some attributed to a military stun gun, that suicide which certainly was more dramatic than I have been told in the past and the high levels of C02 (I think) found in the drivers body.

However you can't ignore the known factors.

High Speed,

Known braking issue,

Iffy car handling,

Driver had been drinking (although not blind drunk)

No seatbelts

Some kind of pursuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How fast were they traveling? Well, fast enough to do this:

post-106978-0-32330300-1371652312_thumb.

I'm no crash expert, but that's not the result of a 10 mph fender bender.

But fine, I'll buy your counter. Let's say they were sitting completely still with the engine off in that tunnel. Explain how a driver can "quickly turn round and release the seat belts of the other three". Try it.

He was in the passenger seat.... and it's not hard to imagine how it was possible to do.

He could have got them panicked by pointing out of the back window...shouting about something..

He might even have shouted that there was someone with a gun in pursuit (something like that)...leaned right through

to the back and released the seatbelts, ordering them to get down. He was the bodyguard after all.

Resumed his seat..clicked on his seatbelt....clicked the drivers off....then yanked the steering wheel to crash the car.

Means, motive and opportunity....the bodyguard had all three. And was the only one that could ensure 100% that...

The other three weren't wearing seatbelts...and that the car crashed.

To be honest....none of it really matters now...and the above is, of course, pure speculation.

If it was just an accident...so be it...but if it wasn't I'm sure Diana would want people to try and get to the bottom of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was in the passenger seat.... and it's not hard to imagine how it was possible to do.

He could have got them panicked by pointing out of the back window...shouting about something..

He might even have shouted that there was someone with a gun in pursuit (something like that)...leaned right through

to the back and released the seatbelts, ordering them to get down. He was the bodyguard after all.

In fact, that is extremely hard to do, unless you are second Houdini. Have you ever sat in a Benz 300SE and tried this? Ridiculous claim.

Means, motive and opportunity....the bodyguard had all three. And was the only one that could ensure 100% that...

What friggin motive?? And with no guarantee to survive himself to boot.

I want something of what you have been smoking...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was in the passenger seat.... and it's not hard to imagine how it was possible to do.

He could have got them panicked by pointing out of the back window...shouting about something..

He might even have shouted that there was someone with a gun in pursuit (something like that)...leaned right through

to the back and released the seatbelts, ordering them to get down. He was the bodyguard after all.

Resumed his seat..clicked on his seatbelt....clicked the drivers off....then yanked the steering wheel to crash the car.

Means, motive and opportunity....the bodyguard had all three. And was the only one that could ensure 100% that...

The other three weren't wearing seatbelts...and that the car crashed.

To be honest....none of it really matters now...and the above is, of course, pure speculation.

I think you mean baseless accusations, like you burying bodies in your backyard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, that is extremely hard to do, unless you are second Houdini. Have you ever sat in a Benz 300SE and tried this? Ridiculous claim.

I'm sure someone who.....

http://en.wikipedia....nes_(bodyguard)

enlisted in the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment and served one tour of duty in Northern Ireland and was awarded the General Service Medal

wouldn't have had too much trouble doing it.

What friggin motive??

money?...duty?

And with no guarantee to survive himself to boot.

if he was the only one with a seatbelt and functioning air-bag....and he was on the opposite side of the main impact, in the car?

He could probably have expected to live?

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you mean baseless accusations, like you burying bodies in your backyard.

Its just one of the possibilities.....

Any detective or lawyer would consider.... means, motive and opportunity...

That's all I'm doing.

But my heart isn't in spending much time on this.....

Oh...and I don't have a backyard.... :)

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if he was the only one with a seatbelt and functioning air-bag....and he was on the opposite side of the main impact, in the car?

He could probably have expected to live?.

He was not the only one with a seatbelt. He was the only one who fastened it.

And they all had functioning air-bags. Or do you claim 3 of them were disabled?

And the impact was pretty much in the middle. Besides, in your sort of scenario, there is no way he could possibly control where exactly the impact was.

In short: No banana, and not even much of a try.

Hope you have better success in your backyard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.