Skip to comments.Diana's death: accident or ...
Posted on 06/15/2005 6:57:55 AM PDT by phoenix_004
Speculations that Princess Diana's death may be more than an accident have gained further momentum, after recent discoveries revealed that her chauffeur reportedly received mystery payments amounting to 142,000 dollars, just weeks before she died in the car he was driving.
Chauffeur Henri Paul died along with Diana and her lover Dodi Al Fayed when the Mercedes he was driving crashed in an underpass in Paris, France in August 1997.
British detectives investigating the tragedy have fuelled speculation that Paul was being paid by British secret service agents, by revealing the staggering sums he received from British banks just before the fatal accident.
Financial investigators have also revealed Paul had staggering amounts of money in 13 bank accounts around the world, despite earning just 38,000 pounds, a year as a driver for Paris' Ritz hotel.
"Money was drafted over to Paul from accounts in England. As far as the investigation is concerned, this is a crucial breakthrough,"a source close to the inquiry was quoted by Femalefirst, as saying.
"We have always wanted to get to the bottom of who was paying Henri Paul all this cash and now we're getting closem," they added.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesofindia.indiatimes.com ...
It was an accident, you freaking lunatics.
Elvis did it.
I could really care less what happened or didn't happen to some British royal.
I thought we Americans shook all that off over 200 years ago?
She's (still) dead, Jim.
A paid murder/suicide. He put a hit on himself. Was he Muslim?
my thoughts exactly!!!
What was the last thing to go through Diana's mind?
The rear window.
Famous people never die an untimely death, they are just on permanent vacation in Conspiracy Theory Land.
This brilliant plan by the British Secret Service ("Kill Di? Righ-to, Chief, no problem") required that she not wear her seatbelt. Something she was famous for doing and insisting her two children did as well.
LOL! Great photo.
Let me make sure I understand this. The chauffeur was paid $142,000 to commit suicide?
Not much of a deal for him.
"Elvis did it."
You mean it wasn't MJ? I thought this story might explain why he is, according to LMS reports, nearly broke. Who would'a thunk it - paying Diana's driver...
Tin foil hat alert!
Yeah. An accident. A very convenient accident.
An ex-Princess and mother of the heirs apparent to the British throne get seriously involved with a wealthy Muslim.
As long as she is alive her former husband has a cloud hanging over him as a divorced man with respect to succeeding his brain dead mother.
A incredibly freak accident occurs, conveniently, outside England in which she is killed.
Persoanlly, although I have no PROOF, I BELIEVE very strongly the idiot Windsors had her done in so Prince Charlie would be free to marry the love of his life - Horseface Camilla Parker-Bowles, and then succeed his equally mentally challenged mother as King.
I can understand why the English would want a Monarch as the titular head of State. Its part of tradition. There was always a King or Queen in Britain going back to before Anglo-Saxon days. Tradition is great and an important part of any nation's cultural heritage.
But for the life of me, I can't understand why the English people tolerate such a collection of mentally challenged, arrogant, scandalously wealthy, totally useless, scandal-ridden morons like the Windsors.
They should have another "Glorious Revolution" as in 1688, kick out these parasites and invite in another monarch from a more functional and mentally stable royal family, like from the Netherlands or Norway for instance to replace these creepy Windsors a.k.a Saxe-Coburg Gotha a.k.a House of Hanover misfits.
Then why did the Brits wait so long to do their own inquest? Maybe because the Brits aren't entirely certain themselves? Makes one wonder.
"It was an accident, you freaking lunatics."
And Oswald was the lone gunman.
All it would require for a divorced person to succeed to the throne is an Act of Parliament.
Murdering anyone wasn't necessary and the risk/reward ratio is out of whack.
If it were provable that the royal family actually plotted her death, the monarchy would come to an end.
That's a far worse outcome than a divorced monarch.
Indeed he was.
Sorry, I don't buy into the left-lunatic Oliver Stone conspiracy theories.
because the original one was sufficient. But the tin foil hatters refused to let it go, so Parliament stupidly moved to appease the barmy element.
As you may recall from the reaction to her death in Britain, millions of otherwise sane Britons seem to be completely unhinged when it comes to Diana Spencer. It was politics.
The Queen did it. ;)
An accident which would not have been fatal if not for the EXCESSIVE speed of the car which was driven by the driver.
"If it were provable that the royal family actually plotted her death ...."
But there's the rub. Prooving a well-executed operation can be very difficult.
But what do you think of my assessment of the Windsors?
A post here claimed that Diana had "taken Charles to the cleaner". (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1177954/posts )
Perhaps it was Charles' desire to be Camilla's permanent ----- instead. If so they'll never find the real source of the payment(s), although government could be blamed.
Had the anti-Dis hired Fat Teddy as technical advisor, Di's car with Di in it would have accidently run off Tower Bridge and would have been at the bottom of the Thames for 3 days before Teddy mentioned that she was missing. The killers made such a big deal of this when an expert , an Irish-American expert, could have have helped make it so much more subtle.
I think they're useless.
Their only job, in exchange for billions and total access everywhere in the world, is to stay married and raise well-groomed heirs.
They can't even do that right.
I'm sure I will.
Rememeber, no one is ever personally responsible for their own bad deeds or failures - there is always a web of secret schemers behind everything who are really to blame.
I can see it now:
The british royalty has a long and well documented history of eliminating threats to the line of succession. With England's growing muslim population, the last thing they would tolerate is a muslim prince waiting around to stir up trouble.
LOL. That would be the first time the Brits were happy with anything the Frogs did, wouldn't it? FWIW, I don't buy it. I don't know if it was an accident or not. And it just seems to me like the Brits don't want to know for certain. Which makes me wonder why?
A more obvious explanation of the bank accounts around the world is drugs.
He was in a position to procure and transport drugs and provide them to people with money.
Do tell how this is so.
I thought she was a hotty and getting better with age. Anyone have those secret gym pics? GrrrOWL...
William and Harry are royal because of who their father is, not because of who their mother was.
The Times of India is reporting this, how reliable are they?
If you haven't noticed, I can't explain it to you.
Well, look at the folks
who never let the story
die right here are home:
"On June 4, the London Daily Telegraph, the flagship publication of the British monarchy and the Club of the Isles' Hollinger Corp., published a crass slander against Lyndon LaRouche, headlined "U.S. Cult Is Source of Theories." The article charged that LaRouche, EIR, and the New Federalist newspaper were all behind a "Diana conspiracy industry," and that LaRouche, in league with London-based billionaire Mohamed Al Fayed, was "accusing the Queen of ordering the assassination of Diana, Princess of Wales."
June 19, 1998 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Who the hell CARES? She's dead - end of story.
She's probably boogyin' with Elvis and James Dean. They aren't really dead either. Oh, and maybe JFK!
Interesting how these conspiracy theories have a recurring pattern to them, i.e. they re-surface at regular intervals. I'd bet you could apply mathematics and physics to the timing, kinda like Moore's Law.
wanna solve a mystery...find out who the 'aw jeeze' guy is
and where he is today
Don't know but I bet he wishes he got royalties....
True, but had this relationship had the chance to take off, it would have been yet another "embarrassing" stunt for the self absorbed Windsors to have to deal with. Remember, Fergie and the toe sucking, all of the secret phones calls etc? That said, I do believe it was an accident.
I don't think the royals would have cared that much if Diana had married a Muslim or an Arab. It might have served to put more distance between her and the Firm if she had. Given her popularity, some of them probably wanted very much for her to make a move that would lower her stock with the public, and marrying the feckless playboy and deadbeat Dodi and taking on the corrupt loudmouth Mohammed al-Fayed as a father-in-law would have done the trick. With respect to William and Harry, Diana probably would have ended up in a similar position to that of her own mother who was estranged from Diana when she was royal; a bothersome, sometimes embarrassing relation.
Diana was beautiful and got away with many of her manipulations, but she had little common sense or true wisdom, and likely would have managed to step in it in a big way had she lived. She was already heading down the road to a major public embarrassment in the summer of 1997.
Boy did we have the right idea in 1776.
"Any offspring of Fayed and Diana would not be royalty or stand in line to the throne.
William and Harry are royal because of who their father is, not because of who their mother was."
Tell that to the house of Toudor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.