• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Does anyone here believe that Princess Diana's car crash was suspicious?

BartholomewWest said:
If the people on this forum were prosecutors, they'd never convict anyone. On the grounds that they didn't personally see the defendant murder his wife in front of the jury. "Your Honor, he didn't do it in the courtroom, in front of my eyes, so how do I know he did it?"

Murder convictions have occurred, even when the prosecution is lacking a motive, a murder weapon and in some cases even a body.
Click to expand...
And you'd convict based on people gossiping about things they know nothing about.

You know something? I'm good with skepticism. Works better for me.

Eta: a skeptic accepts persuasive evidence. For instance, we see that no cameras malfunctioned on the night of the crash, based on official reports and all available evidence presented by both sides of the conspiracy. We accept that as convincing evidence that the cameras were operating normally.

You hear some yahoo claiming there was a global malfunctiining of a surveillance grid that didn't exist, and you buy it hook, line and sinker.

Oh yeah. Our method is better.
 
Last edited:
Carrot Flower King said:
So, let me get this straight: Andrew was obviously sent to the Falklands to fly helicopters in order to get shot down and avoid all that unpleasantness with Epstein, 'cos Brenda had a time machine; Harry was sent to Afghanistan to get shot and avoid all that unpleasantness with Markle and arguments with his bro, again 'cos of that time machine.
Click to expand...
Harry was in the Blues and Royals, another Cavalry regiment of the Household Cavalry and also an armoured reconnaissance regiment.

Coincidence? I think not, all part of the plan.
 
Darat said:
That is not circular reasoning.
Click to expand...
True, but I doubt @Vixen understands many of the terms she throws about.

Jack by the hedge said:
What constitutional crisis are you imagining?
Click to expand...
Inquiring minds want to know...
Vixen said:
I think she mentioned it in her interview with the Bashir chap.
Click to expand...
You "think".... And yet you cited the supposed premonition.
Vixen said:
It could be argued that there is the official cause and then there is the real cause. I think that is BartholomewWest's argument summed up.
Click to expand...
It's up to you and your fellow conspiracy nuts to show such a difference exists.
Vixen said:
Yes, according to my brother, when in the junior army cadets, it was the dream of every boy there to drive a tank.

.
Click to expand...
A friend of mine joined the US Army for that reason. Though cavalry not armor.
Gos a speeding ticket...
 
BartholomewWest said:
If the people on this forum were prosecutors, they'd never convict anyone. On the grounds that they didn't personally see the defendant murder his wife in front of the jury. "Your Honor, he didn't do it in the courtroom, in front of my eyes, so how do I know he did it?"

Murder convictions have occurred, even when the prosecution is lacking a motive, a murder weapon and in some cases even a body.
Click to expand...
More of your nonsensical rubbish.
 
BartholomewWest said:
If the people on this forum were prosecutors, they'd never convict anyone.
Click to expand...
If you were a prosecutor, you would never convict anyone. All the defence would need to say would be, "no case to answer, my lord", and the whole thing would be thrown out.
 
Vixen said:
It is not possible to prove a negative so the whole thing is on a sticky wicket from the outset. But neither does it prove the whole thing was innocent. Certainly, Prince Harry himself, who will have background insider information, states there is a lot that is unexplained.
Click to expand...
By that logic, the total lack of evidence that you once ate a squirrel that you hit with your car should give us reason to wonder if you did.

And Prince Harry has some very strong emotional links to the case, which can certainly have clouded his objectivity. The same Happened with Virgil 'Gus' Grissom's wife. She bought into the crackpot theory that he was assassinated by NASA with a faked safety issue with the Block I Command Module to keep him from exposing his concerns about the safety of the Command Module.
 
BartholomewWest said:
If the people on this forum were prosecutors, they'd never convict anyone. On the grounds that they didn't personally see the defendant murder his wife in front of the jury. "Your Honor, he didn't do it in the courtroom, in front of my eyes, so how do I know he did it?"

Murder convictions have occurred, even when the prosecution is lacking a motive, a murder weapon and in some cases even a body.
Click to expand...
You're just trying to make excuses for your failure to present any empirical evidence. You do understand that in those cases when people have been convicted of murder without any witnesses that there has been other evidence presented, yes? There might be a gun found hidden in the defendant's home with his fingerprints that has been linked to the bullet that killed the victim. There might be DNA evidence that is matched to the defendant found under the victim's fingernails. You can't make a sound case based on, "the defendant can't prove he was somewhere else at the time of the murder and it's well known that he thought the victim was a right twat".

We're not the prosecutors in your analogy. You're the one making the claim of a crime, so it's up to you to provide the evidence to support the charge. We aren't even the defense council in this analogy, because we're not tasked with casting doubt on the prosecution's charge. We're like the jury, and all we have to do is note the failure of the prosecution to support its case with the slightest evidence.
 
Last edited:
To sum up:

The OP asks if anyone here finds Diana's crash suspicious.

The answer is yes, one member (outside of OP's household).

Question answered, thread closed?
 
Thermal said:
To sum up:

The OP asks if anyone here finds Diana's crash suspicious.

The answer is yes, one member (outside of OP's household).

Question answered, thread closed?
Click to expand...
I have not said Diana's crash was suspicious. Being an objective person I keep an open mind. Whilst it is almost certainly an accident, given we do not have all the information - I reserve my 100% judgement. For example, the Royal Family stuffing all their affairs into classified-for-75-year compartments [cf Prince Philip's will and a media black-out on who was that young lady sitting with the other Royals or why she was, if named {some claim her to have been his live-in mistress for years, with the Queen's blessing, and they had a daughter}] - we can be sure there are lots of things we have not been told about.

I came by here to help people out with their logic as BartholomewWest, in particular, seemed to be struggling to present a coherent argument, for or against.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I have not said Diana's crash was suspicious. Being an objective person I keep an open mind. Whilst it is almost certainly an accident, given we do not have all the information - I reserve my 100% judgement. For example, the Royal Family stuffing all their affairs into classified-for-75-year compartments [cf Prince Philip's will and a media black-out on who was that young lady sitting with the other Royals or why she was, if named {some claim her to have been his live-in mistress for years, with the Queen's blessing, and they had a daughter}] - we can be sure there are lots of things we have not been told about.

I came by here to help people out with their logic as BartholomewWest, in particular, seemed to be struggling to present a coherent argument, for or against.
Click to expand...
That's all I meant: not that you thought it was A Hit, but that you thought there were suspicious circumstances in the mix. You debated quite a bit about the camera at the tunnel entrance, for instance.
 
BartholomewWest said:
If the people on this forum were prosecutors, they'd never convict anyone. On the grounds that they didn't personally see the defendant murder his wife in front of the jury. "Your Honor, he didn't do it in the courtroom, in front of my eyes, so how do I know he did it?"

Murder convictions have occurred, even when the prosecution is lacking a motive, a murder weapon and in some cases even a body.
Click to expand...
Once again, motive is not the issue here. Address means and opportunity and you might have a point.

We all know how Diana died. Show us who could realistically have intentionally set out to cause that to happen, and you might have something.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Once again, motive is not the issue here. Address means and opportunity and you might have a point.
Click to expand...
Sidebar (as if the thread is anything else), but MM&O is a misleading criteria. You need to show a suspect has all three, but having all three doesn't make you a suspect. It just means it is possible that you did it. Lacking opportunity could rule you out, say, if you were not in the area when it was committed.

{ETA: like, you could say a cop has as much MM&O as any given suspect in a murder. Motive: he's a cop, and a psychopath by nature. Means: lots of weapons and techniques. Opportunity: just needs to be on patrol alone when it happened}

Motive is the most slippery. You could commit your crime with no actual motive other than you wanted to, yet you could have a damnn good motive but be morally impervious to the temptation. Means, well, most people could have the means to commit a lot of crimes. Opportunity can be entirely unrelated to the crime, if you happened to be around, like others were.
Jack by the hedge said:
We all know how Diana died. Show us who could realistically have intentionally set out to cause that to happen, and you might have something.
Click to expand...
Even better, just the "how". Creating a single car crash with targeted fatalities is a ridiculous gamble at best.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Sidebar (as if the thread is anything else), but MM&O is a misleading criteria. You need to show a suspect has all three, but having all three doesn't make you a suspect. It just means it is possible that you did it. Lacking opportunity could rule you out, say, if you were not in the area when it was committed.

Motive is the most slippery. You could commit your crime with no actual motive other than you wanted to, yet you could have a damnn good motive but be morally impervious to the temptation. Means, well, most people could have the means to commit a lot of crimes. Opportunity can be entirely unrelated to the crime, if you happened to be around, like others were.

Even better, just the "how". Creating a single car crash with targeted fatalities is a ridiculous gamble at best.
Click to expand...
That's because you are treating it as a right-first-time incident. It could have been the 99th attempt, for all you know. It didn't even have to be a tunnel, it could be anywhere a car can be swerved off the road and into a solid unyielding structure. Anyway, this is moving into the realms of 'what-if'.
 
Vixen said:
That's because you are treating it as a right-first-time incident. It could have been the 99th attempt, for all you know. It didn't even have to be a tunnel, it could be anywhere a car can be swerved off the road and into a solid unyielding structure. Anyway, this is moving into the realms of 'what-if'.
Click to expand...
So the driver intentionally died so he could take Diana and her boyfriend with him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom