Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

MI6 were in Paris when Diana died Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's a conspiracy!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chelseafan)
    Get your tinfoil hats out folks. Let's also discuss pearl harbor, 9/11 and Tupacs death.
    Gulf of Tonkin Incident
    Operation Northwoods

    /thread
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I was nearly interested, until I realised it was from the Daily "Diana Headline" Express.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006...ng.themonarchy

    http://minority-thought.com/media/20...he-ex-princess
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    No it doesn't.

    It makes perfect sense to kill a high profile person in a car crash. Whether you succeed or not, most people will assume it's just an accident and you'll get away with it.

    In this case though, the inquest found that it was an unlawful killing (manslaughter/murder) but sadly the perpetrators have never been identified.
    But the perpetrators have never been identified?

    Also do you know the difference between manslaughter and murder?

    It was an unlawful killing because the driver henri paul got drunk and continued to drink drive with them inside the car i.e. manslaughter. It wasn't an intentional killing/a murder.

    Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed were unlawfully killed due to the "gross negligence" of driver Henri Paul and the paparazzi, an inquest has found.

    The inquest jury also specified that Mr Paul's drink-driving and a lack of seatbelts contributed to their deaths.

    Princes William and Harry said they "agreed" with the verdicts and thanked the jury for the "thorough way" in which they
    considered the evidence.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foghorn Leghorn)
    But the perpetrators have never been identified?

    Also do you know the difference between manslaughter and murder?

    It was an unlawful killing because the driver henri paul got drunk and continued to drink drive with them inside the car i.e. manslaughter. It wasn't an intentional killing/a murder.

    Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed were unlawfully killed due to the "gross negligence" of driver Henri Paul and the paparazzi, an inquest has found.

    The inquest jury also specified that Mr Paul's drink-driving and a lack of seatbelts contributed to their deaths.

    Princes William and Harry said they "agreed" with the verdicts and thanked the jury for the "thorough way" in which they
    considered the evidence.
    As for Henri Paul's alleged drunkenness, all we know is that he'd had 2 ricards and that the coroner in the inquiry said the jury should be suspicious of large quantities of alcohol that had been planted in Paul's flat after the crash.

    The jury's verdict of unlawful killing leaves open the possibility of manslaughter or murder. Since the drivers of the other vehicles involved have not been identified, it is impossible to establish whether their actions were due to negligence or foul play.

    What is your source for those quotes? They're very misleading in saying the jury found that the paparazzi were responsible, since that was never established.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    As for Henri Paul's alleged drunkenness, all we know is that he'd had 2 ricards and that the coroner in the inquiry said the jury should be suspicious of large quantities of alcohol that had been planted in Paul's flat after the crash.

    The jury's verdict of unlawful killing leaves open the possibility of manslaughter or murder. Since the drivers of the other vehicles involved have not been identified, it is impossible to establish whether their actions were due to negligence or foul play.

    What is your source for those quotes? They're very misleading in saying the jury found that the paparazzi were responsible, since that was never established.
    It doesn't say the jury said the paps were resposible they said it contributed to the death.

    Are you really trying to claim if MI6 wanted to kill diana they would use a plan which was unreliable as to try and get a driver drunk and hope he crashes then hope the crash kills diana? One of if not the greatest intelligence, most technologically advanced, secret services in the world couldn't come up with a better plan than that?

    And why would they kill her anyway? Oh yeah because she was pregnant, except oh wait she actually wasn't pregnant.

    EDIT: my source is the bbc, click on it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foghorn Leghorn)
    It doesn't say the jury said the paps were resposible they said it contributed to the death.

    Are you really trying to claim if MI6 wanted to kill diana they would use a plan which was unreliable as to try and get a driver drunk and hope he crashes then hope the crash kills diana? One of if not the greatest intelligence, most technologically advanced, secret services in the world couldn't come up with a better plan than that?

    And why would they kill her anyway? Oh yeah because she was pregnant, except oh wait she actually wasn't pregnant.
    The jury did not use the word paparazzi. They said other unknown vehicles contributed to the deaths.

    No, I don't think the plan was to get the driver drunk since he only drank 2 ricards and seemed to be sober. It wouldn't be a matter of hoping he crashes when there are other vehicles involved which could potentially blind the driver and collide with the car.

    It's a very sensible method of assassination as it appears at first to be an accident and does not arouse suspicion.

    There are numerous reasons for wanting to kill her. The mother of the future king of England potentially marrying a muslim and giving a birth to his muslim half-sibling would not go down too well. Not to mention the fact that she could at any time go public on her younger son's illegitimacy. But of course none of us really know why she was killed, you would have to ask the persons responsible.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    The jury did not use the word paparazzi. They said other unknown vehicles contributed to the deaths.

    No, I don't think the plan was to get the driver drunk since he only drank 2 ricards and seemed to be sober. It wouldn't be a matter of hoping he crashes when there are other vehicles involved which could potentially blind the driver and collide with the car.

    It's a very sensible method of assassination as it appears at first to be an accident and does not arouse suspicion.

    There are numerous reasons for wanting to kill her. The mother of the future king of England potentially marrying a muslim and giving a birth to his muslim half-sibling would not go down too well. Not to mention the fact that she could at any time go public on her younger son's illegitimacy. But of course none of us really know why she was killed, you would have to ask the persons responsible.
    Pauls blood levels were 3 times the french limit link. As for claims they were switched:



    A DNA profile was taken from his blood and compared with his parents. They matched, which would rule out a switch in the laboratory. The evidence, according to the BBC documentary, clearly shows that the original post-mortem blood samples, which revealed Mr Paul to be three times over the French drink drive limit, were accurate.


    It isn't a very sensible method of assination. The guarantee that they would die is so small it's not worth it. Had diana worn a belt she would have probably survived. They could most certainly come up with a better method of assasination that would have a greater guarantee of her dying but still look like an accident.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foghorn Leghorn)
    Pauls blood levels were 3 times the french limit link. As for claims they were switched:



    A DNA profile was taken from his blood and compared with his parents. They matched, which would rule out a switch in the laboratory. The evidence, according to the BBC documentary, clearly shows that the original post-mortem blood samples, which revealed Mr Paul to be three times over the French drink drive limit, were accurate.


    It isn't a very sensible method of assination. The guarantee that they would die is so small it's not worth it. Had diana worn a belt she would have probably survived. They could most certainly come up with a better method of assasination that would have a greater guarantee of her dying but still look like an accident.
    In the inquiry they said that the blood samples were a biological impossibility. But there's no way of getting to the bottom of that one.

    Diana wasn't wearing a belt because it was jammed.

    How do you know that a guarantee of death was a priority. She was already paranoid that people were trying to kill her. Had she survived, an incident like this would give her more incentive than ever to pipe down and not cause so many problems for the establishment.

    If there are so much better ways of killing one of the most photographed people in the world and making it look like an accident I would love you to name one. It's no good just saying that there must be one.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chelseafan)
    Y
    He believes the government did 9/11

    On topic: LOL.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    In the inquiry they said that the blood samples were a biological impossibility. But there's no way of getting to the bottom of that one.

    Diana wasn't wearing a belt because it was jammed.

    How do you know that a guarantee of death was a priority. She was already paranoid that people were trying to kill her. Had she survived, an incident like this would give her more incentive than ever to pipe down and not cause so many problems for the establishment.

    If there are so much better ways of killing one of the most photographed people in the world and making it look like an accident I would love you to name one. It's no good just saying that there must be one.
    Where's the link that it says it was biologically impossible. I have just shown you a link with proof that the dna was his and he was 3 times over the limit.

    No there was some damage to the belt after the crash, but even then it was still in a servicable condition i.e. she could have definitely worn it but decided not to. And there is no reason for dodi not wearing one. link (page 421)


    So they just tried to scare her. This conspiracy is getting more and more vague and less credible as we go along.


    I never said they wouldn't kill her and make it look like an accident, infact the exact opposite. What I said was they could use a more reliable way of assasination. Maybe they could of killed her and framed someone. They could have spiked her drink with something and made it look like a suicide. There a plenty of ways of killing her.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    No it doesn't.

    It makes perfect sense to kill a high profile person in a car crash. Whether you succeed or not, most people will assume it's just an accident and you'll get away with it.

    In this case though, the inquest found that it was an unlawful killing (manslaughter/murder) but sadly the perpetrators have never been identified.
    But why? Why would Diana having a baby with some businessman's son have any baring on the Royal line? Or was there some other pointless reason to kill her? At least the motivation for 9/11 being false flag was to get our soldiers into Afghanistan (for whatever reason), where's the purpose of killing Diana?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    But why? Why would Diana having a baby with some businessman's son have any baring on the Royal line? Or was there some other pointless reason to kill her? At least the motivation for 9/11 being false flag was to get our soldiers into Afghanistan (for whatever reason), where's the purpose of killing Diana?
    Something to do with a muslim child can't be a royal.

    Except the fact that if diana had a muslim child (which btw she wasn't pregnant) it wouldn't be a royal child since she was no longer a royal given she was divorced from charles and stripped of her royal title. Also there is no reason to suggest the child would be brought up a muslim. Or even that the royal family or illuminati or whoever we are blaiming actually give two ****s about this arbitrary link with dianas death and islam.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    So MI6, the intelligence organisation that runs operations internationally (which means in other countries) was in the capital of a foreign country. OMG what a surprise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    in short frak off - shes dead, leave the poor woman be

    And the express - if there was a piece of garbage newspaper worse than the daily mail its the express.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    There are numerous reasons for wanting to kill her. The mother of the future king of England potentially marrying a muslim and giving a birth to his muslim half-sibling would not go down too well. Not to mention the fact that she could at any time go public on her younger son's illegitimacy. But of course none of us really know why she was killed, you would have to ask the persons responsible.
    I think you're hugely overestimating the risks MI6 would take just to save the monarchy some embarassment.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It's certaintly one of the most plausible consipary theories
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chelseafan)
    Get your tinfoil hats out folks. Let's also discuss pearl harbor, 9/11 and Tupacs death.
    Tupac killed because of a feud relating to rap music, and we all know that rap music was created by the CIA to oppress black people. Pretty standard knowledge.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.