I stand corrected. Looks like it really was proper third-hand gossip after all.
My suspicion now lies firmly in the 'someone talking big and taken at face value' camp.
That's going to be one hell of a divorce hearing. :eek:
I stand corrected. Looks like it really was proper third-hand gossip after all.
My suspicion now lies firmly in the 'someone talking big and taken at face value' camp.
It all seems to have happened as part of a marital dispute
Maybe the reason the Express and Mail haven't gone overboard is because they had doubts about the veracity of it all
I was on holiday in newquay when it happened. In a random event we got talking to some soldiers who did close protection for the royals. They were cutting their leave short having been recalled for the funeral.
One of them insisted it was a suspicious event because the close protection fella who died was wearing his seatbelt. Apparently its basic training for these guys to never wear a belt because it hampers their response to an incident.These guys were all of a mind that something wasn't right about the whole thing.
If the 'higher ups' wanted to get rid of someone, wouldn't a household incident be easier to arrange and make look like an accident? (Carbon monoxide poisoning or ingesting a poison or something similar.)
I was on holiday in newquay when it happened. In a random event we got talking to some soldiers who did close protection for the royals. They were cutting their leave short having been recalled for the funeral.
One of them insisted it was a suspicious event because the close protection fella who died was wearing his seatbelt. Apparently its basic training for these guys to never wear a belt because it hampers their response to an incident.These guys were all of a mind that something wasn't right about the whole thing.
That's all I have really.
Really? You would think like being dead would be a bigger impediment. How long does it take to click a seat belt?
I was on holiday in newquay when it happened. In a random event we got talking to some soldiers who did close protection for the royals. They were cutting their leave short having been recalled for the funeral.
One of them insisted it was a suspicious event because the close protection fella who died was wearing his seatbelt. Apparently its basic training for these guys to never wear a belt because it hampers their response to an incident.These guys were all of a mind that something wasn't right about the whole thing.
That's all I have really.
Diana's bodyguard was the only person in the car to survive the crash. None of the occupants were wearing seat belts.
I always understood the bodyguard was. Is that not true?
VAN SUSTEREN: Why weren't you wearing a seat belt, and why wasn't anybody else, do you think?
REES-JONES: I can't answer for the others; I can answer for myself. I wouldn't have been wearing one, because it's not what we practice to do, so I needed freedom of movement within the vehicle, and obviously, I was pleased for myself when it was reported I wasn't wearing one.
Early media reports claimed he survived because he was wearing a seatbelt.[1] However, a December 2006 Operation Paget technical examination said that none of the occupants of the car were wearing seat belts at the time of the collision.
I always understood the bodyguard was. Is that not true?
He was the only one who wore a seatbelt, and the only one who survived.
ETA - according to the above, he wasn't, but every report I'd read said he was.
I think the 'close protection officers' you got chatting to Ginger were having you on - flying through the front windshield in the event of a crash also hampers your ability to protect whoever it is you're protecting.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 5m
Police in London are assessing the "credibility" of recently received information on the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed
5:21 PM - 17 Aug 13
Big news, if the information is credible. I hope no one has told the Daily Express yet, they'll have a field day.
More money wasted on that pathetic wretch of a woman.:mad:
Here is a rather silly idea but why cant the MET get a grip and concentrate on making London safer through better policing rather than waste money on the likes of her.
I actually don't care if she was bumped off, i'm not going to lose sleep worrying about that odious woman.
If the 'higher ups' wanted to get rid of someone, wouldn't a household incident be easier to arrange and make look like an accident? (Carbon monoxide poisoning or ingesting a poison or something similar.)
You might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment
I was on holiday in newquay when it happened. In a random event we got talking to some soldiers who did close protection for the royals. They were cutting their leave short having been recalled for the funeral.
One of them insisted it was a suspicious event because the close protection fella who died was wearing his seatbelt. Apparently its basic training for these guys to never wear a belt because it hampers their response to an incident.These guys were all of a mind that something wasn't right about the whole thing.
That's all I have really.
Well considering the close protection fella didn't die, and wasn't wearing his seatbelt, they'd be talking crap.
More money wasted on that pathetic wretch of a woman.:mad:
Here is a rather silly idea but why cant the MET get a grip and concentrate on making London safer through better policing rather than waste money on the likes of her.
I actually don't care if she was bumped off, i'm not going to lose sleep worrying about that odious woman.
So responding to allegations of murder is a waste of money now is it ? the fact that is it more than likely more crap doesn't matter they have a duty to look at it. And if they ignored it then the internet would be alive with conspiracy theories ( well more of them) and people would question if they ignore that then what else will they ignore.
So responding to allegations of murder is a waste of money now is it ? the fact that is it more than likely more crap doesn't matter they have a duty to look at it. And if they ignored it then the internet would be alive with conspiracy theories ( well more of them) and people would question if they ignore that then what else will they ignore.
Yes it happened in France so its their prerogative whether to deem any evidence relevant for a fresh investigation, Scotland Yard are failing to police London adequately with the resources they have so why are they bothering about the death of that odious woman?
They will be investigating the assassination of JFK next if some fool makes allegations of a british involvement.
The Met should do what its tasked to do and not waste time on pointless investigations such as this and the McCann rubbish.
What I've always wondered is why the psychics who claimed to be close to her (though not close enough, apparently, to warn her) can't talk to her spirit and get her account of what happened.
Comments
That's going to be one hell of a divorce hearing. :eek:
It all seems to have happened as part of a marital dispute
Maybe the reason the Express and Mail haven't gone overboard is because they had doubts about the veracity of it all
I was on holiday in newquay when it happened. In a random event we got talking to some soldiers who did close protection for the royals. They were cutting their leave short having been recalled for the funeral.
One of them insisted it was a suspicious event because the close protection fella who died was wearing his seatbelt. Apparently its basic training for these guys to never wear a belt because it hampers their response to an incident.These guys were all of a mind that something wasn't right about the whole thing.
That's all I have really.
No. This was unquestionably the best way to off her: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4meFC1ee7Q
Ha ha, I'd forgotten that. Sums it up nicely.
Really? You would think like being dead would be a bigger impediment. How long does it take to click a seat belt?
Diana's bodyguard was the only person in the car to survive the crash. None of the occupants were wearing seat belts.
I always understood the bodyguard was. Is that not true?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/21/lkl.00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Rees-Jones_(bodyguard)
He was the only one who wore a seatbelt, and the only one who survived.
ETA - according to the above, he wasn't, but every report I'd read said he was.
I think the 'close protection officers' you got chatting to Ginger were having you on - flying through the front windshield in the event of a crash also hampers your ability to protect whoever it is you're protecting.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/princess-diana-death-police-probe-2179191
More money wasted on that pathetic wretch of a woman.:mad:
Here is a rather silly idea but why cant the MET get a grip and concentrate on making London safer through better policing rather than waste money on the likes of her.
I actually don't care if she was bumped off, i'm not going to lose sleep worrying about that odious woman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pucWT_YKJgA
You might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment
Well considering the close protection fella didn't die, and wasn't wearing his seatbelt, they'd be talking crap.
And he also wasn't wearing a seatbelt.
There's a film coming out....... :rolleyes:
So responding to allegations of murder is a waste of money now is it ? the fact that is it more than likely more crap doesn't matter they have a duty to look at it. And if they ignored it then the internet would be alive with conspiracy theories ( well more of them) and people would question if they ignore that then what else will they ignore.
Yes it happened in France so its their prerogative whether to deem any evidence relevant for a fresh investigation, Scotland Yard are failing to police London adequately with the resources they have so why are they bothering about the death of that odious woman?
They will be investigating the assassination of JFK next if some fool makes allegations of a british involvement.
The Met should do what its tasked to do and not waste time on pointless investigations such as this and the McCann rubbish.
,,,because he knew there was going to be a life threatening crash, and was in on it. Not sure I get that logic.