The information, thought to include the allegation that the Princess of Wales, Dodi al Fayed and their driver were killed by a member of the British military, will be assessed by officers from the Specialist Crime and Operations Command.

news.sky.com/story/1129902/dianas-death-...ssed-new-information

I do hope that those who supplied this "information" will not allow themselves to be driven into any tunnels.

Prince Charles is the killer just like Blair killing Dr David Kelly.

Since then murder claims have continued to be made but have never been looked into by British police - making last night’s move unprecedented.

The decision to examine the new claims suggests that officers believe they must be looked at by detectives to assess whether they have any weight.

However they come from the estranged parents-in-law of “Soldier N”, an SAS soldier who was a key witness in the successful prosecution of Sgt Nightingale. He was himself convicted of illegal weapons possession.

His estranged wife’s parents wrote to the SAS’s commanding officer claiming the soldier had told his wife that the unit had “arranged” the Princess’s death and that this had been “covered up”.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyal...incess-of-Wales.html

Perhaps the police may (at last) trace the "white fiat" that was at the scene, and finally answer some of the many unanswered questions ?

This is just one more of the Royals' secrets that is coming to light.

For me it is only the power of hindsight that I think that perhaps there was something dodgy about her death. It did end up being a key event in bringing about the demise of the sensible society
chrisbarratt.wordpress.com/

But who killed Humpty Dumpty?

Same old tosh.

There is no plausible reason that the Royal Family, would of had to kill Diana. Total baubles. They had nothing to gain from such actions.

Had Charles been killed, then I may of suspected foul play. That would of pointed to murder by another party.

SAS? Only if some paper had paid someone to make a story by murdering someone.

Hyped hysteria are my memories of August 1997. Way, way over the top then & the same today. Perhaps Jimmy Savile was behind this, as well!

bh wrote:
There is no plausible reason that the Royal Family, would of had to kill Diana. Total baubles. They had nothing to gain from such actions.

Not so !

Diana was only 36 when she died - she would have been a thorn in the side of the Royals for many years to come.

On the very day that the much-publicised first public appearance of Charles and Cowmilla (at the Savoy), Diana chose to go to the theatre in THAT low cut dress ! GUESS WHO GOT THE WORLDWIDE NEWS COVERAGE ?

She would also have had influenece over the 2 Princes (instead of allowing the Windsors to swallow them up).

... and God only knows what other revelations she may have made !!!

Plus, if the rumours that she was pregnant are correct, can you imagine "Prince" Abdullah vie-ing for a position on the Palace balcony !!!

Add in the hundreds of unanswered questions (questions that the inquiries were NOT to answer !) and no wonder no one believes a word of it !

PS - Ever read about the SAS plot to kill Milosovitch? They planned to get him in a tunnel - a flash of light (probably magnesium), would blind the driver, and if the resultant crash didn't kill him, the SAS would !)

I urge you all to read "Death of a Princess" by Thomas Sancton (Time Magazine Paris bureau chief) and Scott MacLeod (Time Magazine Middle East Correspondent).

There are SOO many questions !

Like - who was Humpty's killer?

But the enquiry said she wasn't pregnant when she died. As for Prince Abdullah appearing at the Palace Balcony...where they Royal Family are all mixed up anyway. Greeks, Germans etc. Plus we know that the Queen is not really the Queen, anyway. The real King of England lives in Australia. It was traced back by a TV show, with Tony Robinson, wasn't it?

Personlly I've not much interest in this subject. It grates on me. And I still think the former. The driver was half-cut & that's that. They all probably were. I don't want to re-live 1997, for some chance of finding that some "Royal" was killed accidently on purpose, or not. They will never get to the bottom of it, neither will they get to the bottom of Jimmy Savile. Both these things just keep the Press going, especially the Daily Express...who always pull out Diana, when they've no news to cover.

Given that the Royal Family are out of touch & Mr Average couldn't give a fig about them, Religion or her silly messages every Christmas & the Royals are just there for tourists, I thoroughly believe we should get rid of them all. Except not by death! The Royal Family should be disbanded & we should have a President. Someone like JK or Jeremy Clarkson, Paul Merton or Nicholas Parsons. Or perhaps an ageing singer like Tom Jones. Though usually they use ex-film stars or actors. So, welcome our new President, Rowan Atkinson! Do us a favour & kill the hysteria, 16 years late. If anyone is to blame it's Media coverage & the fact that Radio One cancelled the Top 40 show that week for morbid music, instead. I switched German Radio on that day, to get away from something I never gave a toss about. It didn't have an effect on the German people & they had business, as usual. I will also hate to be around, when the Queen cops it or Mr Put His Foot It, the Duke Of Edinburgh.

In The Know wrote:

There are SOO many questions !

Yes, there is no doubt that Humpty was pushed.

He was teetotal.

AND never sat on walls!

I posted this 3 months, 4 weeks ago Conspiracies ! Conspiracies !

" OK, Ok, OK........everyone has a modern media right to quetion what they are fed, what they see and question where it has come from. Fair play, ask questions, always make your own enquiries and think hard about what is pumped out...........

...........then ask yourselves the basic question that usually answers 'conspiracy theory' more times than not.........

Why hasn't somebody involved in the conspiracy effectively squealed as in Wikileaks or modern media equivalents?

Most of the Iraq and Afghanistan scandals where highlighted by Wikileaks from disgruntled insiders and people with conciences, likewise Downing street leaks are fired by ideology disagreements......so unless the whole of the establishment can carry these conspiracies out amongst themselves without anyone dissenting, over many years with many chances for annonymous leaks to occur.........which I doubt as they can't even keep a budget or honours list quiet..........then the answer is usually mainly and logically that its usually true....the London de Menendes shooting was kept quiet for about 48 hrs before the story unravelled...the same can't be said for the Kennedy shooting, moon landings, 9/11, Diana etc etc etc

Its easier to question and not accept the answer than it is sometimes to accept difficult 'stranger than fiction' situations.....ask anyone who has been to court with an outcome they disagree with ? "

Mr Reason wrote:
Why hasn't somebody involved in the conspiracy effectively squealed as in Wikileaks or modern media equivalents?

It is extremely rare to find a "whistleblower" - far more rare that you realise, especially where the army are concerned.

You have (for examply) never heard ANY army member admit serious wrongdoing in Iraq, have you? Yet there are hundreds of cases (many "settled" - to keep them quiet).

Yes, there are co-incidences ... but when there are TOO many co-incidences, it's probably NOT a co-incidence !

bh wrote:
But the enquiry said she wasn't pregnant when she died.

How could they know?
She was embalmed with unseemly haste long before any autopsy.
Any "evidence" of pregnancy was long gone !

Is that why the ambulance took almost 2 hours to get to the hospital?

Besides, whats the point in discussing details with someone who has already said the whole episode is a "cloudy haze" ?

In The Know wrote:
PS - Ever read about the SAS plot to kill Milosovitch? They planned to get him in a tunnel - a flash of light (probably magnesium), would blind the driver, and if the resultant crash didn't kill him, the SAS would !)

Is ITK about to be proved right, yet again?

==

Soldier N apparently claimed Diana and Dodi’s driver Henri Paul was blinded by an intense flash of light moments before he lost control of their ­Mercedes. The claim appears to support testimony from an ex-spy at the inquest into Diana and Dodi’s death.

The former MI6 agent told the hearing that he was aware of a colleague’s proposal to kill Serbian leader ­Slobodan Milosevic by using a strobe light in a tunnel to distract his driver, causing a crash.

And he revealed the existence of a shadowy unit within the SAS known as The Increment which comprises troops from the SAS and SBS for the purposes of carrying out lethal operations on behalf of MI6.

www.express.co.uk/news/royal/427036/EXCL...s-utterly-convincing

===

Either ITK is right - yet again ! - or the Express editor uses this board for sources (just like John Kerry does !)

it's obvious : ITK was driving the Fiat Uno in the tunnel!!

hedda wrote:
it's obvious : ITK was driving the Fiat Uno in the tunnel!!


... and why would I do that, hedda? I rather liked Diana - she provided endless hours of fun and knew exactly how to "get under the skin of the Royals", didn't she?

Had she not been murdered she would have been doing porn films by now !!!
- anything to grab attention away from that **l* **d **w (*)

Do you really think William would have grown-up as Charles Mk II if she had been around?

(*) Let's see how good you are at word games now !!!!

Mr Reason wrote:
......so unless the whole of the establishment can carry these conspiracies out amongst themselves without anyone dissenting, over many years with many chances for annonymous leaks to occur.........which I doubt as they can't even keep a budget or honours list quiet..........

They managed to "keep secret" from many, the fact that the Queen Mother's relatives were all totally bonkers and had been locked-up in loony bins for years !

They even announced their "deaths" in a further attempt to put people off the scent.

Newspaper editors can be remarkably compliant - when faced with the threat of losing ALL future access to the Royals if they reveal a word !

The way conspiracy theory people work is as follows -

- They make a bold statement in a loud and repetitive manner which becomes 'the fact' in their world
- These 'facts' have no basis vs the real published facts
- The published facts are always promoted by the theorists as 'they would say that wouldn't they'
- The answers back by the theorists to the published facts are aways based on the false assumptions above, that they repepat but are not factual
- often, the defence for the statements made by theorists is that the 'evidence' for their theory has been long gone or covered up.......so their theory can't be proved, and so it is in 'no mans land' to be able to be repeated often, oever and over

so......she was pregnant ?, but the autopsy was quick and she was embalmed, so the facts were lost.....ahem....car crash? Dead? Cause of death established as multiple non survivable injuries, so apart from the HIGH PROFILE of the victim, there is nothing untoward by treating the body like any other car crash victim.......nobody keeps a body beyond the neccessary length of time if the cause of death is established and accepeted, and nobody goes looking for medical scenarios like pregnancy where there is no cause to suspect it......only hindsight generates the pregnancy speculation (and the ludicrous suggestion that an autopsy would go looking!) and only hindsight generates the theories beyond a car crash (where a car has crashed into a concrete pillar, what would you suggest the outcome would be!)..........

I would go as far as to suggest that if a spectacular crash into a concrete pillar was so easy to organise in terms of a 'hit', and never be detected as a 'hit', then why do the majority of 'hitman' murders bother with shooting and trying to flee the scene? Just shine a mirror or laser into the victims car, and BINGO !

I've wasted too much time with these conspiracy idiots............I'd like to give up arguing, but thats just what they want us to do

Mr Reason wrote:
.....I'd like to give up arguing, but thats just what they want us to do

Believe whatever you want to ... that's what they expect you to do !

When there are TOO MANY co-incidences -
it's quite likely that its NOT a co-incidence !