Leading QC calls for fresh investigation into Diana death.quiry

[redfox 10]

And you are monumentally rude.

 

My original point was about a very respected QC calling for a fresh investigation. You have failed to address that point entirely.

 

Instead I have been drawn into a rehash of the conspiracy theories which have been done to death, and into which I have contributed in the past. I had no wish or time to spend trawling through old investigations and checking facts/ suppositions. We both know what they were, I have no wish to waste my time reminding myself of names, details and the minutia etc.

 

The point is not whether I believe in conspiracy theories or not but why a great and intelligent man should think it worth investigating again. I agree with him, you do not. I see no reason for you to be to be so ill-mannered and aggressive.

 

It is evident that there has been an attempt to airbrush Diana from history.

- Not my words but those of several royal pundits etc. Even William said something to that effect. I would merely add that the conspiracy theories that attended her death have also been airbrushed away, yet they were a major part of the anger against the Royal family at the time, and that needs to be remembered, if only for historical accuracy. It has only been since William put her engagement ring on Catherine's finger, and the 20th anniversary of her death, that she has re-emerged as a historical figure. I find that a bit odd. If there was no problem, there would have been no reason to keep her memory at bay.

 

Since Diana's 'reinstatement,' Charles and Camilla's popularity ratings, which they have tried so hard to improve, have plummeted, according to polls reported in the media. People do not forget. This may be unfair but people don't always respond to facts, they respond to feelings. Diana is never going to go away, and will continue to come back to haunt them no matter how hard they try. She is still undermining the monarchy and could yet bring it down.

 

 

 

Michael thanks you for describing him as 'great' and 'intelligent'

[Jacko92 10]

And you are monumentally rude.

 

My original point was about a very respected QC calling for a fresh investigation. You have failed to address that point entirely.

 

Instead I have been drawn into a rehash of the conspiracy theories which have been done to death, and into which I have contributed in the past. I had no wish or time to spend trawling through old investigations and checking facts/ suppositions. We both know what they were, I have no wish to waste my time reminding myself of names, details and the minutia etc.

 

The point is not whether I believe in conspiracy theories or not but why a great and intelligent man should think it worth investigating again. I agree with him, you do not. I see no reason for you to be to be so ill-mannered and aggressive.

 

It is evident that there has been an attempt to airbrush Diana from history.

- Not my words but those of several royal pundits etc. Even William said something to that effect. I would merely add that the conspiracy theories that attended her death have also been airbrushed away, yet they were a major part of the anger against the Royal family at the time, and that needs to be remembered, if only for historical accuracy. It has only been since William put her engagement ring on Catherine's finger, and the 20th anniversary of her death, that she has re-emerged as a historical figure. I find that a bit odd. If there was no problem, there would have been no reason to keep her memory at bay.

 

Since Diana's 'reinstatement,' Charles and Camilla's popularity ratings, which they have tried so hard to improve, have plummeted, according to polls reported in the media. People do not forget. This may be unfair but people don't always respond to facts, they respond to feelings. Diana is never going to go away, and will continue to come back to haunt them no matter how hard they try. She is still undermining the monarchy and could yet bring it down.

 

You have made three false claims. All I've done is pointed it out. I don't give two hoots about Mansfield. You just don't like your wilful ignorance and factual deceit being exposed. Feel free to think what you want about me.

 

Polly want a cracker?

Edited August 29, 2017 by Jacko92

[nikki-red 308]

The bickering and childish comments can stop now please. If you cant have a civil discussion/debate without getting personal then unless you want your access to the forum suspended then its probably best that you dont post.

 

Thank you.

[blake 10]

For somebody who people claim predicted that she would die in a car crash she was a very casual about travelling at high speed without a seatbelt behind a drunk driver.

 

that's Diana. She was rather Cavalier - in addition to being a closet Catholic. A Royalist, you know.

[taxman 12]

I see the self publicist Burrell is all over the Mirror front page this morning.

[Daven 10]

Three things are clear about Diana's death.

 

1. The driver having too much to drink

 

2. Being chased by the news media photographers.

 

3.Diana did not have a seat belt on.

 

 

Do we really need a fresh investigation with these facts. ?

 

These things have been highlighted and certainly contributed to her death but there are still elements of doubt which need to be 'put to bed' as has been stated. While ever they are not investigated there will always conspiracy theories.

[blake 10]

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/08/30/royal-family-princess-diana-saint/

 

a dangerous Papist heretic, it was in the blood. I'm not surprised they killed her.

[Jacko92 10]

These things have been highlighted and certainly contributed to her death but there are still elements of doubt which need to be 'put to bed' as has been stated. While ever they are not investigated there will always conspiracy theories.

 

I think what this thread amply shows is that those that express doubts in the official story are the ones who don't really know much about it or have only read conspiracy theory books.

 

The letter which Mansfield highlights was looked into during Operation Paget and is covered in Chapter 2 of the report. The contents of the letter are very similar to concerns Diana had expressed to her solicitor, Lord Mishcon, who when she died, actually went to the police to raise the matter. Burrell on the other hand, waited until his memoirs were being published to bring up the letter.

 

Basically, she worried that the brakes in her car had been tampered with. She said this to other people as well, not just Mishcon. There is no evidence of this. These concerns were about the car she drove herself. The Mercedes Benz in the crash wasn't hers. It was owned by a limo company and had been hired by the Ritz Hotel which Al Fayed owns. Al Fayed has claimed Diana told him she would be killed in a helicopter crash.

 

What Mansfield has said, according to the Sun and others who reported on his appearance on a TV show, is:

 

“If you find a body at the bottom of the cliffs in Dover and the person has left a note saying, ‘I’m going to end up at the bottom of the cliffs, dead’ and, in the note, she’d indicated who she thought would be responsible for her death, I think the first port of call is to say, ‘Hmm, well there may be something in this’.”

 

It's after this report that this topic was started.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/4324382/princess-diana-death-no-accident-claims-top-qc/

 

I'm not entirely sure where Mansfield is coming from because the letter is dealt with in Chapter 2 of Operation Paget as stated as are the other concerns Diana had.

 

The Operation Paget report can be viewed online for free.

 

If new evidence comes to light it is investigated. For example, when an SAS man was Court Martialled in 2013 a story broke that the SAS were responsible for the crash. The police investigated this and found no credible evidence.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Jacko92

[apelike 10]

I think what this thread amply shows is that those that express doubts in the official story are the ones who don't really know much about it or have only read conspiracy theory books.

 

And exactly what experience do you have in this, apart from being reincarnated?

[Jacko92 10]

And exactly what experience do you have in this, apart from being reincarnated?

 

Why do you ask? Would you prefer only the ill-informed comment? I'm not the person saying certain people didn't testify at the inquest when they did. I'm not the person saying credibility of evidence wasn't in doubt when it was. I'm not the person saying people had alibis when they didn't or alibis weren't checked by all investigators. I'm not the person making these claims having claimed earlier that I've read the full transcripts of the inquest.

 

Are you still claiming The Who are responsible?

 

Have you read a conspiracy theory book? Did it use the anti-landmine angle as a motive for killing her? Did it reference the Ottawa Treaty, signed the same year that she died? Anna B hasn't answered that.

 

Why did you ignore the rest of the post? Because you don't believe it? What have I said in it that's not true?

Edited August 30, 2017 by Jacko92

[apelike 10]

Why do you ask?

 

Because of this quote: "I think what this thread amply shows is that those that express doubts in the official story are the ones who don't really know much about it.."

 

Which implies that you know more than anyone else, hence the question. There was an official story surrounding the Hillsborough disaster and we now know after many years that it was false. Just because this is an official story does not make it 100% correct either as many doubts surrounding it have not been given satisfactory answers.

 

Are you still claiming The Who are responsible?

 

Read my post again as I have never stated that.

 

Why did you ignore the rest of the post? Because you don't believe it?

 

No, because I chose to!

[Jacko92 10]

Because of this quote: "I think what this thread amply shows is that those that express doubts in the official story are the ones who don't really know much about it.."

 

Which implies that you know more than anyone else, hence the question

 

Ok. That comment was mostly aimed at Anna B, who started this topic and said she had read all the transcripts

 

Having read the entire verbatim transcripts of the inquest at the time.....

 

then went on to state various things which are quite plainly false, just one example being:

 

It's also noticable that Paul Burrell wasn't called to give evidence at the inquest and ran to America for cover.

 

She later claimed she had misremembered.

 

I do apologise, you are right that PB did give evidence at the inquest, I was getting confused with the fact that he refused to return to England to answer further questions at the inquest.

It's more than 10 years since I read the transcripts, 90% of which were exceedingly dull and procedural, I have a life and have forgotten most of it.

 

He was caught on film admitting he lied to the inquest which is why he was recalled. Anna B omits this part of the story, so even her reply doesn't give the true picture. I find it hard to believe that you would forget this if you had read the full transcripts. It's too juicy.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1579474/Paul-Burrell-asked-to-explain-lies-to-Diana-inquest.html

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2017 at 18:36 ----------

 

There was an official story surrounding the Hillsborough disaster and we now know after many years that it was false. Just because this is an official story does not make it 100% correct either as many doubts surrounding it have not been given satisfactory answers.

 

I disagree here. The Taylor Report was pretty clear. The HIP and recent inquest only really exposed the extent to which the police tried to cover up what happened.

 

Nevertheless whilst this sounds like a reasonable point to make it's a logical fallacy because there are any number of events that have an official story which has never seriously been called into question. If I suddenly posited that the Titanic didn't hit an iceberg but was actually struck by a torpedo intent on wiping out several rich Americans and was laughed at for suggesting so, saying "oh but Hillsborough turned out to be a conspiracy!" would make me look foolish. The world doesn't work like that.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2017 at 18:38 ----------

 

Read my post again as I have never stated that.

 

I know. I was plainly being facetious. You didn't provide a source for this theory though. Have you read the Operation Paget report?

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2017 at 18:42 ----------

 

No, because I chose to!

 

As is your want.

 

Question stands; do you disagree with anything I wrote? All I have done is provided some information from the Operation Paget report. If you choose not to believe the report (read it first though aye?) fine.

 

Can I ask apelike - if you want complete transparency do you think it is acceptable for people to make claims online that are false? I'm not talking about having plausible theories that question official versions and should be rigorously investigated. I'm talking about saying people were not present at inquests when they were, or saying certain evidence was said to be credible when the credibility was questioned, for example that of Tomlinson. Don't you think that is likely to cause confusion?

 

If you read that Burrell hadn't testified at the inquest you might think, "oh that's rather odd, there most be a conspiracy of some kind!" But he did testify, didn't he?

 

This why conspiracy theories spread. People read things and take them at face value. Though, to be fair, Burrell's attendance or not is of a trivial nature in the grand scheme of things. But do you see what I mean?

 

If conspiracy theorists want further investigation, to avoid accusations of hypocrisy, they have a duty to report accurately the official findings and events that they challenge. I've not claimed to have read the full transcripts of the inquest. I know Burrell was there though. So why would I entertain someone who tells me he wasn't there but also says questions still need to be answered. Am I not entitled to think, 'you clearly either don't have a clue what you are talking about or are deliberately trying to mislead.' That's what I say to Anna B anyway.

 

To Mansfield, I am curious about why he wants further investigation because the letter he mentions was looked at by Paget and the findings reported in Chapter 2. The Sun article isn't very detailed.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Jacko92