|
Post by truthseeker on Feb 2, 2018 9:52:11 GMT
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 2, 2018 9:58:35 GMT
Hello again truthseeker it is good to see you on here again. I have never investigated anything to do with Diana's death. This is something new to look into. I never notice these things in pictures, but I can see them when other people tell me about them.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 2, 2018 17:17:26 GMT
Good article about Princess Diana and Henri Paul
This DM article from 2007 mentions many conflicting stories, unanswered questions and evidence that was ignored. Was Henri Paul drunk or not? There are many medical details: “…his doctor has since said that he felt Paul was worrying unnecessarily, as his drinking was moderate. There is another dilemma, too. The Henri Paul blood samples at the very heart of the Diana controversy reveal something else quite bizarre - that he had breathed in a very high quantity of carbon monoxide before his death: the same amount as a person committing suicide by putting a rubber hose from the exhaust through the window of his car. Such a level would have left Paul visibly disorientated and almost certainly comatose. Yet at the Ritz that evening, minutes before he drove Diana, the CCTV cameras show him walking normally and even kneeling down to retie his shoe laces and gracefully standing up again. It is now accepted that he never drew breath after the crash, ruling out the possibility that he inhaled poisonous exhaust fumes. Significantly, Dodi's blood was tested and was shown to contain no carbon monoxide.” Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-483701/Diana-The-unseen-evidence-mysteriously-ignored-now.html#ixzz55yBL1PSr I wonder why there are no comments for this article.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 3, 2018 18:18:00 GMT
It is probably the video quality, but I can’t be sure.
I wish we had transformer the picture expert on here!
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 5, 2018 7:58:32 GMT
Why does his moustache appear and disappear?
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Feb 5, 2018 11:51:40 GMT
Yes it is a pity we have lost transformer. About Henri Paul's mustache: In the night he died he seamed to have shoven it off. And in the erlier pictures he is wearing one because he simply let it grow back then. I don't see anything unusual about it. Do you? (After I looked at the first draft of my post I noticed that I have written "...it is a pity we have lost transformer. About his mustache:" Has the universe been trying to tell me something? )
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Feb 5, 2018 11:56:34 GMT
Henri Paul's mustache looks weird here:
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 5, 2018 17:12:06 GMT
There is something odd about these pictures. He looks manic in the picture where he is behind the wheel. His face is quite round, but the side is flat in the one where he appears to have no glasses.
I wonder why he kept changing his appearance.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Feb 5, 2018 21:02:50 GMT
Here are all of Henri Paul's movements in the Ritz Hotel in the night Diana died: Someone wrote an interesting comment: This man had very intense eyes: ƨǃŴƶƹŴƼǃǂƹLJLjŴNjƽLjƼŴǍǃljƎŴƚǃdžŴLJǃǁƹŴdžƹƵLJǃǂLJŴƝŴƸǃǂŻLjŴLjƼƽǂƿŴLjƼƵLjŴƜƹǂdžƽŴƤƵljǀŴNjƵLJŴƵŴǁƹǁƶƹdžŴǃƺŴLjƼƹŴƼljǁƵǂŴLJDŽƹƷƽƹLJƂƐƶdžƒè
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Feb 6, 2018 9:29:21 GMT
Sometimes he looked like Bert:And other times he looked like Ernie:
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 6, 2018 9:37:43 GMT
Very funny!
I suppose it could just be that he was very excited to be in the company of such famous people and it was this that made him restless and on edge.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Feb 6, 2018 9:53:59 GMT
I suppose it could just be that he was very excited to be in the company of such famous people and it was this that made him restless and on edge. Could this also explains why he looks manic in the car picture?
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 6, 2018 19:45:58 GMT
“Could this also explain why he looks manic in the car picture?” Maybe. One account is that he was smiling at a joke, or ‘rigolard’. It is also possibly true that he had been drinking alcohol. There is a small coincidence here: I recently came across the name Ricardian for a present-day supporter of Richard III; I learned today that Henri Paul is alleged to have drunk two shots of a spirit called Ricard before he got into that car. See more at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/diana/stories/driver0915.htmAll we can be sure of is that there are many theories, conflicting stories and unanswered questions in this case. Henri Paul’s elderly parents still believe that he was scapegoated. Henri Paul as a young man:
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 7, 2018 6:22:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 10, 2019 19:48:49 GMT
I've just had a look at this thread as I have just come across Keith Allen's 2011 film about the Diana inquest held in London. I've read that this film was banned from being broadcast in the UK, but you can see it on archive.org. I selected the H.264 download option and it just starts to play, I found parts of the soundtrack to be annoying but the content is good. archive.org/details/20180704002943A few years back I read Princess Diana: The Evidence by Jon King and John Beveridge, which covers a lot of the points in this film in more detail. There is a lot of suspicion that Henri Paul was connected to the security services, whether the French DGSI, CIA or MI6 is unclear, but there were a lot of very large payments into his bank account prior to his death that cannot be explained. His blood samples at the time of the making of Allen's film had gone missing. Another interesting point made in the book but not in the film is the car crash that Camilla had in Wiltshire in June 1997. It sounded like a Boston Brakes incident and she fled the scene after the crash fearing for her life, even though she had hit another car and the woman in that car was injured. I got the book after listening to an interview by Jon King and he mentioned something that I had completely forgotten about - the constitutional crisis that was widely talked about of Charles remarrying after a divorce, and his future status of head of the Church of England. He suggested that it was maybe felt that one or the other had to go - I remember just how unpopular and vilified Camilla was at that time.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jul 11, 2019 7:58:08 GMT
This mention of Camilla has reminded me of something from the time of Elizabeth I.
Two car accidents involving two of the three people in the marriage and close in time do seem very suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 11, 2019 19:09:44 GMT
This mention of Camilla has reminded me of something from the time of Elizabeth I. Two car accidents involving two of the three people in the marriage and close in time do seem very suspicious. Please do tell, UnseenI , what does it remind you of? Amy Robsart's strange accidental death, or something else? I do find it strange to revisit the subject of Diana as it seems to me that she is largely forgotten these days. I remember vividly the shock and outpouring of feeling after her death but she is rarely mentioned now. Funnily enough, I remember that the press (especially the tabloids) were very negative about her in the months before she died. I remembered a bit more about the constitutional crisis, the knotty problem was of Charles becoming head of the Church of England and married to Camilla whilst Diana was still living. It was discussed ad nauseam in the press. I stayed for a while near Althorp a couple of years ago - a lot of people round there are convinced that Diana is buried in Chapel Brampton church and that the burial was done secretly on the Friday evening, the day before the funeral service. Going back to the two car crashes, I've heard it said (it may have been in the Jon King interview) that MI5 tried to bump off Camilla, but the CIA did Paris as they were far less likely to bungle it as MI5 had.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jul 12, 2019 8:23:42 GMT
I am very confused here. I need to remind myself of the basics.
Camilla P-B and her husband divorced in 1995.
Prince Charles and Diana divorced in August 1996.
Camilla’s car accident was in June 1997; Diana’s fatal crash was August 1997.
Are you saying that to save the monarchy ‘someone’ tried to dispose of Camilla so that Charles couldn’t marry her as he wanted to do? As everyone was divorced, there was no need to dispose of Diana just so that Charles would be free to remarry, but with her gone it would very unwise of him to marry Camilla because of what people might say. Diana might still be alive if the two of them had not driven her away,so people might hold them indirectly responsible for her death.
People do forget and good PR changes people’s images.
Prince Charles married Camilla in 2005.There are recent rumours of a divorce there too.
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 12, 2019 9:46:34 GMT
I am very confused here. I need to remind myself of the basics. Camilla P-B and her husband divorced in 1995. Prince Charles and Diana divorced in August 1996. Camilla’s car accident was in June 1997; Diana’s fatal crash was August 1997. Are you saying that to save the monarchy ‘someone’ tried to dispose of Camilla so that Charles couldn’t marry her as he wanted to do? As everyone was divorced, there was no need to dispose of Diana just so that Charles would be free to remarry, but with her gone it would very unwise of him to marry Camilla because of what people might say. Diana might still be alive if the two of them had not driven her away,so people might hold them indirectly responsible for her death. People do forget and good PR changes people’s images. Prince Charles married Camilla in 2005.There are recent rumours of a divorce there too. This all happened 22 years ago, and society has moved on massively since then. These days people don't care whether anyone is divorced or not and the Church of England is in greater degree of decline than it was back then, but there was back then a lot of serious discussion about whether Charles could be head of the Church as a divorcee. There always was a royal convention that British monarchs would never receive a divorcee at court, I don't know when that was relaxed but it was once pointed out in the press that if it were still in place, the Queen would not be in a position to meet three of her children and her sister! After Diana's death, I remember that the consensus was that Charles and Camilla would never marry after the outpouring of grief for Diana and the widespread belief amongst the populace that she had been bumped off, but Camilla then kept a low profile for a long time and would not appear publicly with Charles. It took eight years for them to finally get hitched. Recent rumours of divorce? I haven't heard that! Maybe she's fed up of the stepdaughters in law. One point that Jon King makes in his book is that the arms industry was incensed at Diana's land mines campaign. She had managed to persuade Bill Clinton to back a land mines ban, though after her death he reneged on that. A ban would have cost the arms industry billions, and also threatened to expose a lot of murky dealings in Africa concerning civil wars and mineral resources. That is a fascinating yet harrowing topic to explore that never gets any mainstream media coverage. So - the constitutional crisis and the arms trade were two reasons for some to be keen to see Diana disappear.
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 13, 2019 16:28:58 GMT
The constitutional crisis explained
My recollection of the precise details of the crisis are hazy, seeing as it was over 20 years ago, so here it is in a nutshell from page 76 from King and Beveridge's book, mentioned above.
“Camilla could not, constitutionally speaking, become Queen while Diana remained alive, a fact acknowledged by the Lord Chancellor’s office (now the Department for Constitutional Affairs) when on 18th July 1997, just six weeks before Diana’s death, the parliamentary aide to the Lord Chancellor, Tony Wright, stated in no uncertain terms that a constitutional crisis regarding the marriage of Prince Charles and Mrs Parker Bowles would result in the “disestablishment’ of the Church, an unprecedented move that would have amounted to the single biggest constitutional reform since the days of Henry VIII. Simply put, the United Kingdom of Great Britain would have become a secular state for the first time in its history, and all because of the “constitutional mess” caused, in the first instance, by the Prince of Wales’ philandering.”
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jul 13, 2019 18:40:28 GMT
My main memory is of all the flowers and candles etc. outside Kensington Palace. I also remember that ‘the people’ demanded and got a flag at half mast.
I didn’t know or care much about Prince Charles and Camilla at the time.
I have since learned that Camilla doesn’t get called Princess of Wales because for older people it would be going too far and be an insult to Diana.
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 13, 2019 19:56:48 GMT
My main memory is of all the flowers and candles etc. outside Kensington Palace. I also remember that ‘the people’ demanded and got a flag at half mast. I didn’t know or care much about Prince Charles and Camilla at the time. I have since learned that Camilla doesn’t get called Princess of Wales because for older people it would be going too far and be an insult to Diana. I didn't care much about the royals at that time either, I got quite bored with the litany of scandals. I didn't even watch the Diana interview on the BBC which ruffled a lot of feathers with her candour about the marriage. I remember the fuss about the flag not being lowered at half mast and the absence of the royals, they had stayed up at Balmoral out of the public eye but they said that it was to support the boys. I looked into the Charles and Camilla divorce allegations, that was published by an Australian source in January of this year, saying that the divorce was 'imminent'. Well, no news of it yet!
I don't know who said that was the sentiment of 'older people' - sounds a bit ageist to me - as a lot of people of all ages had strong feelings about Camilla, and felt that she should never have the title of queen. I wonder if she'll get that far, she was a smoker for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 16, 2019 17:14:29 GMT
Another Diana crashI don't remember this - Diana was involved in a car crash (involving a 'light-coloured Fiat Uno", what are the chances!) on 22 March 1996 on Cromwell Road, London. "THE Princess of Wales escaped unhurt last night after her BMW car was involved in a five-vehicle crash in central London. She was badly shaken when her car was rammed from the side by a Fiat which, in turn, had been in collision with a high-performance Porsche sports car. The princess leapt from her vehicle and, according to eye-witnesses, hailed a black cab and asked to be driven to Chelsea police station. From there, it is believed she was quickly taken home by police car to Kensington Palace, less than a mile away. The Uno was struck by another Porsche, which sent it on to the wrong side of the road and into the path of oncoming traffic going towards Exhibition Road. It was then hit by the BMW, believed to have been driven by the princess, and a Mercedes." www.heraldscotland.com/news/12052667.princess-shaken-in-five-car-accident/
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jul 16, 2019 19:55:38 GMT
Really? I didn’t know about this.
|
|