Diana Was Murdered in an Assassination

Thanks for taking the time to give so much detail. Or at least the detail as far as you are aware since to a lesser or greater degree we are all at the mercy of the "establishment" being a collective of truth tellers who"d never lie, deceive, or falsify information and/or statements. When all is said or done neither of us were personally in that car (thankfully), we weren"t with her, we can"t say we survived the smash and here is what happened. And even if we were in the car we may still not be 100% sure if what happened was an accident, or had been orchestrated to look like one. It goes without saying that for an assassination on Diana to take place it would first have to have the complicity of senior British secret services. This would negate all and any things, it would render any "public inquiry" as being little more than theatre " a story for us. It is not unknown for the intelligence services of many nations to engage in extra judicial killings(murder). The CIA have done it(if anything more than we are aware), the Mossad have done it, why would British intelligence be exempt? Are we assuming that somehow British Intel agents would have too much "morality" to do a killing for "Queen and country"? Of course they would do it. The only astonishing thing would be if they hadn"t done it and weren"t doing it. Naturally, no Intel agency is going to waste their time and take risks to just go around randomly executing just anyone that says stuff they don"t like on line. Instead it is reserved for only the most VIP of perceived "enemies". It"s not something they do daily or even weekly. But assassinations and executions are part of the reality of what some agents in those Intel services will be required to do. I would go as far as to say that the CIA and British Intel are most likely corrupted from the top down and that if the public were commonly aware of the true nature of some of their past activity then they"d be likely calling for their abolition and replacement(with something else). The CIA and British Intel(at the higher level) are above the law. While they may stop short of making public statements saying "We are above the law", I think even someone with zero imagination can conceive that in practice there are those who are above the law and remain out of reach of justice. British Intel agents, esp those working on the orders of the Queen or Charles would most certainly fall into that category. Unless we think our police would investigate our Intel agencies? Even if some honest detectives tried to do so, we know what would happen. The investigation would be killed by their seniors, or they"d be removed from the case, or files would be "lost". That last one is a favourite, often used by both political elites and the Met when it comes to investigating high profile members of the establishment for historical child abuse. That"s no conspiracy 'theory' ^^. Those things are facts that anyone can determine for themselves inside of 90 seconds. Time and again files are "lost" or there is a "computer error" in those cases " it is obvious that senior police and Intel agents cover the backside of anyone that is part of the broad establishment, lest they have a little secret liking for abusing kids for example. That"s the level of morality our most senior and trusted police and Intel agents have " they put the interests of covering up the deeds of a select number of people over and above what we"d call justice and protecting the general public"s interests. This would clearly demonstrate to me that if the order went out to arrange for Diana to die, then for sure there would be agents ready and willing to carry that out. Does anyone at even doubt that? Does anyone even doubt that when an agency becomes unaccountable to the people that such an agency is naturally prone to behave however it so feels? Does anyone think the CIA or British Intel are accountable to YOU? Do you honestly think that when they get together they have at heart the interests of people like us? Of course not " but they do have a function, and they do serve someone"s interests. We"re just not part of that someone. I would agree with my opponent that there are so many wacky conspiracy theories out there about almost everything and that you must discern. Yet this is not like suggesting that the World is really controlled by shape shifting lizard men from the Moon. That type of thing IS laughable, because there is simply no precedent for such a strange thing. There is no reason to believe something like that is plausible and every reason not to. But this situation is not some far out suggestion such as that. Husbands kill wives commonly. Wives kill husbands commonly. Sometimes they even plan it. Sometimes they may even hire someone to do it. Sometimes they will try to make it seem like a legit accident. The idea that Charles may have wanted Diana off the scene for good and would consider endorsing her assassination has a precedent in larger society. It"s not far- fetched or obscure, because of the instances of it being a reality for "ordinary" society. I see no reason why a mind for murder could not exist within this family? It"s not as if they have some god given higher morality, for we can see that"s not true " even without this. And if one of them did have a mind for murder, would they do it themselves? Of course not. They would do it in the way most likely to work and with least risk " and the royal family have all of their state apparatus to call upon. Does anyone think that if British Intel were engaged in such an op that they wouldn"t co-ordinate and clear it with their French counterparts? Of course they would. It doesn"t even need to be known to all agents, just enough to put a plan together and execute it. We are speaking about people who are also trained in being masters of deceit, psychology, we are speaking here of agencies that would have reach into all and any things. Do the public honestly think that this strange family would have wanted Diana to go on and maybe marry a Muslim, probably have children to him? They don"t even allow Catholics let alone Muslims. Do you honestly think that the concept would be desirable to them or not? Can we at least say that Charles (as the wannabe King) has a very strange choice in "friends". These would include the necrophiliac, serial child abuser, and generic freak " Jimmy Saville OBE. Charles and Jimmy were such Best Male Friends that Saville even had Charlie over to stay at his "Highland retreat". I wonder what they spoke about all night? Polo I"d imagine. Saville being an abuser was what you"d call an "open secret" in media circles. If they knew then British Intel would know, and British Intel would be through anyone"s background with a fine tooth comb that intended to host Charles at their cottage. If British Intel knew then Charles would almost certainly have known. Am I questioning the character of Charles? Yes. Do I consider him capable of deceit and do I think it plausible that such a man could have a mind for murder? Yes I do. At the very least I consider him capable of being cold and single minded enough that he"d let someone else take care of it. He wasn"t losing someone that he deeply loved and wanted to be with. Far from it. Is this man incapable of having a will to kill? "In light of ITV"s damning documentary about Sir Jimmy Savile"s sexual abuse of girls, the Prince of Wales may regret the closeness of their friendship. On one Christmas card that Prince Charles sent to the television presenter, who, as we now know, was interviewed by police in 2007, he wrote: "Jimmy, with affectionate greetings from Charles. Give my love to your ladies in Scotland." The "ladies" are thought to be the women dressed in waitresses" outfits, with the initials H, R and H on their aprons, who served Prince Charles when he dined with Sir Jimmy at the BBC presenter"s cottage in Glencoe, in the Highlands, in 1999. .." http://www.telegraph.co.uk... I as an individual cannot "solve" the case(obviously), as I said in my opener, all I can reasonably do is give context and build a case for it at least being a very plausible scenario. There is nothing unique or new about spousal homicide. No reason to think that Charles would simply be above such a thing. "Fifty-five percent of [adult] murder victims were slain by strangers or persons unknown. Among all female [adult] murder victims in 1995, 26 percent were slain by husbands or boyfriends ." Here is another view of the stats. "Nearly 2 in 3 female victims of violence were related to or knew their attacker." (Ronet Bachman Ph.D., U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Violence Against Women: A National Crime Victimization Survey Report," January 1994, p. iii) http://www.pwc-sii.com... However we take those figures we can definitely see that spousal murder is not rare. Sometimes those murders will be spontaneous and with no clear gain. Other times they will be well planned and may be carried out by a "professional". The more professional and experienced the person hired to do it " the better chance it does get chalked up to a "tragic crash". Here"s some data on some of the main drivers for spousal murder; http://www.me-jn.com... Spousal Homicide Risk and Estrangement Wilson, Margo; Daly, Martin. Violence and Victims 8.1 (Spring 1993): 3-16. http://search.proquest.com... Perpetrators of Spousal Homicide A Review http://tva.sagepub.com... Here we look even further into what drives some men to murder(Charles " just a man). https://www.psychologytoday.com... If my wife wrote a letter to her(we"ll say) sister, and in that letter she expressed fears so grave that she detailed how she even considered herself at risk of being murdered by me, only for her to later die in precisely and exactly the way she detailed (car crash, call it an accident), who wouldn"t take a step back there and scratch their chin? If Charles were not who he was he"d have been brought in for questioning. Anyone reading this would under those circumstances. This would only be "extraordinary" because of who is involved. Were this a plot arranged by Mr Smith against Mrs Smith, it might get half a page in the local press. Part of the barrier is people not wanting to believe it plausible that Charles could in any way be of that mind. But do not forget the image you see is crafted " just for you. Only he and a very few people know the true man " in private. Jimmy Saville certainly did. People held an artificial image of him in their mind as well. If I"d once suggested that Saville was given the "golden key" to children"s hospitals so that he could habitually abuse (sometimes handicapped) kids " that would have been seen as a "crazy conspiracy theory". If I"d once said this friend of Charles was popping along to the mortuary to have sex with dead bodies " you"d have said that was definitely a made up thing. But they weren"t made up, they proved to be true. Also consider; "At the 2007 inquest, there were more than 500 documents the jury didn"t see oAnd 84 witnesses "There were 58 errors in the autopsy report oAnd she was embalmed before the autopsy " within hours of dying "In CCTV footage just before leaving the Ritz, driver Henri Paul exhibits no signs of drunkenness