Diana Crash Pictures Redux
sme
last night they had the publisher of the Sun saying he had one.
He said she had blood coming out of one ear and one nostril, but otherwise
didn't look harmed. . .just "dazed."
In other words the French did NOT confiscate all of them.
Anyone else catch this? Does this mean there might be some photos around?
Anna
"sme" <eis...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:zFq4c.1908$CJ5...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
something like that) from one of the photographers on site when first
reports were coming out, while she was still thought to be or still was
alive. It was sent to him immediately. (e-mailed, I imagine) but shortly
he found out she was dead and he decided that was a line he couldn't cross
and he never published it.
Anna
Mrs.H
"Anna" <anna...@SPAMBLOCKpost.com> wrote in message
news:S5t4c.18648$i76.365525@attbi_s03...
>
> "sme" <eis...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:zFq4c.1908$CJ5...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > I heard that all the photos of Diana in the crash were destroyed, but on
> NBC
> > last night they had the publisher of the Sun saying he had one.
> >
> > He said she had blood coming out of one ear and one nostril, but
otherwise
> > didn't look harmed. . .just "dazed."
> >
> > In other words the French did NOT confiscate all of them.
> >
> > Anyone else catch this? Does this mean there might be some photos
around?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> He said he bought it over the phone (for a huge amount, was it $350,000,
> something like that)
Half a million UKP - I don't know how many dollars that would have converted
to back then.
Mrs/H
Nynthlyfe9
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
yes the editor said he had paid one half a million for them, and bought them
when she was still believed to be alive, with only a broken leg.
They have never been published.
t
everyone knows it
from the Queen of England
to the Hounds of Hell
Susan Cohen
"Anna" <anna...@SPAMBLOCKpost.com> wrote in message
news:S5t4c.18648$i76.365525@attbi_s03...
>
> he found out she was dead and he decided that was a line he couldn't cross
> and he never published it.
Thank G-d someone has some sense of decorum!!!
SusanC
Mrs.H
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:MYQ4c.44981$rW6....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
Yes but I think out of all the royals he had a soft spot for Diana so imo
decorum would have gone out the window if he hadn't.
Mrs.H
Jean Sue Libkind
fla...@verizon.net wrote on 3/13/04 11:12 PM:
I watched the tapes when they were repeated last night and have a few
observations aside from those already posted.
1. Diana really stressed to her friends that she was 'totally messed up' the
first years of marriage, that going from being "nobody" to PoW, mother,
"media toy," etc., was too much and what she needed was some time alone, to
adjust but said "I was too immature to voice what I needed."
To my mind, this is a real clue to the situation. It is a pity the media has
focused on her complaints about Charles in these tapes and not her own
self-revelations. I was impressed by her candor and insight (self insight is
too often lacking in people).
2. Rosa Monkton was hardly quoted and was rather innocuous. I don't know why
she had a feather up her ass about being included.
3. Andrew Morton, his publisher, and a guy Tom Culthbert (sp?) who was the
go-between for Diana and Morton were extensively interviewed about the
process whereby the tapes were made and delivered. They tried to come off as
Knights (Errant) and were very impressed with the dangers they had run
(although they claimed they only recognized the danger in retrospect). It
seemed like it had been a kind of a game, using pay phones, etc. and they
didn't play very well. At one point, old Tom was carrying the manuscript in
the basket of his bicycle and hit a pothole; papers went flying; don't these
people know how to use rubber bands (I think the Brits call them elastics)?
Had they expended as much energy in helping Diana as they did in exploiting
her, who knows what might have happened. OTOH, they made it quite clear that
Diana was making the decisions. (She cannot refute any of this, please
note.) Several times they are identified as the four conspirators. (How
heady could that have been for Morton?)
They felt her campaign with the book and Panorama finally got her what she
wanted: freedom and they seem very proud of their part in this. (Matter of
opinion, seems to me.)
They also said they released the tapes now because the public is willing to
consider Diana as a human, not an icon, and that this would further that
perception (and they finally got a high enough offer, is my guess).
Morton made a pertinent point: in answer to why he did not give Charles's
point of view, he said he had never claimed the book was balanced and it was
called Diana: Her True Story.
Jane Pauley, the host, slumming on this project, noted that the tapes were
made at the lowest point in Diana's life and that she was maturing and
changing many of these views at the end of her life; that message may have
been lost since it was low-key and at the end of the program.
4. (This is why I'm posting here): One of those interviewed was the picture
editor who has the post-crash photos of Diana. He seemed moved to tears as
he talked about it. He had photographed Diana from the very beginning and
seemed to regard her as a "daughter." Perhaps that is why he has never
published the photos; I would guess they will be seen at some time, perhaps
after his death. They were not described as particularly gruesome since the
vast majority of her injuries were internal.
5. I was struck by Diana's lack of assertiveness. In the tapes with the
speech coach, she tells him she is tired several times; he keeps pushing
her. I would have shown him the door. She tells the boys they can come in if
they are quiet and William apparently is (except for a perky comment) but
Harry seems to be bouncing on the furniture. She does not usher them out
either, even when the speech coach complains about the "audience."
6. An interesting point was made about Diana's confrontation with Camilla;
Diana called it a turning point in her life, that she had the courage to
face Camilla and tell her that she knew what was going on and did not like
it. Ken Wharfe was quoting as saying Diana told him that night was the first
night she got a good night's sleep and he said (for what it's worth) that
she seemed more in control of herself from then on. It was shortly after
this that C & D did decide to live separate lives; the Queen asked for a
six-month "cooling off period" during which that ill-fated South Korea trip
took place.
As most of you know, I am not a huge Diana fan; I was never a Diana fan, as
a matter of fact, although I certainly hoped that she and Charles would be
happy. I found her shallow, fatuous and overly concerned with appearances. I
did admire her charity work and her skill as a mother.
However, by the end of the two hours, I was again reminded what a tragedy
her death was, the loss of a vibrant young woman who was clearly coming into
her own and now would never have the chance to be what she could have been.
I don't think she would have the "sad middle age" that Margaret or the
Duchess of Kent had and it would have been quite interesting to watch her
develop and grow. I believe her life could have gone either way: uphill or
downhill. Now we will never know and always wonder.
jeansue
Sacha
pmje...@bookschlepper.comBC7A1301.225D1%jea...@bookschlepper.com
> in article MYQ4c.44981$rW6....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net, Susan Cohen at
> fla...@verizon.net wrote on 3/13/04 11:12 PM:
>
>>
>> "Anna" <anna...@SPAMBLOCKpost.com> wrote in message
>> news:S5t4c.18648$i76.365525@attbi_s03...
>>>
>>> It was sent to him immediately. (e-mailed, I imagine) but shortly
>>> he found out she was dead and he decided that was a line he couldn't cross
>>> and he never published it.
>>
>> Thank G-d someone has some sense of decorum!!!
>
>
> I watched the tapes when they were repeated last night and have a few
> observations aside from those already posted.
>
> 1. Diana really stressed to her friends that she was 'totally messed up' the
> first years of marriage, that going from being "nobody" to PoW, mother,
> "media toy," etc., was too much and what she needed was some time alone, to
> adjust but said "I was too immature to voice what I needed."
And while I think she desperately wanted to marry the PoW, that is the point
at which older and wiser heads, such as the RF and the Spencers should have
said "not a good move for you, ducky".
>
> To my mind, this is a real clue to the situation. It is a pity the media has
> focused on her complaints about Charles in these tapes and not her own
> self-revelations. I was impressed by her candor and insight (self insight is
> too often lacking in people).
>
> 2. Rosa Monkton was hardly quoted and was rather innocuous. I don't know why
> she had a feather up her ass about being included.
>
> 3. Andrew Morton, his publisher, and a guy Tom Culthbert (sp?) who was the
> go-between for Diana and Morton were extensively interviewed about the
> process whereby the tapes were made and delivered. They tried to come off as
> Knights (Errant) and were very impressed with the dangers they had run
> (although they claimed they only recognized the danger in retrospect). It
> seemed like it had been a kind of a game, using pay phones, etc. and they
> didn't play very well. At one point, old Tom was carrying the manuscript in
> the basket of his bicycle and hit a pothole; papers went flying; don't these
> people know how to use rubber bands (I think the Brits call them elastics)?
I think most people now say rubber band. Elastic is what people used to sew
into undergarments or make garters for school socks. ;-)
>
> Had they expended as much energy in helping Diana as they did in exploiting
> her, who knows what might have happened. OTOH, they made it quite clear that
> Diana was making the decisions. (She cannot refute any of this, please
> note.) Several times they are identified as the four conspirators. (How
> heady could that have been for Morton?)
>
> They felt her campaign with the book and Panorama finally got her what she
> wanted: freedom and they seem very proud of their part in this. (Matter of
> opinion, seems to me.)
I can't agree with their self-congratulation on this. It got her freedom?
She had said she didn't want a divorce; she didn't want to lose her HRH; she
got her freedom at a helluva price and they're rather assuming she wanted it
in the first place. There are accounts that contradict her wish for her
'freedom' - for example, she was said to have been shattered when, after the
Panorama interview, the Queen 'ordered' C&D to divorce because Diana hadn't
bargained on that step being taken.
>
> They also said they released the tapes now because the public is willing to
> consider Diana as a human, not an icon, and that this would further that
> perception (and they finally got a high enough offer, is my guess).
>
> Morton made a pertinent point: in answer to why he did not give Charles's
> point of view, he said he had never claimed the book was balanced and it was
> called Diana: Her True Story.
Which is pretty much what a lot of people on agr have always said. She
wrote it herself in terms of the content.
>
> Jane Pauley, the host, slumming on this project, noted that the tapes were
> made at the lowest point in Diana's life and that she was maturing and
> changing many of these views at the end of her life; that message may have
> been lost since it was low-key and at the end of the program.
>
> 4. (This is why I'm posting here): One of those interviewed was the picture
> editor who has the post-crash photos of Diana. He seemed moved to tears as
> he talked about it. He had photographed Diana from the very beginning and
> seemed to regard her as a "daughter." Perhaps that is why he has never
> published the photos; I would guess they will be seen at some time, perhaps
> after his death. They were not described as particularly gruesome since the
> vast majority of her injuries were internal.
>
> 5. I was struck by Diana's lack of assertiveness. In the tapes with the
> speech coach, she tells him she is tired several times; he keeps pushing
> her. I would have shown him the door. She tells the boys they can come in if
> they are quiet and William apparently is (except for a perky comment) but
> Harry seems to be bouncing on the furniture. She does not usher them out
> either, even when the speech coach complains about the "audience."
Would that not gel with that particular point in her life but not do so a
few years later? Perhaps she was still trying to 'people please'?
>
> 6. An interesting point was made about Diana's confrontation with Camilla;
> Diana called it a turning point in her life, that she had the courage to
> face Camilla and tell her that she knew what was going on and did not like
> it. Ken Wharfe was quoting as saying Diana told him that night was the first
> night she got a good night's sleep and he said (for what it's worth) that
> she seemed more in control of herself from then on. It was shortly after
> this that C & D did decide to live separate lives; the Queen asked for a
> six-month "cooling off period" during which that ill-fated South Korea trip
> took place.
I can see that would be a turning point. Whatever the background, Diana
felt she'd confronted her personal 'enemy' and taken the high ground. That
IS empowering.
>
> As most of you know, I am not a huge Diana fan; I was never a Diana fan, as
> a matter of fact, although I certainly hoped that she and Charles would be
> happy. I found her shallow, fatuous and overly concerned with appearances. I
> did admire her charity work and her skill as a mother.
>
> However, by the end of the two hours, I was again reminded what a tragedy
> her death was, the loss of a vibrant young woman who was clearly coming into
> her own and now would never have the chance to be what she could have been.
>
> I don't think she would have the "sad middle age" that Margaret or the
> Duchess of Kent had and it would have been quite interesting to watch her
> develop and grow. I believe her life could have gone either way: uphill or
> downhill. Now we will never know and always wonder.
>
> jeansue
>
Actually, the Duchess of Kent isn't sad - she's doing what she loves best -
teaching music. Interview with her in today's Mail on Sunday is based on a
TV programme about her. I'll find it and post it later.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds to email me)