It was Pr Charles who was named by Pr Diana as crash planner
banana
Princess Diana said, in a letter to Paul Burrell, was planning to have
her murdered in a car crash.
This is not a new revelation. It could be worked out from a published
photo of the letter.
I stated this on 24 October 2003 in an article posted to the
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana newsgroup and elsewhere. This article is
archived at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bl78PrAQtam%24Ew0z%40borve.demon.co
.uk
or click: <http://shorturl.net/?l=ba>
2) The 'Mirror' originally published a PHOTO of the words:
"[...] is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake failure and
serious head injury"
and then the TEXT "to make the path clear for Charles to marry."
They claim that Burrell instructed his publishers to replace "him" with
"Charles"
But, AS I REVEALED THREE MONTHS AGO, if you look closely at the
letter-tops visible in a lower line, the word "Charles" cannot be
correct. The correct words are almost certainly "for HIM to marry"
[emphasis added].
This means that the "he" who wants to get married is the SAME PERSON as
the murder planner, i.e. that the murder planner is 'Prince' Charles.
3) That the 'Mirror' publish this today, on the day of the reconvening
of the inquests, surely indicates that the divisions in the UK-based
section of the ruling class are exacerbating. Expect big conflicts.
On the Windsors' side of the fence, various scumbags, e.g. in the Fabian
Society, are doing their bit to defend the Windsor family by trying to
boost some crappy 'debate' on the 'reform of the monarchy'. Critics
should employ the usual method: notice what the assumption is.
4) Other UK newspapers, brown-nosing the 'royal' family, are 'omitting'
to publish this information. Reuters, which (yes, dear reader) is owned
by SIS (MI6), are also omitting to publish it, claiming that 'lawyers'
have advised them against it. Meanwhile, Channel 4 do their bit for the
Windsors by showing a film tonight with the basic message that 'Diana
was a whore'. Guess where the decision may have come from to show that?
But when the ship sinks some more, some rats will desert it. James
Whitaker's article below may be a case of 'confirming something by
denying it', the old trick that some journalists think is so clever. "I
don't believe for one moment" is a classic way for a journalist to say
"Here is what I am saying".
5) One tactic of the Windsors may be to play UP the letter, in order to
divert attention from much stronger evidence of foul play, such as:
- witness evidence of obstruction of off-roads, forcing the Mercedes
to enter the tunnel
- presence of the SIS Director of Operations (now head of SIS, Richard
Dearlove) in Paris
- alleged 'disappearance' of the other car with which the Mercedes
came into contact in the tunnel, despite the area being one of
the most heavily surveilled in the world, the middle of Paris
embassyland
- the ridiculous assertion that none of the cameras along the route were
working, or that no footage was recorded and kept
- the faked blood sample that, once debunked, leaves zero evidence that
Henri Paul was drunk in the slightest
Note that they are only focusing on 'Prince' Charles, and not on his
parents, whereas such a decision would have been a family decision. This
is unlikely to last for long.
Nor are they mentioning the SIS report to the family's Way Ahead Group
(that considers the long-term strategic interests of the family),
prepared in the run-up to the assassination.
It is a certainty that the French authorities have got enough evidence
to bring down the Windsor dynasty within about five minutes flat.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13784399_method=fu
ll_siteid=50143_headline=-DIANA%2DS%2DLETTER%2D%2DIT%2DWAS%2DCHARLES-
name_page.html
or click: <http://shorturl.net/?l=bb>
***BEGIN ARTICLE 1***
DIANA'S LETTER: IT WAS CHARLES
Jan 6 2004
EXCLUSIVE
By Jane Kerr, Royal Reporter
PRINCE Charles is the person Princess Diana claimed in a letter wanted
to kill her, the Mirror sensationally reveals today.
Before she died in a car crash, Diana wrote: "My husband is planning 'an
accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury...to make the
path clear for him to marry."
She gave the note to butler Paul Burrell who revealed its existence in
the Mirror last year. Charles's name was blanked out. Burrell has been
asked to hand the document to the coroner who today opens the inquest
into Diana's death.
Burrell said: "It has fulfilled its purpose. I wanted to give force to
the argument that an inquest must be held."
***END ARTICLE 1***
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=13785435&method=f
ull
or click: <http://shorturl.net/?l=bc>
***BEGIN ARTICLE 2***
"MY HUSBAND IS PLANNING AN ACCIDENT"
Jan 6 2004
By JANE KERR, Royal Reporter
PRINCESS Diana believed Prince Charles wanted her killed in an accident
when she was plagued by anxiety and feared for her safety.
She told of her worries in her now infamous note which she handed to
butler Paul Burrell as "insurance" on the day she wrote it in October
1996, 10 months before she died in a Paris car crash.
Burrell censored the note when he disclosed its existence in his book
last year by blanking the words "my husband" from the text.
The full text, revealed for the first time, now reads: "This particular
phase of my life is the most dangerous - my husband is planning 'an
accident' in my car, brake failure & serious head injury in order to
make the path clear for him to marry."
The Daily Mirror - not Burrell - has decided to publish the blanked out
name because it will inevitably appear in the public domain.
Burrell is prepared to hand the note to the coroner probing the deaths
of Diana and boyfriend Dodi Al Fayed whose inquests open today.
By bringing the text to light he is honouring a long-standing promise to
co-operate fully with the inquiries.
Speaking at his home in Farndon, Cheshire, Burrell - known by Diana as
her "rock" - said yesterday: "This matter has to be handled with great
sensitivity and I have genuine concerns about that.
"I reproduced only a portion of that letter in my book to provide
further force to the argument that an inquest must be held.
"To that end, the document has fulfilled its main purpose.
"I'll do what I've always said I'll do, and provide the coroner with
every possible assistance where the information I know is relevant to
his investigations."
Royal coroner Michael Burgess has already written to Burrell asking for
the document to be handed over for examination.
The former butler is happy for Mr Burgess to see the entire contents.
He is due to meet his lawyers this week and will then be questioned
about the correspondence. No decision over whether the letter will be
regarded as evidence will be made until the coroner has viewed its
contents.
A source said: "Mr Burgess will take nothing on face value, and he'll
question Mr Burrell very closely over its contents and how it came to be
in his possession. It will be a matter handled with great sensitivity
and care."
Mr Burgess has yet to decide what witnesses and evidence will be deemed
admissable at the full inquests. But Burrell is widely expected to be a
key witness.
The sensational development once again puts Charles's relationship with
his companion Camilla Parker Bowles in the spotlight. It again focuses
attention on Diana's anxieties over her ex-husband in the year before
her death.
It also renews attention on the conspiracy theories swirling round
Diana's death in the Pont d'Alma tunnel in Paris.
These theories were fuelled by the haunting similarities between her own
prediction and the 1997 crash.
Speculation raged over the the blanked-out name in the letter published
in Burrell's book, A Royal Duty, which was exclusively serialised in the
Mirror. At the time, the passage appeared as: "********* is planning 'an
accident' in my car... in order to make the path clear for Charles to
marry."
Burrell had instructed his publishers Penguin to replace the word "him"
with "Charles" to protect the prince's interests.
He said in his book: "I will never say what those blacked-out words
say... deciding what to do with it (the letter) has been a source of
much soul-searching.
"I agree that it may be futile in what it achieves because it can do no
more than provide yet another question mark. But if that question mark
leads to an inquest... it will have achieved something."
Burrell has revealed that at the time the letter was written Diana was
plagued by insecurities and even believed her Kensington Palace
apartments were bugged.
Her marriage had ended only two months before. Though she had negotiated
an estimated £17million settlement, the princess was devastated at
losing her HRH title. Charles had admitted conducting an affair with
Camilla, saying he committed adultery only after his marriage became
"irretrievably broken down, us both having tried".
Today, Camilla is the prince's accepted companion. She lives with him at
his London home, Clarence House, and his Gloucestershire home,
Highgrove. She has also accompanied him on semi-official engagements.
Diana's friends have always said that in the months leading up to her
death she had resolved her differences with Charles and was looking
forward to them becoming friends. Burrell said in the Mirror the letter
provided "evidence of the state of the princess's mind in the final
months of her life".
He admitted it increased huge public interest which was "crying out for
a full examination of the facts".
Mr Burgess announced that an inquest would be opened into Diana's death
two months after Burrell's sensational book was published.
The hearing will open at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, in
Westminster, Central London. An inquest on Dodi, who lived at Oxted,
Surrey, will open in the afternoon at Reigate. Mr Burgess is expected to
announce the scope of his hearings and the course his investigation will
take before full inquests are held later in the year.
The coroner will first have to digest a 6,000-page police report and
secret evidence from the French inquiry into the princess's death held
by judge Herve Stephan. First evidence is not likely to be heard before
the autumn.
Diana, 36, and Dodi died in the early hours of August 31, 1997, when a
Mercedes driven by chauffeur Henri Paul careered out of control and
smashed into a concrete pillar. The 1999 French inquiry said the crash
was an accident caused by chauffeur Paul being high on drink and drugs.
Dodi's father, Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed, believes his son and the
princess were murdered, and has spent thousands of pounds pursuing his
own investigations.
Diana's family do not believe the theories. Her mother, Frances Shand
Kydd, accepted the French inquiry findings "without reservation".
***END ARTICLE 2***
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=peopleNews&storyID=4078455
(and linked page for second part of article)
***BEGIN ARTICLE 3***
UK Tabloid Names Royal in Diana Death Plot Claim
Tue January 6, 2004 05:17 AM ET
(Page 1 of 2)
By Kate Kelland
LONDON (Reuters) - A tabloid newspaper named a senior member of
Britain's royal family Tuesday as the person the late Princess Diana
suspected of plotting to kill her.
In a front-page splash on the day Britain was opening an inquest into
Diana's death, the Daily Mirror named the person she had claimed was
"planning an accident" in a chilling prediction of her own death in a
car crash in August 1997.
She made the allegation in a letter she gave to her butler and
confidant, Paul Burrell, before she died.
The former wife of heir-to-the-throne Prince Charles died at the age of
36, along with her lover Dodi al Fayed and their chauffeur Henri Paul in
a Paris road tunnel.
The Mirror appeared to be risking an aggressive legal response from
Buckingham Palace to its story. The rest of the normally competitive
British media omitted the name, apparently to avoid legal action under
Britain's tough defamation laws.
Legal experts advised Reuters not to publish the name.
The Mirror printed a copy of the letter Diana wrote just 10 months
before her death on its inside pages. Although it identified the person
in its own story, the name was blanked out in the reproduction of the
handwritten letter.
"This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous," it quoted the
letter as saying. "(...) is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake
failure and serious head injury."
Burrell, who gave The Mirror access to the letter as part of a
serialization of excerpts of his book which was published late last
year, reacted angrily to news the name had been revealed.
"I am not very happy about it...I only learned about it late last night.
And it was always my intention never to publish that name," he told
reporters waiting outside his house on Tuesday.
Britain's tabloid newspapers have been engaged in an almost daily battle
in the years since Diana's death to produce the most sensational
headlines about Diana, Charles and other members of her family and
former household.
Tuesday's revelation came as Royal Coroner Michael Burgess was due to
open and adjourn inquests into the deaths of Diana and Dodi.
Hundreds of journalists from around the world gathered for the start of
the inquests in central London -- the first official public hearings
into the crash to be held on British soil.
An inquiry by French authorities in 1999 ruled the accident was caused
by chauffeur Paul being drunk and driving too fast.
The Mirror said Burrell was prepared to hand over the Diana letter to
the coroner as part of the inquest.
It said that in doing so, he would be "honoring a long-standing promise
to cooperate fully with the inquiries."
After a 15-year marriage, Charles and Diana divorced in 1996 after both
had admitted to having adulterous affairs.
***END ARTICLE 3***
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=13784926&method=f
ull
or click: <http://shorturl.net/?l=bd>
***BEGIN ARTICLE 4***
I CANNOT BELIEVE HE WANTED TO HURT HER
Jan 6 2004
By James Whitaker
MAY I say, from the very beginning, that Diana's fear her ex-husband
might want to hurt her, in any way, just has to be wrong.
I don't believe for one moment that the Prince of Wales would ever wish
any harm to the mother of his children, let alone be the architect of
any move to harm her.
We don't live in mediaeval times when bumping off troublesome spouses,
courtiers or mere irritants was part and parcel of royal behaviour.
Add to this the very nature of Prince Charles, the sort of man he is,
and common sense, surely, tells you that any thought that he would want
to bump off the princess is ridiculous.
I write these words in the belief that the prince was cruel to Diana in
the way he never let go of Camilla Parker Bowles - the root cause of her
suffering.
But we now have to face up to the unpalatable fact that Princess Diana
clearly DID believe that Charles was capable of hurting her.
So much so that she put down, on paper, her fear that Charles was
planning "an accident" for her. It is hard to imagine anything more
horrible.
We now know these were her feelings, paranoid or not.
So can there be a shred of truth in what she wrote in October 1996?
Reading the opening of the letter that Diana entrusted with her "rock",
Paul Burrell, 10 months before her death, gives us a clue to her state
of mind that day.
She began her letter: "I am sitting here at my desk today in October,
longing for someone to hug me and encourage me to keep strong and hold
my head high. This particular phase of my life is the most dangerous..."
At this point she names her ex as the man she believes is plotting her
death.
Was she deranged? I think not. Was she seeing conspiracies that didn't
exist? Yes.
By this stage of her life she was feeling neglected, abandoned and a
burden even to her family. Poor Diana.
All she wanted was a cuddle and somebody to love her.
Instead, all she had was her butler, comforting and faithful as he was.
In her state of deep depression, she unburdened her heart and produced
the sort of words that are the stuff of horror books, of gremlins and
ghouls, of plotting and revenge. Such innermost feelings should have no
part of our thinking, but now they are with us.
And they are matters that we have to consider, like it or not.
I have done so and believe that such an act is beyond the comprehension
of a man who I have been reporting on since he was 20 years old, still
at Cambridge University.
I'm not an intimate of the Prince of Wales, but I have been studying him
closely since the late 60s and believe I know a reasonable amount about
him. He is undoubtedly selfish, he is unquestionably indulged more than
any human being ever should be and I have no illusion that he can be
ruthless whenever necessary.
But there is a wonderful side to him, too.
He is caring of others, even those he hardly knows (he once sent my
hospitalised wife a get well card via his personal protection officer
the night she broke her leg in a skiing accident in Klosters) while the
amount of money he raises for his charities is phenomenal.
His loyalty to old friends is legendary while ex-fighting men and women
come high on his list of priorities.
DESPITE his disagreements with his mother, and even more, his father, he
would die for them both. So, to think he could harm Diana is, for me,
beyond reasonable belief.
There are many conspiracy theorists out there and a significant number
will readily accept the notion that there is no smoke without fire and
that therefore this letter should be taken seriously.
I don't know how many will go down this path but I believe that some
will be giving Prince Charles a decidedly sideways look from now on.
There is a truism about being the Sovereign and that is that no king or
queen can reign without the goodwill of the people. The support of the
vast majority is paramount if the system is to work. With the Queen, it
does because few people, even republicans, think she does a bad job.
More to the point, we all trust HM. We think that she does her level
best on our behalves.
I am uncertain as to what Charles does now. He is in a real pickle.
His marriage plans with regard to Camilla are firmly on the back burner,
while the two have reached a stage of their lives where they hardly dare
appear in public as a couple.
She, rightly, is keeping quiet and staying out of sight. Smart girl.
Charles, on the other hand, can't disappear off the radar screen.
He has an important official role to fulfil and has to soldier on no
matter what accusations are hurled at him.
It is, of course possible that the coroner, Michael Burgess, might not
allow this letter from Princess Diana to Burrell to be admitted as
evidence as he conducts his inquest. It is entirely a matter for him.
I understand that even the recipient of this anguished letter, Paul
Burrell himself, does not believe that Charles would ever carry out such
a dastardly act, as suggested by Diana.
But I feel that the interests of the public would not be best served if
Mr Burgess were to decide that the letter was not worthy of
consideration.
All evidence surrounding the case of Diana should be put on show and
then properly debated.
The death of Diana and what really happened that night in August 1997
should be brought to as swift a conclusion as possible. The damage that
has already been caused cannot be allowed to continue.
We need the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, however
unpalatable it might be.
***END ARTICLE 4***
--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)
Volcaran
>Date: 06/01/2004 13:04 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <2kmnfMAHJr+$Ew...@borve.demon.co.uk>
>
<snip opinions stated as fact>
Since most of your post is based upon supposed facts (in reality opinions)
impossible to prove or disprove lets just go for the one you should be able to
prove:
>Reuters, which (yes, dear reader) is owned
>by SIS (MI6),
Reuters is a publicly listed company. Please list or link to the shareholder
register showing the shareholders are SIS or SIS nominees.
PS many of the news agencies including the BBC are now naming Charles as the
royal in the letter.
banana
HIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes
<snip>
The 'Scotsman' *are* publishing 'Prince' Charles's name. Whether they
are distributing this in England, though, I don't know. The 'Guardian'
have also now published it on their website.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,1117153,00.html
It has been published in Australia and South Africa. I expect it will be
in all UK newspapers tomorrow.
Meanwhile, al-Jazeera are *not* publishing it, at least not on their
English-language webpages:
Clearly the controllers of al-Jazeera must consider it to be more
'sensitive' than an interview with Osama bin Laden.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/11F2A971-F670-4727-95C4-195F492A4
B25.htm
or click: <http://shorturl.net/?l=be>
***BEGIN ARTICLE***
British tabloid names Diana 'killer'
Tuesday 06 January 2004, 15:09 Makka Time, 12:09 GMT
A tabloid newspaper has named a senior member of Britain's royal family
as the person the late Princess Diana suspected of plotting to kill her.
In a front-page splash on the day Britain opened an inquest into Diana's
death, the Daily Mirror named the person she had claimed was "planning
an accident" in a chilling prediction of her own death in a car crash in
August 1997.
She made the allegation in a letter she gave to her butler and
confidant, Paul Burrell, before she died.
The former wife of heir-to-the-throne Prince Charles died at the age of
36, along with her lover Dodi al-Fayed and their chauffeur Henri Paul in
a Paris road tunnel.
Legal action
The Mirror appeared to be risking an aggressive legal response from
Buckingham Palace to its story on Tuesday.
The rest of the normally competitive British media omitted the name,
apparently to avoid legal action under Britain's tough defamation laws.
The tabloid printed a copy of the letter Diana wrote just 10 months
before her death on its inside pages. Although it identified the person
in its own story, the name was blanked out in the reproduction of the
handwritten letter.
"This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous," it quoted the
letter as saying. "(...) is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake
failure and serious head injury."
"This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous... (...) is
planning 'an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury"
Excerpt from Princess Diana's letter to her butler
Sensational headlines
Burrell, who gave The Mirror access to the letter as part of a
serialisation of excerpts of his book which was published late last
year, reacted angrily to news the name had been revealed.
"I am not very happy about it... I only learnt about it late last night.
And it was always my intention never to publish that name," he told
reporters on Tuesday.
Britain's tabloid newspapers have been engaged in an almost daily battle
in the years since Diana's death to produce the most sensational
headlines about Diana, Charles and other members of her family and
former household.
Tuesday's revelation came as Royal Coroner Michael Burgess was due to
open and adjourn inquests into the deaths of Diana and Dodi.
Adulterous affairs
Hundreds of journalists from around the world gathered for the start of
the inquests in central London - the first official public hearings into
the crash to be held on British soil.
An inquiry by French authorities in 1999 ruled the accident was caused
by Diana's chauffeur being drunk and driving too fast.
The Mirror said Burrell was prepared to hand over the Diana letter to
the coroner as part of the inquest.
It said that in doing so, he would be "honouring a long-standing promise
to cooperate fully with the inquiries".
After a 15-year marriage, Charles and Diana divorced in 1996 after both
had admitted to having adulterous affairs.
***END ARTICLE***
Volcaran
>Date: 06/01/2004 13:29 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <UUCvTlAUhr+$Ew...@borve.demon.co.uk>
>
<snip>>The 'Scotsman' *are* publishing 'Prince' Charles's name. Whether they
>are distributing this in England, though, I don't know. The 'Guardian'
>have also now published it on their website.
>
As are the BBC, Reuters and the PA
Peter W Watson
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes
snip articles
1. Diana was a nutter who went to a clairvoyant via a helicopter.
2. Charles IS a nutter who talks to plants and loves the earth - how can
a tree hugging sensitive fellow possibly harm a woman?
PWatson
--
Peter W Watson
Volcaran
>Date: 06/01/2004 13:49 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <AkOqf+Anzr+$Ew...@borve.demon.co.uk>
>
>In article <20040106082347...@mb-m14.aol.com>, Volcaran
><volc...@aol.comnopost> writes
>
>>>From: banana banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk
>>>Date: 06/01/2004 13:04 GMT Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <2kmnfMAHJr+$Ew...@borve.demon.co.uk>
>
>><snip opinions stated as fact>
>>
>>Since most of your post is based upon supposed facts (in reality opinions)
>>impossible to prove or disprove lets just go for the one you should be able
>to
>>prove:
>
>>>Reuters, which (yes, dear reader) is owned
>>>by SIS (MI6),
>>
>>Reuters is a publicly listed company. Please list or link to the
>shareholder
>>register showing the shareholders are SIS or SIS nominees.
>
ROFLMAO - so because its a secret organisation we will just have to take you
bland assertion its true. Sorry you don't have that much credibility. I
repeat its a publicly listed company, its shareholders include pension funds,
members of the public etc.
>
>Are you going to deny that the British Council has anything to do with
>SIS too. Go on - go the whole hog!
>
If you mean does SIS ever use the British Council for cover for its operatives,
I would very much expect so. If you mean is the British Council an SIS run
agency, yes that's b*llocks.
<snip>
banana
<volc...@aol.comnopost> writes
>>From: banana banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk
>>Date: 06/01/2004 13:49 GMT Standard Time
>>Message-id: <AkOqf+Anzr+$Ew...@borve.demon.co.uk>
>>
>>In article <20040106082347...@mb-m14.aol.com>, Volcaran
>><volc...@aol.comnopost> writes
>>
>>>>From: banana banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk
>>>>Date: 06/01/2004 13:04 GMT Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <2kmnfMAHJr+$Ew...@borve.demon.co.uk>
<snip>
>>Are you going to deny that the British Council has anything to do with
>>SIS too. Go on - go the whole hog!
>>
>
>If you mean does SIS ever use the British Council for cover for its operatives,
>I would very much expect so. If you mean is the British Council an SIS run
>agency, yes that's b*llocks.
Britain is a *brand* that efforts are made to *recruit* people to around
the world, people who are influential or likely to become so. Give 'em
some port, wine and dine 'em in gentlemen's clubs, feed 'em with words
like 'Oxford', 'Cambridge', 'Shakespeare', 'her majesty's government',
'keep a straight bat', get it? Cultivate 'em, hook 'em. SIS pays for
their sons to go to English public schools. (If they know what a 'top'
school is, and they're important, use one of those. Otherwise if they
don't, and they're less important, use one of the minor ones and tell
'em it's sooooo prestigious). Gather info on anyone who approaches, keep
info on everyone who's ever approached or been approached, their sons
and daughters, etc. The British Council is part of that, an important
part - not just in providing 'cover' (if you can call it that) for
operatives, but in running events, providing bursaries, and in many
other ways, including being a focus for Anglophile wallies who are so
proud to be recognised as 'important people' by such a supposedly
'dignified' organisation. British influence isn't all about meeting joes
after they've put chalk-marks on the back of road-signs. Getting a clue
about how it works now? Or did you have one already? Anyway, the British
brand is losing a fair a bit of ground to the alternative, American one.
'Cool Britannia' - in which the Foreign Office was heavily involved -
was a fucking joke.
Hognoxious
news:W$MaUyGd9r+$Ew...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk...
...
> snip articles
>
> 1. Diana was a nutter who went to a clairvoyant via a helicopter.
>
> 2. Charles IS a nutter who talks to plants and loves the earth - how can
> a tree hugging sensitive fellow possibly harm a woman?
3. Peter W Watson is a twat who desn't know how to trim.
See this? No! Exactly. Wanker.
blue
> 2) The 'Mirror' originally published a PHOTO of the words:
>
> "[...] is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake failure and
> serious head injury"
>
> and then the TEXT "to make the path clear for Charles to marry."
>
> They claim that Burrell instructed his publishers to replace "him" with
> "Charles"
I have page three of the sleaze rag in front of me.
Reading from the photo:
---
I am sitting here at my
desk today october, Ionging
for someone to hug me &
encourage me to keep strong
& hold my head high -
This particular phase in
my life is the most
dangerous - my husband
is planing "an accident"
in my car, brake failure
& serious head injury in
order to make the path
clear for him to marry
---
First impressions are that this letter is false.
Taking it as real she might of been insuring that
if anything did happen to her he would get the blame,
some how, deserved or not.
Not sure what she based this on.
Not sure why they're having an investigation.
What is the main conspiracy? If there is such strong
evidence lets hear a bit of it now. And why are we
waiting a year odd for the investigation. Why will it
take 5 years odd before it ends? How do you know
the finish date from the start?
The only question I know of is why was she seen by
a royal coroner and why has it taken 6 years, to be
seven, for her to be seen by a real one?
Toady of Toad Hall
news:W$MaUyGd9r+$Ew...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk...
>
> snip articles
>
> 1. Diana was a nutter who went to a clairvoyant via a helicopter.
>
> 2. Charles IS a nutter who talks to plants and loves the earth - how can
> a tree hugging sensitive fellow possibly harm a woman?
>
>
> PWatson
>
A tree hugging sensitive fellow who rips foxes apart for "sport"? Sounds
like the kind of guy who would murder his ex-wife.
banana
writes
>banana wrote:
>
>> 2) The 'Mirror' originally published a PHOTO of the words:
>>
>> "[...] is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake failure and
>> serious head injury"
>>
>> and then the TEXT "to make the path clear for Charles to marry."
>>
>> They claim that Burrell instructed his publishers to replace "him" with
>> "Charles"
>
>I have page three of the sleaze rag in front of me.
>Reading from the photo:
>---
>I am sitting here at my
>desk today october, Ionging
>for someone to hug me &
>encourage me to keep strong
>& hold my head high -
>This particular phase in
>my life is the most
>dangerous - my husband
>is planing "an accident"
>in my car, brake failure
>& serious head injury in
>order to make the path
>clear for him to marry
>---
For the record, he was not her husband in October 1996. They were
divorced on 28 August 1996. I would have to agree, it would be unlikely
for someone to refer to someone from whom they'd been divorced for 1-2
months (and separated for nearly 4 years) to call them 'my husband' in a
letter supposed written to be kept for purposes of 'insurance'.
>First impressions are that this letter is false.
>
>Taking it as real she might of been insuring that
>if anything did happen to her he would get the blame,
>some how, deserved or not.
>
>Not sure what she based this on.
>
>Not sure why they're having an investigation.
>What is the main conspiracy? If there is such strong
>evidence lets hear a bit of it now. And why are we
>waiting a year odd for the investigation. Why will it
>take 5 years odd before it ends? How do you know
>the finish date from the start?
>
>The only question I know of is why was she seen by
>a royal coroner and why has it taken 6 years, to be
>seven, for her to be seen by a real one?
The coroner conducting her inquest *is* the coroner of the 'queen's'
household, and is doing so in that capacity. There is of course an
obvious 'conflict of interest'.
Bliss
Wowww. Makes sense!
Hognoxious
news:2320ab97.04010...@posting.google.com...
Like you would know.
Peter W Watson
<hognoxious_kosher@!not!so!hotmail.com> writes
--
Peter W Watson
Peter W Watson
Hall <to...@somethingorother.com> writes
--
Peter W Watson
Mouse Anony
> I am sitting here at my
> desk today october, Ionging
> for someone to hug me &
> encourage me to keep strong
> & hold my head high -
> This particular phase in
> my life is the most
> dangerous - my husband
> is planing "an accident"
> in my car, brake failure
> & serious head injury in
> order to make the path
> clear for him to marry
> ---
> First impressions are that this letter is false.
>
> Taking it as real she might of been insuring that
> if anything did happen to her he would get the blame,
> some how, deserved or not.
More likely she was just being her pissed off idiotic slutish self and
decided to write something to ease her anger... Even more likely if
she did indeed write Camilla as someone suggested when Banana original
made his post but which he ignored.
I mean if she was really scared, why the hell did she give it to
someone like her butler who she obviously didn't care about? If she
was smart (and she was) she would have know what kind of a person he
was and would have known he would just use it to make money rather
then do something useful. Logically, if she was really scared, she
should have written to trustworthy people like perhaps some
trustworthy US papers and some lawyers etc for them to keep in event
anything happens. Or even better, she should have come out and said
it. That would have really screwed up any plans. But she didn't...
>
> Not sure what she based this on.
>
> Not sure why they're having an investigation.
> What is the main conspiracy? If there is such strong
> evidence lets hear a bit of it now. And why are we
> waiting a year odd for the investigation. Why will it
> take 5 years odd before it ends? How do you know
> the finish date from the start?
I think most of Brits and people in the rest of the world are sick and
tired of the idiots who won't shut up about it being a conspiracy and
what it to end so their hoping this will at least reduce the crap
people come up with.
> The only question I know of is why was she seen by
> a royal coroner and why has it taken 6 years, to be
> seven, for her to be seen by a real one?
They know the French did a proper job but realise the French didn't
give a damn about what wacko Brits think up so the French didn't
bother to answer questions that were unneccesary...
Also, they were probably waiting for that idiot butler to start making
money. I mean it was obvious he was cultivating the image he really
cared about he so he could use it to aid him make money. If he really
cared about her, why did he wait so long to show anyone the letter?
Why did he make a million dollar deal in publishing the letter which
so obviously reduced it's merit in the public eye, especially after
such a long time? Even the other wacko, Dodi's father asks this. Why
did he slag her children instead of trying to help them see the truth?
Why had basically everything he has done since her death been in his
best interest, not hers? Clearly this image is false.
The fact is, they way he has handled everything makes the great
majority of people now think it's even less likely she was killed by
the SAS. I used to think that it was possible. But after having seen
all the supporters of this theory, the way they act and speak along
with all the supposed evidence and how ridiculous it all seems that
it's unlikely. Of course, maybe the SAS is actually the ones doing it.
Maybe they have Burell in with them. Would seem the smart thing. The
SAS aren't a dumb organisation. Banana could easily be a member...
Mouse Anony
> The coroner conducting her inquest *is* the coroner of the 'queen's'
> household, and is doing so in that capacity. There is of course an
> obvious 'conflict of interest'.
That's only assuming you're dumb enough to believe the royal household
had anything to do with it. If you're smart enough to realise there
are some thing which need better analysis to satisfy your curiousty
but aren't a wacko like you, you don't give a damn. On the other hand,
if the coroner was a wacko like you...............
Mouse Anony
> household, and is doing so in that capacity. There is of course an
> obvious 'conflict of interest'.
BTW, he's doing it because he's the Surrey coroner not because he's
the royal coroner. Probably, the fact that he was the royal coroner
and so had more command helped make up his mind, but this does not
change the fact that his being the royal coroner is accessory to the
investigation. Of course, if the RSPCA was investigating Corgi cruelty
at Buckingham Palace, I'm sure there's a conflict or interest.
Similarly, if the Queen launches an uprising and the royal army is
asked to put her down, I'm sure there is also a conflict of
interest...
Volcaran
>Date: 12/01/2004 22:42 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <d528e23b.04011...@posting.google.com>
>
>banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<7Q8kymAsOv+$Ew...@borve.demon.co.uk>...
>> The coroner conducting her inquest *is* the coroner of the 'queen's'
>> household, and is doing so in that capacity. There is of course an
>> obvious 'conflict of interest'.
>
>BTW, he's doing it because he's the Surrey coroner not because he's
>the royal coroner.
Actually there are two inquests, Diana and Dodi Fayed separately. Burgess is
conducting Diana's in his capacity as Royal Coroner and DF's in his capacity as
Surrey Coroner.
However this does not change your point that to suggest his appointment is in
anyway part of a conspiracy or cover up is without one shred of evidence.
Since the same people who suggest it is also state that the Royal Family are
furious that he has ordered a police investigation they seem to miss the
obvious "conflict" in their argument. But then again consistency of arguments
was never a pre-requisite for conspiracy theories.
<snip>
DeadeyeDev
>BTW, he's doing it because he's the Surrey coroner not because he's
>the royal coroner. Probably, the fact that he was the royal coroner
>and so had more command helped make up his mind, but this does not
>change the fact that his being the royal coroner is accessory to the
>investigation (etc.)
---
I always assumed that a coroner's job was to examine the corpse and determine
the cause of death. So, if I'm not mistaken on this point, are there plans to
exhume her corpse (and can they hope to get much useful knowledge if they did)?
Can we assume that some British authority examined Diana's body before it was
buried? And if not, why not?
Volcaran
>Date: 19/01/2004 00:29 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <20040118192920...@mb-m10.aol.com>
A post mortem examination was conducted when the body was returned to the UK.
The role of the Coroner is to hold an inquest into the cause of death not carry
out the post mortem which is undertaken by a pathologist. Burgess's
predecessor attended the examination.