Noble Realms

spirituality - physics - conspiracy - philosophy - wisdom - and more...

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Noble Realms Forum is now closed. It will remain online as a searchable archive of posts spanning 3/25/04 to 2/22/08. Members may still log in to use email functions, but there will be no further posting activity. Thank you to everyone who has contributed over the years. - Tom/montalk

#1 2006-12-14 15:19:14

Marcus
Member
Registered: 2004-10-15
Website

Diana death - an "accident" - offical inquest...

A big shame that the truth didn't come out about this.  Yet another load of bull-shit... sad

BBC News wrote:

An official UK police inquiry into the Paris car crash which killed Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed has found no evidence the couple were murdered.

Lord Stevens, who led the three-year investigation, said the crash was a "tragic accident".

The inquiry report said chauffeur Henri Paul, who also died, was speeding and over the legal drink-drive limit.

The princess, 36, and Mr Al Fayed, 42, died when their Mercedes crashed in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel in August 1997.

"There was no conspiracy to murder any of the occupants of that car," Lord Stevens said.

The findings - contained within an 832 page document - form part of the inquest, due to resume next year, into the deaths of the couple.

Lord Stevens told a news conference in London the report addresses the key issues emerging from a "most complex and challenging" investigation.

"I have no doubt that speculation as to what happened that night will continue and that there are some matters, as in many other investigations, about which we may never find a definitive answer.

The evidence suggests Princess Diana was not engaged or about to get engaged and scientific tests showed she was not pregnant, he said.

"We have spoken to many of her family and closest friends and none of them have indicated to us that she was either about to or wished to get engaged," he said.

"Prince William has confirmed to me that his mother had not given him the slightest indication about such plans for the future."

Some 400 people, including Prince Charles, the Duke of Edinburgh and the heads of MI5 and MI6, were interviewed or contacted by the inquiry.

Referring to claims by Dodi's father, Mohamed al Fayed, the report said there was no evidence of a connection between the Duke of Edinburgh and MI6.

Mr Stevens said the various legal cases currently being pursued by Mr Al Fayed through the French courts are "unlikely, in my opinion, to have any bearing on my conclusion that there was no conspiracy or cover up".

He said he was satisfied the US Central Intelligence Agency had made no attempt to hold back information that could have altered the inquiry's conclusions.

"I very much hope that all the work we have done and the publication of this report will help to bring some closure to all who continue to mourn the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, Dodi Al Fayed and Henri Paul," said Lord Stevens.

Clarence House said later that Princes William and Harry hope the "conclusive findings" of the report will end speculation surrounding their mother's death.

Paparazzi pursuit

Harrods department store boss Mr Al Fayed is due to issue a response to the report.

In advance of the publication, he told BBC News that, if Lord Stevens made the "really shocking" conclusion that the deaths were an accident, he would refuse to accept it.

The crash took place as the couple were pursued by paparazzi photographers during the drive from the Ritz hotel to Mr Al Fayed's flat.

A French investigation into the crash concluded Mr Paul had lost control of the car because he was driving too fast while under the influence of alcohol and prescription drugs.

Meanwhile, lawyers for bodyguard Trevor Rees, the sole survivor of the crash, said he will not be making any comment on the report or the inquest.

So much for the driver being drunk - then not drunk - then drunk again.  It's all very round and round, seems no one could make up their minds what to say.  Or perhaps shows there was a lot going on to keep things covered up.  A big pity indeed - cuz it would have woken a lot of people up I think.

(And the BBC's one sentance-per-paragraph reporting is utter shite)...

Offline

 

#2 2006-12-14 16:28:29

StarCat
Member
Registered: 2005-10-12

Re: Diana death - an "accident" - offical inquest...

If you look into the work of Stuart Wilde, you will see a very different picture indeed.
What does your gut tell you?


StarCat

Offline

 

#3 2006-12-14 16:39:03

Barefoot Doc
Member
From: England
Registered: 2005-04-20

Re: Diana death - an "accident" - offical inquest...

It may work the other way too i think as the majority of UK folk think the British establishment murdered Di. I know many people who otherwise seem like sheeple who are convinced Di was murdered so it may wake more people up to the lengths these people will go to to cover up as significant numbers cry whitewash and are woken up to how Government and the establishment work in reality.


Its not like we are fractions of the whole but rather versions of the whole.

Offline

 

#4 2006-12-14 18:05:32

Marcus
Member
Registered: 2004-10-15
Website

Re: Diana death - an "accident" - offical inquest...

StarCat wrote:

If you look into the work of Stuart Wilde, you will see a very different picture indeed.
What does your gut tell you?

Yeah I regularly read Stuart Wilde - but had just assumed the lid being literally blown off.  I hadn't considered it in this manner!

Barefoot Doc wrote:

It may work the other way too i think as the majority of UK folk think the British establishment murdered Di. I know many people who otherwise seem like sheeple who are convinced Di was murdered so it may wake more people up to the lengths these people will go to to cover up as significant numbers cry whitewash and are woken up to how Government and the establishment work in reality.

Interestingly enough, I was just around my father-in-laws and he normally believes around 98% of what the media says.  But he was all over the inquest results - claiming that it was a obvious cover-up.  Like I said above I hadn't considered it in this way - but I think it is a relevant point and it will be interesting to see how it develops from here...

Offline

 

#5 2006-12-14 18:17:09

druid
Member
Registered: 2006-08-06

Re: Diana death - an "accident" - offical inquest...

Mr Terry Boardman just sent me this email about Diana's death. You may also check his article 'ON the Death of Diana, Queen of Hearts' on his website: www.monju.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Diana.htm

Dear friends,

You only have to listen to James McNaughtie's treatment of the Stevens Report into the death of Diana story on BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning (listen again via Radio 4 website)http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_a … dio4/today) between 6 and 9 am to know in your bones that something smells bad. You can almost taste the unease in the man's voice, and his distaste for the conspiracy theorists who dare to challenge the worldview that he daily represents. Listen to how this normally moderate cheery individual can hardly rein in his impatience and scorn. Listen to how the royal correspondent lays on thick the 'evidence' which is supposed to prove to all good members of the Beeb-believing middle class that Lord Stevens (ennobled on his last day as a police commissioner) and his report are to be believed and trusted. You only have to note how Mohammed al-Fayed's interview at 8:19 is padded and sandwiched around both before and behind with 'illuminating comment and interpretation' by other Beeb staff and is not allowed to be given to the listeners 'unprepared'. You only need to notice that McNaughtie goes on about 'hard evidence' but when al-Fayed gets to the nitty gritties about the DNA test and the blood samples and the carbon monoxide, then McNaughtie passes on quickly. You only need listen to the interview with the academic in the second hour of the programme, which has nothing to do with 'the facts' or the 'hard evidence' and hear how the academic is egged on by McNaughtie to explain the obsessions of the detested 'conspiracy theorists' and note that McNaughtie seems to know the points the academic is going to make before he makes them. Then you only need to put that together with the recent report from the French authorities (and given much publicity by the reliable, friendly, balanced old Beeb) that conveniently came out after a 7 year interval (!) on the 8th December (rather like Osama popping up 'on video' just before the 2004 US Presidential elections) 'proving' that "DNA Testing" (we prostrate ourselves before the holy words) had shown that the blood samples did indeed come from Henri Paul and matched DNA samples from his family members. [We recall, however, that the DNA test on Kaspar Hauser (who incidentally, was fatally stabbed on this day, 14th December, 1833) run by German magazine "Der Spiegel" at the Universities of Munich and Birmingham in 1996 was shown in subsequent years and by a second DNA test in 2002 (University of Munster) to have been a complete fake, because the blood sample tested in 1996 had nothing to do with Kaspar Hauser! The scientists had examined the DNA sample in good faith and were not to know where it had come from!]

From the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressr … iana.shtml)
The DNA tests were carried out in France within the last year, according to a source close to the French authorities. A DNA profile was taken from Henri Paul's blood samples and compared with his parents' DNA. They matched.

"...within the last year..."  I wonder why......?
"A source close to the French authorities"......hmmm.
taken from which blood samples......?

Then you can connect all the above-mentioned BBC items with the FACT that the week before the Stevens report, the  BBC  started  a 4 part series called "The Conspiracy Files" (the title couldn't just possibly have anything to do with an allusion to "The X Files", could it?) which examines why people go for conspiracies. They began - 4 days before the Stevens Report came out - with "How Diana Died"

In other words, is it not just possible that the BBC and the Establishment are doing their damnedest to make sure that this one is nailed down, that it is given the awesome 'closure' (time to stop thinking now, folks!), that the Stevens Report somehow is ensconced in the national memory banks like the official reports  into JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King, Oklahoma and 9-11, requiring only periodic boosters (TV documentaries and the like) on anniversaries to keep the lie fixed in the minds of the public like a mental vaccination against the truth. And I say all this without having even read the Stevens report, which I shall now do.....

Many people believe Diana was a shallow insignificant individual and that arguments about her death are as nothing compared to the great issues of the day such as global warming, Darfur, the Health Service etc, but - arguments about the quality of her individuality aside -  let us just imagine what it would mean IF it were conclusively proven and accepted that Diana had been killed by British intelligence with the connivance of US Secret Service and certain members of the Royal Family. Or, for that matter, if it had been proven that JFK had been killed not by Oswald or even by 'renegade members' of the CIA, but rather on the orders of key figures within the US establishment? Or that 9-11 was staged by forces within the US establishment itself to justify the War On Terror? In all these cases, the UK and US establishments would suffer blows from which they might not recover. This would  likely have knock-on effects on 'the great issues of the day'. Everything would be up for question; mental habits might finally be put aside and the veils of authority finally drop. In Britain, the monarchy remains the lynchpin of the Establishment. This is why next year we shall have had to wait 10 years for a British inquest and why it will reach the same result as the French inquiry, the Stevens Report and the BBC documentaries. This is why the death of Diana is  significant. They know this and thus the facts of the conspiracies must be suppressed or disguised. Hence the Warren Commission Report...the 9-11 Report...and now the Stevens Report.

Terry

Offline

 

#6 2006-12-31 15:38:37

Marcus
Member
Registered: 2004-10-15
Website

Re: Diana death - an "accident" - offical inquest...

Interesting turn:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6221269.stm

Inquest is to resume next month.  It will be decided if a jury is needed.  If so the jury will be made up of Royal household members.  Funny eh?

Last edited by Marcus (2006-12-31 15:39:46)

Offline

 

#7 2007-01-03 18:05:01

ShineOn
Member
From: above the center ring
Registered: 2006-10-27

Re: Diana death - an "accident" - offical inquest...

The thought that the Royal 'broodmare' could one day sire an Arab child was more than they could ever stomach. She had to go. The Elites turniguets are getting closer to nooses around their necks.


" The truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it "

Ayn Rand

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson