StarGateWars Forums

well, that accounts for your attitudes

consider this, would it matter if she was murdered or wasnt?
Nope.

Is there evidence to say she was?
No

Does anyone even care that she died anymore?
Nope.

Mister Sandman wrote:consider this, would it matter if she was murdered or wasnt?
Nope.


if she was murdered it would certainly make a difference as people would need to be brought to justice for it, there is no statute of limitations on murder

Is there evidence to say she was?
No

do you have access to every shred of evidence, do any of us? can you say 100% without a doubt that there is nothing that could be construed as evidence of murder? no you cannot

Does anyone even care that she died anymore?
Nope.


you speak for the entire world now? get off your bloody high horse and discuss the situation, one word answers do nothing but make you look like an ignorant fool

with all that being said it is my belief that Di was not murdered, what happened was certainly manslaughter from what little research I have done into the subject. But there are certainly interesting things and plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest something more than an accident if one wishes to look deep enough into small things

i herd her driver was drunk so it was his stupidity that killed her.

the driver was NOT drunk.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:well, that accounts for your attitudes

where i'm from has absolutely nothing to do with my attitude thankyou very much

i dont give a rats about any member of the royal family or the circumstance of their deaths

Londo Mollari wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:well, that accounts for your attitudes

where i'm from has absolutely nothing to do with my attitude thankyou very much

i dont give a rats about any member of the royal family or the circumstance of their deaths

i agreee tooo

Avenger's whole theory is pretty suspect..


Diana campaigned against landmines the same way Bono compaigns against, war, famine, .. hangnails.. etc. There are alot of celebrities who donates their fame to a cause. Also, presidents have been campaigning against landmines since Eisenhower, Clinton was just towing an already establshed point of view when he stopped them from being produced on american soil. (Why would you kill the mascot, because your team lost?)

Also your motive doesn't tie in well since you have no real suspect for the crime; No connection between them and landmine profit.

I also cannot verify the fact around the car you said was stolen, no police report exists to comfirm that theory and there are no credible witnesses either. So there goes your opertunity

The car was caculated to have made impact at around 95–110 km/h (60–70 mph). The story of the stuck speedometer was actually confirmed to be made up by a tabloid. This is irrelvant since a stuck spedometer gives no indication of tampering or impact velocity, alsothe spedometer was not your standard tack versions but was digital(which do not get stuck).

Eye witnesses at the scene claim the car was driving at unsafe speed trying to elude paparazzi. These direct testomonies would sugest a narative of negligence of both the driver and the persuers to traffic laws and safe driving procedures.

The ambulence arrived within 20 min of the call from the police first on scene. When fire crews arrived some 5 minutes later and assesed the situation they proceeded to move dianna. Unfortunately she went into cardiac arest.

They successfully resuscitated her and proceeded to move here to the embulance to get her to the hospital . The trip back also took 20 min.

The ambulence team was at the scene for around 1hr and 10 min, in which the time they successfully resuscitated and stabilized her and removed her from a wreck. This entirelly acounts for the length of the time the ambulence remained on scene and in no way apears to suggest negligence on part of the emergency services on scene.

There is also no verifiable evidence to suggest the ambulence attempted to loose their police escort enroot to the hospital.

Everything I just told you though can be confirmed in the 2007 Paget report and also in the initial investigation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olIOq-lwU_E
http://www.met.police.uk/news/operation ... report.htm

Your motive, opertunity and evidence is extremely vague and circumstantial Avenger. You need to elevate your criteria for proof and not make wild accusations based on silly and irrelevant "unanswered questions"

You only laugh to maintain your us vs them narrative playing around in your head.

The main point is that the courts beleived the conspiracy theories to have no merit as outlined by the two follow up investigations...

Which is more plausible avenger

1) negligent driving
2) or a convuluted conspiracy to assinate her because she didn't like landmines

did i say she was killed because she didn't like land mines? without looking back at what i wrote i'm pretty sure i said it was 1 of many reasons.

as for the investigations...they also blamed Bin laden, the Taliban, Afghanistan, Iraq and WMD's for 9/11...needless to say, none of that was true otherwise they would have the crime for 9/11 on OBL's FBI profile, which they don't because and i quote "we have no evidence linking OBL to 9/11".

reckless driving my arse!

[KMA]Avenger wrote:did i say she was killed because she didn't like land mines? without looking back at what i wrote i'm pretty sure i said it was 1 of many reasons.

as for the investigations...they also blamed Bin laden, the Taliban, Afghanistan, Iraq and WMD's for 9/11...needless to say, none of that was true otherwise they would have the crime for 9/11 on OBL's FBI profile, which they don't because and i quote "we have no evidence linking OBL to 9/11".

reckless driving my arse!

Even if I were to take what you just wrote at face value, it would have no connection or meaning in the case of what happened to Dianna. Unless you can somehow tie 9/11 to Dianna's murder .

Those two things with completely different circumstances, pertaining to completely different series of events cannot be used as analogies for one another.

Unless your trying to infer that the same people who were responsible for 9/11 are also responsible for her murder. Is this what your getting at?

i was making a case for not believing a single word an official investigation says.

no comparison or tie was inferred...


can i ask how old you are? PM me if you don't want it public, i have a reason for asking.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:i was making a case for not believing a single word an official investigation says.

no comparison or tie was inferred...


can i ask how old you are? PM me if you don't want it public, i have a reason for asking.

You don't understand what i'm getting at,

the investigations into 9/11 and lady Dianna were carried out by completely different groups of completely different people in completely different ways under completely different departments..... Even if one was a lie it does not follow that the other one was...

It does not follow that every official investigation is fraudulent because one turns out to be.

what your doing is a Converse Fallacy of Accident... and you do this a lot.

PS
I'm older than 20 and younger than 25

those are all true, whats also true is that both investigations are also WRONG. furthermore, they are deliberately wrong. i could also cite the JFK investigation and many others...anywho, take it or leave it.


the reason i ask is that i had a feeling you was round about that age, and also because you dont live in the UK, and i can tell you with no exaggeration or made up stories that the majority of the British people were angered by her death because they knew she was murdered, they knew it from day 1.

anyways...on the school run now, be back soon