Diana Death: New Witness

[Myra Bronstein]

And what of Oswald Lewinter?

Hmmm ... The "Oswald" part requires no further commentary.

Then there's Milady de Winter, Cardinal Richelieu's spy in The Three Musketeers.

Let's see ... three musketeers ... the knoll, Dal-Tex, TSBD ...

Oswald Lewinter ... about as subtle as Buck Naked.

Bemused,

Charles

Good one.

Yeah, like the 1979 threats against Jimmy Carter from Raymond Lee Harvey and Osvaldo Ortiz.

[Myra Bronstein]

All the standard techniques...spying; setting-up kill-zone; stripping security; first responders are conspirators; decoys; control of media; control of evidence physical and forensic.. etc. Definitley a 'hit' IMO....will the truth come out....here or on Dallas and so many others

....probably

not in an unambiguous form. As disclosure of Dallas would topple the USA in its current form, so would the truth of her death topple the Monarchy forever.....we are talking powerful interests here!

Very powerful.

And just like President Kennedy when she threatened the profits of the war machine she went too far.

"Another powerful motive for murdering Diana was that she had become a loose cannon, politically speaking. Her aggressive campaigning toward the instituting of a ban on the use of land mines and a reduction in armaments sales, was anathema to the major armaments consortiums such as the Carlyle Group, whose stockholders includes the Bush and bin Laden families, Condoleezza Rice and, by proxy purchase, the House of Windsor. Until the advent of WWII, land mines had been used to impede the progress of enemy troops, but the introduction of tanks equipped with rotary flails which detonated land mines, provided a safe passage through minefields, thus diminishing their effectiveness."

And John Lennon.

Only the peaceniks die young.

[Myra Bronstein]

" - Just before the car entered the tunnel every police radio in Paris mysteriously died, preventing a quick response which could have saved Diana's life.

- Just before the car entered the tunnel every security camera in the tunnel mysteriously died, preventing us from ever seeing footage of what caused the crash."

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/

If true, those are trademarks of a military intelligence type hit IMO.

I've read many sources claiming the security cameras in the tunnel failed (yeah, right, the dog ate the video), but I've only seen the claim that the police radios died at the above site.

Has anyone else seen/heard anything about the police radios going dead along with Diana?

[Myra Bronstein]

Have we learned nothing from our labors on the JFK case?

Before we start dismissing conspiracy in the death of Diana based upon an assessed unlikelihood of participation by the suspects of the moment, let us focus exclusively on the "how" of the event under scrutiny.

Well said.

Anyone in any doubt that it was an assassination might usefully reflect on perhaps the most blatant lie peddled by the British mainstream media ever since. In every recreation I have seen, we are invited to believe that the Mercedes remained the right way up after the crash. It did not. As both my better half and I saw on television on the morning of the accident, and the next day's newspaper accounts from eyewitnesses confirmed, the car came to rest on its roof.

There is plainly something very sensitive here concerning the speed of the Merc and its subsequent trajectory. The question is, what exactly are they hiding? I wish I knew. But I do know, beyond any doubt, that the media is lying; and doing so in an orchestrated fashion.

Paul

"EmergencyNet News *FLASH* Report

08/30/97 - 20:00CDT

Britain's Princess Diana Badly Injured in Crash

By C. L. Staten

Paris, France (EmergencyNet) -- According to Paris police, Princess Diana of England was critically injured this evening in an automobile crash near the river Seine, at the Pont de l'Alma bridge. Her companion in the car, Dodi Al Fayed, was believed killed in the accident, which reportedly happened shortly after midnight (Paris time), police said. The chauffeur of the vehicle was also believed killed in the incident and a fourth passenger, a bodyguard, was reported to be seriously injured.

One eyewitness described the accident as extremely serious and said that the vehicle, in which the princess was travelling, had overturned...."

Much more at:

http://www.emergency.com/dianaded.htm

[Ron Ecker]

I hadn't known Mark Zaid was the attorney!...I knew Mark some from Dallas conferences and he is bright and I even think honorable, but young and out of his depth for this BIG a case [they don't get much bigger behind the scenes!] with so many hidden powerful forces!

Well, this same guy has represented FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds (who has lost in every court she's been in), and at least two of the whistleblowers involved in Able Danger (which also came to naught). The question must be asked, how does he do it? (Or perhaps the question should be, who does it for him?)

[Kathleen Collins]

Kathy, I'll ask again. Is it your contention that the ambulance crew that treated Diana were part of the conspiracy.

As someone else said in this thread, the first responders were conspirators. I wonder if the ambulance paramedics could be identified by the ER staff. Of course, all eyes were on Diana.

Kathy

[Myra Bronstein]

Kathy, I'll ask again. Is it your contention that the ambulance crew that treated Diana were part of the conspiracy.

As someone else said in this thread, the first responders were conspirators. I wonder if the ambulance paramedics could be identified by the ER staff. Of course, all eyes were on Diana.

Kathy

A question back atcha Stephen.

Do you find it odd that the ambulance crew took 1 hour & 45 minutes to transport Diana to a hospital 3.8 miles away passing three other hospitals with excellent emergency facilities in the process?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Kathy, I'll ask again. Is it your contention that the ambulance crew that treated Diana were part of the conspiracy.

As someone else said in this thread, the first responders were conspirators. I wonder if the ambulance paramedics could be identified by the ER staff. Of course, all eyes were on Diana.

Kathy

A question back atcha Stephen.

Do you find it odd that the ambulance crew took 1 hour & 45 minutes to transport Diana to a hospital 3.8 miles away passing three other hospitals with excellent emergency facilities in the process?

Myra, Charles, Peter etc, etc.

There is an old saying, "Never go to a gun fight armed with a knife"

Here's the deal, I'll go away and do the leg work I should have done before shouting my mouth off. I will attempt to debunk your points one by one, if I am unable to do this I will happily admit so.

Steve.

[Len Colby]

Charles wrote:

Again, the logic is unavoidable: "No one wanted her dead" is an entirely nonsensical response to the question, "How did Diana die?" -- the sort of riposte commonly offered by those who would do all in their power to make certain that such queries are never seriously investigated, let alone answered.

Logic seems to have been avoided in the above if one is to opine that a supposedly accidental death was really an assassination and not having anything but circumstantial evidence indicating that was the case a reasonable motive needs to be proposed.

Charles wrote:

The decision by Mohammed al-Fayed to turn over a substantial segment of his investigation to a certain American attorney "seasoned" in assassination research and litigation amounted to a major setback for the grieving father's efforts to discover the true circumstances of his son's death. In my Constitutionally protected opinion, of course.

I refer to attorney Mark Zaid

I agree even when I thought you were referring to Mark Lane.

Paul wrote:

In every recreation I have seen, we are invited to believe that the Mercedes remained the right way up after the crash. It did not. As both my better half and I saw on television on the morning of the accident, and the next day's newspaper accounts from eyewitnesses confirmed, the car came to rest on its roof.

It’s not uncommon for mistaken information to be reported in breaking news stories (The infamous ‘Dewey Wins’ headline comes to mind) are can you. This seems to be based on the account of a single witness who was driving by

Myra wrote:

The royals needed a sperm bank for Prince Tampex; she squirted out an heir and a spare; they had no further use for her; she refused to go quietly out to pasture when the royals deemed it time; they had her neutralized.

Can tell us what headaches she was causing that were big enough for them to want to kill her? Why would the British, French and/or American intel. services get involved?

Myra quoted a web page:

"Three paparazzi later claimed that Paul departed the Ritz at a high speed. This claim was contradicted by footage from the hotel's security cameras showing the Mercedes leaving at a normal speed, with Paul driving in a responsible manner.

According to the police, Henri Paul's blood alcohol level was very high, yet the Ritz security cameras revealed that Paul arrived at the hotel shortly after 10:00 pm and displayed no erratic behavior while parking his car, nor later in the hotel. Upon arrival at the hotel, Paul was in regular contact with Al Fayed bodyguards Trevor Rees-Jones and "Kes" Wingfield. Neither of them observed any evidence suggesting that Henri Paul was intoxicated."

1) I’ve never heard of the site or the author before, can you find a more authoritive source for the above claims?

2) People can have blood alcohol levels high enough to impair their driving without appearing obviously drunk.

3) IIRC he was believed to have had a few drinks at the hotel if that and the above are true did the other bodyguards see him and was he filmed before or after his visit to the bar?

4) The bodyguards as employees of Al Fayed and possibly friends of Paul were hardly disinterested parties.

Myra quoted another web page:

She was intent upon preventing Charles from ever becoming king.

Ditto my 1st point above.

Myra wrote:

Yeah, like the 1979 threats against Jimmy Carter from Raymond Lee Harvey and Osvaldo Ortiz.

Citation?

Myra wrote:

Do you find it odd that the ambulance crew took 1 hour & 45 minutes to transport Diana to a hospital 3.8 miles away passing three other hospitals with excellent emergency facilities in the process?

1) Citation?

2) Was David Rosenbaum’s death a plot as well?

http://www.justice.org/homepage/lawreporter.aspx

Edited August 10, 2007 by Len Colby

[Charles Drago]

Charles wrote:

Again, the logic is unavoidable: "No one wanted her dead" is an entirely nonsensical response to the question, "How did Diana die?" -- the sort of riposte commonly offered by those who would do all in their power to make certain that such queries are never seriously investigated, let alone answered.

Logic seems to have been avoided in the above if one is to opine that a supposedly accidental death was really an assassination and not having anything but circumstantial evidence that that was the was a reasonable motive needs to be proposed.

Charles wrote:

The decision by Mohammed al-Fayed to turn over a substantial segment of his investigation to a certain American attorney "seasoned" in assassination research and litigation amounted to a major setback for the grieving father's efforts to discover the true circumstances of his son's death. In my Constitutionally protected opinion, of course.

I refer to attorney Mark Zaid

I agree even when I thought you were referring to Mark Lane.

Len,

I'll address the two points you've made in response to my posts.

1. Perhaps this speaks to the basic and, I'd say, irreconcilable difference in our respective world views: You reference "a supposedly accidental death". Initially, the only basis for one's "supposition" that the tunnel deaths were "accidental" in nature is one's acceptance of the authority of the state that makes the claim. To be so trusting, one must remove investigation of Diana's death from all political and historical contexts relating to regicide in general and 20th century political assassinations in particular.

Further, to defer to the state, one must eschew impartial examinations of the crash itself and relevant pre- and post-crash circumstances in favor of the assumption of a debunking posture toward all reasonable objections to the official story.

By definition, in our lifetimes the violent deaths of political figures demand, if not the presumption of foul play, then at least investigations informed by, among other factors gleaned by the study of previous similar events, recognition of the significant probability that the parent state's version of events may be ... flawed.

I repeat: No sensible investigation of the "how" of Diana's death can be concerned initially with the "who" and "why" questions.

Put another way: How does the ostensibly reasonable observation that it is highly unlikely that a large group of EMS personnel were involved in an assassination conspiracy help us to answer the question, "Was the delay in getting Diana to hospital consistent with SOP"?

If we reasonably determine the answer to that question to be "no," then -- and only then -- should we move on to ask "Who caused the atypical delay and why was it caused?".

You seem to argue that, "Since it is unreasonable to assume that a large group of EMS personnel were involved in an assassination conspiracy, it is senseless to investigate the nature of the medical treatment Diana received on the scene and en route to hospital.

This posture, I'm afraid, is itself without sense.

2. At least we agree on the Zaid issue.

Charles

[Paul Rigby]

Paul wrote:In every recreation I have seen, we are invited to believe that the Mercedes remained the right way up after the crash. It did not. As both my better half and I saw on television on the morning of the accident, and the next day's newspaper accounts from eyewitnesses confirmed, the car came to rest on its roof.

Len replied: It’s not uncommon for mistaken information to be reported in breaking news stories (The infamous ‘Dewey Wins’ headline comes to mind) are can you. This seems to be based on the account of a single witness who was driving by.)

I appear to have caught you on an "off" day, Len.

Revisit my post. My point was that both the wife and I saw the footage of the Merc upside down on the Sunday morning's TV coverage. We didn't need confirmation of the fact - which I strongly suspect contributed to the delay in getting Diana to hospital, as it was clear the door of the upside down vehicle wouldn't open cleanly - and I really paid no heed to this element of the newspaper coverage on Sunday* because it was such an obvious and unremarkable thing to say (that the vehicle came to rest upside down). It was only retrospectively that it assumed significance as recreation after recreation omitted this blatant fact.

Paul

*The story made the later editions of all the Sunday heavyweights available in this part of northern England.

[Paul Rigby]

A Mauser becomes a Mannlicher-Carcano; a car on its roof becomes one right-side-up.

Minor details - that can all be 'corrected' and afterwards controlled.....

In the Magic World Of Covert Exterminations

My favourite metamorphosis is the Langley gates shooting of January 1993. If I can find the clippings concerned, will bang them on the forum.

Paul

[Len Colby]

Paul wrote:In every recreation I have seen, we are invited to believe that the Mercedes remained the right way up after the crash. It did not. As both my better half and I saw on television on the morning of the accident, and the next day's newspaper accounts from eyewitnesses confirmed, the car came to rest on its roof.

Len replied: It’s not uncommon for mistaken information to be reported in breaking news stories (The infamous ‘Dewey Wins’ headline comes to mind) are can you. This seems to be based on the account of a single witness who was driving by.)

I appear to have caught you on an "off" day, Len.

Revisit my post. My point was that both the wife and I saw the footage of the Merc upside down on the Sunday morning's TV coverage. We didn't need confirmation of the fact - which I strongly suspect contributed to the delay in getting Diana to hospital, as it was clear the door of the upside down vehicle wouldn't open cleanly - and I really paid no heed to this element of the newspaper coverage on Sunday* because it was such an obvious and unremarkable thing to say (that the vehicle came to rest upside down). It was only retrospectively that it assumed significance as recreation after recreation omitted this blatant fact.

Paul

*The story made the later editions of all the Sunday heavyweights available in this part of northern England.

Sorry Paul ‘my bad’ I did seem to have misread you. I thought you meant you saw reports that the car had flipped over rather than actual images. Though you think you saw the latter 10 years ago I’m sure you only saw the former.

The problem with your recollection is that if indeed such images were shown on TV people out there would have copies which would be available on the Net, in this case absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

It is not uncommon for people to falsely recall having seeing footage of widely reported events that doesn't exists. This has been used to explain Bush’s claim to have seen the 1st crash just before entering the classroom in Florida on 9/11. I think he lied but I’m going off on a tangent.

According to a Newsweek article:

UCLA psychology fellow Dan Greenberg, who published a paper this summer in the journal Applied Cognitive Psychology…says this is more evidence that "flashbulb memories"—major events people remember "like it was yesterday"—are not as indelible as experts thought. (This was proved in a four-year study after the 1986 Challenger explosion, when witnesses dramatically altered their memories of the disaster.)

Greenberg thinks Bush saw the first-tower crash footage replayed so often that it seemed as if he had seen it as it happened. Greenberg struggles to explain why Bush, having remembered events differently in his second recounting, went back to the original version.

http://www.stevefriess.com/archive/newsweek/bushmemory.htm

If you are willing to part ways with $25 you can read Greenberg’s paper here

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin...639961/ABSTRACT

There was a similar case in the Netherlands:

On the evening of October 4, 1992, shortly after take-off, an El Al

Boeing 747 crashed directly into an eleven story Amsterdam apartment building.

The plane crashed almost straight nose-down, immediately burst into flames,

and fell to the ground. Media coverage never included the crash itself, but

began within the first hour after the crash, and included films of the

ensuing fire and rescue operations. Coverage continued for some time,

and reached most of the country.

In a study appropriately titled "Crashing memories and the

problem of source monitoring", Crombag, Wagenaar, and Van Koppen examined the

memories of Dutch citizens exposed to media accounts of the El Al

crash. The authors were interested in the potential for media accounts to cause

reasonably intelligent adults to believe they had witnessed the crash

they could not actually have seen themselves. Although the crash was not

filmed, and never shown on TV, many accounts were given in both television and

written media. In two separate surveys, ten months after the crash, the

authors asked respondents "Did you see the television film of the

moment the plane hit the apartment building?" Those who answered yes were then

asked whether they could remember how long it was until the plane caught

fire. Startlingly, notwithstanding the implausibility of the media having

caught the moment of the crash on film, more than half of the respondents

reported having seen the crash (55% and 66%, in the first and second surveys).

Of those who "remembered" seeing the crash, more than eighty percent

"remembered" when the fire started, although some did so incorrectly.

Many gave vividly detailed descriptions of the crash they could not have

actually seen.

Did these Dutch residents really remember seeing the crash? Did

they just report what they believed happened? If they did remember the

crash, how could these pseudomemories develop, and why didn't the residents

understand that they weren't real? These are the questions examined by memory

researchers concerned with the problem of "source monitoring".

Crombag et al.'s dramatic illustration of the ease with which

we can "remember" things that never were is one among a growing literature

documenting the facility with which false memories can be created, and

the mechanisms through which they are produced.

Crombag et al., for example, attributed the false "crashing

memories" of the Dutch citizens to problems of "source monitoring", or

failure to understand where the vivid images of the crash they

"remembered" came from. The authors argued that the false memories reported by their

respondents were based on vivid internal images the respondents had

created through imagining the various scenes described in the media.

Eventually, experiencing failures of "source monitoring", the respondents confused

these internally created images with actual memory for the event.

Crombag et al. suggested that source monitoring failure may be

even more common for memories of dramatic, highly publicized events such as

a plane crash than for more mundane events. Events tending to provoke

both publicity and discussion and to evoke vivid images are more likely to

impair our ability to accurately track the sources of these images.

On a more related note I even found a study in which about 45% of the participants

said they'd seen a (nonexistent) film of Princess Diana's car crash:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin...511509/ABSTRACT

So unless you can actually come up with evidence that footage of the flipped over existed we’ll just have to chalk it up to a false memory on your part.

As for the delay in getting her to the hospital your recollection might be correct according to Wikipedia:

Transport to the hospital

The first call to the emergency services switchboard was logged at 00.26 am. The SAMU ambulance carrying the Princess arrived at the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital at 2.06 am. This length of time has prompted much conspiracy-related comment. The British tabloid, the Daily Express, has printed many articles relating to these conspiracies, leading to some sections of the British public dubbing this as 'Diana Monday'.[citation needed] The newspaper has raised the question of the length of time taken by the ambulance to travel 3.7 miles to the hospital, stating this time to be 70 minutes, passing two other hospitals on the way.[citation needed]

The period between the crash and the arrival at the hospital needs to take into account the following: the time taken for emergency services to arrive; the time taken by the Sapeurs-Pompiers de Paris to remove the Princess from the damaged car; and the actual journey time from the crash site to the hospital.

Police Officers Sébastien Dorzee and Lino Gagliadorne were the first emergency officials to arrive at the scene at around 12.30 am. Sergeants Xavier Gourmelom and Philippe Boyer of the Sapeurs-Pompiers arrived at around 12.32 am. Doctor Jean-Marc Martino, a specialist in anaesthetics and intensive care treatment and the doctor in charge of the SAMU ambulance, arrived at around 12.40 am. The Princess was removed from the car at 1.00 am. She then went into cardiac arrest. Following external cardiopulmonary resuscitation the Princess of Wales’ heart started beating again. She was moved to the SAMU ambulance at 1.18am.

The ambulance departed the crash scene at 1.41 am and arrived at the hospital at 2.06 am - a journey time of approximately 26 minutes. This included a stop at the Gare d’Austerlitz ordered by Dr Martino because of the drop in the blood pressure of the Princess of Wales and the necessity to deal with it. The ambulance was travelling slowly on his express instructions. The doctor was concerned about the Princess of Wales’ blood pressure and the effects on her medical condition of deceleration and acceleration.

The SAMU ambulance carrying the Princess of Wales passed the Hôtel-Dieu Hospital on the Ile de la Cité en route to the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital. The decision to transfer the Princess to the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital was taken by Dr Marc Lejay who was on despatch duty in SAMU Control on that night, in consultation with Dr Derossi, who was at the scene. The Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital was the main reception centre for multiple trauma patients in Paris. The Hôtel-Dieu was not equipped to deal with the injuries the Princess of Wales had sustained. Dr Marc Lejay stated: ‘The Hôtel-Dieu hospital on the ‘Ile de la Cité’ is closer but not equipped with heart surgery teams or neurosurgical teams or teams trained to take patients with multiple injuries.’ Dr Lejay was also aware that Professor Bruno Riou was on duty at the Pitié-Salpêtrière that night and was particularly skilled to treat the Princess of Wales’ injuries. Dr Jean-Marc Martino supported this view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Dian...to_the_hospital

While it's true Wikipedia is not the most authoritative source out there I have yet to see one cited here that says it took so long to get her to a hospital.

Edited August 11, 2007 by Len Colby

[Myra Bronstein]

Kathy, I'll ask again. Is it your contention that the ambulance crew that treated Diana were part of the conspiracy.

As someone else said in this thread, the first responders were conspirators. I wonder if the ambulance paramedics could be identified by the ER staff. Of course, all eyes were on Diana.

Kathy

A question back atcha Stephen.

Do you find it odd that the ambulance crew took 1 hour & 45 minutes to transport Diana to a hospital 3.8 miles away passing three other hospitals with excellent emergency facilities in the process?

Myra, Charles, Peter etc, etc.

There is an old saying, "Never go to a gun fight armed with a knife"

Here's the deal, I'll go away and do the leg work I should have done before shouting my mouth off. I will attempt to debunk your points one by one, if I am unable to do this I will happily admit so.

Steve.

Well Stephen,

I appreciate your honesty and willingness to actually do some of your own research, in contrast to Len's demands of additional sources that he considers "authoritative"-- a subjective yardstick that only he can judge, and predictably won't judge favorably.

[Myra Bronstein]

Myra wrote:

The royals needed a sperm bank for Prince Tampex; she squirted out an heir and a spare; they had no further use for her; she refused to go quietly out to pasture when the royals deemed it time; they had her neutralized.

Can tell us what headaches she was causing that were big enough for them to want to kill her? Why would the British, French and/or American intel. services get involved?

Len,

I already answered that very question in post #15, then referenced it again in post #25.

If you can't or won't read existing answers to your questions, it makes it difficult to have much of a discussion.

But, for your convenience:

Oh c'mon, there are numerous obvious reasons:

-The royals had to protect the purity of their arian bloodline, as Dodi's father has charged.

-The royal bluebloods didn't want her marrying a foreigner, and middle easterner no less.

-Charles wanted to marry the rottweiler and a living ex wife made that awkward to impossible.

-The family didn't want her influencing her sons, one a future king, any more than she already had.

-She would likely have been the mother of the King of England.

How awkward would that have been for her estranged ex inlaws?

-She had the gall to blab to an author who then wrote a bio about her airing all the dirty royal laundry.

-Di embarrassed the stuffy old family by fraternizing with icky commoners and hugging lepers and aids patients.

The horror.

Not only that but she took on causes like eradication of land mines. She made them look cold and uncaring by contrast.

-They despised her.

-She was a superstar and out shined them.

-They detested her.

It's Agatha Christie all over again.

Then there's this from post #28, another one you somehow overlooked:

"Another powerful motive for murdering Diana was that she had become a loose cannon, politically speaking. Her aggressive campaigning toward the instituting of a ban on the use of land mines and a reduction in armaments sales, was anathema to the major armaments consortiums such as the Carlyle Group, whose stockholders includes the Bush and bin Laden families, Condoleezza Rice and, by proxy purchase, the House of Windsor. Until the advent of WWII, land mines had been used to impede the progress of enemy troops, but the introduction of tanks equipped with rotary flails which detonated land mines, provided a safe passage through minefields, thus diminishing their effectiveness. Their principal widespread use at the present time is to kill or maim children to prevent them from becoming future soldiers who might kill their aggressors. Cluster bombs serve a similar purpose, which is why they frequently contain bomblets disguised as toys.

At the time of the couple's death, production was scheduled to commence on a movie based upon a screenplay written by Gordon Thomas concerning the abolition of land mines. The executive producer was to have been Diana, with Dodi as producer. The movie was scheduled to star Gene Hackman and Brad Pitt."

And I'm not going to source it because I already did that in the afore-mentioned post.

Myra quoted a web page:

"Three paparazzi later claimed that Paul departed the Ritz at a high speed. This claim was contradicted by footage from the hotel's security cameras showing the Mercedes leaving at a normal speed, with Paul driving in a responsible manner.

According to the police, Henri Paul's blood alcohol level was very high, yet the Ritz security cameras revealed that Paul arrived at the hotel shortly after 10:00 pm and displayed no erratic behavior while parking his car, nor later in the hotel. Upon arrival at the hotel, Paul was in regular contact with Al Fayed bodyguards Trevor Rees-Jones and "Kes" Wingfield. Neither of them observed any evidence suggesting that Henri Paul was intoxicated."

1) I’ve never heard of the site or the author before, can you find a more authoritive source for the above claims?

2) People can have blood alcohol levels high enough to impair their driving without appearing obviously drunk.

3) IIRC he was believed to have had a few drinks at the hotel if that and the above are true did the other bodyguards see him and was he filmed before or after his visit to the bar?

4) The bodyguards as employees of Al Fayed and possibly friends of Paul were hardly disinterested parties.

1) So sourcing isn't enough? It has to be what you subjectively deem authoritative. What do you consider authoritative? Mainstream media? I consider them liars. You seem to like Wiki. I consider them propaganda. As I said, subjective.

But you probably consider Time and CNN authoritative:

"Family representatives also produced a 26-minute videotape, edited from two hours by the Fayeds, taken by hotel security cameras. It partly shows that, at least when he took off from the hotel, Paul accelerated at a moderate rate."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,138280,00.html

" VAN SUSTEREN: Did you notice Henri Paul as being intoxicated that night? WINGFIELD: No, not at all.

VAN SUSTEREN: There was nothing unusual about his conduct?

WINGFIELD: No. His demeanor was exactly the same as it was during the day.

VAN SUSTEREN: What do you make of the fact that the blood alcohol suggests that he was intoxicated?

WINGFIELD: I was -- I was stunned when I heard that. And I accept the findings of the judicial inquiry in Paris, but I was stunned because of the way he came across, you know, there was nothing that would have suggested that he'd been drinking."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/21/lkl.00.html

2) Blood tests can be faked just as autopsy photos can be faked.

3) Your statement/question is not coherent and I have no idea what IIRC is.

4) Jones repeatedly states that Paul didn't look drunk.

Trevor Rees-Jones and al Fayed are hardly friends. They've spent years suing each other and sniping.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/667486.stm

(I hope the BBC is authoritative enough for you.)

IN fact Jones wrote a book--"The Bodyguard's Story"--that infuriated al Fayad:

" VAN SUSTEREN: Mohamed al Fayed has attempted to stop this book from being published in England. Why do you think he did that? And failed.

REES-JONES: Yes, he failed. It was thrown out. The injunction proceedings were turned down."

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/.../21/lkl.00.html

Yeah, like the 1979 threats against Jimmy Carter from Raymond Lee Harvey and Osvaldo Ortiz.

Citation?

Oh, right, a parenthetical remark that has nothing to do with Diana, but by all means must have citation and it must be authoritative.

Viola:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,920351,00.html

We'll stick with Time magazine.

Myra wrote:

Do you find it odd that the ambulance crew took 1 hour & 45 minutes to transport Diana to a hospital 3.8 miles away passing three other hospitals with excellent emergency facilities in the process?

1) Citation?

2) Was David Rosenbaum’s death a plot as well?

http://www.justice.org/homepage/lawreporter.aspx

1) "It took nearly two hours to get Princess Diana from the scene of the accident to La Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, only four miles away.

...

They also point to the fact that Diana's ambulance passed a few other hospitals along the way, including one reserved for VIPs."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6162121.stm

Again, BBC.

2) I don't know or care who David Rosenbaum is. Let's not change the subject.

We're discussing Diana.

Now Len,

Do you find it odd that the ambulance crew took 1 hour & 45 minutes to transport Diana to a hospital 3.8 miles away passing three other hospitals with excellent emergency facilities in the process?