Princess Diana's death and the "Boston Brakes"?

[John Wilson]

As we sadly know, Diana's car was reported to have lurched violently one direction, then another before crashing into one of the pillars in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel in Paris, August 31st 1997.

But, according to explorer and former SAS Officer, Sir Ranulph Ffiennes- a friend of Prince Charles, there is indeed a commonly employed assassination technique used by hired murder squads, and that it involves the use of a device which remotely controls the target vehicle's steering and brakes - known in certain circles as the 'Boston Brakes', supposedly a technique of disabling a vehicle's brakes developed in Boston.

This is supported by no less than the testimony of former WWII fighter pilot, former Air Marshall of the RAF Sir Peter Horsely, also later equerry to both HM the Queen and also Prince Philip. He was a victim of such a plot himself.

In 1986 on his way to a meeting, Sir Peter had only been driving his car for about a mile along the A303 (nearing Stonehenge) on the straight stretch of road the following happened, as described by Horsely in his autobiography, Sounds From Another Room.

Horsley says that he was accelerating to about 60mph when his car began to react strangely. He saw a grey Volvo closing up quickly right behind him and as he was about to wave it past, "with alarming suddenness" his BMW spun sharply to the left, the brakes screeching, and then sharply to the right and back again.

Isn't this similar to what happened to Diana's Mercedes before it struck the 13th pillar?

Horsley was by now desperately trying to maintain control and he went on:

"Out of the corner of my eye I saw the grey Volvo accelerating past me at high speed. My car had now developed a mind of its own as it swung broadside and skidded down the road. With a lurch it hit the central reservation, mounted the grass verge separating the two lanes of the highway and crossed over into the opposite carriageway.

I had just time to see a small car approaching from the opposite direction. I hit it sideways on with tremendous force. In a split-second the driver's horror-stricken face was visible and I heard his hoarse scream."

In that other, oncoming car in the other carriageway, was a former SAS officer, Major Michael Marman of the Sultan of Oman's Armed Forces.

Ffiennes says in his book "The Feather Men" that such techniques are the speciality of a European "private security firm" known as 'the Clinic' who are highly able to make 'hits' look like accidents.

Marman, due to his tours of duty with the Sultan's forces, had been the target of Yemeni assassination plots. The 'Clinic' had been hired. But why use Horsely?

Ffiennes states that most likely a team would have snook in at night, attached a 'brake' device to Horsely's car (outside his secluded Victorian home) and simply waited until he drove out the next day.

They would then zoom up behind him, 'blow' out the braking system whilst taking over control of the car, crashing it, then driving on by and away to safety.

They, specialised in their line of work and aided by their paymasters, could later sneak back to wherever the wreckage was being kept (or on the scene) and remove the brake apparatus? The Police would then have no idea about what had happened?

Could the mysterious white Fiat Uno have done such to Diana's car? Why were the fully qualified Daimler-Benz engineers denied permission to examine Diana's car by the French authorities?

An independent eye witness to Horsely's crash, Aubrey Allen, driving a short enough distance behind Horsely before it crashed, stated that "a large puff of smoke came out of the left side of the car".

Of course, there are so many more oddities and inexplicable denials, omissions, inactions and incomplete lines of enquiry regarding Diana's death, convenient for some?

Edited October 15, 2009 by John Wilson

[Guest]

Of course, there are so many more oddities and inexplicable denials, omissions, inactions and incomplete lines of enquiry regarding Diana's death, convenient for some?

Here's an inconvenient fact for you - had she been wearing her seatbelt (like her bodyguard was) she would have probably have survived. What kind of conspiracy falls on the ability of the victim to save herself in such a simple manner?

[John Simkin]

Of course, there are so many more oddities and inexplicable denials, omissions, inactions and incomplete lines of enquiry regarding Diana's death, convenient for some?

Here's an inconvenient fact for you - had she been wearing her seatbelt (like her bodyguard was) she would have probably have survived. What kind of conspiracy falls on the ability of the victim to save herself in such a simple manner?

Maybe he undid her safety-belt just before the crash.

[John Wilson]

Here's an inconvenient fact for you - had she been wearing her seatbelt (like her bodyguard was) she would have probably have survived. What kind of conspiracy falls on the ability of the victim to save herself in such a simple manner?

I'm sure the 'authorities' -if we can believe their "expertise" -had taken that possibility into account?

Would that be inconvenient for you, Andy, or is every single death on earth natural, or an accident?

[Guest]

Here's an inconvenient fact for you - had she been wearing her seatbelt (like her bodyguard was) she would have probably have survived. What kind of conspiracy falls on the ability of the victim to save herself in such a simple manner?

I'm sure the 'authorities' -if we can believe their "expertise" -had taken that possibility into account?

Would that be inconvenient for you, Andy, or is every single death on earth natural, or an accident?

I tend to put credence on theories which require the least number of new assumptions.

Here are some new assumptions which are required to sustain the Diana conspiracy :Henri Paul was a well paid suicide, the french authorities were 'in on it', as were Parisian medical and hospital staff, the French police, at least 2 national security services and the hotel staff, the conspirators knew what route they would take at what time and in which car - shall I go on???

If only such control were possible eh?

Alternatively we have the facts of an inebriated driver driving dangerously through a narrow tunnel an aristocratic young women who was not wearing her seat belt.

[Matthew Lewis]

Of course, there are so many more oddities and inexplicable denials, omissions, inactions and incomplete lines of enquiry regarding Diana's death, convenient for some?

Here's an inconvenient fact for you - had she been wearing her seatbelt (like her bodyguard was) she would have probably have survived. What kind of conspiracy falls on the ability of the victim to save herself in such a simple manner?

My first thought as well.

[Guest]

Have you ever read the 'Emperor's New Clothes'? It was written about and for people like yourself. Did a communist really set the Reichstag on fire...

A strange post Peter, but your default position is to believe all conspiracy theories regardless of evidence, study or research is it not?

Interesting also that you should start your list with the Reichstag Fire... Marinus Van der Lubbe was indeed a revolutionary (but not a communist) and almost certainly started the fire. The Nazis in power claimed a communist conspiracy and the Communists (GDR) subsequently in power vigorously cited a Nazi conspiracy. One man however throughout the pre trial, the trial and right up to his execution claimed ownership of the deed - that man Marinus Van der Lubbe. This was also interestingly the view of the Berlin detectives who were the first investigators of the fire.

I would respectfully suggest that someone as politically and historically naive as yourself is not our ideal guide through any 'Fog' real or imagined.

[John Wilson]

I'm suppose that many people here also blindly believe everything the Politicians tell them as fact, too?

That because they give a speech, and no contrary proof is visible when they say it, it must be true?

I get it, nobody must dare question? And there's me thinking this was a board for Political Conspiracies?

[Guest]

I'm suppose that many people here also blindly believe everything the Politicians tell them as fact, too?

That because they give a speech, and no contrary proof is visible when they say it, it must be true?

I get it, nobody must dare question? And there's me thinking this was a board for Political Conspiracies?

I like to have my views challenged; it helps me refine them. If you would like to argue with me on any of the points I have made you are more than welcome to do so and I will give any evidenced point you make the most careful consideration. Thus far you haven't really engaged in this process.

If however you want a board where false assumptions are taken at face value as fact I would suggest the Deep Politics Forum where 'belief' rules over every other consideration.

There you can post any pet conspiracy theory secure in the knowledge that no one will disagree with you. I am not sure there's any real point to that though is there?

This however is first and foremost an education forum, (hence the name). Views you express here will be challenged and this I would argue is both very healthy and educationally sound.

I am sorry if this has come as a surprise to you.