The CIA and the death of Princess Diana

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Before speculation reaches fever point, lets step back and ask ourselves a simple question.For what reason would MI5, the CIA, or anyone else for that matter, have for bumping off the Saintly Queen of hearts? To murder someone as grossly famous and obsessed over as Diana is taking one hell of a risk, so I assume they had one hell of a reason. Rich dilitantes like Diana, who spend most of their pampered lives stepping from high performance Limo's into lear jets- so as not to be contaminated by the proles-often die in this manner, think of it as a kind of not so instant Karma. Quite frankly, to discuss this essentially worthless Woman, as if she were a figure of substance- rather than a posing, self serving, spitefull toff- borders on the willfully delusional.

[Michael Hogan]

Rich dilitantes like Diana, who spend most of their pampered lives stepping from high performance Limo's into lear jets- so as not to be contaminated by the proles-often die in this manner, think of it as a kind of not so instant Karma. Quite frankly, to discuss this essentially worthless Woman, as if she were a figure of substance- rather than a posing, self serving, spitefull toff- borders on the willfully delusional.

I'm by no means an expert on Diana. Was she an "essentially worthless Woman?" I cut and pasted some items from a paper by Sue Nieboer. Is Nieboer accurate?

Quoting Sue Nieboer:

In 1986, the fairytale began to turn into a nightmare as the royal couple began having marital problems. There were rumors of an affair between Prince Charles and his old girlfriend, Camille Parker Bowles. Diana suffered from an eating disorder and depression. Instead of giving in to the depression, Diana turned toward philanthropy to make her life meaningful. She used her fame and the media to her advantage, raising money for dozens of causes, including treatment and research for cancer, the homeless, leprosy, and the English National Ballot. She was especially "passionate about children and AIDS charities. 'The image of her holding hands with someone with HIV/AIDS.shattered the stigma, prejudice and fear that surrounded HIV/AIDS in the early days' says Andrew Parkis of the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund. Diana became a powerful philanthropic force.

On Aug 28, 1996, her divorce from Prince Charles was final. Her Royal Highness Princess Diana became Diana Princess of Wales. As an outcast of the Windsor dynasty, she began to concentrate on the six charities closest to her heart, Centerpoint, a London group that aids homeless youth, the Leprosy Mission, various cancer benefits, AIDS and the International Red Cross (on land mine issues). Freed from her royal ties, Diana was willing to take on a more political cause, to bring about a ban on global land mines and provide funds for those injured by them.

And:

Diana's philanthropic legacy has inspired many to give to charitable causes. At the time of her death, thousands of Americans responded to raise more than two million dollars in charitable gifts. The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund (U.S.) was created as a way of continuing Diana's work in the United States. To date the fund has contributed $4 million to forty-two youth driven groups (The Diana, Princess U.S. 2003). Diana made philanthropic work glamorous again, especially among the rich and famous.

Not only did she raise millions of dollars for many causes benefiting the sick and the poor, but she also gave of her time and herself. Many examples exist of Diana's personal visits to homeless shelters and leprosy wards, of her physically touching those with HIV/AIDS or sitting with children dying of cancer. She was known to take her sons, Princes William and Harry, with her to poverty-stricken areas of South London to meet homeless people camped in cardboard shelters. She ministered to the children and adult victims of unretrieved landmines.

Edited December 12, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Rich dilitantes like Diana, who spend most of their pampered lives stepping from high performance Limo's into lear jets- so as not to be contaminated by the proles-often die in this manner, think of it as a kind of not so instant Karma. Quite frankly, to discuss this essentially worthless Woman, as if she were a figure of substance- rather than a posing, self serving, spitefull toff- borders on the willfully delusional.

I'm by no means an expert on Diana. Was she an "essentially worthless Woman?" I cut and pasted some items from a paper by Sue Nieboer. Is Nieboer accurate?

Quoting Sue Nieboer:

In 1986, the fairytale began to turn into a nightmare as the royal couple began having marital problems. There were rumors of an affair between Prince Charles and his old girlfriend, Camille Parker Bowles. Diana suffered from an eating disorder and depression. Instead of giving in to the depression, Diana turned toward philanthropy to make her life meaningful. She used her fame and the media to her advantage, raising money for dozens of causes, including treatment and research for cancer, the homeless, leprosy, and the English National Ballot. She was especially "passionate about children and AIDS charities. 'The image of her holding hands with someone with HIV/AIDS.shattered the stigma, prejudice and fear that surrounded HIV/AIDS in the early days' says Andrew Parkis of the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund. Diana became a powerful philanthropic force.

On Aug 28, 1996, her divorce from Prince Charles was final. Her Royal Highness Princess Diana became Diana Princess of Wales. As an outcast of the Windsor dynasty, she began to concentrate on the six charities closest to her heart, Centerpoint, a London group that aids homeless youth, the Leprosy Mission, various cancer benefits, AIDS and the International Red Cross (on land mine issues). Freed from her royal ties, Diana was willing to take on a more political cause, to bring about a ban on global land mines and provide funds for those injured by them.

And:

Diana's philanthropic legacy has inspired many to give to charitable causes. At the time of her death, thousands of Americans responded to raise more than two million dollars in charitable gifts. The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund (U.S.) was created as a way of continuing Diana's work in the United States. To date the fund has contributed $4 million to forty-two youth driven groups (The Diana, Princess U.S. 2003). Diana made philanthropic work glamorous again, especially among the rich and famous.

Not only did she raise millions of dollars for many causes benefiting the sick and the poor, but she also gave of her time and herself. Many examples exist of Diana's personal visits to homeless shelters and leprosy wards, of her physically touching those with HIV/AIDS or sitting with children dying of cancer. She was known to take her sons, Princes William and Harry, with her to poverty-stricken areas of South London to meet homeless people camped in cardboard shelters. She ministered to the children and adult victims of unretrieved landmines.

TREAD CAREFULLY, FOR YOU TREAD ON MY DREAMS.

After the divorce two waring camps sprung up, ol big ears, and the rest of the parasitic royal buffons, and the Sainted ones supporters. Diana's modus operendi was "charitable works" She felt it cast her in a good light, whilst making the tight fisted Windsors look bad..It worked, and better still cost her nothing whilst offering multiple photo ops. And if you want the REAL hypocracy find out who Dodi's uncle is, and how he makes his billions.

[Christopher Hall]

Wiretapping Princess Diana is representative of our national intelligence and security priorities during the Clinton/Gore/Reno years.

We spent more money pursuing Bill Gates and Microsoft than we did trying to find and eliminate UBL and AQ.

I am sure that Hoover is smiling down (or, more likely, up) at this program.

Christopher, if you have the relative figures cited above, please provide them. I am very skeptical they spent even ten percent as much on Gates as they did Bin Laden. I, for one, wish they'd spent more energy going after Gates. It may have helped prevent the actions of Enron etc, and the subsequent theft of hundreds of billions of dollars from the American public by criminal businessman.

If Microsoft isn't a monopoly then nothing is. They were about to be broken up, and should have been broken up, by the Clinton justice department until, viola, stolen election. Bill Gates' legacy is safe.

No wonder Gates has the Bush entourage over to his joint East of Seattle every few months. People in Bellevue can't even turn around without tripping over the Heir Bush scuttling off to get his payoff from Heir Gates. Oh, and of course the taxpayers foot the bill each time he goes to Gates'--or anyplace--hat in hand.

Predatory corporations are in fact a much bigger threat to this supposed democracy than mythical terra-ists. Especially given that 911 was an inside job done by the "gov't" for the benefit of large corporations. Clearly Clinton's priorities were in the right place. And there were 8 years of peace and prosperity as a result.

The Blame-Clinton operatives always seem to forget that part.

Pat-

I don't have the figures on what Clinton spent on UBL, but I will try to find them.

Clinton certainly passed, I think on 3 occasions, on the opportunity to kill or apprehend UBL, but didn't do so because he didn't think he could convict him in a court of law. I think that Sandy Berger actually advised Clinton to not take the Yemin (I believe) government's offer for this very reason.

Why would we spend money on trying to get UBL if we didn't want him when he was offered to us for free?

I simply don't think that apprehending or, preferrably killing, UBL was a priority to Clinton.

I think that Reno spent about $100 Million going after MS and Gates.

I am a little quizzical about the antipathy generated toward Gates, because his efforts helped create untold amounts of wealth and jobs which have transcended all aspects of the American and global economies.

He and MS did exactly the opposite of what Enron, Global Crossing, Tyco etc. did.

"No wonder Gates has the Bush entourage over to his joint East of Seattle every few months. People in Bellevue can't even turn around without tripping over the Heir Bush scuttling off to get his payoff from Heir Gates. Oh, and of course the taxpayers foot the bill each time he goes to Gates'--or anyplace--hat in hand." _

-Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was unaware of the friendship.

When I think of Janet Reno, I think of her paramilitary pursuits with respect to Waco and Elian Gonzales and her quixotic pursuit of Gates and Microsoft.

[Myra Bronstein]

Maira Oliveira - All Headline News Reporter

London, England (BANG) - A key witness in the inquiry into the death of Britain's Princess Diana recently claimed police threatened him to change his evidence.

Jeweler Alberto Repossi - who claims he sold Diana's lover Dodi Al Fayed an engagement ring the day before the couple were killed in a car crash in Paris on August 31, 1997 - alleges he was put under pressure by investigators to retract the statement he gave to Lord Stevens, who is leading the inquiry.

There is speculation that investigators did not want evidence that Diana and Dodi were to become engaged to be made public, as it would fuel conspiracy theories championed by Dodi's father Mohammed Al Fayed that the princess was murdered as part of a secret plot to prevent her from marrying a Muslim.

Repossi told Britain's Daily Express newspaper, "These are things which I am absolutely certain about. They warned me if anyone lied to Lord Stevens - and anyone could include the prime minister or even the secret service - then he had the power to get people sent to prison.

He added, "They kept repeating the warnings of the risk to my reputation and the bad press coverage I would get. But despite all this, I was not prepared to change what I'd said before because it was the truth."

Repossi's testimony - backed up by receipts and CCTV footage - reveals Dodi and Diana picked a $305,000 emerald and diamond ring from a range of engagement bands called "Did-Moi Oui" which means "Tell Me Yes" at his Monte Carlo jewelry store in August 1997.

Dodi - the son of Harrods owner, Mohammad Al Fayed - asked for the ring to be sent to Repossi's Paris branch so he could collect it on August 30.

Repossi said, "I strongly support any attempt to determine exactly what caused this terrible tragedy. Until now I thought I could play my part by co-operating fully with the inquiry. But my treatment during the interviews has convinced me that they are not interested in establishing the truth."

He continued, "My real concern is that attempts were certainly made to get me to change what I knew to be the truth. I believe they were doing this in order to support theories or conclusions they had already arrived at before they saw me. They only seemed interested in trying to show me I was lying."

The investigation is expected to conclude that the crash was an accident due to driver Henri Paul being under the influence of alcohol and driving over the speed limit.

Excellent article Ed. Thanks for sharing it. It's lookin' like Al Fayed was telling the truth all along. And I doubted him. Not anymore. I hope he continues to raise hell, esp after this latest info.

[Myra Bronstein]

Before speculation reaches fever point, lets step back and ask ourselves a simple question.For what reason would MI5, the CIA, or anyone else for that matter, have for bumping off the Saintly Queen of hearts? To murder someone as grossly famous and obsessed over as Diana is taking one hell of a risk, so I assume they had one hell of a reason. Rich dilitantes like Diana, who spend most of their pampered lives stepping from high performance Limo's into lear jets- so as not to be contaminated by the proles-often die in this manner, think of it as a kind of not so instant Karma. Quite frankly, to discuss this essentially worthless Woman, as if she were a figure of substance- rather than a posing, self serving, spitefull toff- borders on the willfully delusional.

Wow, hard to know where to begin with this gem of a post Stephen.

First, you're doubting she was murdered because she's... famous??? Well, I'm guessing you've heard of a man named John F. Kennedy. He was a president of the United States so he was "grossly famous." Many believe that he was murdered, and the CIA perps were so brazen that they committed the crime at high noon on a city street in front of hundreds of people. He's so famous in fact that almost 50 years later there's an education forum where people discuss the assassination. Perhaps you're aware of it.

And he's hardly the only grossly famous person said to have been murdered by the CIA: there's US Senator Bobby Kennedy, John Kennedy Junior (the son of a slain US president no less). Doctor Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, John Lennon. You've probably heard of them because they're all... grossly famous. Sadly that fact didn't protect them. In fact it's likely the reason they were targeted due to their influence and power, a by-product of fame.

Now let's address your toxic assessment of Princess Diana. I'm pretty sure that she was, and possibly is, far more beloved than the flop-eared unemployed layabouts that used her and tossed her aside. She sure is with me. I found her to be very human (already we have a distinction from the "proper" royal family), and very caring (again...) and downright admirable. A high profile person willing to use her fame for good causes. Gosh. And each of her many causes were even better than Chuck's pet cause... architecture.

Wow, hard to imagine a better cause than... architecture eh? But Lady Di managed to come up with a number of them: aids, land mines, none of them glamorous either. All of them affecting almost exclusively proles.

"Not to be contaminated by the proles"?! Do you have any friggen memory? She was very publically making physical contact with aids patients at a time when there was outright hysteria over the transmission of aids. Yet she was willing to risk literally reaching out not only to "proles," but to proles who were deathly ill with a deadly mysterious communicative disease. I dunno who the hell you're trying to describe, but it ain't Diana.

So while Chuck was toddling around sniffing about... architecture and openly boinking that rotweiler, Lady Di triumphed as an altruist, while also being a sensational mother--possibly the hardest job in the world even under ordinary circumstances, let alone while the father is making a monumental public ass of himself (he wishes he was a "tampex"???).

Yet you claim she's "worthless." Even that she deserved to die. I really don't understand that kind of venom being spewed in her direction. It's out and out the most disgusting post I've ever read on any forum. And I have to wonder what issues lurk here. I loved an admired her then, and I do now. And she earned both because she was one of the few positive role models we have.

Really a helluva post Stephen. Vicious, nonsensical, and inaccurate. You hit the trifecta!

Edited December 13, 2006 by Myra Bronstein

[Myra Bronstein]

Rich dilitantes like Diana, who spend most of their pampered lives stepping from high performance Limo's into lear jets- so as not to be contaminated by the proles-often die in this manner, think of it as a kind of not so instant Karma. Quite frankly, to discuss this essentially worthless Woman, as if she were a figure of substance- rather than a posing, self serving, spitefull toff- borders on the willfully delusional.

I'm by no means an expert on Diana. Was she an "essentially worthless Woman?" I cut and pasted some items from a paper by Sue Nieboer. Is Nieboer accurate?

Quoting Sue Nieboer:

In 1986, the fairytale began to turn into a nightmare as the royal couple began having marital problems. There were rumors of an affair between Prince Charles and his old girlfriend, Camille Parker Bowles. Diana suffered from an eating disorder and depression. Instead of giving in to the depression, Diana turned toward philanthropy to make her life meaningful. She used her fame and the media to her advantage, raising money for dozens of causes, including treatment and research for cancer, the homeless, leprosy, and the English National Ballot. She was especially "passionate about children and AIDS charities. 'The image of her holding hands with someone with HIV/AIDS.shattered the stigma, prejudice and fear that surrounded HIV/AIDS in the early days' says Andrew Parkis of the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund. Diana became a powerful philanthropic force.

On Aug 28, 1996, her divorce from Prince Charles was final. Her Royal Highness Princess Diana became Diana Princess of Wales. As an outcast of the Windsor dynasty, she began to concentrate on the six charities closest to her heart, Centerpoint, a London group that aids homeless youth, the Leprosy Mission, various cancer benefits, AIDS and the International Red Cross (on land mine issues). Freed from her royal ties, Diana was willing to take on a more political cause, to bring about a ban on global land mines and provide funds for those injured by them.

And:

Diana's philanthropic legacy has inspired many to give to charitable causes. At the time of her death, thousands of Americans responded to raise more than two million dollars in charitable gifts. The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund (U.S.) was created as a way of continuing Diana's work in the United States. To date the fund has contributed $4 million to forty-two youth driven groups (The Diana, Princess U.S. 2003). Diana made philanthropic work glamorous again, especially among the rich and famous.

Not only did she raise millions of dollars for many causes benefiting the sick and the poor, but she also gave of her time and herself. Many examples exist of Diana's personal visits to homeless shelters and leprosy wards, of her physically touching those with HIV/AIDS or sitting with children dying of cancer. She was known to take her sons, Princes William and Harry, with her to poverty-stricken areas of South London to meet homeless people camped in cardboard shelters. She ministered to the children and adult victims of unretrieved landmines.

Thank you for diluting the nonesense and name-calling with facts Michael.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Before speculation reaches fever point, lets step back and ask ourselves a simple question.For what reason would MI5, the CIA, or anyone else for that matter, have for bumping off the Saintly Queen of hearts? To murder someone as grossly famous and obsessed over as Diana is taking one hell of a risk, so I assume they had one hell of a reason. Rich dilitantes like Diana, who spend most of their pampered lives stepping from high performance Limo's into lear jets- so as not to be contaminated by the proles-often die in this manner, think of it as a kind of not so instant Karma. Quite frankly, to discuss this essentially worthless Woman, as if she were a figure of substance- rather than a posing, self serving, spitefull toff- borders on the willfully delusional.

HOW NICE TO SEE THAT THE HYSTERIA BUBBLE CONTINUES UNABATED.

Wow, hard to know where to begin with this gem of a post Stephen.

First, you're doubting she was murdered because she's... famous??? Well, I'm guessing you've heard of a man named John F. Kennedy. He was a president of the United States so he was "grossly famous." Many believe that he was murdered, and the CIA perps were so brazen that they committed the crime at high noon on a city street in front of hundreds of people. He's so famous in fact that almost 50 years later there's an education forum where people discuss the assassination. Perhaps you're aware of it.

DID YOU ACTUALLY READ MY POST BEFORE YOU CAME OVER ALL SPLENETIC?TO ASSASINATE SOMEBODY THAT FAMOUS, GIVEN THE WORLDWIDE SPECULATION THAT WILL INEVITABLY FOLLOW, YOU NEED ONE HELL OF A GOOD REASON. NOW TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND ENLIGHTEN ME AS TO WHAT THAT REASON WAS. CAN YOU REALLY NOT SEE THE HUGH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JFKs MURDER, WITH ALL ITS DEEP POLITICAL MOTIVES, AND THE TAWDRY, ALMOST SELF ORDAINED END OF THIS WOMAN?

And he's hardly the only grossly famous person said to have been murdered by the CIA: there's US Senator Bobby Kennedy, John Kennedy Junior (the son of a slain US president no less). Doctor Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, John Lennon. You've probably heard of them because they're all... grossly famous. Sadly that fact didn't protect them. In fact it's likely the reason they were targeted due to their influence and power, a by-product of fame.

INFLUENCE AND POWER IS NOT A BY-PRODUCT OF FAME. BOBBY K, AND MLK WERE PROBABLY KILLED FOR THOSE SAME DEEP POLITICAL REASONS THAT PROVED TO BE JFKs DOWNFALL. I TAKE IT YOU HAVE SOME EVIDENCE FOR CLAIMING THAT THE CIA WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MURDERS OF JKjr, AND MALCOLM X, OR IS THIS JUST MORE ENDLESS SPECULATION ON YOUR BEHALF, AS TO YOUR ASSERTION THAT JOHN LENNON WAS KILLED BY THESE "EVIL" FORCES IT SIMPLY FLIES IN THE FACE OF ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, AND BETRAYS YOUR SLIGHTLY PARANOID TURN OF MIND, LENNON WAS TRAGICALLY MURDERED BY AN OBSESSED, PSYCHOTIC, FORMER FAN, IT REALY IS THAT SIMPLE.

Now let's address your toxic assessment of Princess Diana. I'm pretty sure that she was, and possibly is, far more beloved than the flop-eared unemployed layabouts that used her and tossed her aside. She sure is with me. I found her to be very human (already we have a distinction from the "proper" royal family), and very caring (again...) and downright admirable. A high profile person willing to use her fame for good causes. Gosh. And each of her many causes were even better than Chuck's pet cause... architecture.

MYRA, IF YOU WISH TO CONTINUE TO WORSHIP AT THE ALTER OF THE SAINTED ONE PLEASE BE MY GUEST. I TOO HAVE NO TIME FOR OUR "ROYAL FAMILY" AS I HAVE ALREADY INDICATED I BELIEVE THEM TO BE LITTLE MORE THAN PARASITES

Wow, hard to imagine a better cause than... architecture eh? But Lady Di managed to come up with a number of them: aids, land mines, none of them glamorous either. All of them affecting almost exclusively proles.

"Not to be contaminated by the proles"?! Do you have any friggen memory? She was very publically making physical contact with aids patients at a time when there was outright hysteria over the transmission of aids. Yet she was willing to risk literally reaching out not only to "proles," but to proles who were deathly ill with a deadly mysterious communicative disease. I dunno who the hell you're trying to describe, but it ain't Diana.

MYRA, SIMPLE PUBLIC RELATION EXERCISES IN HER WAR WITH BIG EARS. BY THE TIME SHE GOT ROUND TO HUGGING HIV/AIDS VICTIMS IT WAS NOT A DEADLY MYSTERIOUS DISEASE AT ALL, THE POSSIBLE MEANS OF CONTAMINATION HAD BEEN UNDERSTOOD FOR TEN YEARS, AND THE IDEA THAT SHE WAS EXPOSING HERSELF TO ANY RISK IS LAUGHABLE. ALL PUT ON FOR THE MEDIA MY DEAR.

So while Chuck was toddling around sniffing about... architecture and openly boinking that rotweiler, Lady Di triumphed as an altruist, while also being a sensational mother--possibly the hardest job in the world even under ordinary circumstances, let alone while the father is making a monumental public ass of himself (he wishes he was a "tampex"???).

Yet you claim she's "worthless." Even that she deserved to die. I really don't understand that kind of venom being spewed in her direction. It's out and out the most disgusting post I've ever read on any forum. And I have to wonder what issues lurk here. I loved an admired her then, and I do now. And she earned both because she was one of the few positive role models we have.

Really a helluva post Stephen. Vicious, nonsensical, and inaccurate. You hit the trifecta!

THANK YOU MYRA, KEEP UP THE BLIND WORSHIP.

[Myra Bronstein]

DID YOU ACTUALLY READ MY POST BEFORE YOU CAME OVER ALL SPLENETIC?TO ASSASINATE SOMEBODY THAT FAMOUS, GIVEN THE WORLDWIDE SPECULATION THAT WILL INEVITABLY FOLLOW, YOU NEED ONE HELL OF A GOOD REASON. NOW TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND ENLIGHTEN ME AS TO WHAT THAT REASON WAS. CAN YOU REALLY NOT SEE THE HUGH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JFKs MURDER, WITH ALL ITS DEEP POLITICAL MOTIVES, AND THE TAWDRY, ALMOST SELF ORDAINED END OF THIS WOMAN?

Sadly I did read your post. Gee, reasons for murdering Diana? Again, where to begin?

She was speaking out against the effect of war, specifically land mines. What happens when famous people speak out against war? That's what got John Lennon killed. Oops, gotta be careful when I mention famous people lest I be accused of blind worship.

She embarassed the royal family big time. Their treatment of her, esp ol' Chuck, made it obvious that they're robotic and emotionless and not remotely life-like, nor likable. They appeared to be the jerks they are. She provided a point of unfavorable contrast to them, what with being a feeling sentient warm-blooded mammal.

She was likely going to marry a Muslim. Oh the horror. Not a blue blood pip pip cheerio Brit. An outsider. Shudder.

She was talking more and more about leaving Britian to live in the US. Imagine what a slap in the face that would have been to the royal family and the UK.

As long as she was alive Chuck couldn't marry the rotweiler. How could he ever realize his fondest wish of being a tampax?

The fam probaly didn't want her influencing the heirs any more than she had already. Good lord, she was already taking them to amusement parks and on water slides. How very undignified. How very un-British.

She was going to be the mother of the king since tampax boy will likely be too old and have to step aside, or not last long. Now that's power. Mother of the king of England. Diana.

There are countless reasons. Quite bizarre that I have to spoon feed each one of them to you. I know, none of these reasons will be good enough for you however, 'cause you really don't want to think about it. So I wasted my breath after taking that deep one you recommended.

INFLUENCE AND POWER IS NOT A BY-PRODUCT OF FAME.

Wow, and here I thought your logic couldn't be any more warped. You've topped yourself... so to speak.

BOBBY K, AND MLK WERE PROBABLY KILLED FOR THOSE SAME DEEP POLITICAL REASONS THAT PROVED TO BE JFKs DOWNFALL. I TAKE IT YOU HAVE SOME EVIDENCE FOR CLAIMING THAT THE CIA WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MURDERS OF JKjr, AND MALCOLM X, OR IS THIS JUST MORE ENDLESS SPECULATION ON YOUR BEHALF, AS TO YOUR ASSERTION THAT JOHN LENNON WAS KILLED BY THESE "EVIL" FORCES IT SIMPLY FLIES IN THE FACE OF ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, AND BETRAYS YOUR SLIGHTLY PARANOID TURN OF MIND, LENNON WAS TRAGICALLY MURDERED BY AN OBSESSED, PSYCHOTIC, FORMER FAN, IT REALY IS THAT SIMPLE.

Yes, that's right Stephen. I have signed notarized statements from every one of the perps for every government murder ever committed. 'Cause that's exactly how these things work. They always confess on the record. Gimme a break.

MYRA, SIMPLE PUBLIC RELATION EXERCISES IN HER WAR WITH BIG EARS. BY THE TIME SHE GOT ROUND TO HUGGING HIV/AIDS VICTIMS IT WAS NOT A DEADLY MYSTERIOUS DISEASE AT ALL, THE POSSIBLE MEANS OF CONTAMINATION HAD BEEN UNDERSTOOD FOR TEN YEARS, AND THE IDEA THAT SHE WAS EXPOSING HERSELF TO ANY RISK IS LAUGHABLE. ALL PUT ON FOR THE MEDIA MY DEAR.

Ah, by that "logic" a famous person cannot take on a cause without being accused of doing it only for PR purposes. Then they're all crass, according to you... "my dear"? Or just Diana?

And since you're demanding evidence, give me some evidence that she just took on her causes for PR. C'mon. I'm only asking of you what you asked of me.

Oh, and Stephen. Best to lose the caps. If you really have a reasonable argument you needn't SCREAM.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Myra, the fact that you find any of the above compelling reasons to assassinate anybody speaks volumns. When was she speaking out against war?And your assertion that Lennon was killed because he was anti war is at least ten years after the fact. My god myra you turn speculation into an art form lets see, I have an invisible elf that lives at the bottom of my garden, prove me wrong...

Do yourself a favour, pick up a copy of "the insider" by Piers Morgan and see how your beloved Queen of Hearts shamelessly manipulated all who came within her orbit, for her own narrow, selfish ends. And this is written by a man who considered himself a friend.It will also give you the answer to why Diana was SO busy with charitable works.

And while your at it, find out how Dodi's family made all their money, a strange bedfellow for someone who hated war, and wanted to ban landmines.. But hey it kept the paperattzi busy.

And BTW, you know as much about British people, as I do about Rocket science.Not an unusual condition in your neck of the woods I understand. Love and peace....Steve.

[Dawn Meredith]

Myra,

Stephen and Myra:

I usually agree with you Steve, and have not ever read a post by you that was mean spirited, until this morning. I agree completely with Myra about Diana. I also believe JFK Jr. was murdered. I suspect there was alot more to the murder of John Lennon was as well, that MDC was a MC.

I don't know what Dodi's uncle was involved in, admittedly, but I have seen Diana in several intereviews and if her caring about the ill, homeless and landmines was all an act then she deserved an academy award.

Dawn

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I fully empathize with Stephen Turner's instinct that Diana was unworthy of being murdered because she seemed to stand for nothing terribly threatening to great vested powers. It was my initial reaction to the event as well. However, by assuming this to be true, we presume to be all-knowing, and reject out of hand that there could have been intrigues at the palace, or other hidden motives for her death of which we remain unaware. It is to say that because we cannot imagine a reason for anyone wishing her dead, ipso facto, nobody could have wished her dead.

That's a leap too far, particularly in light of subsequent revelations about various intelligence agencies and their respective levels of interest in Diana. Whether we recognize the rationales for this or not, various parties paid a lot of attention to Diana, particularly just prior to her demise, it seems. Knowing this, and all the contradictory blather contained in the numerous so-called inquiries into the circumstances of her death, one grows less sanguine about an "accident" verdict in this matter.

The following is from one of my favourite blogs at: http://rigint.blogspot.com/

For a long while I resisted the Diana story by the same solipsistic rationale Noam Chomsky resists John Kennedy's: she was inconsequential to me. (As John Judge assesses Chomsky's verdicts on the murders of Kennedy and King, "it's just a function of how much you liked the guy whether he was done in by coincidence or not.") I still find her so, but her slightness of gravity is misleading, because her life and possibly her death were no more about her than my judgement of either should be about me.

If little else is certain beyond the seldom acknowledged fact that Dodi Fayed was the nephew of Adnan Khashoggi, then the late admission that the US Secret Service "was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed" establishes beyond doubt that this was a person of interest to actors who should be persons of interest to us. It's the kind of disclosure that is usually processed by an incurious media as a fact "that will only fuel conspiracy theories," without asking even the most cursory questions that the new evidence begs, like why were the Americans bugging Diana, for how long before her fatal crash had they been doing so, and is it plausible, as alleged, that they were doing this without a nod and a wink from MI6?

Sometimes you can tell a conspiracy by the high grade of disinformation that accrues about it, including the number and quality of shadowy "renegade insiders" eager to step up, speak out and muddy the waters. For instance, former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson claimed both driver Henri Paul and photographer James Andanson, whose white Fiat purportedly struck Diana's death car before it lost control, were employed by his agency to spy on the celebrity couple. (Paul of course died in the crash, and Andanson was found dead in the woods three years later, an apparent suicide.) Former CIA agent Oswald LeWinter tried to sell to Mohammed Al Fayed apparently forged documents that spelling out in big, block letters an alleged DIA-MI6 assassination plot. And it may even be true, but to showcase the truth within the framework of a lie is to strip its consideration of credibility. (Regarding LeWinter, Al Fayed's attorney Mark Zaid told CNN six years ago that he "was responsible for disseminating a lot of the - what's been deemed disinformation about [the October Surprise]. He has shown up in allegations that Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme was murdered, he has shown up involving allegations of the bombing of Pam Am 103, and then he showed up in this latest endeavor of his. He is quite a man of mystery.")

Another man, and another mystery, though perhaps the same conspiracy, was George Smith:

I lost my job, my house, my wife and children because it all became too much for me... Today I feel under great stress again because the establishment is mounting a campaign against me. They are very powerful and privileged and have lots of money to pay lawyers to prevent me from telling the truth.

Former soldier, and footman and valet to the royals, Smith claimed to have been raped by Prince Charles' close aide Michael Fawcett (Fawcett and Charles, said Smith, were lovers). Diana interviewed Smith and taped his allegations years before they became public - such as they did - though what happened to the tape "became a matter of considerable controversy" upon her death. In a comic act of self-policing, the Prince's senior staff investigated Smith and found his claims without merit and forced his resignation. And then, less than two years after the story broke, Smith was dead of an "unknown illness."

Diana herself was dead three years after composing a letter to her former butler, Paul Burrell, in which she said "this particular phase in my life is the most dangerous. My husband is planning 'an accident' in my car; brake failure and serious head injury." (A few weeks before the crash, the Mercedes had been stolen from the garage of the Ritz Hotel. "Police recovered the car but found that its instrumentation had been tampered with," Kenn Thomas writes in The Octopus. The limo was then reconditioned. LeWinter's likely hoax document notes this, stating that the car was "rebuilt to respond to external radio controls.")

Lord Stevens has "been assured" that the 39 classified documents detailing Diana's final conversations "did not reveal anything sinister or contain material that might help explain her death." To put it another way, those who clandestinely bugged Diana have given their word there is nothing suspicious on the tapes they refuse to release, and that's good enough for the head of Scotland Yard's "exhaustive" inquiry.

Celebrity can blind us to the thing itself, particularly when beauty and youth are weighted with great wealth and generational power. (Paris Hilton's circle of rich and pantiless fembots is almost enough to make "elite mind-controlled sex slave" go mainstream.) That Di and Dodi meant nothing to me only means that I had no reason to wish them dead. Others, I can't speak for.

Now that this festering wound is again receiving more attention with the Lord Stevens Report's pending release, it may also be instructive to read the following from this US blog: http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/

I'm not going to let Princess Di theories take over these pages, but the latest news stories have my blood boiling. So to speak. Example:

New DNA evidence proves the driver of Diana's car was drunk on the night of her fatal crash in a Paris underpass in 1997, British Broadcasting Corp. said Saturday.

The tests confirm that original post-mortem blood samples were from driver Henri Paul and that he had three times the French legal limit of alcohol in his blood, the BBC said, quoting from a documentary it will screen Sunday.

Conspiracy theorists have claimed Paul was not drinking that night, contending the blood samples were swapped with blood from someone else who was drunk.

The BBC said a source with access to the French investigation reported that within the past year, French officials took a DNA profile from Paul's blood samples and matched it with his parents' DNA. It did not identify the source.

We have here not a single word about the reason why those awful, awful conspiracy theorists argue in favor of a sample swap. Not a single word about the insanely high levels of CO (carbon monoxide) found in the blood that allegedly came from Henry Paul's corpse. Those CO levels did not appear in the blood samples taken from other occupants of the vehicle.

Obviously, the admixture of CO and alcohol suggests that the blood originated with a suicide victim -- someone who killed himself in his car, using the venerable hose-in-the-tailpipe method. There were 24 other bodies in the mortuary that night, and the French authorities -- for reasons best known to themselves -- have always refused to divulge whether any of those people had died of carbon dioxide inhalation.

Just as obviously, if the blood samples were swapped in 1997, the DNA samples could have been swapped nine years later. The current tests prove nothing.

Years ago, a friend sent me a video from Britain. The program was a round-table discussion of the various theories to arise from Diana's death, and one of the participants was spook-friendly MP Rupert Allason, who writes under the name Nigel West. If I recall correctly, "Nigel" informed viewers that the CO mystery was "just one of those things."

You know. Like JFK's backward head-snap was "just one of those things."

Every time you see a news story about Diana's driver which does not contain the terms "CO" or "carbon monoxide" -- every time a "journalist" refuses to acknowledge that the controversy even exists -- you may safely presume yourself to be in the presence of propaganda.

There's an interesting line contained in the above think-piece: "We have here not a single word about the reason why those awful, awful conspiracy theorists argue in favor of a sample swap."

And there is ample reason to wonder about the provinence about the blood samples taken from Henri Paul, as borne out by the following, viewable at: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1968664,00.html

US bugged Diana's phone on night of death crash

Mark Townsend and Peter Allen in Paris

Sunday December 10, 2006

The Observer

The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.

Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.

In a move that raises fresh questions over transatlantic agreements on intelligence-sharing, the surveillance arm of the US has admitted listening to her conversations as she stayed at the Ritz hotel, but failed to notify MI6. Stevens is understood to have been assured that the 39 classified documents detailing Diana's final conversations did not reveal anything sinister or contain material that might help explain her death.

Scotland Yard's inquiry, published this Thursday, also throws up further intelligence links with the Princess of Wales on the night she died. The driver of the Mercedes, Henri Paul, was in the pay of the French equivalent of M15. Stevens traced £100,000 he had amassed in 14 French bank accounts though no payments have been linked to Diana's death.

Stevens's conclusion is that Diana, her companion Dodi Fayed, and Paul himself died in an accident caused by Paul driving too fast through the Pont de l'Alma underpass in Paris while under the influence of drink. The car was being pursued by photographers at the time.

Tests have confirmed that Paul was more than three times over the French drink-drive limit and was travelling at 'excessive' speed. The inquiry will quash a number of conspiracy theories that have circulated since 31 August 1997, among them that Diana was pregnant. It also found no evidence that the princess was planning to get engaged to Dodi, son of Mohamed Fayed.

The Harrods tycoon believes that Paul's blood samples were swapped to portray him as a drunk in an elaborate cover-up by the establishment to stop Diana marrying Dodi, a Muslim.

Stevens is expected to concede that while there was a mix-up it was an accident and that the original French post-mortem which found that Paul was three-times over the French drink-drive limit was correct.

He is also expected to discount the role of the white Fiat Uno which struck Diana's car shortly before the crash, even though British police officers have failed to track down the vehicle which left paintwork on the black Mercedes.

The inquiry will support the findings of the original French accident inquiry in criticising the paparazzi as a possible reason for encouraging Paul to speed. The 'bright light' theory - the claim that the driver was deliberately blinded by a beam immediately before the crash - is also dismissed by Stevens.

[Myra Bronstein]

Myra,

Stephen and Myra:

I usually agree with you Steve, and have not ever read a post by you that was mean spirited, until this morning. I agree completely with Myra about Diana. I also believe JFK Jr. was murdered. I suspect there was alot more to the murder of John Lennon was as well, that MDC was a MC.

I don't know what Dodi's uncle was involved in, admittedly, but I have seen Diana in several intereviews and if her caring about the ill, homeless and landmines was all an act then she deserved an academy award.

Dawn

Thank you Dawn. I appreciate your input.

Edited December 13, 2006 by Myra Bronstein

[Myra Bronstein]

...

It is to say that because we cannot imagine a reason for anyone wishing her dead, ipso facto, nobody could have wished her dead.

That's a leap too far, particularly in light of subsequent revelations about various intelligence agencies and their respective levels of interest in Diana. Whether we recognize the rationales for this or not, various parties paid a lot of attention to Diana, particularly just prior to her demise, it seems. Knowing this, and all the contradictory blather contained in the numerous so-called inquiries into the circumstances of her death, one grows less sanguine about an "accident" verdict in this matter.

...

A welcome influx of logic.

[Myra Bronstein]

...

Whether we recognize the rationales for this or not, various parties paid a lot of attention to Diana, particularly just prior to her demise, it seems. Knowing this, and all the contradictory blather contained in the numerous so-called inquiries into the circumstances of her death, one grows less sanguine about an "accident" verdict in this matter.

The following is from one of my favourite blogs at: http://rigint.blogspot.com/

...

That is a great link Robert, thanks. Very interesting blogs.