Prince Harry (Continued)
@adler
Oh dear!
You ask me, why without a compelling reason, Mohamed Al- Fayed would spend large sums of money trying to prove that the crash was not an accident?
He had a compelling reason. He was the owner of the Ritz hotel and it was his employee who had driven his son to his death through a haze of alcohol and drugs. If that had been me, I would have had awful trouble trying to sleep at night knowing that the man who killed my son was in my employment. I would do everything I could to prove that the fault lay elsewhere to absolve myself of any blame whatsoever.
Have a read of this:
Al – Fayed claims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Al-Fayed
Conspiracy theories
Al-Fayed first claimed that the Princess was pregnant to the Daily Express in May 2001,[63] and that he was the only person who had been told. Witnesses at the inquest who said the Princess was not pregnant, and could not have been, were part of the conspiracy according to Al-Fayed.[64] Fayed's testimony at the inquest was roundly condemned in the press as farcical. Members of the British Government's Intelligence and Security Committee accused Fayed of turning the inquest into a 'circus' and called for it to be ended prematurely.[65] Lawyers representing Al-Fayed later accepted at the inquest that there was no direct evidence that either the Duke of Edinburgh nor MI6 was involved in any murder conspiracy involving Diana or Dodi.[66] A few days before Al-Fayed's appearance, John Macnamara, a former senior detective at Scotland Yard and Al-Fayed's investigator for five years from 1997, was forced to admit on 14 February 2008 that he had no evidence to suggest foul play, except for the assertions Al-Fayed had made to him.[67] His admissions also related to the lack of evidence for Al-Fayed's claims of the Princess's pregnancy and the couple's engagement.[67]
The jury verdict, given on 7 April 2008, was that Diana and Dodi were "unlawfully killed" through the grossly negligent driving of chauffeur Henri Paul,[68] who was intoxicated, and the pursuing vehicles.[69]
Al-Fayed's lawyers also accepted that there was no evidence to support the assertion that Diana was illegally embalmed to conceal pregnancy, or that a pregnancy could be confirmed by any medical evidence.[66] They also accepted that there was no evidence to support the assertion that the French emergency and medical services had played any role in a conspiracy to harm Diana.[66] Following the Baker inquest, Al-Fayed said that he was abandoning his conspiracy campaign, and would accept the jury's verdict.[70]
Journalist Dominic Lawson wrote in The Independent in 2008 that Al-Fayed sought to concoct "a conspiracy to cover up the true circumstances" of fatalities caused by the crash "involving an intoxicated and over-excited driver (an employee of Mohamed Al-Fayed's Paris Ritz)". He "had remarkable success in persuading elements of the tabloid press, notably the Daily Express, to give the conspiracy a fair wind."[71]
Al-Fayed financially supported Unlawful Killing (2011), a documentary film presenting his version of events.[72] It was not formally released because of the potential for libel suits.[73]
The above, confirms that there is no legal basis on which any conspiracy theory should exist. However, you maintain that anybody who accepts the findings of the French Inquest, The UK Inquest and the Report produced by Lord Stevens as a result of Scotland Yard's Operation Paget, is gullible.
Dare I suggest that the reverse is true? It occurs to me that if Al-Fayed paid millions of pounds to get evidence that his son and Diana were killed in some sort of conspiracy and that no evidence had been found, resulting in him withdrawing every associated claim, the person who is gullible is the one of us who still has “doubts”.
You mention a “mysterious white car, travelling at high speed that was seen to enter and leave the underpass at the time of the accident but was never traced.”
As mentioned in the Operation Paget inquiry report into the allegation of conspiracy to murder - Page 389
“If the presence of another vehicle, the Fiat Uno for example, had been necessary in
order to force such a fatal collision, then many of the arrangements and logistical
details mentioned in Claims 12 and 13 would need to form part of the conspiracy to
ensure that the Mercedes was in that location at that time.
There is no evidence that any intelligence agency attempted to do this, or had the
opportunity to do so.”
Furthermore, the white Fiat Uno was deemed by both Paget and the French authorities not to have been involved in, nor a contributing factor to, the crash. It’s a red herring the conspiracy theorists throw in to make their case appear more plausible.
As for tracing the car, the Daily Mail think they found it – read this:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-424546/Found-The-mystery-white-Fiat-Uno-driver-Diana-death-crash.html
Speaking of gullible people, however, you seem to feel that although you were thrown out of SL under your Ron Teague name, you can waltz back in and attempt to belittle people who have challenged you about it. Especially that little game whereby you tried to spin little circles around them by claiming to be able to get them to believe what you wanted them to believe – which of course they didn’t. What you haven’t succeeded in doing is to explain why you created the name Richard, before Robin and yet used Robin as your login.
Twenty-eight days ago I mentioned it to you here: https://www.scooploop.com/thread/earth-shattering-news-perhaps asking for a plausible answer as to why you had created two names. Thus far there has been no response from you. When can I expect the answer?
Oh dear!
You ask me, why without a compelling reason, Mohamed Al- Fayed would spend large sums of money trying to prove that the crash was not an accident?
He had a compelling reason. He was the owner of the Ritz hotel and it was his employee who had driven his son to his death through a haze of alcohol and drugs. If that had been me, I would have had awful trouble trying to sleep at night knowing that the man who killed my son was in my employment. I would do everything I could to prove that the fault lay elsewhere to absolve myself of any blame whatsoever.
Have a read of this:
Al – Fayed claims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Al-Fayed
Conspiracy theories
Al-Fayed first claimed that the Princess was pregnant to the Daily Express in May 2001,[63] and that he was the only person who had been told. Witnesses at the inquest who said the Princess was not pregnant, and could not have been, were part of the conspiracy according to Al-Fayed.[64] Fayed's testimony at the inquest was roundly condemned in the press as farcical. Members of the British Government's Intelligence and Security Committee accused Fayed of turning the inquest into a 'circus' and called for it to be ended prematurely.[65] Lawyers representing Al-Fayed later accepted at the inquest that there was no direct evidence that either the Duke of Edinburgh nor MI6 was involved in any murder conspiracy involving Diana or Dodi.[66] A few days before Al-Fayed's appearance, John Macnamara, a former senior detective at Scotland Yard and Al-Fayed's investigator for five years from 1997, was forced to admit on 14 February 2008 that he had no evidence to suggest foul play, except for the assertions Al-Fayed had made to him.[67] His admissions also related to the lack of evidence for Al-Fayed's claims of the Princess's pregnancy and the couple's engagement.[67]
The jury verdict, given on 7 April 2008, was that Diana and Dodi were "unlawfully killed" through the grossly negligent driving of chauffeur Henri Paul,[68] who was intoxicated, and the pursuing vehicles.[69]
Al-Fayed's lawyers also accepted that there was no evidence to support the assertion that Diana was illegally embalmed to conceal pregnancy, or that a pregnancy could be confirmed by any medical evidence.[66] They also accepted that there was no evidence to support the assertion that the French emergency and medical services had played any role in a conspiracy to harm Diana.[66] Following the Baker inquest, Al-Fayed said that he was abandoning his conspiracy campaign, and would accept the jury's verdict.[70]
Journalist Dominic Lawson wrote in The Independent in 2008 that Al-Fayed sought to concoct "a conspiracy to cover up the true circumstances" of fatalities caused by the crash "involving an intoxicated and over-excited driver (an employee of Mohamed Al-Fayed's Paris Ritz)". He "had remarkable success in persuading elements of the tabloid press, notably the Daily Express, to give the conspiracy a fair wind."[71]
Al-Fayed financially supported Unlawful Killing (2011), a documentary film presenting his version of events.[72] It was not formally released because of the potential for libel suits.[73]
The above, confirms that there is no legal basis on which any conspiracy theory should exist. However, you maintain that anybody who accepts the findings of the French Inquest, The UK Inquest and the Report produced by Lord Stevens as a result of Scotland Yard's Operation Paget, is gullible.
Dare I suggest that the reverse is true? It occurs to me that if Al-Fayed paid millions of pounds to get evidence that his son and Diana were killed in some sort of conspiracy and that no evidence had been found, resulting in him withdrawing every associated claim, the person who is gullible is the one of us who still has “doubts”.
You mention a “mysterious white car, travelling at high speed that was seen to enter and leave the underpass at the time of the accident but was never traced.”
As mentioned in the Operation Paget inquiry report into the allegation of conspiracy to murder - Page 389
“If the presence of another vehicle, the Fiat Uno for example, had been necessary in
order to force such a fatal collision, then many of the arrangements and logistical
details mentioned in Claims 12 and 13 would need to form part of the conspiracy to
ensure that the Mercedes was in that location at that time.
There is no evidence that any intelligence agency attempted to do this, or had the
opportunity to do so.”
Furthermore, the white Fiat Uno was deemed by both Paget and the French authorities not to have been involved in, nor a contributing factor to, the crash. It’s a red herring the conspiracy theorists throw in to make their case appear more plausible.
As for tracing the car, the Daily Mail think they found it – read this:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-424546/Found-The-mystery-white-Fiat-Uno-driver-Diana-death-crash.html
Speaking of gullible people, however, you seem to feel that although you were thrown out of SL under your Ron Teague name, you can waltz back in and attempt to belittle people who have challenged you about it. Especially that little game whereby you tried to spin little circles around them by claiming to be able to get them to believe what you wanted them to believe – which of course they didn’t. What you haven’t succeeded in doing is to explain why you created the name Richard, before Robin and yet used Robin as your login.
Twenty-eight days ago I mentioned it to you here: https://www.scooploop.com/thread/earth-shattering-news-perhaps asking for a plausible answer as to why you had created two names. Thus far there has been no response from you. When can I expect the answer?
