 |
|

02-27-2008, 02:26 PM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 423
|
|
I say Paul was drunk on some if his own "Butler's Special" tipple when he was ranting about "red herrings"!!! He discredits himself then and there!
|

02-27-2008, 03:05 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,651
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkie40
I say Paul was drunk on some if his own "Butler's Special" tipple when he was ranting about "red herrings"!!! He discredits himself then and there!
|
Burrell reminds me alot of Hewitt. Seriously, they both made some profit of their position in Diana's life and they both look silly, talking and answering about controversial issues. They are really thick and persevere in speaking their truth although, it's rare that it corresponds to what they had said 2 months earlier ...
Perhaps I'm the only one to see this similiarity but for me, they are so the same.
|

02-27-2008, 06:16 PM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 423
|
|
Can we add Simone Simmons to the group? Granted, all these people had the "inside scoop" and shared unique experiences with the princess but there should be a one book minimum on Diana, imo.
|

02-27-2008, 06:45 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,651
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkie40
Can we add Simone Simmons to the group? Granted, all these people had the "inside scoop" and shared unique experiences with the princess but there should be a one book minimum on Diana, imo.
|
Definitely. I think she's the worst of the bunch. She really went too far when claiming that Diana had slept with John-John   .
|

02-27-2008, 09:47 PM
|
Gentry
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Winter Park, United States
Posts: 54
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTruth
Burrell reminds me alot of Hewitt. Seriously, they both made some profit of their position in Diana's life and they both look silly, talking and answering about controversial issues. They are really thick and persevere in speaking their truth although, it's rare that it corresponds to what they had said 2 months earlier ...
Perhaps I'm the only one to see this similiarity but for me, they are so the same.
|
I completely agree with you. One is no better than the other. That's what really makes me feel so sorry for the late Princess - so many were willing to sell her out for a buck.
Seeing Burrell's Youtube promo cracks me up. He was a Butler for goodness sake!
|

02-27-2008, 11:13 PM
|
 |
Aristocracy
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Raleigh, United States
Posts: 114
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panicgrl
I completely agree with you. One is no better than the other. That's what really makes me feel so sorry for the late Princess - so many were willing to sell her out for a buck.
Seeing Burrell's Youtube promo cracks me up. He was a Butler for goodness sake!
|
Money changes things, doesn't it? I just wonder what Princess Diana would think of her "rock" now.
|

02-28-2008, 06:12 AM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,651
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PadThaiPrincess
Money changes things, doesn't it? I just wonder what Princess Diana would think of her "rock" now.
|
She would probably throw him in the middle of a lake.
|

02-28-2008, 01:30 PM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 423
|
|
Not trying to stir up a hornet's nest here, but if they can keep Prince Harry's whereabouts secret for 10 weeks or so in this day and age, I wonder what was kept a royal secret in the days before we all had the internet in 1997....
I'm just sayin'........
|

02-28-2008, 03:13 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,910
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkie40
Not trying to stir up a hornet's nest here, but if they can keep Prince Harry's whereabouts secret for 10 weeks or so in this day and age, I wonder what was kept a royal secret in the days before we all had the internet in 1997....
I'm just sayin'........
|
It wasn't kept secret from the media, they agreed to keep it quiet in exchange for photo and interview opportunities, that they agreed would NOT be published until after his return!
|

02-28-2008, 03:26 PM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 423
|
|
Perhaps a similar such agreement has been made with the French and the paparazzi regarding Diana and thus no cooperation with testimony in the inquest. Since most of the photos from in the tunnel were confiscated....
Some sort of "Getlemen's Agreement".....
|

02-28-2008, 03:36 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,910
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkie40
Perhaps a similar such agreement has been made with the French and the paparazzi regarding Diana and thus no cooperation with testimony in the inquest. Since most of the photos from in the tunnel were confiscated....
Some sort of "Getlemen's Agreement".....
|
I think we have seen that most journalist are unable to keep a secret that could cause dozens of deaths now, do you really think every single one of them would have been able to say no to a scoop of that magnitude?
|

02-28-2008, 03:52 PM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 423
|
|
No, but I do think (in my conspiracy theory mindset) perhaps James Andeson's agency failed to "comply"...Some of the others like Arthur Edwards knew the magnitude and severity of the photos they were receiving electronically from Paris that they were almost immediately destroyed....
I also believe (again in my conspiracy theory mindset) the accident could have been "assisted" by a media outlet to "create" news, only to have the whole thing result in a mindblowing tragedy...
|

02-28-2008, 04:07 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,910
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkie40
No, but I do think (in my conspiracy theory mindset) perhaps James Andeson's agency failed to "comply"...Some of the others like Arthur Edwards knew the magnitude and severity of the photos they were receiving electronically from Paris that they were almost immediately destroyed....
I also believe (again in my conspiracy theory mindset) the accident could have been "assisted" by a media outlet to "create" news, only to have the whole thing result in a mindblowing tragedy...
|
If Diana had not died, make no mistake, the authors have said they would have used the pictures, if she had hung on for a day or two, again they would have been used. Arthur Edwards was merely a photographer and would not have been involved, IMO, in any decision regarding the publication of the 'death photo's'. The moment it was announced that she was dead and that she had been hounded by photographers, the only safe thing for the editors to do, was to shred them, although I am reasonable sure that hard copies still exist in newspaper vaults. Your theory of an accident to create news is, to me, a bit wacky. Nobody can tell how much damage a car accident will do to the driver or passengers and an awful lot of people would have had to be involved! Again, at some point, one of those involved would need some extra cash and leak the story.
|

02-28-2008, 04:29 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,651
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon
If Diana had not died, make no mistake, the authors have said they would have used the pictures, if she had hung on for a day or two, again they would have been used. Arthur Edwards was merely a photographer and would not have been involved, IMO, in any decision regarding the publication of the 'death photo's'. The moment it was announced that she was dead and that she had been hounded by photographers, the only safe thing for the editors to do, was to shred them, although I am reasonable sure that hard copies still exist in newspaper vaults. Your theory of an accident to create news is, to me, a bit wacky. Nobody can tell how much damage a car accident will do to the driver or passengers and an awful lot of people would have had to be involved! Again, at some point, one of those involved would need some extra cash and leak the story.
|
Oh yes, they were ready to publish them. Ken Lennox was one of the first who bought the pictures and received them via internet. He was very hesitant to delete them when he learnt that she had died and I still think he kept them somewhere. But imagine if she had survived ; she would be so sick to see that paparazzi sold pictures of her and her dead boyfriend and made them publish in the papers. What a disgusting world the gutter press ...
|

02-28-2008, 07:42 PM
|
 |
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,305
|
|
My amateur opinion is that he has some sort of pathological need to impress people by how close he was to the Princess and how much he knows. Perhaps he's beyond the point of being able to stop himself. He seems to have a compulsion to discuss his life with the Royals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
I wonder why he didn't have the sense to keep his trap shut about misleading the coroner until after the end of the inquest.
|
|

02-28-2008, 08:20 PM
|
Gentry
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Blackpool, United Kingdom
Posts: 87
|
|
To see that this thread has reached 66 pages shows the obsession which is still attatched to Diana. I find it all a complete waste of time...(I do believe that she was murdered because she was such a dangerous woman, but that her murder was nothing to do with any member of the Royal Family.) I have a lot of sympathy with what al Fayhed says, because he must be heart broken over the loss of his son, and the realisation that he will now be forever an outcast of the British establishment.
Diana was a person in love with herself I think, and to spend all this time and money on an inquest which will never change the minds of any of us, no matter what we think, is such a waste of time and money.
|

02-29-2008, 04:26 AM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by normalil
to spend all this time and money on an inquest which will never change the minds of any of us, no matter what we think, is such a waste of time and money.
|
Hm, okay, it didn't change my mind but what about yours?
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
|

02-29-2008, 08:33 AM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon
|
From this article:
Lord Fellowes, who was then the Queen's private secretary, told the gathering in April 1993: "Evidence had been found that the fixed telephone lines had been tampered with.
"It was almost certain that this was the location where the Prince of Wales had been staying on the night of the alleged conversation between him and Mrs Parker Bowles."
and:
"The inquest heard that Charles made the call to Camilla, who was at her home in Wiltshire, on a mobile phone, not a landline."
Sorry, but I don't get it. If the landlines at that house were bugged but Charles, who stayed there, used a mobile - how could his call have been intercepted? And how could they find out the lines were bugged when the fact that the call had been intercepted only became public three years later? Is it believable that Charles and/or Camilla have such good memories as to figure out where they were when this call was made - after three years? With the Squidgygate-call, it was easy to put a date on it but with Camillagate there is not much to indicate when and from where they phoned. Well, okay, that talk about an ambulance strike and Andrew Parker Bowles occupation with it might have helped. Still, it's strange.
Well, IMHO even if it had been the SIS who listened in against orders (and we have such an amount of proof from around the world that Secret Service members tend to lie occasionally to their political superiors against the rules layed out for them) I guess that behaviour stopped once there was this internal check on orders of the queen. So as long as we are only interested in the inquest, IMHO we have heard enough to realise that no Secret Service was involved in monitoring Diana.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
|

03-01-2008, 04:01 AM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,779
|
|
Mr. Fayed's new claim is worse then all of them put together. Now he says the MI6 put on a "scare" plan in order to cause the car to crash in very few hours. As if! It still doesn't add up properly. Ugh! I'm so sick of him. I understand he lost his son but this is just beyond ridiculous.
|
 |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|