Interesting quote

[Mike Ellwood]

Although the following quote does not relate to the JFK conspiracy, it struck me neverthless as being fairly apposite:Just as compass needles all point north without being told to, so these people instinctively know what is expected of them when the state's interests are under threat and they act accordingly, quietly suppressing uncomfortable evidence or undermining the credibility of witnesses whose evidence contradicts the official narrative.So while not everyone who obstructed the search for truth and justice regarding JFK was necessarily in on the conspiracy, many may have instinctively known what was expected of them.The words quoted above were written by Keith Allen, a British actor and documentary maker, in a piece about his film "Unlawful Killing". http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... u-wont-see(I personally have never believed that the death of Diana was anything other than a tragic accident, although there seem to have been some murky goings-on after the event. Although she was a lovely and much-loved lady, with all due respect to her memory, frankly she wasn't important enough to warrant assassination and a major cover-up operation. I don't believe anyone had that much to gain by her death. It is possible that certain cover-ups seemed to be necessary to disguise incompetence and that kind of thing.....what we call cock-up rather than conpiracy. Just my personal opinion).

[Michael Calder]

Mike Ellwood,Now you have your version of the Warren Commission Report. If there is a conspiracy after the fact then there is a conspiracy before the fact. We're doomed. I read a newspaper report that CIA was monitoring Princess Di's movements in Paris. If so, why? www.jfkcia.com

[Davyjones]

Sorry Mike... Lady Di just might have been thinking of taking her two sons out of the UK.Under NO circumstances could that happen.William is to be THE next real King of England.The lady was a maximum threat to the system and had to be stopped,one way or another. No question in my mind.

[JDThomas]

I don't subscribe to this point of view. The level of security around the two Princes was discreet but tight. Particularly during school time, she would not have had a great deal of contact with them and in any case, I would be suprised if she was allowed to go near them without permission (same still goes for Prince Charles) - the idea of her simply putting them on a plane or racing away in a car or even being allowed to take them on a foriegn holiday would not be allowed to happen. Further to this William was well into his teens at the time and hardly a babe in arms to be held for political ramsom.Neither is he (as yet) scheduled to be the next King unless you have foreknowledge of a plot to exclude or bump-off the Prince known as Charles (though Brenda might outlive him).William is 2nd in line to be King of Great Britain and its remaining dominions - not just England - this does grind with those of us who are registered as British, but are NOT English

[Mike Ellwood]

There are legal means to prevent an estranged parent taking children out of the country against the wishes of the other parent, and Prince Charles and his establishment cronies would be able to pull the necessary strings to make sure the law was enforced. No violence was necessary from that point of view. Even if they had been taken abroad as minors, once they had achieved the age of majority, it would no longer be an issue.As things are, both boys are currently loyal members of Her Majesty's armed services, and I am sure that they would have returned to their country to do their duty if they had been living abroad. In addition, I don't think William would have given up his chance to inherit the throne. I don't see him as a closet republican. I must say it would be rather fun if we did have some closet republicans in the royal family, but sadly, that is never likely to arise.I would go so far as to say that Diana was a thorn in the flesh of the royal family and their circle, but to say that she was a threat to the system would be an exaggeration in my view.Still, it will be interesting to see what Keith Allen's film comes up with. Hopefully an uncut version will appear on YouTube in due course.

[Davyjones]

Well guys its interesting to see you both walk away from conspiracy when it comes to Di. What about the possibility that she got married again to a none Christian. The dynamics of the law MIGHT change. The children would come under the influence of Dis new partner. What if William and Harry took on board their religion. I am aware that Charles is next in line,but the only popular choice for King is William,by a mile. As far as the world audiance is concerned the only title that counts is King of England. The rest is window dressing.

[tom jeffers]

i had read that Princess Di might have been pregnant with Dodi's baby and the queen supposedly said something like the mother of englands future king will not mother a bastard child by a heathen muslim

[Davyjones]

Tom..Mmh we in the UK will never get hear that quote! You have hit a nerve with me that the Establishment had it in for Di. Just like in the US,JFKs death has suffered from a cover up, I reckon our guys in the UK are just as good at keeping the truth away from thr eyes and ears of the SUBJECTS (that is what I am by the way)

[Mike Ellwood]

Davyjones wrote:Well guys its interesting to see you both walk away from conspiracy when it comes to Di. What about the possibility that she got married again to a none Christian. The dynamics of the law MIGHT change. The children would come under the influence of Dis new partner. What if William and Harry took on board their religion. I am aware that Charles is next in line,but the only popular choice for King is William,by a mile. As far as the world audiance is concerned the only title that counts is King of England. The rest is window dressing.Well if I thought everything was conspiracy, then people would accuse me of being a conspiracy nut As it is, I choose my conspiracy theories more selectively. JFK - Yes 9/11 - Yes. The UK's "Dodgy Dossier" that got us into the Iraq war - Yes. The Commission that looked into the war afterwards (I forget the name) - Yes....Like the Warren Commission, its conclusions bore little relationship to the various testimonies.I just don't happen to think that the death of Diana was one, although I take on board the interesting comment: conspiracy after the fact means there was a conspiracy before the fact. Well, I think it makes it more likely, but I don't think it is inevitable.To take a hypothetical example: A woman disturbs an intruder, there is a struggle, the intruder is accidentally killed. It turns out that the intruder is someone with whom the woman has been intimately connected in some way in the past. She is afraid no one will believe that it was an accident. (Killing an intruder would normally be a crime in the UK; possibly not in the USA). Anyway, she contacts a dear friend and begs them to help her dispose of the body. She just wants to get rid of it. The friend being a friend indeed, comes over and together they get rid of the body in a distant quarry. There was a conspiracy after the fact, but not before the fact.

[tom jeffers]

we are all products of our environment and the total sum of everything we have experienced and read. I do not want to offend my british brothers but I for one believe the royal bloodline are evil and petty and will do everything possible to preserve what they believe is royal protocol. The queen did not invite the president to the wedding because michelle had put her arm around the queen in an affectionate manner. How petty can you get?If you don't believe that they dont think their sh#t doesn't stink then look up the royal position of "Groom of the stool" It still exists today but they keep it hidden. Everywhere the queen goes, they take along the Royal Sh#tter because the queen cannot just take a crap in any old stool. Her excrement is considered royal and is not waste and it is stored rather than flushed. What kind of people would even think of this stuff let alone participate in the process?