Princess Diana Crash: The Realm Of Reasonable Doubt.

Princess Diana Crash: The Realm Of Reasonable

Historically Britain and France have over the ages squared off as enemies who from time to time, when the occasion so demanded, joined together in an uneasy alliance to pursue a common goal. Strong circumstantial evidence tends to suggest that such an occasion did indeed arise on August 31, 1997 when Princess Diana was killed.

Paris: Romantic City To Lovers; Convenient Killing Spot To Others

One of the more controversial aspects concerning the night Princess Diana died was the fact that it took just shy of two hours to drive her to a hospital that was merely 3.25 miles away? This issue is one amongst many smoking guns that conspiracy theorists are quick to whip out from their arsenal as evidence that what happened in the Pont de l'Alma road tunnel in Paris that night was anything but an accident!

So assuming that the crash was indeed no ordinary accident but rather a high profile assassination made to look like one, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume whoever carried it out did thorough research beforehand. Such research would likely entail finding a location with restricted access points and also one that was fairly obscured from public view; a long enough tunnel would cover these two very necessary characteristics beautifully. Staging a late night crash also guaranteed that there were less unwanted eyeballs around to eyeball that which they were not supposed to see.

With just two entry/exit points, a tunnel affords easy control to incoming and outgoing traffic if ever the need were to arise. An accident in a tunnel also offers other advantages from an assassin's perspective. If the assassination is to be in the form of a road traffic accident (RTA) the chances of success are hugely magnified if a high velocity collision is staged in a confined area like a tunnel. A high speed accident in a place like the Paris Pont de l'Alma road tunnel would almost certainly result in the vehicle being buffeted from concrete wall to concrete wall over and over again like a pinball in an arcade game. Such a multiple-impact scenario greatly increases the chances of killing the target yet still allows room for the event to be termed a tragic accident!

An accident staged in Paris had other attractions too.

Other than the obvious that Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed were already there and had made little secret of the fact that they intended to spend an enchanted evening in La Capitale Romance Du Monde (Paris), the other very attractive feature about France (from the plotters' perspective) was the rather unusual French ambulance evacuation policy.

In the wake of much finger pointing, recriminations, and accusations over the now infamous 2-hour ambulance ride, the French authorities (backed up by their British counterparts) went to great lengths to assure everyone that there was nothing suspicious about it at all. That in fact that was just the way it was done in France! Okay, granted that the ambulance policy in France may actually require that accident victims be stabilized at the scene, you can bet that the people behind the plot were well aware of that fact too. It is quite probable that whilst brainstorming various scenarios on how, where and when to execute the assassination, someone in the conspiracy stumbled across that unusual French policy and immediately saw its value as a tool for deflecting suspicion from a situation that would otherwise scream nothing but!

Blaming The Usual Suspects

In the this vein one can see why such an "accident" could not have been pulled off in England; The ambulance evacuation policy in the United Kingdom (Britain) like most other countries is radically different from that in France; namely that it requires a seriously injured victim to be rushed to hospital as expeditiously as possible where far better care may be administered. Besides, staging the crash in France gave the plot originators another very convenient patsy; albeit a complicit one!

Giving a distraught and hysterical British public someone to blame (who better than those dastardly French) not only took care of a very necessary emotional outlet, it also minimized the possibility of an immediate under-the-microscope investigation that would certainly have ensued had Princess Diana been killed in England. Having the French handle the investigation on French soil conveniently allowed any accusations of ineptness and bungling to rest squarely on the shoulders of the French.

Such a course of action could only work however as long as the necessary French security agencies were privy to the plot. It is unimaginable to believe that the French authorities would ever agree to shoulder the blame for an event of such magnitude unless various security agencies of theirs were complicit to the plot to some degree or other. If there had been no French involvement you can bet that the French secret service (DGSE) would have been the first to point fingers at the British secret service (MI6). In fact without the French connection it is highly improbably the entire event could have been pulled off at all.

As it was, the manner in which the plot was contrived ensured that the British public at least had the usual (dastardly) suspects to voice their anger against but most importantly it afforded the plotters multiple opportunities to confine their achievement firmly in the realm of reasonable doubt!


Tomorrow: Whatever happened to the mysterious white Fiat Uno that several witnesses claim to have seen speeding away from the accident in the tunnel! Were paparazzi really involved in any way in the plot to kill Princess Diana? What connection did the charred remains of a body found in some woods near Paris have to do with the accident that claimed Henri Paul's, Dodi Fayed's and Princess Diana's lives?

Princess Diana's Death: The Mystery of The Stolen Mercedes

Princess Diana: The Disturbing Events Surrounding Her Death
One would expect that with the financial means Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana had at their disposal there was absolutely no reason why they should have been chauffeured in a vehicle that had been snatched at gunpoint a few days prior to the fateful night of August 31, 1997.

But that is precisely what happened!

The car in which the ill-fated couple was traveling, a Mercedes Benz S280, had been stolen some days prior to the crash. This fact on its own is perhaps at best nothing more than pure coincidence but where that event turns decidedly strange is how that very Mercedes was returned a few days earlier in pristine condition save for one very important aspect…

THE ONBOARD COMPUTER CHIP WAS MISSING FROM THE STOLEN MERCEDES!

The onboard computer chip controls, amongst other things, navigation, acceleration, steering and braking of a vehicle. Considering that Princess Diana's death was due to a car crash, the fact that the Mercedes S280 involved in the crash had its onboard computer chip stolen some days earlier (and nothing else mind you…suggesting the car-snatchers were no ordinary thieves) pushes the pervasive accident account onto firmer conspiracy territory.

To date there actually exists a well established assassination technique from the 1980s (developed by the British SAS) nicknamed "The Boston Brakes" which involves steering, braking and acceleration capability being taken over by remote control!

In fact world famous explorer and former SAS officer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes did indeed confirm the relatively common use of this assassination method with particular reference to the death in England of one Major Michael Marman in a car accident that bears uncanny resemblance to that of Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul.

So what could have been the motive behind the theft of the Mercedes Benz S280 that was involved in the Paris tunnel crash on August 31, 1997?

Well let's see; assuming you want to execute a very sensitive, high profile assassination but at the same time create as little fuss as possible, the best way to go about it is to make it look like an accident.

Keeping that in mind the disappearance of the onboard computer chip from the "Crash S280" then makes a lot of sense. Steal the car, remove the onboard computer chip, replace the old chip with a new doctored onboard computer chip that allows another party to gain remote control over the car and tada...

You've got yourselves a genuine accident in the making!

Furthermore, very suspiciously, the stolen Mercedes Benz S280 was the only vehicle "available" to the Princess and her companions that night! Talk about leaving nothing to chance!

MERCEDES BENZ DENIED ACCESS TO EXAMINE CRASH VEHICLE!

Initial reports leaked to the press suggested that the Mercedes Benz S280 involved in the crash had been zooming at speeds in the neighborhood of 120 mph! If this were translated into km/h this would come out to a staggering 192 kilometers per hour!

In fact reports of the day had the speedometer of the car stuck at 196 kilometers per hour (122 mph).

The truth of the matter is if the car had been traveling anywhere near those speeds, seat-belt-or-not NOBODY would have survived that crash (the only person to survive the crash was bodyguard Trevor Rhys-Jones who sat in the passenger seat and is widely believed to have been an operative of MI6 or MI5 branches of the British Secret Service).

Many professional drivers have decried the authority-cited-speeds (120mph region) as being absolutely preposterous and from the evidence available to them put the car at about 60 mph (96km/h) at the time of the accident.

To date, Mercedes Benz has never been able to examine the car for the simple reason the authorities never allowed them. This in itself is very strange because Mercedes Benz experts should have been party to the panel of experts examining the car!

Why?

How about if for no other reason than they built and engineered the vehicle and thus would have been in an excellent position to determine how fast the car was going and what caused the various impact damage to the vehicle.

It would appear though that an internal investigation conducted by Mercedes Benz (albeit with the rather limited information available to them) seemed to suggest a speed of 60mph was far more reasonable than the 120mph spread by authorities and that the safety protective features of the Mercedes more or less behaved as expected.

This may explain why Trevor Rhys-Jones who was seat-belted in the passenger seat and thereby in the least likely position for surviving such an accident survived! (The passenger seat is known in the industry as "The Death Seat").

The Mercedes engineered safety mechanisms that helped preserve Mr Jones' life, incorporate the engine block being forced under the car and not into the passenger compartment following the tremendous force from such a collision as the one that occurred in the Paris tunnel that night.

The widespread view is that had the Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed been wearing seatbelts they would have likely survived the crash! (Hmmm…perhaps not! Princess Diana did survive the crash and actually spoke to a French Doctor (not affiliated with the authorities who arrived shortly after) who was passing by at the time of the accident and as he administered the 1st First Aid, in his own words said "I thought her life could be saved").

Princess Diana ultimately died because of a suspicious 2 hour journey in an ambulance that snailed its way to a hospital 3.25 miles away averaging a speed of 25 mph and which conveniently bypassed 4 other hospitals on the way!

As it is there is new evidence that indicates that perhaps the reason Princess Diana was not wearing her seatbelt is because it was mysteriously but very conveniently jammed in such a way as to render it unusable!