From: steuart@btinternet.com   
      
   "Rachel Spencer"  wrote in message   
   news:1133968881.573450.232360@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...   
   > If this is a fabrication then YOU go get us the Time magazine   
   > retraction for printing incorrect information.   
   >   
      
   See, utter waste of time.  More conspiracy high jinks with no principle   
   attached to it whatsoever.   
      
   Here is the relevant exerpt from Tom Bower, author of many books, including   
   'Branson', 'Blind Eye to Murder', 'The Paperclip Conspiracy'.   
      
   "The publication of those translated 'facts' in British newspapers on   
   Wednesday, 3 September was juxtaposed alongside a long interview with Cindy   
   Crawford describing Diana's and Dodi's involvement in a secret affair since   
   November 1996 and the model's eyewitness account as the princess, a close   
   friend, arrived for a secret meeting with Dodi at Harrods.  In her defence,   
   Crawford would claim that the interview was fabricated by Italian   
   journalists."(Fayed, p.437)   
      
   We can add to this the following from the Sunday Express, 29th August, 1999,   
      
   "Dodi and Diana were friends for many years but the relationship started   
   when she came on holiday with us to the South of France."   
      
   That holiday was July 1997 and the author was Fayed.   
      
   When you refer to 'us', I presume you mean your conspiracy team mates.  Yet   
   apart from banana, most of them appear to have remained on the benches.  You   
   might therefore be interested to learn, what banana thought about this   
   story,   
      
    "I don't credit the 9-month-long-relationship view either"   
    (ARCHIVE:Commentary by Jim Keith,  Sep 16 1999)   
      
   Plenty of grounds to be more than a little sceptical.   
      
   Now let's examine that claim you made Rachel,   
      
      
   "Then why does Crawford continue to state she met Dodi/Di in November   
   1996?!"   
      
   I have reasonably asked you to reference this denial/denial.  You would have   
   gone some way to substantiate your argument, by simply posting an article or   
   reference, in which Crawford continues to make the same claim, but you   
   haven't.  You've stalled and gone round in circles.  I'm not the problem   
   Rachel, YOU are, and now more wasted posting hang in the space called ACPD.   
   On this basis, I am perfectly entitled to conclude that this is nothing more   
   than a figment of your imagination and that the orginal claim is  a   
   fabrication.   
      
   Geoff.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)