From: trevjon@btinternet.com   
      
   "Rachel Spencer"  wrote in message   
   news:1135435181.699991.228050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...   
   > "Depends upon your semantics, and how you interpret "accident". "  -   
   > OMG, you sound like Clinton, "well, that depends on your definition of   
   > sex."   
      
   No, but an "accident" usually means it was unavoidable.  If Dodi had   
   listened to his security advisors, this "accident" would never have   
   happened. Look up "accident" in the dictionary and you will see that there   
   are usually 3 or 4 different interpretations of it.  Don't read things that   
   are not there, just because you have poor command of the English language.   
      
      
      
   >   
   > "Could it have been avoided?   Yes.   Was it handled well afterwards?   
   > No.   
   > Could you "blame" someone for it?  Yes, Dodi for a start, for his   
   > stupid   
   > ideas, and his fixation with avoiding the paparazzi.  Is there   
   > confusion and   
   > conflicting witness reports concerning the incident?  Yes, but that is   
   > why   
   > most major incidents have Inquries afterwards, so the conflicting   
   > statements   
   > can be examined. This incident is not unique in people having "seen"   
   > and   
   > experienced different things.  Was it a conspiracy?   I don't think so,   
   > and   
   > until there is some compelling evidence to PROVE otherwise, then I will   
   > be   
   > left to the conclusion that is was an "accident".   A few half baked   
   > and   
   > contradictory "theories", using half-truths, accusations, and downright   
   >   
   > lies, do not lead one to conclude that it was anything but an   
   > "accident". "   
   >   
   > Why blame Dodi?  It was the fault of another car hitting the Benz and   
   > sending it spinning out of control in a tunnel only to leave the scene   
   > of the crime.  And to this day, 8 years later, still unaccounted for.   
      
   If Dodi hadn't adopted the useless "decoy" plan, the second car, the Range   
   Rover, could have shadowed, and offered protection to the Merc.  It's not   
   rocket science, so which part are you having difficulty understanding?   
   Please also explain to me how a 1000Kg Fiat Uno can send a 3000Kg Mercedes   
   "spinning out of control".  Just which new laws of physics are you using?   
      
   Might I also point out, that despite your "years of research", you still   
   seem to think it was "...the fault of another car hitting the Benz and   
   sending it spinning out of control in a tunnel ...", wheras all reports I   
   have seen say that it was the merc that made a glancing blow against the   
   Fiat Uno.  You can't even get simple facts like that right.   
      
   >   
   > A "stupid fixation to avoid papparazzi"?  Are you kidding?  You cannot   
   > be this daft, Trev.  The paps, and those men hanging around the outside   
   > of The Ritz and inside The Ritz, were harrassing them and following   
   > them everywhere throughout Paris.  We saw the looks on Diana, Dodi and   
   > even TRJ's faces when they finally got through the paps and into The   
   > Ritz.  What about the car that left the back of The Ritz immediately   
   > after Diana's car departed?  There are photos of this car anmd the men   
   > hanging around The Ritz.  You want me to post them just say the word.   
      
   Why wouild I want to see more pictures of blurry unrecognisable figures that   
   prove absolutely nothing.  Tell me what solid evidence you have that these   
   so called "suspicious people" were anything but paps.  I won't hold my   
   breath.   
      
      
   >   
   > "Is there confusion and conflicting witness reports concerning the   
   > incident?  Yes, but that is why most major incidents have Inquries   
   > afterwards, so the conflicting statements   
   > can be examined. This incident is not unique in people having "seen"   
   > and   
   > experienced different things."   
   >   
   > Honestly, most accounts are pretty similiar.  You make a good point as   
   > to why we need the Inquest.   
      
   No, there are several different points of view, but many of them have been   
   dismissed.  What will you do when the inquest doesn't support your "murder"   
   theory?  You avoided this question on another post.  Why is this, I wonder?   
      
      
   >   
   >   
   > "Was it a conspiracy?   I don't think so, and   
   > until there is some compelling evidence to PROVE otherwise, then I will   
   > be   
   > left to the conclusion that is was an "accident".   A few half baked   
   > and   
   > contradictory "theories", using half-truths, accusations, and downright   
   >   
   > lies, do not lead one to conclude that it was anything but an   
   > "accident". "   
   >   
   > Well, I think it was a conspiracy and I have posted and posted and   
   > posted tons of evidence of that conspiracy to commit murder.  If you   
   > choose to look at this evidence another way and come up with your own   
   > theory be my guest.   
      
   Quotes from other conspiracy sites does not really add up to "evidence".   
   You accuse me of having an agenda, but could it not also be possible that   
   many people who encourage support for a conspiracy also have an agenda?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)