From: bern.boergeenreclame@planet.nl   
      
   "banana"  schreef in bericht   
   news:Tym8ELA8rZfFFwmg@borve.demon.co.uk...   
      
   [snip]   
      
   > 'Cromwell' is not bona fide. He's so proud of himself for this   
   > whoopsadaisyist 'huge amounts of CO are harmless' nonsense that he keeps   
   > on posting it every so often. He likes to do this especially when new   
   > readers can be expected on the newsgroup following a spate of press   
   > interest in the Paris crash. E.g. some new news, perhaps new witness   
   > evidence, or a TV documentary. The last thing people like him want is   
   > new people coming here and sharing ideas in a fresh and open way. Let's   
   > recall that no sensible person who has considered the crash would   
   > disagree that the official stories since day one have stunk to high   
   > heaven.   
      
   Neil (= banana) considers himself to be "bona fide". But when the Paget   
   Report, that debunked all the theories he has cocked up since 1997, was   
   published, he went into silent mode. A "bona fide" poster would acknowledge   
   his mistakes, but Neil hasn't. Since Neil uses a highly personal language   
   the only conclusion a sensible person can reach must be that in banaspeak "a   
   bona fide poster" means "someone who backs up his claims with facts I cannot   
   counter".   
      
   "New people"? Since the publication of the Paget Report traffic here has   
   been ever slower than before. The case was closed in 1999 when Juge Stéphan   
   reached his conclusions. Lord Stevens has buried ALL conspiracy theories.   
      
   [snip]   
      
   > In this instance, though, it was established long ago that such a high   
   > level of CO would have rendered Henri Paul obviously ill during the time   
   > that he was filmed being as fit as a fiddle. There is NO credible   
   > whoopsadaisyist explanation for how it might have got into his blood.   
      
   Not it hasn't. When the stories about the level of CO emerged they were   
   discussed in detail. Since the Paget Report we know that Fayed tried to   
   trick the people by publishing the results of only ONE reading of the   
   various samples taken from the body of Henri Paul. Fayed's experts must have   
   known that they were telling a half truth, which means they knew Fayed was   
   lying. The conspiracy theorists refused to discuss the issue properly and   
   clung to their version of events.   
      
   Throughout the years this newsgroup has seen its share of discussions about   
   the "controlled media". Any sane person could see that it was Fayed who   
   tried to control the media coverage, not the authorities. I find it very   
   funny that the conspiracy theorists, lead by Dr Neil Fernandez, talked a lot   
   about the "controlled media" whilst swallowing the Fayed lies line, hook and   
   sinker.   
      
   [snip]   
      
   > Nicholas Langman and Richard Spearman, SIS officers in Paris, were said   
   > to have been in Paris too. They managed to avoid giving evidence to the   
   > French inquiry on this point. Will they be giving evidence, allowing   
   > themselves to be cross-examined, at the inquest?   
      
   They weren't in Paris, end of story.   
      
   > And it has been reported that a member of staff at the British embassy   
   > in Paris was chucked out of the communications room very shortly before   
   > the crash by...none other than Robert Fellowes, the 'queen's' private   
   > secretary. He apparently says he was elsewhere in France on a private   
   > holiday.   
      
   He was in England, end of story.   
      
   [snip]   
      
   > And let's not forget what the post of 'PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE   
   > SOVEREIGN' involved. He is the SENIOR OPERATIONAL MEMBER OF THE ROYAL   
   > HOUSEHOLD.   
   >   
   > There's that word again: OPERATIONAL.   
   >   
   > What operation might have been going on in Paris that required such   
   > high-level involvement on the ground? The answer is obvious, and it's   
   > not 'surveillance'.   
   >   
   > WHAT WERE THE MOVEMENTS OF SPEARMAN, LANGMAN, SPEDDING, FELLOWES, and   
   > DEARLOVE?   
   >   
   > WILL THEY GIVE EVIDENCE AT THE INQUEST IN OPEN COURT?   
   >   
   > WILL 'BARONESS' BUTLER-SLOSS ALLOW THEM TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED BY MOHAMED   
   > AL-FAYED'S LAWYERS?   
      
   Fayed's lawyers should advise their client to stay in Monte Carlo because   
   his appearance would hurt his case. If Fayed from this moment on avoids the   
   courts, he will be able to shout "conspiracy". If he is stupid enough to let   
   himself to be cross-examined, he will have to answer though questions about   
   the many lies he has cocked up. Will he? It would be great, but I suppose   
   Fayed will take the line "it is all a cover up, I will not cooperate with   
   this cover up".   
      
   B. B.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)