Because it had to look like an accident?
One in the chest and two in the head may not have done.
1 Like
Ah theories. There are more theories than the general population can poke a stick at. Whether said population want to investigate past the official story in places that donāt invole the official story is up to them. To blanket people with the term Conspiricy Theorist doesnāt debunk their investigations but merely shows those calling people it lazy and only interested in the safety of the official story
4 Likes
It wouldnāt have done but think about the variables involved in staging a fatal car accident and the lack of certainty about the outcome. As said before, there was no guarantee that the crash would cause her death and if she had worn the seatbelt she probably would not have been killed. If the crash had happened in a slightly different spot at a slightly different speed the outcome could have been less fatal for those who died. If you are going to the trouble of arranging a falls accident you wouldnāt leave so much to chance would you? Given that she had already said what she wanted to say and it was well and truly Iām the public domain, it seems a bit late in the day to kill her in order to shut her up. There are reasons that these things are called conspiracy theories and that is precisely just what they are. From what I have read, the claims made that are supposed to support the fact that she was deliberately killed have been debunked. It is entirely possible that she was killed deliberately, but the circumstances have been examined and pored over many times and there is still no hard evidence to prove that was the case.
Absolutely. Which is a completely different situation to the Monarchy arranging a hit on a young woman whose only crime is to have married unwisely.
1 Like
I have a real problem with the use of ādebunkedā.
Who fact checks the fact checkers? Itās also like a maths problem. I wanna see their working please. They rarely do. Often based upon confirmation bias and selective use of facts. Sorry, āfactsā.
Building 7 anyone? Not mentioned once in the 9/11 commission report which was the āofficialā account of that fateful day which was to precede to the Iraq war. Which our officials told us was because they had WMDs. That was a fact at the time and anybody who questioned their motives was labelled a conspiracy theorist for questioning the authority. We all now know how that ended up. Well you do if youāre willing to look under the carpet, where it was swept.
As for the conspiracy theory term - it was conjured up by the intelligence community as a derogatory means of labelling, embarrassing and ultimately discrediting people who dare question the āofficialā narrative of any story. Usually the one perpetuated by the State.
It is a highly successful tool in lumping beliefs and ideologies together that rarely hold any actual association.
It lumps together people who believe the earth is flat/hollow, inhabited by lizard people etc with people who just have a hard time swallowing certain presentations of āfactsā and those open enough to see and accept the possibility of corrupt behaviour in our officials and institutions. Especially when money and self preservation are knocking around as tangible incentive/motive.
3 Likes
Maybe thatās why she was ātreatedā at the scene for 90 minutes, to ensure she was in a āno chance of survivalā state before she left to go to hospital.
I canāt be arsed to go through the medical treatment history but if you are that interested go and look it up. I doubt if you will though because you seem determined to believe that she was murdered (despite there being no evidence to support that claim).
Re the RF knowing about the interview, what difference does it make? She did the interview and the information was out there (most it known already re Charles shagging Camilla). Are you saying that the Queen then had her killed out of spite and revenge?
I agree, you probably canāt prove your point.
I have pointed to the reasons that I think her death was dodgy above. You donāt seem to have addressed any of them - including not being arsed to prove what Iām saying is incorrect. But thatās fine, that seems to be your raison dāetre when trying to prove something tricky.
As an FYI, I quit SW because you and Hypo seemed to infest every thread with bickering, both looking like complete numpties.
You said why didnāt they kill her before the interview - I said because they didnāt know she was going to do that.
And my point was that what was the point of killing her once she had put the information out there?
If you want me to believe that she was murdered, show the evidence I read a shit load of information about the case in the last lockdown and if you are that bothered you will do the same.
If you were that bothered about me and hypo on TSW why do isnāt you just put us on ignore and be done with it? Also it doesnāt give you the right to behave like hypo over here. You effectively called me a liar and I have given you the chance to prove it. You chose not to so do us both a favour and stop making yourself look silly.
2 Likes
Its OK there was a judicial review. Lord Stevenās no less.
We all know they never find any truth in conspiracies.
Dr Kelly
WMD
Iraq War
PPE shortly.
2 Likes
Can you 2 please give it a rest, thank youā¦
1 Like
Iām tempted, believe meā¦
2 Likes
Hop to it then. 
Its not propa beef though is it? Needs at least one right nawty cunt for that, and neither Soggy or Cherts qualify 
1 Like
Nearly but not quite
Iām badass, motherfucker.
1 Like
