Maybe, but inquests are there to establish facts. Getting back to the word theory, I still donât see the problem in its use. It does exactly what it says on the tin. What word should we use instead?
So.
Explain the death of James Anderson (no not the cricketer)
Explain the lack of further investigation into Thanh Le Van
Explain the CO2 levels in Henri Paulâs blood samples
Explain why a British Snapper was told to stay away from Paris that weekend
Explain why a driver on 50k a year had Hundreds of thousands in his his bank account.
All reported in MSM.
Who has the time or inclination to lay out every issue in any given case on a football forum? There are pages and pages of information on everything to do with this case. It is boring for many as it is, can you imagine if every last statement was pored over?
Science is also there to establish facts.
Anyway, Iâm pretty sure the issue here is when that word is preceded by âconspiracyâ. Which as discussed earlier on this thread is deliberately loaded with negative and derogatory connotations and thrown about quite lazily. Often by the uninformed.
1 Like
So, (in true Baz fashion) you are saying that not all the facts were addresed in the enquiry?
Including the assertation that Diana was not Pregnant from a visual exam when any (POTENTIAL) foetus would have not been visible to the naked eye?
And no Iâm not going down that road, no need - just showing there are still questions.
1 Like
Perhaps you should direct your questions to the authorities? I am desperately trying not to post anymore and you keep asking questions! I am just a bloke on a football forum. Go look it up on the net. I need to go to bed.
1 Like
Fuck me Phil! I wasnât present at the inquest and have not read every large page. As far as I know they donât just do a visual check in an autopsy.
Apparently the report concluded that she was using contraception and undergoing normal menstrual cycles which would indicate more than a cursory visual inspection.
Just chill. Itâs been fun. Donât normally do this, but just be careful (from someone who has been fvcked over more than once for âbelieving in people & their view of factsâ).
Facts have a habit of being more than we ever imagined. Hence an open mind.
All of these can be interpreted more than two ways
In January 2004, the former coroner of the Queenâs Household, Dr. John Burton, said (in an interview with The Times ) that he attended a post-mortem examination of the Princessâs body at Fulham mortuary, where he personally examined her womb and found her not to be pregnant.[50][57]
Yeah, read the article & the factual rebuttal (which can be interpreted both ways)
I really do need to sign off tonight but I shall just leave this out there. If there was any credible evidence that Diana was murdered, donât you think that her two sons would show more concern about it than a few blokes on a football forum?
Nitey nite chaps.
The Queenâs household coroner you say?
Nice and impartial then. Sure heâs got absolutely no loyalty to Queen and country. 
Surely we donât need to state the possibility of people lying or the myriad of reasons why they might do so?
Surely you can at least admit to understanding why some people might at best take that with a pinch of salt and not cold hard fact?
2 Likes
We seem to cope with competing facts in the court system pretty well. Itâs essentially designed to deal with it. I know the court of public opinion is a different matter. Thatâs why we have courts.
Theyâre generally more reliable than inquests, because we do them more often and the objective, most of the time, is to get to the truth.
Inquests are normally whitewashes.
2 Likes
Especially Spaish Inquisitions. Though one doesnât know exactly when they are held 
They donât call it a theory anymore - when they talk about the theory they talk about the original Darwinian text, because at the time it was a thoeory. Evolution is now scientific fact.
Its the same as the theory that the world is round. I wouldnât say that is a theory anymore, would you?
Itâs still very much just a theory as far as us flat Earther conspiracy theorists are concerned. 
(Do I need to highlight the tongue in cheek irony here? Hopefully not but I will do anyway for the benefit of those just tuning in.)
2 Likes
I think @Polski_Filip has certainly won this round above, I donât think even @Sadoldgit can use the inquests evidence as fact when the inquests didnât taken into account all the facts above.
Itâs quite interesting to think of how we were taught about gravity as a scientific fact, then Alfie comes along, tells us Newton was all bollocks (Iâm paraphrasing⊠
) and things actually donât float off into space because space-time is curved and presses everything down onto the planets.
Depends if you are a member of the Flat Earth Society I guess.
This isnât a competition. Read the report from Operation Paget if you want more information about the investigation into the allegations of a murder.