Diana's tragic death spawned web of conspiracy theories

Agencies
August 31, 2017

London, Aug 31: The fascination with Princess Diana's life extends to her death. Not since the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy has a tragic demise been so minutely analyzed, or spawned so many lurid theories.

A French investigation, a years-long British police inquiry and a coroner's inquest all concluded there was no foul play in the princess' fatal car crash — but that has not silenced speculation that Diana was the victim of an Establishment murder plot.

THE CAR CRASH

The 36-year-old princess left the Ritz Hotel in Paris just after midnight on Aug. 31, 1997, with her boyfriend Dodi Fayed and her bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones. Her Mercedes, pursued by paparazzi, crashed into a concrete pillar in the Alma Tunnel at more than 60 mph (100 kph). The princess, Fayed and driver Henri Paul were all killed. Rees-Jones was injured but survived.

THE DIANA CONSPIRACIES

Global shock soon gave way to speculation — about the role of the pursuing paparazzi and, for some, about whether darker forces were at work. Diana was the world's most famous woman at the time, and her public discussion of her unhappy marriage had been a major embarrassment to Britain's royal family since she and Prince Charles had separated in 1992.

Diana had written in a 1995 letter of fears that Charles was "planning an `accident' in my car" — although she had also speculated about dying in a helicopter or airplane crash.

The most vocal conspiracy theorist was Dodi's father, Mohammad Al Fayed, a wealthy businessman who owned the Ritz in Paris and London's Harrods department store. He insisted that Prince Philip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II, had masterminded a conspiracy by British spies to kill Diana and Dodi because he disapproved of their relationship.

Al Fayed claimed Diana was pregnant and planning to marry Dodi, and that the royal family could not countenance the princess marrying a Muslim.

In 2008, Al Fayed told an inquest that the list of alleged conspirators included Philip, Charles, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, Diana's sister Sarah McCorquodale, two former London police chiefs and the CIA.

WHAT THE INVESTIGATIONS FOUND

Several investigations ruled out a criminal conspiracy in Diana's death.

A French court ruled in 1999 that the crash was an accident caused by Paul, who was drunk and driving at twice the legal speed limit.

A three-year British inquiry led by Metropolitan Police chief John Stevens also found that Paul was drunk and driving at a high speed to elude pursuing photographers. Stevens' report said Diana was not pregnant, and had not been planning to marry Dodi.

Stevens concluded in 2006 that Diana's death "was a tragic accident."

In 2007, an inquest opened before a judge and jury at London's Royal Courts of Justice. It heard from 240 witnesses before concluding in April 2008 that Diana had been unlawfully killed through the reckless actions of driver Paul and the paparazzi.

In 2013, British police investigated allegations by an anonymous former soldier that Britain's special forces unit, the SAS, was involved in Diana's death. Police concluded there was "no credible evidence" and declined to reopen the investigation.

AND YET QUESTIONS REMAIN

Enough mysteries remain to ensure that the Diana conspiracy theories will never be completely silenced. There is no surveillance camera footage of the crash, although there were cameras in the tunnel.

Some witnesses reported seeing a bright flash in the tunnel just before the accident, though others did not.

And police have never traced a white Fiat car that was seen in the tunnel and may have collided with Diana's vehicle before the crash.

Pauline Maclaran, co-author of "Royal Fever: The British Monarchy in Consumer Culture," said conspiracy theories about celebrity deaths are not only common but durable.

"Human nature refuses to believe that something as random as a car accident could kill someone as special as Diana," she said. "When you have icons, it's very hard to believe that they can just come to an end in such a futile way."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
July 1,2020

Washington, Jul 1: The United States has approved four coronavirus vaccine candidates for clinical trials, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) head Stephen Hahn told reporters.

"Four vaccines have been approved for moving into clinical trials... and another six are in the pipeline for us to review," Hahn said during a press briefing on Tuesday.

The US Administration launched in May Operation Warp Speed, a joint project of Health and Defense Departments, which aims to deliver 300 million doses of a vaccine for COVID-19 by January 2021.

The country's top pandemics expert Anthony Fauci warned on Tuesday, however, that there is no certainty the United States will be able to develop a vaccine against COVID-19 that works and will be safe.

Data on vaccine effectiveness, he added, may be available in the winter or early next year.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 3,2020

Mar 3: Just hours after the ending of a week-long “reduction” in violence that was crucial for Donald Trump’s peace deal in Afghanistan, the Taliban struck again: On Monday, they killed three people and injured about a dozen at a football match in Khost province. This resumption of violence will not surprise anyone actually invested in peace for that troubled country. The point of the U.S.-Taliban deal was never peace. It was to try and cover up an ignominious exit for the U.S., driven by an election-bound president who feels no responsibility toward that country or to the broader region.

Seen from South Asia, every point we know about in the agreement is a concession by Trump to the Taliban. Most importantly, it completes a long-term effort by the U.S. to delegitimize the elected government in Kabul — and, by extension, Afghanistan’s constitution. Afghanistan’s president is already balking at releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners before intra-Afghan talks can begin — a provision that his government did not approve.

One particularly cringe-worthy aspect: The agreement refers to the Taliban throughout  as “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban.” This unwieldy nomenclature validates the Taliban’s claim to be a government equivalent to the one in Kabul, just not the one recognised at the moment by the U.S. When read together with the second part of the agreement, which binds the U.S. to not “intervene in [Afghanistan’s] domestic affairs,” the point is obvious: The Taliban is not interested in peace, but in ensuring that support for its rivals is forbidden, and its path to Kabul is cleared.

All that the U.S. has effectively gotten in return is the Taliban’s assurance that it will not allow the soil of Afghanistan to be used against the “U.S. and its allies.” True, the U.S. under Trump has shown a disturbing willingness to trust solemn assurances from autocrats; but its apparent belief in promises made by a murderous theocratic movement is even more ridiculous. Especially as the Taliban made much the same promise to an Assistant Secretary of State about Osama bin Laden while he was in the country plotting 9/11.

Nobody in the region is pleased with this agreement except for the Taliban and their backers in the Pakistani military. India has consistently held that the legitimate government in Kabul must be the basic anchor of any peace plan. Ordinary Afghans, unsurprisingly, long for peace — but they are, by all accounts, deeply skeptical about how this deal will get them there. The brave activists of the Afghan Women’s Network are worried that intra-Afghan talks will take place without adequate representation of the country’s women — who have, after all, the most to lose from a return to Taliban rule.

But the Pakistani military establishment is not hiding its glee. One retired general tweeted: “Big victory for Afghan Taliban as historic accord signed… Forced Americans to negotiate an accord from the position of parity. Setback for India.” Pakistan’s army, the Taliban’s biggest backer, longs to re-install a friendly Islamist regime in Kabul — and it has correctly estimated that, after being abandoned by Trump, the Afghan government will have sharply reduced bargaining power in any intra-Afghan peace talks. A deal with the Taliban that fails also to include its backers in the Pakistani military is meaningless.

India, meanwhile, will not see this deal as a positive for regional peace or its relationship with the U.S. It comes barely a week after Trump’s India visit, which made it painfully clear that shared strategic concerns are the only thing keeping the countries together. New Delhi remembers that India is not, on paper, a U.S. “ally.” In that respect, an intensification of terrorism targeting India, as happened the last time the U.S. withdrew from the region, would not even be a violation of Trump’s agreement. One possible outcome: Over time the government in New Delhi, which has resolutely sought to keep its ties with Kabul primarily political, may have to step up security cooperation. Nobody knows where that would lead.

The irresponsible concessions made by the U.S. in this agreement will likely disrupt South Asia for years to come, and endanger its own relationship with India going forward. But worst of all, this deal abandons those in Afghanistan who, under the shadow of war, tried to develop, for the first time, institutions that work for all Afghans. No amount of sanctimony about “ending America’s longest war” should obscure the danger and immorality of this sort of exit.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
June 1,2020

Washington, Jun 1: As protesters gathered outside the White House on Friday night in Washington DC, US President Donald Trump was briefly taken to the White House underground bunker, The New York Times reported citing a person having firsthand knowledge about the incident.

Trump was there for less than an hour before being brought upstairs. After hundreds of people surged towards the White House on Friday, Secret Service and the United States Park Police officers sought to block them.

Trump's team was surprised by the protests that were witnessed outside the White House on Friday night, according to the US daily. It is, however, unclear if Melania Trump and Barron Trump were also taken down with him.

in response to the continuing protests against the death of African-American man George Floyd in police custody.

National Guard members have been activated in 15 states and Washington, DC with another 2,000 prepared to activate if needed.

Demonstrators across the United States have been protesting since May 25, when George Floyd, a 46-year-old African-American man, died under the police custody in the city of Minneapolis.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.