Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: Prince Charles' wives and auto accidents

  1. #1
    Myra Bronstein Guest

    Default Prince Charles' wives and auto accidents

    Does anyone else think this is interesting timing?

    6/97-Camilla Parker Bowles has a serious auto accident and flees the scene in violation of British law:

    'Britain's tabloids reported yesterday that Parker Bowles feared she might be kidnapped or attacked and had been trained by security officers to leave an accident immediately.

    ``I panicked out of sheer terror,'' The Mirror quoted Parker Bowles as saying. ``I have constantly been warned that one day I might be attacked and I thought this is what might have happened.'
    http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web.../16650423.html

    8/97-Diana dies in the auto "accident" in Paris.

    In a related note, this looks like an interesting read:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=c4-...sult#PPA191,M1

  2. #2

    Default

    The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
    Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myra Bronstein View Post
    Does anyone else think this is interesting timing?

    6/97-Camilla Parker Bowles has a serious auto accident and flees the scene in violation of British law:

    'Britain's tabloids reported yesterday that Parker Bowles feared she might be kidnapped or attacked and had been trained by security officers to leave an accident immediately.

    ``I panicked out of sheer terror,'' The Mirror quoted Parker Bowles as saying. ``I have constantly been warned that one day I might be attacked and I thought this is what might have happened.'
    http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web.../16650423.html

    8/97-Diana dies in the auto "accident" in Paris.

    In a related note, this looks like an interesting read:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=c4-...sult#PPA191,M1
    A very quick look seems to indicate an interesting book. Thanks for that.

  4. #4

    Default

    It is the best account to date and deserves a place in your deep politics library. The material on the Rottwieler's automotive misadventure is most important.

    By the by, and speaking (or not) of the roles of doppelgangers in intel ops, you should be aware that consistent and independent eyewitness reports of a mirror motorcade that night should be studied closely.

    How better to confuse the perceptions of witnesses and putative investigators than to run a Mercedes/paparazzi/Fiat "chase" down the final route in the moments immediately preceding the advance of Diana's caravan?

    The phantom MB was, of course, painted white.

    The phantom Fiat was, of course, painted black.
    Last edited by Charles Drago; 11-03-2008 at 03:35 AM.

  5. #5
    Myra Bronstein Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Guyatt View Post
    That's interesting David. Is there some reason to believe the crown wanted to get rid of Sarah Ferguson's mother?

  6. #6

    Default

    Myra,

    I'm not answering for David, but I do wish to point out that, as is the case with JFK, RFK, and MLK, false sponsors abound in the Diana scenario.

    Let's learn our lessons from the blood, sweat, and tears expended on the study of President Kennedy's demise and concentrate exclusively on the "how" of Diana's demise until we can prove or disprove conspiracy.

    The "who" will follow.

  7. #7
    Myra Bronstein Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Drago View Post
    Myra,

    I'm not answering for David, but I do wish to point out that, as is the case with JFK, RFK, and MLK, false sponsors abound in the Diana scenario.

    Let's learn our lessons from the blood, sweat, and tears expended on the study of President Kennedy's demise and concentrate exclusively on the "how" of Diana's demise until we can prove or disprove conspiracy.

    The "who" will follow.
    Well I guess we'll all concentrate on whatever we chose to concentrate on Charles.

    Can you expand on the "false sponsors" statement? I don't know what you're saying.

  8. #8

    Default

    The "likely suspects" referenced in the Diana investigation include (and I assume are not limited to) the Windsors, armaments (especially land mines) manufacturers, Middle Eastern types who benefit from hostilities, and even members of a religious sect who allegedly viewed Diana as the incarnate spirit of their nemesis.

    Of course you may concentrate on anything you wish, Myra. But if you choose to answer the "how" and "who" and "why" questions of the Diana affair simultaneously, you choose to make the same mistakes that have plagued the JFK, RFK, and MLK investigations from their respective inceptions.

    Until you establish how Diana died/was killed, you haven't the slightest chance of discovering the identities and motives of any perpetrators.

  9. #9
    Myra Bronstein Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Drago View Post
    The "likely suspects" referenced in the Diana investigation include (and I assume are not limited to) the Windsors, armaments (especially land mines) manufacturers, Middle Eastern types who benefit from hostilities, and even members of a religious sect who allegedly viewed Diana as the incarnate spirit of their nemesis.

    Of course you may concentrate on anything you wish, Myra. But if you choose to answer the "how" and "who" and "why" questions of the Diana affair simultaneously, you choose to make the same mistakes that have plagued the JFK, RFK, and MLK investigations from their respective inceptions.

    Until you establish how Diana died/was killed, you haven't the slightest chance of discovering the identities and motives of any perpetrators.
    I don't know why you would assume that I have not focused on the how and why of Diana's murder. How very presumptuous. I've posted at length in another forum, long long ago, on the how and why. It is not a terribly complicated case, to summarize: Ongoing embarrassment to the crown from her outspokenness. Charles' frustration over his inability to marry the rottweiler. And then the two nails in her coffin--her very successful actions to get landmines banned when British Aerospace makes a fortune on them (and she was making progress convincing President Clinton to sign on to the ban), as well as her cavorting with a middle eastern man--the son of a man who the British aristocracy despised.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  10. #10

    Default

    I'm not assuming anything about you, dear friend.

    Sometimes a caveat is just a caveat.

    Just so you're clear: My argument is that to focus on anything other than the "how" of Diana's death at the present stage of investigation is, for serious investigators in general and those who enjoy public visibility in particular, immensely counter-productive.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •