The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Diana Was Murdered in an Assassination

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 635 times Debate No: 82034
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




On August 31st 1997, Princes Diana died. The world was told that there had been a terrible car accident and that as a result she and Dodi Al Fayed were both killed.

I was neither a fan nor an opponent of Diana, and when it comes to that family my interest in them is fairly minimal. I have no particular dog in the fight other than a desire to go where the truth takes me " wherever that happens to be. With all of that said, it has been my long held assertion that Diana did not die by accident "but by design. While the nature of this case and the high profile identities of those involved may make it impossible to produce a "smoking gun", I feel that what I can reasonably do is lay out a strong case in which the reader will agree that the proposition is at least highly plausible.

Let"s begin with a bold fact " spousal homicide is not rare. On the contrary, a very great number of victims of murder die at the hand of the one they once married. While the means and motives may often differ, the fact is that spousal murder is by no means an uncommon occurrence.

There is no rational or logic reason to assume that the royal family would be immune to it. Unless you think royals have always behaved to some higher moral standard and hold an almost angelic like nature, then there should be absolutely no reason to think it far- fetched that a member of that family could harbour a mind for murder.

Now let"s introduce another bold fact " Diana predicted her own murder. Not only did she predict it, she was specific about it and wrote it down.

Here"s the evidence of that; This is from the Telegraph in 2007 but can be confirmed anywhere.

She wrote: "I am sitting here at my desk today in October, longing for someone to hug me and encourage me to keep strong and hold my head high.

"This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous - my husband is planning 'an accident' in my car"


This note was authentic, hand written and sent to Paul Burrell, who was then her butler.
That was in 1993, four years before she did indeed die in "an accident".

While this note in isolation is not proof that she was the victim of an assassination, I am absolutely confident that if Diana were any ordinary women and Charles any ordinary man, then detectives would most certainly have had Charles in for questioning when that note emerged.

It is a truly remarkable thing for any women to write about her husband regardless of it coming true or not. No one would write such a thing unless in fact that held some level of fear for their life and a fear of their husband.

Any murder needs a motive. Can we objectively look at the situation and say that Charles (and perhaps other members of that family) had a motive to get rid of Diana? Yes we can. Not only can we cite a motive, but we can list several potential motives all of which would be a legitimate reasons why Charles, his mother and others within the establishment would rather her gone.

Perhaps the biggest motive of all is that Diana will have had so much on Charles and all the secrets of that family. All families have secrets, right? Some secrets are perhaps bigger than others. They had never been able to control and silence Diana how they wanted to while she was alive. I believe this worried them for the future. The more estranged she became from the family the more likely she would be to expose things that which I am sure that family would sooner remained known only to the few. Just as spousal murder is not rare, it is also not rare that fear of exposure is often a motive for murders.

She was outspoken, controversial, had she lived then Charles and his mother would have had to go the rest of their lives hoping beyond hope that Diana wouldn"t go too far with what she said. Why would they take that gamble, especially when she herself is not of their blood but someone that married into that family?

Moreover, why would they take the risk when they simply do not need to and they know that there would be zero consequences for simply arranging to have her killed? Who is truly going to bring Charles and the Queen in for questioning? No one.

It was also a known fact that Diana had been having a relationship with Dodi and may even have been pregnant.
This is from the Express but can also be found anywhere.

He said: "It is a near certainty Diana was nine to 10 weeks pregnant at the time she died, according to papers from the Paris Public Hospitals archives.
"The document dated August 31 1997 was sent to the then minister of the interior Jean-Pierre Chevenement, with copies to health minister Bernard Kouchner, foreign affairs minister Hubert Vedrine and Paris police chief Martine Monteil."
He added: "It has never been claimed or proved to be a fake."

While this may not be the only motive as to why they"d want Diana dead, it is not hard to accept it possibly being a motive. If not THE motive then maybe one of several that led to the decision being made.

Another possible motive is that Charles himself wanted Diana totally out of his life so that he could marry Camilla. He would not be the first husband to arrange for his existing wife(or ex) to be killed so that the husband was free to pursue another love interest. They were to marry in 2005.

With a motive a murderer also needs the means. Can we reasonably say that Charles and his mother would have the means? Of course we can. British intelligence agents would act on their orders. They are sworn to protect "the crown". This can be taken to mean anything the Queen considers a "threat" at any given time " including a renegade wife of her son.

Not only would they have the means, but they would probably have the very best means that anyone can have " an entire intelligence apparatus at "Her Majesty"s Service".


Scotland Yard is taking it seriously enough to announce an investigation. And perhaps the most interesting aspect is that this time the allegations have not come from Dodi"s crazed, vengeful father, Mohamed Al Fayed, who spent 11 years accusing Prince Philip of ordering up the hit team to assassinate Diana to stop her from marrying a Muslim (by whom, he claimed, she was pregnant).

At one time in the frantic aftermath of the tragedy, there were not just thousands of feverish stories of high-level plots to cause Diana"s car to crash but 35,000 conspiracy sites, factories of fantasy. They were all blown out by the first of the French inquiries and then by the exhaustive official inquest in London in 2008.

I entered this alternate universe when I was researching my book The Diana Chronicles. I was most convinced by the three-year investigation rigorously conducted by Lord Stevens, former chief of the Metropolitan Police (Scotland Yard) who reconstructed just what happened in the tunnel using 3-D lasers and computer models. They showed the chauffeur, Henri Paul, had lost control before he entered the tunnel at 75 miles an hour. The flash before the crash testimony was the invention of a pathological liar with a criminal record named Fran"ois (Levistre) Levi.

There was incontrovertible toxicological evidence that Henri Paul was both drunk and on medication. His condition was deceptive. He did not appear drunk in any obvious weaving, slurring way. If he had been, any number of people would have stopped him from getting into the Mercedes as the last-minute recruit to drive Diana and Dodi. He appeared normal to most (though not all) of those who saw him that night, but the truth was that he had combined his drinks with pharmaceuticals"Prozac and Tiapride"whose labels carry warnings that taking them with alcohol can make driving or operating machinery dangerous.

Royal drivers are expressly required to avoid alcohol for 10 hours before getting behind the wheel. Yet Henri Paul"s blood-alcohol reading showed that he must have been drinking even before he was unexpectedly recalled to stand by at the Ritz at 10 o"clock. He joined the bodyguards at the hotel bar and had a couple of glasses of what looked like fruit juice, and he made a joke about it being ananas, or pineapple. But the "yellow liquid" was actually a Ricard pastis, the anise-flavored aperitif, which is considerably stronger than wine. Robert Forrest, professor of forensic toxicology at the University of Sheffield, testified for the Stevens inquiry that before those two drinks Paul may have had "something of the order of four to six extra 5c Ricards" between 7 p.m., when he officially went off duty, and his recall at 10 p.m. He was in no state to go hurtling at breakneck speed into a tunnel that had been the scene of 34 crashes and eight deaths in the previous 15 years. "I have never seen anyone take off like that," one of the photographers told a German TV station of Henri Paul"s departure from the Ritz. "He was driving like a gangster."

The most valid of Al Fayed"s questions, now surfacing again in Power"s book, were about the mysterious white Fiat Uno seen in the tunnel with a muzzled dog in the back, on which a subgenre of conspiracy theories has been built. The Fiat, gaining access from a slip road, was on Henri Paul"s right as he careened into the tunnel at a speed in excess of 75 miles an hour. Paul was already on a doomed trajectory, having encountered the notorious dip and slight bend in the road at this point. He swerved to the left to avoid the Fiat, brushed its left rear light, scraped the third column, swerved to the right and back again into the 13th pillar. The Fiat had by then driven on. It vanished. French police eventually interviewed Le Van Thanh, a Vietnamese plumber and night watchman whom they thought might be the Fiat"s owner, but it took the detective work of Scotland Yard in 2006 to conclude that the French had indeed got their man"and he was not a conspirator. Thanh"s failure to own up and the swift repainting of his car in red were not for any sinister reason. He was simply an immigrant afraid of getting entangled in French law, which punishes a driver who fails to stop at the scene of an accident. The Fiat was a complication for Henri Paul but only because he was driving too fast, the Mercedes already locked in its fatal momentum.

The most tenacious of Mohamed Al Fayed"s assertions, recycled again by Power, was that Diana was pregnant. The original medical evidence was conclusive: she was not. The photograph Al Fayed said showed a suggestive swelling was taken before she met Dodi. As for sinister forces organizing the crash of the Mercedes, a conspiracy would have been beyond the capacities of all the intelligence agencies and royal masterminds in the grassy knoll of tabloid imagination: pre-knowledge that Dodi would make the last-minute decisions he did; that Henri Paul would be the driver; that Paul would be drunk and drugged; that he would not follow the most obvious route to Dodi"s apartment; that the argumentative group of paparazzi and the supposed intervening cars or motorbikes were coordinated to the last split second in their movements; that Dodi and Diana would not wear seat belts"and on and on through an infinity of variables.

The new allegations get traction today perhaps because it is still hard to believe that fate alone could have been so cruel to a beautiful young mother of two beloved princes. The scene in the ghastly fluorescent-lit tunnel 16 years ago this week was one of such hell it will never cease to haunt us.

Report: SAS did not kill Princess Diana

After its collision, the luxury Mercedes that drove Diana from the Ritz was a bundle of twisted metal facing the direction it had come from. Gray smoke from its engine mingled with petrol fumes and a metallic smell of burning. Its horn blared ceaselessly, jammed by the dead body of the driver, Henri Paul, pinioned on the steering column by the impact. There was the "pin-pon" sound of sirens as police and fire brigades converged.

Romuald Rat, the aptly named paparazzo who was first on the scene of the crash, found Diana crumpled on the floor of the wreck, doubled up with her head wedged between the two front seats and facing the back. Her jewelry"a bracelet with six rows of pearls, a gold watch decorated with white stones"was scattered. Diana was still breathing and apparently unmarked, her body covered by a floor mat. Dodi Fayed was mangled, obviously dead, his jeans ripped apart. Rat lifted the mat and used it to cover Dodi"s exposed genitals.

Tina Brown on why, 16 years later, we still find it so hard to believe Diana could simply have been a victim of fate.
Tina Brown dispatches the latest conspiracy over Princess Diana"s death on MSNBC"s Morning Joe.
The police cleared all the roads for the ambulance"s 3.8-mile journey to the Piti"-Salp"tri"re Hospital, situated on the Left Bank beyond the cathedral of Notre-Dame and next to the Gare d"Austerlitz. This time the motorcycle outriders who accompanied Diana were her guardians, not her aggressors.

A conspiracy would have been beyond the capacities of all the intelligence agencies and royal masterminds in the grassy knoll of tabloid imagination.
Beyond the great, wrought-iron gates Diana was lifted out by two stretcher-bearers, with the help of the French minister of the Interior, Jean-Pierre Chev"nement, and his aide Sami Nair.

As she was carried into the Pavillon Cordier, housing the Accident and Emergency Department, Nair gazed down at Diana for the first time. "She had a breathing apparatus on her face and swellings on her eyes, but she still looked beautiful," he said later. "Her face was extremely lovely, very fresh, very serene, very young. It was very moving.
I'll continue in the next round as I have run out of room.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for taking the time to give so much detail. Or at least the detail as far as you are aware since to a lesser or greater degree we are all at the mercy of the "establishment" being a collective of truth tellers who"d never lie, deceive, or falsify information and/or statements.

When all is said or done neither of us were personally in that car (thankfully), we weren"t with her, we can"t say we survived the smash and here is what happened. And even if we were in the car we may still not be 100% sure if what happened was an accident, or had been orchestrated to look like one.

It goes without saying that for an assassination on Diana to take place it would first have to have the complicity of senior British secret services. This would negate all and any things, it would render any "public inquiry" as being little more than theatre " a story for us. It is not unknown for the intelligence services of many nations to engage in extra judicial killings(murder). The CIA have done it(if anything more than we are aware), the Mossad have done it, why would British intelligence be exempt? Are we assuming that somehow British Intel agents would have too much "morality" to do a killing for "Queen and country"? Of course they would do it. The only astonishing thing would be if they hadn"t done it and weren"t doing it.

Naturally, no Intel agency is going to waste their time and take risks to just go around randomly executing just anyone that says stuff they don"t like on line. Instead it is reserved for only the most VIP of perceived "enemies". It"s not something they do daily or even weekly. But assassinations and executions are part of the reality of what some agents in those Intel services will be required to do.

I would go as far as to say that the CIA and British Intel are most likely corrupted from the top down and that if the public were commonly aware of the true nature of some of their past activity then they"d be likely calling for their abolition and replacement(with something else).

The CIA and British Intel(at the higher level) are above the law. While they may stop short of making public statements saying "We are above the law", I think even someone with zero imagination can conceive that in practice there are those who are above the law and remain out of reach of justice. British Intel agents, esp those working on the orders of the Queen or Charles would most certainly fall into that category. Unless we think our police would investigate our Intel agencies? Even if some honest detectives tried to do so, we know what would happen. The investigation would be killed by their seniors, or they"d be removed from the case, or files would be "lost".
That last one is a favourite, often used by both political elites and the Met when it comes to investigating high profile members of the establishment for historical child abuse.
That"s no conspiracy 'theory' ^^.
Those things are facts that anyone can determine for themselves inside of 90 seconds. Time and again files are "lost" or there is a "computer error" in those cases " it is obvious that senior police and Intel agents cover the backside of anyone that is part of the broad establishment, lest they have a little secret liking for abusing kids for example.

That"s the level of morality our most senior and trusted police and Intel agents have " they put the interests of covering up the deeds of a select number of people over and above what we"d call justice and protecting the general public"s interests.

This would clearly demonstrate to me that if the order went out to arrange for Diana to die, then for sure there would be agents ready and willing to carry that out. Does anyone at even doubt that? Does anyone even doubt that when an agency becomes unaccountable to the people that such an agency is naturally prone to behave however it so feels?
Does anyone think the CIA or British Intel are accountable to YOU? Do you honestly think that when they get together they have at heart the interests of people like us? Of course not " but they do have a function, and they do serve someone"s interests. We"re just not part of that someone.

I would agree with my opponent that there are so many wacky conspiracy theories out there about almost everything and that you must discern. Yet this is not like suggesting that the World is really controlled by shape shifting lizard men from the Moon. That type of thing IS laughable, because there is simply no precedent for such a strange thing. There is no reason to believe something like that is plausible and every reason not to.

But this situation is not some far out suggestion such as that. Husbands kill wives commonly. Wives kill husbands commonly. Sometimes they even plan it. Sometimes they may even hire someone to do it. Sometimes they will try to make it seem like a legit accident. The idea that Charles may have wanted Diana off the scene for good and would consider endorsing her assassination has a precedent in larger society. It"s not far- fetched or obscure, because of the instances of it being a reality for "ordinary" society. I see no reason why a mind for murder could not exist within this family? It"s not as if they have some god given higher morality, for we can see that"s not true " even without this.

And if one of them did have a mind for murder, would they do it themselves? Of course not. They would do it in the way most likely to work and with least risk " and the royal family have all of their state apparatus to call upon. Does anyone think that if British Intel were engaged in such an op that they wouldn"t co-ordinate and clear it with their French counterparts? Of course they would. It doesn"t even need to be known to all agents, just enough to put a plan together and execute it.

We are speaking about people who are also trained in being masters of deceit, psychology, we are speaking here of agencies that would have reach into all and any things.

Do the public honestly think that this strange family would have wanted Diana to go on and maybe marry a Muslim, probably have children to him? They don"t even allow Catholics let alone Muslims. Do you honestly think that the concept would be desirable to them or not?

Can we at least say that Charles (as the wannabe King) has a very strange choice in "friends". These would include the necrophiliac, serial child abuser, and generic freak " Jimmy Saville OBE. Charles and Jimmy were such Best Male Friends that Saville even had Charlie over to stay at his "Highland retreat". I wonder what they spoke about all night? Polo I"d imagine. Saville being an abuser was what you"d call an "open secret" in media circles. If they knew then British Intel would know, and British Intel would be through anyone"s background with a fine tooth comb that intended to host Charles at their cottage. If British Intel knew then Charles would almost certainly have known.

Am I questioning the character of Charles? Yes. Do I consider him capable of deceit and do I think it plausible that such a man could have a mind for murder? Yes I do. At the very least I consider him capable of being cold and single minded enough that he"d let someone else take care of it. He wasn"t losing someone that he deeply loved and wanted to be with. Far from it.

Is this man incapable of having a will to kill?

"In light of ITV"s damning documentary about Sir Jimmy Savile"s sexual abuse of girls, the Prince of Wales may regret the closeness of their friendship.
On one Christmas card that Prince Charles sent to the television presenter, who, as we now know, was interviewed by police in 2007, he wrote: "Jimmy, with affectionate greetings from Charles. Give my love to your ladies in Scotland."
The "ladies" are thought to be the women dressed in waitresses" outfits, with the initials H, R and H on their aprons, who served Prince Charles when he dined with Sir Jimmy at the BBC presenter"s cottage in Glencoe, in the Highlands, in 1999. .."

I as an individual cannot "solve" the case(obviously), as I said in my opener, all I can reasonably do is give context and build a case for it at least being a very plausible scenario.

There is nothing unique or new about spousal homicide. No reason to think that Charles would simply be above such a thing.

"Fifty-five percent of [adult] murder victims were slain by strangers or persons unknown. Among all female [adult] murder victims in 1995, 26 percent were slain by husbands or boyfriends ."

Here is another view of the stats. "Nearly 2 in 3 female victims of violence were related to or knew their attacker." (Ronet Bachman Ph.D., U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Violence Against Women: A National Crime Victimization Survey Report," January 1994, p. iii)

However we take those figures we can definitely see that spousal murder is not rare. Sometimes those murders will be spontaneous and with no clear gain. Other times they will be well planned and may be carried out by a "professional". The more professional and experienced the person hired to do it " the better chance it does get chalked up to a "tragic crash".

Here"s some data on some of the main drivers for spousal murder;

Spousal Homicide Risk and Estrangement

Wilson, Margo; Daly, Martin. Violence and Victims 8.1 (Spring 1993): 3-16.

Perpetrators of Spousal Homicide
A Review

Here we look even further into what drives some men to murder(Charles " just a man).

If my wife wrote a letter to her(we"ll say) sister, and in that letter she expressed fears so grave that she detailed how she even considered herself at risk of being murdered by me, only for her to later die in precisely and exactly the way she detailed (car crash, call it an accident), who wouldn"t take a step back there and scratch their chin?
If Charles were not who he was he"d have been brought in for questioning. Anyone reading this would under those circumstances.

This would only be "extraordinary" because of who is involved. Were this a plot arranged by Mr Smith against Mrs Smith, it might get half a page in the local press.

Part of the barrier is people not wanting to believe it plausible that Charles could in any way be of that mind. But do not forget the image you see is crafted " just for you. Only he and a very few people know the true man " in private.
Jimmy Saville certainly did.
People held an artificial image of him in their mind as well. If I"d once suggested that Saville was given the "golden key" to children"s hospitals so that he could habitually abuse (sometimes handicapped) kids " that would have been seen as a "crazy conspiracy theory". If I"d once said this friend of Charles was popping along to the mortuary to have sex with dead bodies " you"d have said that was definitely a made up thing. But they weren"t made up, they proved to be true.

Also consider;

"At the 2007 inquest, there were more than 500 documents the jury didn"t see
oAnd 84 witnesses
"There were 58 errors in the autopsy report
oAnd she was embalmed before the autopsy " within hours of dying
"In CCTV footage just before leaving the Ritz, driver Henri Paul exhibits no signs of drunkenness


masterdrave forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Doesn"t seem a great deal of use saying a whole lot in this round give my opponent forfeited the last round.
So I"ll sum up

Spousal homicide is not rare
Sometimes the murderer will hire someone to do it
Sometimes they will try to make it look like an accident
There is no logical reason why people in the royal family would be above having a mind to murder
There was motive to murder Diana due to her relationship with Dodi, possible pregnancy, the fact that Charles wanted to marry Camilla, the fact that Diana spoke out and knew too much about family secrets.
There was the means to do it " namely all of the apparatus of the intel services.
There were 58 errors in the autopsy report.
She was embalmed before the autopsy within hours of dying
In CCTV footage just before leaving the Ritz, driver Henri Paul exhibits no signs of drunkenness
At the 2007 inquest, there were more than 500 documents the jury didn"t see.
And 84 witnesses


You're wrong.

Kill yourself.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture as well as Con was rude in the finial round.