This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Conspiracy theories about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The investigating police officer from Operation Paget simply said that all the CCTV cameras being switched off was simply "not true" - he didn't elaborate though. The article currently sounds like there was something more substantive about it in the named Channel 5 documentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 ( talk) 10:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
On the page Tiggy Legge-Bourke I found these two quotes:
In December 2007, witnesses at the inquest were questioned about a letter to Paul Burrell which Diana had written by hand in October 1993, of which only redacted versions had previously been public. In this letter, Diana said:
This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous - my husband is planning "an accident" in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for him to marry Tiggy. Camilla is nothing but a decoy, so we are all being used by the man in every sense of the word.
In what is called 'the Mishcon note', which dates from 1995, Diana forecast that in 1996 the Queen would abdicate, the Prince of Wales would discard Parker-Bowles in favour of Legge-Bourke, and that she would herself die in a planned road crash.[42] Mishcon copied the note to the Metropolitan Police before he died, and they took no action on it.[42]
So I came to this article to find more info on these letters but couldn't find anything. It seems like a rather important fact. 24.190.34.219 ( talk) 07:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Another theory is that Dodi was going to convert to Christianity and his father had him killed —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122.107.50.158 (
talk)
04:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article is clearly biased in favor of the conclusion that it was not a conspiracy. I am *quite* certain that there are many people who would be able to add to this article by providing evidence in favor of it being a conspiracy. One thing that comes to mind right off the bat, is that it was reported soon after the crash by cnn that the CIA had literally 10,000 pages worth of paperwork from "following Diana and Dodi around." When asked, the CIA did NOT deny that this paperwork existed. There also was at least one automotive engineer who analyzed the crash and said that EVEN WITH her seat belt off, Diana should have survived (because the alleged forces were distributed in such a way that they would not injure somebody in that position in the cab of the car as badly as might seem to be the case, on first blush; and because the car spun around in a circle rather than simply coming to an abrupt halt). In my opinion there are still many legitimate questions all these years later - Three things were clearly present, means, motive and opportunity. And considering the possibilities that were beginning to unfold to the oh-so-Holy line of succession to the Christian British Throne, in my opinion motive was present in *spades*. Frankly, some people are wondering what the heck TOOK them so long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.200.152 ( talk) 01:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The article is very biased. Reread the embalming section. The article states several reasons why the French had to embalm so quickly. But in the end they did not follow protocol for whatever reason. The following line should be deleted. "This meant there was very little time to prepare the body for viewing and it was clearly unacceptable to present Diana's body to her family and the President of France in its then state.". What a load of BS. It gives rise to several questions, like Who's decision was it that "the Body had to prepared for viewing." The protocol was clearly not followed buy why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.52.248 ( talk) 01:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a gravely biased article. It should be removed on quality grounds or something. Just one example -- the Bright Flash section asserts there is only one witness and spends several lines debunking that witness, but then concludes 'oh, by the way, there was another witness'. Trash. 70.48.192.144 ( talk) 18:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Please explain, what and where? "She actually time travelled through the tunnel and run over Winston Churchill in 1942. It is true look it up on wikipedia". -- Darthmortar ( talk) 11:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that what he is trying to say is "don't trust everything you read on Wikipedia" and he would be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.26.247 ( talk) 22:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it is worth pointing out Fayed's chief motive in trying to promote the conspiracy theory. The Princess was killed in one of his cars, driven by one of his chauffeurs, so presumably he could still be held legally accountable. 86.145.156.23 ( talk) 15:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
It may seem like favoritism if he would care more for the safety and well being of his close relatives than of....no he did not. If all the passangers had died instantaneously, there would be no stress on the ressources, belonging to the medical teams that happened to be responsible for keeping two of them alive. It may just be as such where perillous driving has nothing to do with it, as this would be the Parisian way of driving. That may just be a reason why no lawsuits have run in from the residents of Paris to the Ritz. -- Stat-ist-ikk ( talk) 13:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Is it me or does the title "Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories" sound a little strange? Due to the way the name is given I'm inclined to think it would be better titled as "Conspiracy theories about/surrounding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales", but I know it wouldn't be consistent with the other articles about conspiracy theories. Anyone else get this? — MK ( t/ c) 20:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
It is inacurrate in the extreme to inlcude succession to the throne as the motive behind any conspiracy theory. Diana could have had had as many children as she wanted, with whomever, and they would not have affected the current line of succession. Diana was not royal in her own right. She had a minor claim to the throne as a Spencer (if I remmeber correctly, via Charles I), but there were several hundred other legitmate claimants before her. Any child she may have had would have been half sibling to the Princes William and Harry, but that's it. The status of royalty and any direct claim to the throne would have to come through Charles' paternity. As regards a mulsim claiming the throne, that is also impossible. The acts of parliament governing succession require that any sovereign be a member of the Anglican Church, this automatically (and at least in one case, deliberately) excludes Catholics, Jews, Muslims and any other religion you care to mention. I do not wish to get into the rights or wrongs of this, but it is currently the law. There are several Catholics in the current royal family who have been removed from the line of succession - no exception has been made for them, I do not see anybody making an exception for anyone else. Being half brother/sister to the King of the UK and heir to the Al Fayed fortune would have made for an easy, priviliged and possibly high-profile life, but would not have altered the line of succession even slightly. 85.72.36.254 ( talk) 11:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
If Henri Paul was under orders to murder the Princess, then presumably he was expected to commit suicide in the same incident. Valetude ( talk) 16:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The Mail and the Express are waving around plots. The Telegraph is very cynical of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.173.221 ( talk) 15:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
If anyone has issues with my edits, please discuss it with me here. - A1candidate ( talk) 00:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
If I wanted to treat these claims as facts, I would have went directly to the actual article at Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and not here. The assertion that Mr Paul was paid by intelligence agencies originated from the official inquiry itself, so I doubt the investigators would have come to such a conclusion if they had not seen the evidence. In any case, could you show me how this theory has been debunked by an independent person or entity? Could you show me how the Washington Post's report about the NSA keeping a file on the Princess has been proven to be false?
The fact is that thanks to Edward Snowden, we now know that the intelligence agencies of the British, French and Americans all work together to spy on entire populations. Heck, the French even provided secret information to MI6 during the Falklands War. In this respect, Libya's claim that the French and the British were both involved does not seem too far fetched to me.
How do I know this? Because Gaddafi has maintained close links with the spy agencies of not just America but also Britain and Canada.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg... - A1candidate ( talk) 02:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The inter-cooperation between intelligence agencies is not a conspiracy theory - it's a proven fact. Snowden's contribution to our understanding of the world lies in how his disclosures have showed that the intelligence agencies of the British, French, German, American, and many other governments secretly cooperate with each other to spy on each others' citizens. The artlce currently says:
Henri Paul, was in the pay of a national security service, though different versions of the allegation name the country of the security service alternately as Britain, France or the United States.
It is entirely possible that all of them are involved. That sentence, therefore, needs to be changed. The way forward would be to identify the security services (intelligence agency) of countries involved.
I would like to point out that original research only applies to statements for which there are no published sources to back them up. As far as my edits are concerned, this does not seem to be the case.
A source does not need to be notable to be included, but it has to be reliable. The point Im making here is that neutrality is a key policy that applies for all articles, whether there is a conspiracy or not.
There is a lot of weight given to the claims of government officials from Britain and the U.S. Thanks to Snowden and other courageous men and women, however, we do know that Western governments routinely lie to their citizens on a regular basis.
If this article is to be a neutral one, the claims of government officials have to be given as much weight as the claims of Mohamed Al-Fayed and the Libyan government. - A1candidate ( talk) 14:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I've done some minor grammar/spelling corrections of the article and am unsure of "despatch". Is this a misspelling of dispatch or is this simply the Commonwealth spelling of dispatch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.161.105 ( talk) 02:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Two apparent terminological errors, both from the Henri Paul/Blood samples section. Neither is a major issue, but since this is a high-profile topic, I just want to check before changing them myself.
"[Authorities tested] the more medically conclusive fluid from the sclera (White of the eye)"
The sclera is a layer of tissue, and doesn't have any fluid content. The fluid would have been vitreous fluid from within the eye (often retrieved using a needle pushed through the sclera and into the eye itself).
"[The driver had] 12.8% carbon haemoglobin saturation..."
The correct term would be "carboxyhaemoglobin" (or "-hemoglobin"). The entire paragraph needs rewording to make it more accurate/clear.
Watercleave ( talk) 08:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Absent argument, I'm going to go ahead and make the change.
Watercleave ( talk) 13:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a incorrect statement contained in the article "After hearing evidence at the British inquest, a jury in 2008 returned a verdict of "unlawful killing" by driver Henri Paul and the paparazzi pursuing the car"
The correct statement should be The jury at a British inquest in 2008 returned a verdict of unlawful killing through grossly negligent driving by the driver Henri Paul and the following vehicles.
It was the royal judge in a royal court in his summing up while giving his own opinion. That equated the following vehicles with the paparazzi. This was in opposition to the evidence presented in the trial. That had demonstrated that the eye witness descriptions of the following vehicles large black motorcycles and a large silver car did not match the vehicles a mixture of mopeds one motor cycles and small cars driven by the paparazzi. Or the evidence that the paparazzi did not arrive at the crash until one to two minutes after the crash. The judge also gave his opinion that the following vehicles were not necessarily driving dangerously. The judge withdrew the verdict option of murder and chose the wording of the remaining verdicts. Describing the vehicles that were witnessed surrounding and in front of Diana's car as following rather than surrounding.
The BBC royal correspondent at the trial was the first to misreport and misquote the Jury verdict incorrectly replacing following vehicles with paparazzi. All other media took this incorrect quote as accurate and repeated it.
The verdict was unlawful killing. It is normal for a police investigation to follow such a verdict but not in this case. The following vehicles and there drivers and riders have not been traced. A possible match to the White Fiat Uno involved in the crash in the White Fiat Uno belonging to James Andanson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:AEE3:F400:6897:B3A6:1D35:AAF8 ( talk) 11:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Conspiracy theories about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The investigating police officer from Operation Paget simply said that all the CCTV cameras being switched off was simply "not true" - he didn't elaborate though. The article currently sounds like there was something more substantive about it in the named Channel 5 documentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 ( talk) 10:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
On the page Tiggy Legge-Bourke I found these two quotes:
In December 2007, witnesses at the inquest were questioned about a letter to Paul Burrell which Diana had written by hand in October 1993, of which only redacted versions had previously been public. In this letter, Diana said:
This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous - my husband is planning "an accident" in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for him to marry Tiggy. Camilla is nothing but a decoy, so we are all being used by the man in every sense of the word.
In what is called 'the Mishcon note', which dates from 1995, Diana forecast that in 1996 the Queen would abdicate, the Prince of Wales would discard Parker-Bowles in favour of Legge-Bourke, and that she would herself die in a planned road crash.[42] Mishcon copied the note to the Metropolitan Police before he died, and they took no action on it.[42]
So I came to this article to find more info on these letters but couldn't find anything. It seems like a rather important fact. 24.190.34.219 ( talk) 07:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Another theory is that Dodi was going to convert to Christianity and his father had him killed —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122.107.50.158 (
talk)
04:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article is clearly biased in favor of the conclusion that it was not a conspiracy. I am *quite* certain that there are many people who would be able to add to this article by providing evidence in favor of it being a conspiracy. One thing that comes to mind right off the bat, is that it was reported soon after the crash by cnn that the CIA had literally 10,000 pages worth of paperwork from "following Diana and Dodi around." When asked, the CIA did NOT deny that this paperwork existed. There also was at least one automotive engineer who analyzed the crash and said that EVEN WITH her seat belt off, Diana should have survived (because the alleged forces were distributed in such a way that they would not injure somebody in that position in the cab of the car as badly as might seem to be the case, on first blush; and because the car spun around in a circle rather than simply coming to an abrupt halt). In my opinion there are still many legitimate questions all these years later - Three things were clearly present, means, motive and opportunity. And considering the possibilities that were beginning to unfold to the oh-so-Holy line of succession to the Christian British Throne, in my opinion motive was present in *spades*. Frankly, some people are wondering what the heck TOOK them so long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.200.152 ( talk) 01:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The article is very biased. Reread the embalming section. The article states several reasons why the French had to embalm so quickly. But in the end they did not follow protocol for whatever reason. The following line should be deleted. "This meant there was very little time to prepare the body for viewing and it was clearly unacceptable to present Diana's body to her family and the President of France in its then state.". What a load of BS. It gives rise to several questions, like Who's decision was it that "the Body had to prepared for viewing." The protocol was clearly not followed buy why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.52.248 ( talk) 01:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a gravely biased article. It should be removed on quality grounds or something. Just one example -- the Bright Flash section asserts there is only one witness and spends several lines debunking that witness, but then concludes 'oh, by the way, there was another witness'. Trash. 70.48.192.144 ( talk) 18:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Please explain, what and where? "She actually time travelled through the tunnel and run over Winston Churchill in 1942. It is true look it up on wikipedia". -- Darthmortar ( talk) 11:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that what he is trying to say is "don't trust everything you read on Wikipedia" and he would be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.26.247 ( talk) 22:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it is worth pointing out Fayed's chief motive in trying to promote the conspiracy theory. The Princess was killed in one of his cars, driven by one of his chauffeurs, so presumably he could still be held legally accountable. 86.145.156.23 ( talk) 15:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
It may seem like favoritism if he would care more for the safety and well being of his close relatives than of....no he did not. If all the passangers had died instantaneously, there would be no stress on the ressources, belonging to the medical teams that happened to be responsible for keeping two of them alive. It may just be as such where perillous driving has nothing to do with it, as this would be the Parisian way of driving. That may just be a reason why no lawsuits have run in from the residents of Paris to the Ritz. -- Stat-ist-ikk ( talk) 13:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Is it me or does the title "Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories" sound a little strange? Due to the way the name is given I'm inclined to think it would be better titled as "Conspiracy theories about/surrounding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales", but I know it wouldn't be consistent with the other articles about conspiracy theories. Anyone else get this? — MK ( t/ c) 20:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
It is inacurrate in the extreme to inlcude succession to the throne as the motive behind any conspiracy theory. Diana could have had had as many children as she wanted, with whomever, and they would not have affected the current line of succession. Diana was not royal in her own right. She had a minor claim to the throne as a Spencer (if I remmeber correctly, via Charles I), but there were several hundred other legitmate claimants before her. Any child she may have had would have been half sibling to the Princes William and Harry, but that's it. The status of royalty and any direct claim to the throne would have to come through Charles' paternity. As regards a mulsim claiming the throne, that is also impossible. The acts of parliament governing succession require that any sovereign be a member of the Anglican Church, this automatically (and at least in one case, deliberately) excludes Catholics, Jews, Muslims and any other religion you care to mention. I do not wish to get into the rights or wrongs of this, but it is currently the law. There are several Catholics in the current royal family who have been removed from the line of succession - no exception has been made for them, I do not see anybody making an exception for anyone else. Being half brother/sister to the King of the UK and heir to the Al Fayed fortune would have made for an easy, priviliged and possibly high-profile life, but would not have altered the line of succession even slightly. 85.72.36.254 ( talk) 11:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
If Henri Paul was under orders to murder the Princess, then presumably he was expected to commit suicide in the same incident. Valetude ( talk) 16:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The Mail and the Express are waving around plots. The Telegraph is very cynical of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.173.221 ( talk) 15:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
If anyone has issues with my edits, please discuss it with me here. - A1candidate ( talk) 00:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
If I wanted to treat these claims as facts, I would have went directly to the actual article at Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and not here. The assertion that Mr Paul was paid by intelligence agencies originated from the official inquiry itself, so I doubt the investigators would have come to such a conclusion if they had not seen the evidence. In any case, could you show me how this theory has been debunked by an independent person or entity? Could you show me how the Washington Post's report about the NSA keeping a file on the Princess has been proven to be false?
The fact is that thanks to Edward Snowden, we now know that the intelligence agencies of the British, French and Americans all work together to spy on entire populations. Heck, the French even provided secret information to MI6 during the Falklands War. In this respect, Libya's claim that the French and the British were both involved does not seem too far fetched to me.
How do I know this? Because Gaddafi has maintained close links with the spy agencies of not just America but also Britain and Canada.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg... - A1candidate ( talk) 02:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The inter-cooperation between intelligence agencies is not a conspiracy theory - it's a proven fact. Snowden's contribution to our understanding of the world lies in how his disclosures have showed that the intelligence agencies of the British, French, German, American, and many other governments secretly cooperate with each other to spy on each others' citizens. The artlce currently says:
Henri Paul, was in the pay of a national security service, though different versions of the allegation name the country of the security service alternately as Britain, France or the United States.
It is entirely possible that all of them are involved. That sentence, therefore, needs to be changed. The way forward would be to identify the security services (intelligence agency) of countries involved.
I would like to point out that original research only applies to statements for which there are no published sources to back them up. As far as my edits are concerned, this does not seem to be the case.
A source does not need to be notable to be included, but it has to be reliable. The point Im making here is that neutrality is a key policy that applies for all articles, whether there is a conspiracy or not.
There is a lot of weight given to the claims of government officials from Britain and the U.S. Thanks to Snowden and other courageous men and women, however, we do know that Western governments routinely lie to their citizens on a regular basis.
If this article is to be a neutral one, the claims of government officials have to be given as much weight as the claims of Mohamed Al-Fayed and the Libyan government. - A1candidate ( talk) 14:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I've done some minor grammar/spelling corrections of the article and am unsure of "despatch". Is this a misspelling of dispatch or is this simply the Commonwealth spelling of dispatch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.161.105 ( talk) 02:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Two apparent terminological errors, both from the Henri Paul/Blood samples section. Neither is a major issue, but since this is a high-profile topic, I just want to check before changing them myself.
"[Authorities tested] the more medically conclusive fluid from the sclera (White of the eye)"
The sclera is a layer of tissue, and doesn't have any fluid content. The fluid would have been vitreous fluid from within the eye (often retrieved using a needle pushed through the sclera and into the eye itself).
"[The driver had] 12.8% carbon haemoglobin saturation..."
The correct term would be "carboxyhaemoglobin" (or "-hemoglobin"). The entire paragraph needs rewording to make it more accurate/clear.
Watercleave ( talk) 08:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Absent argument, I'm going to go ahead and make the change.
Watercleave ( talk) 13:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a incorrect statement contained in the article "After hearing evidence at the British inquest, a jury in 2008 returned a verdict of "unlawful killing" by driver Henri Paul and the paparazzi pursuing the car"
The correct statement should be The jury at a British inquest in 2008 returned a verdict of unlawful killing through grossly negligent driving by the driver Henri Paul and the following vehicles.
It was the royal judge in a royal court in his summing up while giving his own opinion. That equated the following vehicles with the paparazzi. This was in opposition to the evidence presented in the trial. That had demonstrated that the eye witness descriptions of the following vehicles large black motorcycles and a large silver car did not match the vehicles a mixture of mopeds one motor cycles and small cars driven by the paparazzi. Or the evidence that the paparazzi did not arrive at the crash until one to two minutes after the crash. The judge also gave his opinion that the following vehicles were not necessarily driving dangerously. The judge withdrew the verdict option of murder and chose the wording of the remaining verdicts. Describing the vehicles that were witnessed surrounding and in front of Diana's car as following rather than surrounding.
The BBC royal correspondent at the trial was the first to misreport and misquote the Jury verdict incorrectly replacing following vehicles with paparazzi. All other media took this incorrect quote as accurate and repeated it.
The verdict was unlawful killing. It is normal for a police investigation to follow such a verdict but not in this case. The following vehicles and there drivers and riders have not been traced. A possible match to the White Fiat Uno involved in the crash in the White Fiat Uno belonging to James Andanson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:AEE3:F400:6897:B3A6:1D35:AAF8 ( talk) 11:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)