English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

18 answers

On 31 August 1997 Diana was involved in a car accident in the Pont de l'Alma road tunnel in Paris, along with her friend and lover Dodi Al-Fayed, and their driver Henri Paul. Fayed's bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones is the only person who survived the car crash (and the only one who wore a seatbelt).

Such was the reach of Diana's iconic impact worldwide that news of her death became a milestone in personal history, comparable to such as the death of President John F. Kennedy.

The death of the Princess has been widely blamed on reporters, who were reportedly hounding the Princess, and were following the vehicle at a high speed. Ever since the word paparazzi has been associated with the death of the Princess.

By contrast, her death has never been accepted as an accident by some, notably Mohamed Al-Fayed, and a range of theories have formed as to the manner of her death, drawing on the apparent tainting or destruction of evidence, and claimed lack of consistency in certain statements.

A 2004-06 coroner's inquiry by Lord Stevens, a former chief of the Metropolitan Police, has announced the finding of "new forensic evidence" and witnesses Telegraph, May 2006, and commented that the case was "far more complex than any of us thought" and that some questions asked by al-Fayed were "right to be raised". The inquiry is expected to report its findings in 2007.

Thank you

Knight17

2006-07-12 05:37:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

All investigations have shown that her death was clearly an accident. The controversy that remains a cause for discussion, even to this day is the idea that, even though an accident, could her death have been prevented.

No one doubts that Diana's driver was speeding in an attempt to elude the paparazzi that had been hounding Diana since before her wedding to Prince Charles.

So, who's fault was it? Was it the photographers, who would not leave her alone?

Was it the fault of the princesses driver, who had been drinking just before Diana decided to leave the restaurant in a hurry?

Did Diana's bodyguard neglect his duties when he allowed the princess to enter a car to be driven by a drunk driver? He was the only survivor of that colission.

Did Diana have some responsibility for her own death for not wearing a seat belt. (The princess survived the crash, but died soon after from massive internal injuries, some of which may have been prevented has she been belted)

No. The princess was not murdered. But, her death could have been avoided.

2006-07-12 05:40:57 · answer #2 · answered by Vince M 7 · 0 0

well as far as we know so many people bringin dis question up if she was murdered or was it just an accident... bt afta what i keep on hearin i think it was an accident aswel as a murder because i heard princess diana was neva free from journalist's. journalists used to follow her 24/7 non stop... she tried very hard to hide from them so she told the driver to go faster with her car which met with an accident and the jounalist who were following her are her murderes.. thats all i say

2006-07-12 05:44:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

She was suffering from depression and was convinced she was going to be killed by the British secret service to prevent an Arab child being related to the future King. This has just fuelled the conspiracy theory's. Nobody has proof of anything, I personally think the driver was driving too fast and lost control. The only thing fishy about it is the bodyguard that survived can't remember a thing, I'm sure a good hypnotherapist could jog his memory.

2006-07-12 05:38:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I don't think we will ever know the truth to that one!! All i know is Princess Diana will live on in the hearts of many including myself!!

2006-07-12 05:33:33 · answer #5 · answered by happyflamepepper 4 · 0 0

the whole thing was a conspiracy by the british monarchy, the queen and charles wanted her out of the way so that she would never be queen leaving him free to carry on his romance with ms parker bowles, it was no secret that the queen never liked her either, so they conspired to kill diana and make it look like a horiffic accident and also they covered it up really well, hey she s the queen she can do what she likes!!

2006-07-12 05:40:10 · answer #6 · answered by celtic_princess77 4 · 0 0

homicide. Fayed's father believes a similar difficulty. in simple terms imagine: the mummy of the destiny King of england married to a Muslim. Uh uh. No way. clinical clinical care became deliberately withheld lengthy sufficient to allow Diana to die, notwithstanding she ought to were helpd alongside to her lack of life even quicker. Royals have commited politically expedient murders for hundreds of years for the sake of the monarchy. Jack the Ripper became Sir William Gull, clinical specialist to Queen Victoria, and a Freemason. The murders were all finished in accordance to Masonic regulation and in accordance to the tale, fee Albert Victor, grandson of Victoria, spent time with Bohemians in tawdry setcions of London and wound up with a prostitute whom he married and had a toddler by. 5 different prossies were witnesses to the union and all were murdered in the JTR case. The Royal spouse became taken to an asylum and given a lobotomy. the toddler became imprisoned in the asylum and died in her children. Prince Albert died from an STD which affected his mind. All became finished to maintain the monarchy...and all archives at Scotland backyard destroyed.

2016-10-14 09:44:00 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

An accident

2006-07-12 05:33:13 · answer #8 · answered by P. M 5 · 0 0

This question was asked yesterday. Why not check the answers there to get more views. I said that whether she died in an accident or otherwise why can't people let her rest in peace instead of rehashing it all.

2006-07-12 05:46:51 · answer #9 · answered by blondie 6 · 0 0

I always thought her death was a blessing. No more of that whiny snivelling idiot royal twit on TV or in newspapers. She was pathetically and terminally dumb; it was not difficult to have figured out from the very beginning that her only function was to produce royal heirs. But she was too dense to have puzzled that one out.

2006-07-12 05:35:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers