Conspiracy Theories part 2

[Marinade]

A follow on thread as the first thread is full. This message is directed towards @Corinthiana

A few negative newspaper headlines made Diana unpopular? Nonsense. She remained a figure of profound importance internationally. She died over the summer - August. So she was on holiday. She was divorced and they shared arrangements with the boys. So she was on a yacht? Did you run her personal schedule to know that this was a sign of her prioritising her relationship over her sons as this is what you appear to be implying? Do you honestly think that the public reaction in the immediate aftermath of her death was due to her sudden post death elevation to sainthood as opposed to her enduring popularity during her life? What an illogical statement.

She was indeed a very complex woman but the fascination with her was boundless. You sound reductive and agenda driven. Greed? She was from a true blue blooded family - she famously said to Prince Philip 'my family is older than your's'.

Do you not think it is possible that he would try and hide in plain sight so that you could live the life most aligned to your sexuality?

The same could be said of the McCanns - why have they kept up public scrutiny when so many people think they were involved? It is counter intuitive but that does not necessarily refute the theory.

Nah, loads of people have called her a man and they're still alive. Joan Rivers had way too much plastic surgery and died during a procedure just like Kanye West's Mum.

Diana's friends all said that she was scrupulous about seat belts but the one in the Mercedes was broken .

The car has intrigued me because the hired it a month after the death but yes the cadaver dog alert at the boot would appear to be evidence of their involvement. There are other things like Kate changed her story about the windows being open as did Gerry about the door being locked. I mean when you tell the truth you have a mental representation of it, the story does not change. Their stories did change and the PJ said there was no evidence of an abduction. The twins sleeping through an utter commotion gives some credence to the theory that she could have been drugged.

To die during an endoscopy after being such a surgery veteran is incredibly strange.

Didn't know this. I do find it odd that Trevor Rys Jones did not insist on her wearing a seatbelt though, she was the mother of the future heir to the crown. Henri Paul did not appear to be drunk either in the video footage of him. I do know that an early pregnancy could easily have been missed during the first autopsy when her body had been through significant trauma.

And the Obamas paying off a Dr to kill her during surgery because she libeled Michelle wouldn't be?

Perhaps it wasn't Diana they wanted to take out but Dodi? There were significant concerns about the Al Fayeds and Diana's involvement with them was wholly inappropriate.

Not really a conspiracy , but I find the story of the black Nun of Moret intriguing.

The whole notion of a 'conspiracy theory' is that it is not readily explainable but intriguing nonetheless due to relevant contextual factors, timing and other strange anomolies.

Bit risky to flip a car with Di in it though. Could have just used a sniper.

Al Fayed was furious he did not get British citizenship due to some possibly nefarious things in his past. So they were definitely a concern.

Regarding Diana - the British press were ripping her to shreds until she died, then did a huge uturn and suddenly made her out to be a saint. Private Eye had a long running section printing what a journalist wrote the week before (hate hate hate) and after she died (lovey dovey sainted Diana).

Her dying did way more damage to the Royal Family than any of the marital scandals in her life, and of course was devastating for her sons. What's the motive from the royal family or government?

And don't forget the accident happened in a known accident black spot, the driver was drunk and not qualified to drive the heavy vehicle they were in, and Diana was not wearing a seatbelt (and might have survived if she had been)

Re. the Obama stuff, no, not least because I don't see how they could successfully hide it. I think its a really stupid theory, tbh.

I won't indulge in the McCann ones because I find them really quite disgusting.

Jez and Kate McCann burying their daughter is really quite disgusting.

Perhaps you should educate yourself about the McCanns before you announce your disgust. You do know that their aguido status was never revoked in Portugal and they lost a libel case against the detective that went to the highest court in the European Union?

Private Eye does not represent the populus of the UK. I went to Kensington Palace after she died and watched her funeral in Hyde Park. The intensity of grief was like nothing else. She was incredibly popular and that is why the press rebuked the Queen for not returning and lowering her flag - they tapped into the grief of the British public. I saw the video of the driver and he did not appear to be drunk. Why was she not wearing her seatbelt when she had a bodyguard and was known to be safety aware about it?

Their arguido status was lifted in 2008.

They lost their libel case for technical reasons (to prove libel, you have to show damage to your reputation - the court ruled that any damage to their reputation would be due to them initially being name as suspects, not due to the much later publication of the detective's book).

The evidence to show their suspect status had a valid basis to it was key to the ruling because it was shown that it was not an unfounded assertion - i.e. you cant claim a statement is libellous if it is fact, true. The evidence from the dogs was a supporting fact alongside the plethora of other details. This was not technical reasons this was the basic crux of the case.

The book contained opinons, made on the basis of publicly-known facts, and was in the public interest (the story being a big one) and, even if false, could not have resulted in reputational damage (as that arose when they were named as suspects).

That it didn't amount to libel, for a number of reasons, doesn't mean that the author's opinions were true. There is a large gulf between an opinion (on factual matters) being "true" and simply being "not libelous". That the McCanns lost their libel case is not really here nor there.

I refer you to key extracts from the linked article below which essentially says an honestly held opinion based on true facts is a key defence. This is precisely what happened here. They were not just opinions in the book - they were opinions based on good, true facts and such were reasonably held. Again, key to the defence was the notion that the assertions by the detective were backed up by true and objective evidence.

https://www.nelsonslaw.co.uk/madeline-mccann-defamation/

Recently, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) unanimously ruled against the parents of the missing Madeline McCann in their challenge against Portugal in relation to the conduct of their libel case.
Background

Comment
Secondly, the Court will balance individual rights against freedom of expression, especially when public figures are involved. English defamation law provides a defence of an honest opinion. Proof by the defendant that the statement made is one of opinion honestly held, based on true facts, is a good defence. The defendant does not have to prove the truth of every fact relied on by the opinion, as long as the opinion was fair in relation to those facts and an honest person could have had that opinion based on those facts. This means that even if someone utters statements that may damage a person’s reputation, as long as it falls within the honest opinion defence, there is no sustainable claim in defamation.

You Are STILL Being Lied To: The New Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths : Disinformation: Amazon.co.uk: Books

I don't need the link, thanks, I am familiar with defamation law.

I don't know what you think your above post added to what I had said in my previous.

Successfully maintaining a defence of "honest opinion" does not mean that you were correct. Your opinion could even be shown to be 100% wrong but, as long as it was an honest opinion based on facts, then you're not liable for defamation.

I don't know why you think them losing the defamation case, on the basis they did, is of particular relevance.

I honestly believe that posting conspiracy theories about the parents of a missing girl is awful.

I can't understand why someone would choose to do that - maybe the OP would like to explain why she thinks it's ok to do that.