Britain's Prince Charles questioned over Diana's death

[lovuian]

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=316fb57b93afa349&cat=c08dd24cec417021

LONDON : Britain's Prince Charles has been interviewed by police investigating the death of his ex-wife Diana in a Paris car crash in 1997, The Sunday Times newspaper reports.

The British weekly said heir-to-the-throne Charles was quizzed last week about the events leading up to her death.

Lord John Stevens, the former commissioner of London's Metropolitan Police, saw the prince at his Clarence House residence in central London
more...
Its about time!!!

[Chicago Democrat]

1. Oh come on!

Really? Damn... i don't know what to think about this...


reserving judgement.

[judaspriestess]

72. Ya'll can flame me

but I hate Prince Charles and that disgusting pigface whore bitch that he married Camilla.

Princess Diana was an icon and a role model and my personal hero. I will never get over her death.

She was a good person caught up in a screwed up situation and she did alot of good with her fame.

people should not throw stones who live in glass houses.....

[lovuian]

74. I'll give ya a pat on the back for that one

I'm with ya... I admit it I am a Diana lover... She was wonderful what she did for aids and for the mines...

They were so jealous of her...

[Up2Late]

2. Big News Network is NOT a credible source, these stories are...

...edited distortions of the original article. Find the actual Sunday Times article (from 8 hours earlier), and it will most likely say something completely different.

How do I know? Do you notice anything missing?

Where is the "by line"???

These originate at UPINewsTrack, I've been tracking them, and I think they are the #1 "Distort the News" site.

You can read what I have found so far at this link in the Media Forum <http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=109x24072>

On edit: I corrected my post, the is exactly what they did last weekend, plagiarized an article from "The Sunday Times", Check out the original and compare the two: <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1920130,00.html>

This really should be illegal.

[lovuian]

17. I think they come up with articles that most US news doesn't

thats why I bring it to the DUers for them to be aware of...

Its taken 2 years to get an Investigation into Diana's death
here is some evidence
http://search.hp.netscape.com/hp/boomframe.jsp?query=BBC&page=1&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D108a334daa946065%26clickedItemRank%3D2%26userQuery%3DBBC%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fnews.bbc.co.uk%252F%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DCompaqTop%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F

New evidence over Diana death car

Diana's funeral was estimated to cost nearly £5m
Cabinet Office documents written after Princess Diana's death have been released, giving differing reasons why she was in the car in which she died.
One memo said Diana and Dodi Al Fayed switched cars as they left the Ritz hotel in Paris to divert paparazzi.

But another said it was simply because their first car failed to start.


heres the punchline

In the days following the death, Mr Blair warned government ministers not to engage in any activities which "could result in political controversy".

[NVMojo]

3. if only ....sigh ....

[lovuian]

34. Ok this just made ABC front line news!!! I can't help if the US News

agency are not as fast asBig News for putting out this story...

This is NOT a BOGUS STORY!!! ABC news is now reporting it!!!

So is ABC news not a credible source???

Here is the article
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/International/story?id=1395092

Prince Charles Questioned in Di's Death
Dec. 11, 2005 — Prince Charles was questioned by Scotland Yard for several hours last week about the death of his first wife, Princess Diana.

The princess, divorced from Prince Charles, and her boyfriend Dodi Fayed, the son of the owner of the upscale department store Harrods, died on August 31, 1997. Their chauffeur-driven Mercedes went out of control as it was pursued by photographers in a Paris road tunnel. Their driver, Henri Paul, was killed, and the couple's bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, was critically injured.



snip...
Mysterious 'Letter'

Before her death, Diana apparently wrote a letter saying she believed Prince Charles and his friends were plotting her death.

"My husband is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury," she wrote, speculating it was "to make the path clear for him to marry."

Her butler shared the letter with the public a few years ago.

more...
According to the article Diana consulted Mystics who warned her fascinating stuff...

[NVMojo]

38. I wasn't questioning the story's credibility, I just hope it happens ...

[SoCalDem]

4. Sheez.. he didn't love her, but he had nothing to gain in her death

What was hers would go to her sons..HIS sons..

[Lindacooks]

10. Yes he did have something to gain in her death.

The ability to remarry without having a huge uproar from the Church of England.

I know that Camilla is divorced, but Diana's death was very convenient for Charles.

[NVMojo]

39. other theories on this talk about the disgrace for the blue bloods to have

Diana marry Dodi and be pregnant with his blood line ...

[Lindacooks]

40. Yep, I've heard that one too.

It's certainly possible, in this crazy world.

[insane_cratic_gal]

61. But Diana was involved with someone

already, twice over by that time. I don't like Charles or Camilla all that much, but involved in Diana's death? He'd been sleeping with Camilla, for what, 15 years by that time? Everyone knew, so it hardly mattered in relevance to him being able to marry again.

Wasn't like he and Camilla were planning a wedding they waited like what? 8 absurd years? I hardly think the brits will ever like Camilla in comparison to Diana. So you can x that theory.. she's already tarnished and the uproar would happen regardless of whether Diana were alive or dead.

When you add it all up, it just doesn't make sense that he'd be involved in any way or fashion. He had nothing win, and everything to loose.

[lovuian]

64. I don't think its as easy as that Diana left a letter saying she

feared for her life and then she died... Its not convenient for him but if Diana lived he would never ben able to marry camilla...

He does have motive...

[Rich Hunt]

81. good lord

Do people really believe that Prince Charles caused Princess Diana's car crash? The cynicism...I mean, you can disagree with monarchy without believing the worst about the royals. I just don't see any basis for it, and I don't understand why people take such an interest in them. What's more, I don't even know the guy, so why would I direct that much hate toward him? I just think it's bizarre, especially for Americans.

[AgadorSparticus]

99. if Diana was alive, he'd NEVER be able to saunter around with

Camilla and tripsy over to the US for a little tour like he just did. No way could he and camilla be at the WH and have cute little pictures taken with boyking and lushface. There would be big demonstrations.

With Diana gone, Charles and Camilla could be more legitimately together. While Diana was alive, there was great public animosity for them and with all the money and semi power, it has to really bother them deeply that they couldn't do anything about it. I really loathe the royal family. They are all a little too inbred to me. They have the same pinched, toxic faces like Babs and bush on this side of the pond. creepy....

I am one who believes that Diana was murdered by the royal family. I thought that the day she died.

[Rich Hunt]

67. questioning does NOT mean you are under suspicion...

If that were true, we would never solve ANY crimes.

Sheesh.

[lovuian]

70. No Rove and Libby weren't targets or under suspicion

but when they perjured themselves they became suspicious...

Let us hope Charles doesn't lie to the investigator...

[Rich Hunt]

82. that's not a very good comparison

Thousands and thousands of people around the world are 'questioned' by police about various incidents EVERY DAY, and you pick Rove and Libby?

A better comparison might be the poor guy down the street whose wife died in an accident, statistically and logically speaking. You still have not disagreed with my remark that not everyone questioned by authorities is 'under suspicion' - I would wager that the majority are not. It's just a routine part of any investigation - how hard is this for ordinary American citizens to grasp?

[CJCRANE]

5. It's been on the BBC too

but I don't think they questioned Prince Charles, just spoke to him. Probably want to tell him how the investigation's going, keep up him to date and keep the Royal Family in the loop so there's no big surprises for them.

[Up2Late]

6. Please this "Big News Network" article is completely bogus, re-edited, BS

This is a plagiarized article that they have edit out all the contrary information and statements and qualifying information too.

Here, look at what they took out or re-wrote to change it's meaning:

BNN version:

Stevens has been investigating speculation that the princess of Wales' death was not the result of a straightforward car accident.


Sunday Time Original:

The prince’s spokesman declined to release details of the interview, but it is known that Stevens had planned to ask Charles about his response to the bizarre allegation that he had been part of a plot to murder Diana.

Then, cut to the end of the BNN article:

A two-year French investigation blamed Paul for losing control of the car because he was high on drink and prescription drugs and driving too fast. (End)

Now look at what they left out:

A lengthy investigation by French police concluded that the death was an accident. It placed the sole blame on Paul and said he was under the influence of drink and drugs.

The 8,000-page French report has failed to satisfy the conspiracy theorists, led by Fayed. He has claimed that the princess and his son were victims of a plot orchestrated by the Duke of Edinburgh and carried out by the British intelligence services.

The Stevens team has had access to MI5 and MI6 files relating to Diana and has interviewed officers in both services. It is understood that it has established that Fayed’s claims are groundless.

There is more at this link, if you'd like to read the rest:

<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1920130,00.html>

[lovuian]

16. Here is the BBC article that states the same damn thing

Big News is credible as this is on the BBC too so are you saying the BBC is not credible

Big News IS a credible news agency!!!

Here is the BBC article to confirm it
http://search.hp.netscape.com/hp/boomframe.jsp?query=BBC&page=1&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D108a334daa946065%26clickedItemRank%3D2%26userQuery%3DBBC%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fnews.bbc.co.uk%252F%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DCompaqTop%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F

Prince questioned on Diana death

Wreckage of the car in which Diana and Dodi were travelling
Prince Charles has been questioned by a former head of the Metropolitan Police over the death of his former wife, Princess Diana, it has been confirmed.
The Sunday Times says Lord Stevens and the Prince of Wales met for several hours last week at Clarence House.

It reports Charles was asked about events leading up to the death of Princess Diana and her lover, Dodi Fayed, in a car crash in Paris in 1997.

Lord Stevens is studying suggestions the crash was not an accident.


more...
You guys may not think the Sunday Times is a credible news agency but the BBC thinks so!!!

and WHY is this important because a truly wonderful woman may have been assasinated and her child killed
all for BS and her possible cause against mines ...

Thats why I give a hoot...

[CJCRANE]

23. Thanks

Didn't realise he had been questioned, just heard it briefly on the radio.

I personally don't think Charles would've been involved if there was a conspiracy, just the men-in-black types behind the scenes (the ones who really run the place).

[lovuian]

25. Thanks CJ

I don't know if Charles was involved I just know Diana was more popular than any of the Royals

The British people loved her...

[CJCRANE]

29. True, and she also seemed to have a thing for muslim men...

It would have been good for East-West culture if she had married Dodi Fayed. I think that possibility is the real reason the Powers-that-Be weren't too happy with her...

[lovuian]

32. yes she held the Merovingion line... a line held by

Christ's family... that mixed with a muslim would have made the Royals cringe...plus the princes would be raised by one that made them cringe too

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. That nonsense about the "Merovingians" is the biggest flaw in

The DaVinci Code.

The Merovingians were a family in the Germanic tribe known as the Franks. (The German name for "France" is still "Frankreich," or "Empire of the Franks.") They were Germanic pagans until their king Clovis was converted. The first couple of generations were okay as kings, but then they degenerated, and were a pretty sorry bunch. They were overthrown by Charlemagne at the end of the eighth century.

[Chicago Democrat]

53. That doesn't mean all the blood was extinguished?

All you said is true.. about the Merovingians, but was every single one killed? just sayn

Also, per the Gnostic Gospels, Christ has many brothers and sisters.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. I doubt that they were all killed, but

the likelihood of Jesus' descendants or any other family from the eastern Mediterranean wandering off into northern Europe, joining up with a Germanic tribe, becoming Germanic pagans ( worshipping Wotan and Thor etc. in defiance of both the Jewish and Christian prohibitions against other gods) while remaining aware that they were descended from Jesus, and then their king being converted to Christianity in the 5th century only after marrying a Burgundian princess?

Their lack or presence of descendants is not the problem. Their origins are.

[NVMojo]

54. even further back they are credited with being a Satanic bloodline

[NVMojo]

55. Prince Charles and the House of Windsor ...according to religious whacks .

* The Merovingians plan to depose the House of Windsor in order to restore the Merovingian bloodline in Great Britain.

"The moving speech given by Diana's brother, Charles, Earl Spencer, held back nothing in reminding the royal 'firm' that William and Harry were only half Mountbatten-Windsor, and that the Spencer family saw it as their duty to uphold and perpetuate the socially motivated upbringing begun by the princes' mother... She will be remembered just as she had wished - as the people's own 'Queen of Hearts', and her romantic island repose will, no doubt, add to the mystique. Indeed, the nation has, in Diana, a truly compassionate 'Lady of the Lake' - a devoted and humanitarian Grail Queen.

"Prince William will indeed succeed to the Crown of St Edward, but not simply because of he is his father's heir; he will succeed in the hearts and minds of the populace because he is his mother's son. Young Prince Harry, with his Spencer characteristics, will doubtless add to the popularity of a house which, in time to come, might well feel justified in dropping the Germanic Mountbatten-Windsor name for that of Spencer, thereby honoring the English people in memory of Diana Frances. It must be remembered that their father, Prince Charles, holds his present heirship in his own mother's line, not in the line of his father. Just as the people of Scotland look forward to a brighter future in the 21st century, so too are the people of England and Wales due for a new light to shine, and the House of Hanover-Saxe-Coburg-Windsor's light is fading fast." (Prince Michael Stewart) - 92:329



“Last year <1999> 140 000 people (limited to 2 500 visitors a day in July and August) called to pay tribute to Diana who is buried on an island in the middle of a lake on the estate. 'There is an old temple near the lake and this has become a focal point for people to leave their flowers and tributes,' said Spencer.” - 730



“Lake Nemi is an ancient lake that is located east of Rome in the Alban Hills where the temple of Diana once stood, surrounded by her sacred grove.... A stream flowed into Lake Nemi from a sacred grotto nearby the temple. This stream was associated with the water nymph named Egeria. Both Egeria and Diana are early forms in the Lady of the Lake mythos.” - 731



"To the Priory of Sion (the secret, occult organization dedicated to preserving the Merovingian Bloodline), the Bear was an animal of the Goddess Diana...' ...the Merovingian kings, from their founder Merovee to Clovis...were 'pagan kings of the cult of Diana'." - 571

* To overthrow the House of Windsor, a smear campaign is being conducted to portray Prince Charles, heir apparent to the British throne, as the Antichrist.

"The AntiChrist and a Cup of Tea uniquely offers HARD-EVIDENCE concerning the identity of the antichrist of Bible prophecy, who appears to be PRINCE CHARLES OF WALES. Prince Charles, unlike all previous candidates, fulfills the following scriptural criteria: His name calculates to 666 in both English and Hebrew; the symbols in his heraldic achievement or coat of arms are identical to those of the 'first beast' of Revelation 13; he claims descent from David, Jesus, and Mohammed, but is most likely from the tribe of Dan and Odin (Satan); he literally serves the red dragon (Satan), which was central to his 1969 investiture as the Prince of Wales; he wants to be the King of Europe; he heads the United World Colleges; he steers the environmental ethics and business agendas of over 100 of the world's largest multinational corporations; he is credited for the success of the Rio Earth Summit and thus the Kyoto Protocol, and he has spearheaded the push for enforceable environmentalism worldwide; he initiated the Global Security Programme and its lecture series, for which Mikhail Gorbachev has become a spokesperson; he has partnered with the United Nations and the World Bank; he appears to be responsible for the initiation of the current Mideast 'peace process', and has been directly involved since Yitzhak Rabin's funeral; he has taken a traceable bio-chip implant; and his media exposure has exceeded that of every other man in history. The book also details the British Monarchy's centuries-long conspiracy for a 'New World Order' using the Order of the Garter, which is the core leadership of the Priory of Sion, the Knights Templar, the Rosicrucians, English and French Freemasonry, and the Illuminati, as well as the overarching 'Committee of 300.' This work is must reading for all who are interested in the modern fulfillment of Bible prophecy." - 728

"Even Britain's late Sir Iain Moncrieffe, her Majesty's Albany Herald of Arms, made a point in 1982 of stating with regard to Charles, the prevailing Prince of Wales, that 'Today, perhaps the most famous of HRH Romanian relations is Prince Vlad Dracula the Impaler, an ancestral uncle who took the surname of Dracula because his father Prince Vlad Dracul was proud to be a Knight of the Dragon.'" (Laurence Gardner) - 722:79

more...

http://watch.pair.com/new-age.html#15.B.CHURCH

[Rich Hunt]

86. oh my god

Someone is quoting the DaVinci code as if it has great significance.

[Up2Late]

42. What BBC NEWS has written is NOT the same thing as what...

..."Big News Network" wrote, which is what I'm talking about here. I'm NOT questioning the BBC or The Sunday Times, Just "Big News Network" who, if you go back and check now, have either changed the link to the story I am talking about, or they deleted it already, because I can no longer find it at their site.

I did save a copy to my computer though (because this type of article does tend to vanish like this one did), so here's what they wrote, read this and then compare it to the original that was in The Sunday Times.

If you would then like to compare this to what the BBC wrote, be my guest, I NEVER was talking about the BBC News article, I respect them greatly, and will not go down that path:

Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 11 December 2005 1249 hrs

Britain's Prince Charles questioned over Diana's death

LONDON : Britain's Prince Charles has been interviewed by police investigating the death of his ex-wife Diana in a Paris car crash in 1997, The Sunday Times newspaper reports.

The British weekly said heir-to-the-throne Charles was quizzed last week about the events leading up to her death.

Lord John Stevens, the former commissioner of London's Metropolitan Police, saw the prince at his Clarence House residence in central London.

Stevens has been investigating speculation that the princess of Wales' death was not the result of a straightforward car accident.

The probe was ordered nearly two years ago by the royal coroner, Michael Burgess, amid continuing conspiracy theories.

A spokesman for Charles told the newspaper: "Clarence House can confirm that Lord Stevens met the Prince of Wales recently as part of his inquiry into the death of the Princess of Wales.

"Obviously we are not going to comment in any way on the detail. But we don't want to mislead anyone. We've got nothing to hide. We always said he would talk to Lord Stevens and I can confirm that that has now taken place."

Diana married Charles in 1981 and the pair separated 11 years later.

Diana, 36, her lover Dodi al-Fayed and their chauffeur Henri Paul were killed when they crashed in a Paris tunnel on August 31, 1997.

A two-year French investigation blamed Paul for losing control of the car because he was high on drink and prescription drugs and driving too fast.

- AFP /ct

Here's the link to the Original Sunday Times article. I'm not going to high light the differences again here, as I already did that in my second post above:

<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1920130,00.html>

BNN's removal of the author's "by line" and then the deletion any contrary facts and qualifying statements, which eliminated almost half of the story (which BNN did) and, by doing so, changing the meaning of the article, yet claiming that what their un-named reporter has written has the same meaning as what was reported originally in the referred to article (in this case, The Sunday Times) is called Plagiarism. Here's some links to the definition:

<http://gervaseprograms.georgetown.edu/hc/plagiarism.html> which comes from this page <http://gervaseprograms.georgetown.edu/hc/index.html>

<http://sja.ucdavis.edu/avoid.htm>

[lovuian]

45. So your criticizing the way Big News wrote the article now

before to you it was a Bogus story Big News broke the story before it came out on the BBC or ABC. Fox News CBS and other newspapers change the words of their articles but it doesn't take away the fact that Charles was questioned about Diana's death...

This is only a credit to Big News Network for breaking the story before other news agencies had the courage to break it themselves...

[Up2Late]

48. NO! And let's get one thing straight BIG NEW NETWORK did NOT write this!

The is an article from the U.K. Newspaper "The Sunday Times" that BNN EDITED, and there by Plagiarized.

I have ALWAYS been trying to tell you that it's the EDITING and manipulation of The Sunday Times article that is the problem here.

Please just take a few minutes to read what I've written to you and to the others here before responding anymore.

Unless you stop and read what I've tried to calmly explain to you, you will not understand what I'm talking about. :banghead:

This is Jeff Gannon/Talon News, but on a corporate scale.

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. AFP wrote this story, as your copy of it says

AFP is credited at the bottom. They are a respectable news agency. The same story (the only difference I can see is where the paragraph breaks are) can be found at other news sites, such as http://www.dispatch.co.za/2005/12/12/Foreign/brit.html or http://www.dawn.com/2005/12/11/welcome.htm (that one is in a long list of stories - I don't know if it will stay as the same page forever).

BNN has not edited the story. They credited it, correctly, to AFP. IF you think that BNN takes stories from AFP without paying for them (as opposed to the newspapers which use that agency, and do pay for them), then you should provide some proof of that. If you think that AFP is at fault for writing about a story that the Sunday Times has published, then I suggest you tell the Sunday Times what they did, and ask them if they think AFP has plagiarised them. I suspect the Sunday Times are quite aware that a well known international news agency like AFP has written a story based on their article, and are quite happy with the credit given to the Sunday Times in the story. I see frequent stories written as "the New York Times was told that ..." and so on - especially when the market is different (eg international versus national media). As an example, here's a story in the Times based on one in the Washington Post].

[lovuian]

58. Thank you Muriel for saying it so well i don't know why there is

such a beef with Big news when every agency does the same damn thing!!!

I will not be deterred in giving DUers information which they can read and choose what they want to believe...or not...

So Bring it on!!!

[Up2Late]

59. No they didn't, I searched for it on Saturday and Sunday

That's what I originally thought too because of that. They also had this (see below) at the bottom of the page in a very light gray font.

If you can find the original AFP story, please post it, I have been looking for it, and could not find it on the internet or my RSS reader.

Note: when I say the AFP Original, I mean from the AFP website with the AFP Logo at the bottom, I'm not talking about a questionable copy from South Africa or Bahrain or something, it should look like this:

<http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/051212183035.xq68v7hd.html>


I think now what they might have done is they stole an AFP picture for the story, which was not properly credited either. Also note, they mis-spelled the name of AFP in the copyright notice, the correct spelling if a newspaper wants to use the full name is:

Copyright Mentions Legales AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
AGENCE MONDIALE D'INFORMATION
©AFP 2005

<http://www.afp.com/francais/links/?pid=copyright>

It's a small difference, but it does make a difference, but most don't know that.

- AFP /ct




AFP text, photos, graphics and logos shall not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. AFP shall not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions in any AFP content, or for any actions taken in consequence.

Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. I showed you 2 newspapers using the AFP story, what more do you want?

They're not 'questionable'. They are real newspapers.

It doesn't look to me as if AFP keeps a public archive on their site of stories - just 10 current stories. So not being able to find the story there now means nothing. Newspapers used it and credited it to AFP. That makes it an AFP story.

If you can produce something from AFP saying that Dawn has made up a story and attributed it to AFP, then I'll believe you. Until then, all we see is normal juornalistic practice of newspapers using stories from press agencies.

[Up2Late]

73. Forget it, you are just proving my point...

...that some people will blindly trust just about anything they read on the internet.

I present you with the fact that BNN deleted the original link to the story, and you give me DAWN, a website in Pakistan that has this version. I ask for the story from AFP, and you give me some obscure South African website.

This is exactly the problem I'm trying to demonstrate to you, that this re-edited, twisted to suit the conspiracy theorists, version of "The Sunday Times" article (which you can still read at their website) becomes just as credible to people like you as if it was the original article.

Even though the original writers name was removed and the letters AFP are added to the edited version a U.K. Sunday Times article, it matters little to you that this so-called AFP version is not and has never been found on the AFP website, none of that matters to you.

Why you continue to defend the BNN web site I'll never understand, which, if you dig a little deeper to find out who they are, it turns out to be Incorporated in U.A.E., but their office/newsroom are in Australia, but then a new twist was added this time it's actually part of a much bigger corporation in Singapore, but so what.

You know, just because something is publish or on the internet, it doesn't make it credible. Weekly World News has pictures of "BatBoy" that they've publish a bunch of times, does that then become a credible story?

If this was a credible story at an ethical site, BNN wouldn't have pulled it. Honest and ethical news sites don't do that sort of thing.


By the way, AFP may not keep their stories on the AFP "front Page," but if they did post it to their website, it is still there in their archives and can still be found. I mostly use Google search (To be clear, I search Google, then click "News" at the top, this is not the same as "Google News").

This is how it's done: Start by searching for the headline. If that finds only one or two articles (which should be your first clue that this is not the original) I then search only the key words (for example Prince Charles Diana Death), If no AFP turns up among those results, and I wanted to keep searching, I would look for unique names or words that would most likely be in all versions. If an AFP article still does not turn up, you can be 99.9 percent sure that it didn't originate at AFP.

Most people won't go to that much trouble, which is most likely why they labeled it an AFP story. Here are some examples of stories that you won't still find on the AFP News page, but are still on their site.

<http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/051113045713.iobdxlww.html>

<http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/051113061205.atqpsuc5.html>

By the way, I have found the original sources of the edited/distorted version on BNN by searching the site. This version (which is not the same page, but is the same text) and the later and only slightly less distorted version from UPINewsTrack, are the only two that haven't been deleted from BNN yet, it may still be soon though. You can still see the links of 4-6 other sources that have been deleted to if you search from BNN's home page. This one was from the Khaleej Times (based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates).

<http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=cb9256546a3a1fc9&cat=415361b06433ee08>

By now you might ask, who's interest would all this serve, here's a link to Dodi's Billionaire dad's website, if you read what he has there, it explains a lot:

<http://www.alfayed.com/>

Anyway, I'm through wasting our time trying to convince you and the other BNN fans here, enjoy your second hand "news." And I do plan to contact several newspapers and wire services as soon as I finish gathering more of these stories as examples.

[lovuian]

75. So news from South africa Pakistan United Arab Emirates

is not credible news agencies and the NYT and Time magazine are... you need to take a look at the planted war stories of Libby and Rove and Judith Miller and the forged documents and the satelite pictures and say that those propoganda machines are CREDIBLE... The United Arab Emirates didn't say WMD were in IRAQ... that was from a United States of America Credible news agency NYT...

I see the point on how different news agencies take the same story and twist it... welcome to the News propoganda machine... but I WANT TO KNOW whats out there floating in the world...

I don't want to be in the dark just listening to what the US News agencies are feeding me...

Lets see where this investigation leads us... just like Plamegate is leading us to the Mockingbird
Pentagon plants... get my drift...

[muriel_volestrangler]

76. My, what do we have here, but the AFP story on Yahoo in their AFP section

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051211/wl_afp/britainroyaldianacharlesinquirypeople_051211034654

Word for word identical to the story that was on BNN. And thank you for finding the identical AFP story in the Khaleej Times - yet more evidence that the AFP story was used by reputable newspapers around the world (here's a direct link to their page, not inside the BNN frame); that shows that Google searches don't always find every single instance of a story. Oh, here's another:
http://www.timesofoman.com/newsdetails.asp?newsid=23087 (Oman)
and another:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/051211034654.4004iu52.html (USA)
You can't assume that Google finds every single instance of a story. It has to crawl the web, and if links change, it might not find them at the time it's crawling that particular site. In the case of this story, we now have at least 6 instances of an identical story, all crediting it to AFP. You really think all these organisations have made up the identical story, and then attributed it to AFP?

No, it doesn't matter that we can't find the story by using Google on the AFP site now. They don't structure the site to allow people to search for old stories; they are presumably interested in serving the latest news. Their business is being a wire service - they write stories to be supplied to newspapers and other media who pay for the service. Those media then publish it - and we have found several instances of that for this story.

I'm not 'defending' BNN in particular - I'm pointing out that this is an AFP story, which is exactly what BNN said. You have convinced yourself that BNN wrote it, despite the credit they gave to AFP, and seem to think that several reputable news sites have copied the story from BNN and attributed it to AFP too. I can't for the life of me work out why you don't think that AFP really did write it, as everyone in the world apart from you thinks.

You also seem to think there's something sinister about the wording of the AFP story. There isn't. All that it reports is fact, and it has not left anything vital out. Your efforts would be far better directed to other stories.

[lovuian]

19. Your right this is on the BBC and Charles was questioned

It looks like the British Newspapers are scared to death of this investigation!!!

[Rich Hunt]

85. well there you go...

Just shows how some rubberneckers are quick to make assumptions when their pet issues are triggered.

[flordehinojos]

7. i guess britain has its own "swift boat veterans for truth" liars, or

perhaps a branch of the Poppy Bush/Lee Attwater/Karl Rove spin and disinformation school on how to take the focus away from real facts and replace them with emotionally charged snippets of dirt and mud so as to take away the focus from hard hitting news.

are the British trying to take away the focus from the downing street memo, or the memo in which blair dissuaded bush from attacking al-jazzera? or, blair's recently reported unpopularity.

just smear the innocent, that is all you have to do--and that is a lesson the world has learned from POPPY BUSH, MOMMY BUSH, LEE ATTWATER, KARL ROVE, GEORGE AND JEB BUSH, CONDOLEEZA RICE, COLIN POWELL, DONALD RUMSFELD, DICK CHENEY, ANTONIN SCALIA, whew! what a gallery of FAMOUS AND DISTINGUISHED SERVANTS OF LIES AND DISTORTIONS.

YEAH, THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE GALLERY OF LIES AND DISTORTIONS.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Go and look where this bit of news comes in the headlines of papers

If reported at all, it's below such items as opinion polls showing Blair less popular than Cameron. No, this isn't taking the focus away - no-one is paying any attention to it.

[Up2Late]

12. No, people are paying attention to these bogus stories...

...If you Google the words: "Prince Charles Diana death" (no quotes) death you'll find it's spreading like a virus today, and in some cases it the real story, and in others it's the bogus story. But one thing that is really odd with this one, is I cant get Google News search to bring up this one in Big News Network, usually it will find BNN.

Another odd thing is, the usual path of these originating out of UPINewsTrack didn't happen this time, they have a different edit on their site. Different, but no more credible. <http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051211-071408-9922r>

And now another re-edit coming from "World Entertainment News Network" which the Florida Sun-Sentinel picked up. I also found one from Bahrain News too.

<http://www.southflorida.com/news/sfl-zjswnspees10dec11,0,4824423.story?coll=sfe-guide-headlines>

I have a feeling that BNN is originating with Rupert Murdock, but I'm not yet sure. BNN is Incorporated in Bahrain, U.A.E. and their offices or "newsroom" is in Australia. Hell, coming from U.A.E., it might actually be coming from the Pentagon.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. But no-one has it as the top story, or as the second story

(the oil depot fire is the tope story all over Britain) so it is doing nothing to displace important stories. It is not 'taking focus away' from the other stories today.

[Up2Late]

41. Your right, but it's the type of story that's going to end up...

...lingering and lurking around the internet for a very long time. The RW Conspiracy theory websites love this type of bogus news, because in a week or two, nobody will know where the original came from or what the true story was, because their is so much dis-info being generated right now, and the original Sunday Times article will have been long deleted.

See what I'm saying.

I've been researching and watching for these, second hand, no "by line" stories for a while now, and they are everywhere these days. This is causing a major problem, not just with this story, but with most of the news on the internet and most of it's coming out this web page <http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/>.

The more I read these, the more I'm convinced that this is a deliberate effort to cast doubt in the minds of people who get their news from the internet, so that they feel like they can't trust any of it anymore. :-(

[lovuian]

65. Hello!!! You CAN'T trust ANY NEWS!!! And this story will linger

on because new information is coming out of a coverup in Diana's death...

Just like stories of bombs being placed at the levees of New Orleans
or
Sibel Edmunds having information on 911
or
Lost Pentagon money in Iraq

these are stories that will linger because a CRIME has been committed and the government is covering these things up...

I trust the Internet News Way more than TV or newspapers...

Big News Network is a credible news agency...

[Rich Hunt]

88. sheesh

Then this will be yet another annoying paranoid conspiracy generated to distract people from meaningful discussion of REAL issues.

Where does this neurotic behavior come from? I guess this is how some people 'handle' the 'net.

[lovuian]

18. This is NOT a BOGUS Story the Prince was questioned???

The BBC has it in the News... Big News has articles from Rueters Independant NYT MSNBC


"it might actually be coming from the Pentagon."

Isn't that what Judith Miller was doing at the NYT

Maybe they are trying to hide something???

[lovuian]

35. ABC news is reporting on front page

Prince Charles' spokesman said, "We are not going to comment in any way on the detail. But we don't want to mislead anyone. We've got nothing to hide. We always said he would talk to Lord Stevens, and I can confirm that that has now taken place."

so this is NOT a Bogus story...

[Up2Late]

47. You obviously are not understanding what I'm talking about...

...I'm not saying he wasn't interviewed by police, I'm talking about the subtle changes in the words used by BNN, that twists this story into something it's not and then the deletion of contrary facts and quotes like this:

...The prince’s spokesman declined to release details of the interview, but it is known that Stevens had planned to ask Charles about his response to the bizarre allegation that he had been part of a plot to murder Diana...

Here's the Original: <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1920130,00.html>

Note: this is NOT the quote you are referring to, this is the first time (not the second time) that the writer refers to the Prince's Spokesman.

In the quote you referring to, the second statement by the Princes spokes person, BNN split that paragraph in to two paragraphs. That might not seem important, but it is. By doing so, they created a more confusing statement.

Then, they edited out this:

"...and I can confirm that that has now taken place.”

A well placed official said that there were no plans for any further interviews between Stevens and the prince.

Friends of the prince believe that the interview and inquiry will enable him to put paid to the conspiracy theories. “Hopefully this will allow Charles to put it all behind him,” said a source close to the prince.

“He and the two princes deserve to move on.”

Those statements, which BNN edited out, are very important. Without those statements, you are left thinking this investigation is open and still going forward, it's not. The Prince was interviewed to get his reaction to the "the bizarre allegation that he had been part of a plot to murder Diana.

Look, I was as upset over Diana's Death as anyone and I don't even particularly like Prince Charles, I still remember exactly where I was when I heard the news. The only thing I'm talking about here is the subtle manipulation of good, solid Newspaper reports by pseudo-news websites, that are having a corrosive effect on Good, reliable journalism.

Why is this important? Because if nobody points it out and tries to stop it's spread, eventually we won't know who to trust. I hope we haven't reached that point already.

[lovuian]

24. if there was an investigation in Diana's death and Blair

was afraid of the attention it was getting ...it would be pushed back
Blair's polls are dismal just add suspicions to diana's death a WELL loved woman and it just adds to suspicions of Blair's credibility!!!

[Benhurst]

9. How silly! Of course Prince Charles didn't to it.

It was the butler!

[goclark]

11. Once again that old MSM tells us how to think

They would never ever want us to try a tin hat on for size.

They would never want us to connect the dots @ Diana possibly marrying a Person of Color and one of "those people."

I'm not saying Charles had anything to do with her death.

I am saying that the future of the Monarchy would have been a lot different with William having brothers and sisters that were 1/2 Middle Eastern.

But let's keep doing what they want us to do ~ keep it simple and NEVER question anything.

That is exactly why GW is in office today, we don't question anything because THEY tell us we are Crazy and we let that stand.

[NVMojo]

49. there are religious whack jobs who believe that the Merovingian Dynasty

of which Princess Diana was a descendant is not a direct bloodline of the King of David, House of Judah but a Satanic bloodline, descending from the Merovingian Jewish Dynasty. These religious right wing whack jobs believe that the "anti-christ" will come from this bloodline. So whose to say that they didn't kill her and her half-Muslim child off for that reason? I'm telling you, there could be more than one bizarre twist here.

Of course, I rather fancy that those who control the throne didn't want the blue bloods tainted with Muslim blood.

[smirkymonkey]

97. So then, maybe Prince Harry is the anti-christ?

He kind of looks like Satan? :evilgrin:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

20. With the lead pipe in the library. n/t

[lovuian]

26. This woman commanded much love and was a threat to the

monarchy because her son was going to probably be the next King of England...

And she knew too much about the Royal family secrets...

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

27. I always wondered about that, myself. n/t

[brentspeak]

14. Kooky stories from dubious news sources

should not be allowed on LBN.

We should have a "Tin-Foil" section of DU, where these kinds of stories would be relegated.

[lovuian]

21. This same article is on the BBC

The BBC is not a kooky agency!!!

And an investigation is going on Diana's death which could have explosive consequences for Blair!!!

you are right there are many conspiracy theorys

just like conspiracy theories on 911

[TygrBright]

15. Sorry, but...

...who the hell gives a shit either way?

What does this have to do with anything important?

bewilderedly,
Bright

[lovuian]

22. Why would people care???

Because the British government maybe responsible for the cover up of her death thats why!!!

and after knowing about the Downing Street Memo it shows the complete corruption of Blairs regime
and add Kelly's suicide!!!

[lanlady]

28. She got into a car with a DRUNK driver

who went speeding through a tunnel. Where's the damn mystery?

The Fayed family was spinning conspiracy theories from the get-go, to distract from the family's culpability. The driver, the car, the hotel, and Diana's beau all belonged to the Fayed family and they failed her tragically. So they point the finger somewhere else. Wonder if they're related to the Bushes.

[Lorien]

30. Yep. Reckless driving by drunks during car chases never kills anyone!

:sarcasm:

[Gemini Cat]

46. Especially while driving drunk through tunnel openings. nt

[lovuian]

31. the samples were processed wrong

were not sure he was drunk...
that was a story planted by the media but now after further questions have been asked it has shown the blood samples of John Paul may have been tampered with his family is suing to clear his good name...

[Matilda]

36. I think you nailed it.

Poor old Fayed can't accept that decisions made by his son contributed to the death of the princess.
He insisted that a driver who'd been off duty drinking would drive their car, he insisted that
they'd try to outrun the paparazzi, when clearly the sensible thing would have been to stay in the
hotel for the night.

Diana also contributed by refusing to have the Secret Service guard she was entitled to - these men
are trained to take care of situations like the one that arose that night, and there might have
been a different outcome if she'd had a well-trained guard and listened to his advice.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

37. Don't forget the devious Mi6 agents who stopped her wearing a seat-belt

[LostinVA]

63. Exactly!

It's a known fact that part of the plot involved brainwashing her so she wouldn;'t wear a seatbelt.... Miss Moneypenny hatched the plot, I beleive...

[Rich Hunt]

84. err..

I don't usually get involved in tabloid trash stories, however some of the comments on this thread are most curious.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Princess Diana in the back seat of that car? How many people wear seatbelts in the back seat?

I must say there is a very strange culture that emerges whenever someone raises the subject of automobile accidents. I've observed this on the 'net on many occasions - it appears that whenever the topic is brought up, a swarm of people show up to 'spin' the crash as it were, with talk of seatbelts and such. I don't understand this bizarre culture - perhaps someone could explain why it is implied that we should not care so much about the victims if they were not wearing a seatbelt, especially if they were in the backseat?

By the way, I was in a 'crash' earlier this year, and I was wearing a seatbelt. I always wear a seatbelt. But I certainly wouldn't shrug off someone's death because they were in the back seat and were NOT wearing one. Most odd.

[0007]

33. Duh! doncha think it tis a little late?

[arikara]

43. I would dearly love to see the truth come out about this tragedy

The whole "accident" sounded fishy from the get go and there were many reasons that powers would have wanted her out of the way. She was divorced from the prince of Wales and he wanted to remarry. She was involved with a Muslim man and was possibly pregnant by him. The firm would never allow a dark skinned foreigner Muslim to be that close to her son, the heir to the throne and even worse in their opinion, for him to have an Egyptian half sibling. Another biggie... her work with the landmines was causing problems for the military industrial complex.

[NVMojo]

51. yep, yep, yep!

[LostinVA]

62. The driver was drunk

The paparazzi was aggressive, and she wasn't wearing a seatbelt. A recipe for diaster... no tinfoil needed.

[lovuian]

66. Oswald was a communist, Kennedy was in a convertible,

the motorcade stopped at the library and the autopsy was conducted by the pentagon surgeons...

End of story

but others think this was a coverup too by the government...

Diana's death was timely... Kennnedy's death was timely just like Wellstones
Airplane malfunction end of story... move along move along...

Some of us are still questioning!!!

[LostinVA]

71. I guess we're just have to disagree on this

Because I think it's not any kind of palace plot. It's pretty cut and dried, very much unlike the Kennedy assassination.

[arikara]

78. Its not "tinfoil" to question the official version of events

in my opinion. Nor is it "tinfoil" to look at a larger picture.

;)

[LostinVA]

79. As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree, because I think it's

Tinfoil!

[arikara]

92. Right-o... we will agree to disagree then...

Your :tinfoilhat: = my seeking of the truth that is hiding behind a mass of lies.

[lovuian]

93. I'm with you... You don't get investigations unless there is

evidence to conduct one... this is an offical investigation...

[LostinVA]

94. I see no mass of lies,

Just a drunk driver, no seat belt, idiot paparazzi, and incomptence.

[arikara]

95. The only point I'm trying to make is that

the official version of events can often be blatantly untrue. Who said the driver was drunk? Who said that Iraq had WMD?

I am not saying that chimpy killed Di, but I am trying to point out how easily and effectively lies can trumpeted through the MSM and believed by the public.

[lovuian]

96. and you can see how a bunch of people can buy those lies

thats why we went to War with Iraq
lots of Americans were hoodwinked...

[LostinVA]

106. If you read my posts on DU

You will see I ALWAYS question what "the Establishment" says -- I don't trust them. I knew from the beginning the whole WMD was a joke, that the London Underground shooting was probably messed up... the same with last week's Miami Airport shooting. However, I firmly believe that not everything is a conspiracy, and that sometimes bad stuff just happens. Diana did NOT wear a seatbelt. The only one in the car who did lived. I've been in those tunnels in Paris, and driving at a high speed is just asking for trouble. The driver was drunk. They are witnesses to that. Cut and dried.

I think for myself, and I find some of the sources you reference as dubious as anything any government says.

I am hiding this thread, because it has gotten ridiculous and annoying.

[AngryAmish]

50. Was Tookie driving?

[MalachiConstant]

52. sounds like tabloid material to me.

man, i hate gossip. news is good, gossip? nah, no thanks.



postscript:

i apologize in advance if this is against some rule i'm unaware of, but i'm going to plug my thread. i have started a thread suggesting a new DU group for career advice, and job seekers. if you're interested please check out this thread and reply:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x4430590

[Rich Hunt]

68. for heavens sake

He's just being questioned. Lots of potential witnesses are questioned when foul play is suspected - it doesn't mean they're under suspicion.

[lovuian]

69. just like Rove and Libby was questioned by Fitzgerald

they weren't targets at first until they perjured themselves...

[dryan]

77. Although....

I greatly admired Princess Diana for her style, charisma, and her philanthrophy she was killed in a tragic accident caused by (a.) the drunk driver; (b.) high rate of speed; (c.) no seatbelt. If people really want tohonor Diana's memory, work against drunk driving and encourage people to wear seatbelts.

[Rich Hunt]

80. she was in the back seat

You are qualifying your 'regret' over her death by blaming her not wearing a seatbelt.

She was in the back seat for christ's sakes - she was not the driver. What a curious statement - it appears you are blaming her for her death.

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. Adults are responsible for doing up their own seat belt

There is little doubt that it was a major factor in her death. The bodyguard in the front seat did have a seat belt on, and he survived. Wearing a seat belt in the back seat was made compulsory in the UJ (and France) for a good reason - because it saves lives. Yes, she was the blame for not wearing a seat belt, which means she contributed to her own death.

[Rich Hunt]

89. er, no

Come on. How can any sane person blame a PASSENGER for her own death because she did not wear a seatbelt, whether it's mandatory or not? Especially when there is (apparently) plenty of blame to dig for elsewhere. In any case, I DID wear a seatbelt in my own 'crash'...however I am certain that I did not wear one on times I was in the back seat. Perhaps my own 'crash' was 'karma' for not having worn seatbelts in the back seat in previous times. Good thing I live in Chicago and not Paris, and we're not all a bunch of east coast crazies speaking in code here, or I'd NEVER get any sympathy or justice!

She wasn't driving the car, she wasn't drinking, she wasn't the paparazzi. Well, I guess we should shed fewer tears because...she wasn't wearing a seat belt! There, there, that's better. I can face the world knowing she must have done SOMETHING to bring this upon herself! What perverse logic. What perverse morality.

What's weird is that I've seen this 'seat belt' preoccupation on other 'car crash' threads on other boards. What is it with some people who have to mitigate the severity of a tragedy somehow by looking for culpability on the part of the victim?

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. It's simple personal safety

You wear a seat belt in cars. You make children wear seat belts in cars. I bet she made her children wear seat belts - everyone agrees she was an excellent mother.

I'm not saying she was solely responsible for her death - just partly. It's not a question of mitigating the tragedy (in fact, the classical definition of 'tragedy' includes some fault on the part of the doomed person) - it's pointing out the causes of her death.

An analogy - would you say that someone who refuses to use a condom is partly responsible if they catch a sexually transmitted disease? I would.

[Rich Hunt]

83. um, you misunderstand my argument...

And this is the second time in this thread that you've countered my argument with this strange comparison.

I'm just a little confused at how so many people on a board for Democrats could confuse routine 'questioning' with a presumption of guilt. I thought we learned this stuff in civics class.

[lovuian]

91. What caused her death was NO AMBULANCE came for over

45-1 hour because nobody called the French ambulance and why it took so song is a mystery for if she would have gotten treated she would have lived...

in her autopsy there was no mention of her pregnancy and then it was found out her autopsy was tampered with and she was...
the video tapes watching the tunnel where she died was mysteriously empty just like the FAA tapes of 911 mysteriously ordered burned and destroyed...

this isn't about seat belts this is about having a motive to kill the Princess and we all know automobiles can be now controlled or tampered with... Already the results of Jean Paul's blood are known to be invalid and false thats why this investigation which has been blocked many times has been brought forward...

[barb162]

102. her pregnancy?

She was pregnant?

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

107. No.

From amoungst others the coroner who personally examined her womb at post-mortem & her doctor who treated her for PMT a few days before her death.

This entire bullshit is just the invention of Mohammed al-Fayed who wants the world to believe his son was going to marry Diana.

[upi402]

98. Downing Street Memo

i am not distracted by the drama

[barb162]

100. I didn't know they were still investigating this

[AgadorSparticus]

101. Isn't it generally believed by most Parisians that Diana was

murdered by the royal family? I'd cite the source but it's been so long, I can't remember where I heard that. Maybe someone has a better memory....

[Codeine]

103. Why do we care?

Spoiled rich girl being chased by photographers gets in a car wreck. I really don't care and can't conceive of why anyone else does.

[lovuian]

104. DIANA INVESTIGATION QUESTIONS BRITISH SPIES

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/diana%20investigation%20questions%20british%20spies

Now why would they be looking at the M15 group papers???

the reason this investigation went forward was because Diana's family the Spencers are Scots and Scottish law is separate than Englands

Since England did not investigate the Scots said they would...
Well when the Scots said they would then England looking like they were covering up said at long last they would investigate...

So the investigation goes on...

and the US is involved too

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=41&contentid=527

EXPLOSIVE tapes on the secret life of Princess Diana will prove that she was pregnant and intended to marry Dodi Al Fayed, it was claimed last night.

American secret agents regularly monitored Diana's conversations and collated 1,000 secret documents using its "spy in the sky", the National Security Agency.

They were obtained by its Echelon satellite surveillance system and contain highly sensitive material including her marriage plans, her views on Prince Philip, who was known to be highly critical of her, and new details of her love affair with James Hewitt. Now, lawyers acting for Mohamed Al Fayed are trying to obtain the tapes through America's Freedom of Information Act

more...
as for as her pregnancy there is a question about it...

[muriel_volestrangler]

105. No, the Spencers are as English as possible

They've lived in Althorp for 20 generations.

And do you really think "Conspiracy Planet" is a reliable source? The fact that these tapes 'proving she was pregnant' never appeared should give you a clue.

[maddezmom]

108. locking

Not latest Breaking News anymore :)