Time: Tue Sep 09 20:36:13 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA06109;
Tue, 9 Sep 1997 20:13:00 -0700 (MST)
id XAA23827; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 23:09:48 -0400 (EDT)
id XAA23807; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 23:09:44 -0400 (EDT)
id AA08538; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 23:09:44 -0400
by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA14482;
Tue, 9 Sep 1997 20:09:38 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 20:09:32 -0700
To: RevCOAL <revcoal@connix.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SNET: Diana's car headlights into the air?
Cc: snetnews@world.std.com
References: <3.0.3.16.19970909164236.36af4a86@pop.primenet.com>
-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
At 10:41 PM 9/9/97 -0400, you wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
>>
>>"Car headlights into the air"?
>>
>>A Mercedes Benz weighs about 2 tons (4,000+ lbs.).
>>A motorcycle, even a large one, is no match for
>>such a huge momentum. The 2 tons would vault a
>>motorcycle into the air, but the motorcycle would
>>not vault the Benz into the air. Are you sure the
>>"headlights into the air" were not the motorcycle's?
>
>
>Paul, purely for the sake of argument...what do you think would happen
>if the motorcycle were LAYING in the roadway, and the Mercedes,
>travelling in excess of 100 mph fails to see it in time and runs into/
>over it...?
I know what you're saying here. It is just
that eyewitnesses can be terribly unrealiable
as sources of explaining what really happened.
Sure, the speed and angle of first contact
would probably vault the Benz skyward --
let's say 15 to 30 degrees. So, I do agree
with you here, if a motorcycle was dumped
in their path, and they ran into it, because
they didn't see it fast enough to avoid it.
On the other hand ...
... in the dark, the car could have hit a moving
motorcycle, vaulting it in the air, but an
eyewitness may have mistaken the motorcycle's
headlamp for the car's.
Likewise, leaving a motorcycle in the middle
of the darkest stretch of road, could have
caused the same results.
So, at least we have two competing hypotheses
here: the eyewitness could have seen some
abrupt change in the angle of the car's
headlamps, from horizontal, to an angle
which pointed the headlamps upwards.
But, upwards by how much?
Either way, such a collision could have
broken an hydraulic brake line. Did
their Benz have a redundant braking system?
I would integrate these threads with yet
another hypothesis, which embraces both of
the preceding ones: these motorcyclists
were not press at all; they were just
"disguised" as press, to provide a
convenient scapegoat after the murder.
A covert operation is covering up the
fact that they are covering up; a convenient
alibi, or scapegoat, is usually part of such
"plans". Read "Best Evidence," by David Lifton,
for the full story of how this worked in JFK's
death. This was published around 1980/81,
as best as I can remember.
On this issue of forensic evidence, it is very
revealing that no autopsy was done. This is
even more revealing than a deliberately
falsified autopsy. At least, a phony
autopsy would have sent people off in the
wrong direction, for quite some time, as
happened in JFK's death. Now, it is obvious
that the evidence on her corpse itself, is
something that Buckingham Palace does NOT
want the world to know. I think ("hypothesize")
that she was pregnant, but I can't prove that
(obviously).
I hope the readers here understand the
need, and importance, of developing these
hypotheses early on, because they keep
everyone alert to possibilities that
might otherwise get overlooked.
A good example is the chain of possession of the
"oil soak" which was put down on the road,
and then carted off. The exact quantity of
oil soak would become important material evidence,
particularly if the Benz's crankcase was
not leaking after the crash.
The "hypothesis" here is that a huge quantity
of oil was already on the roadway. Such an
hypothesis would lead an investigator to measure
the amount of oil still remaining in the crankcase,
after the accident. Thus, the crankcase capacity could
be determined easily by calling the manufacturer;
by comparing that capacity, with the quantity remaining,
a good analyst could focus on the real amount
of oil which was soaked up and carted away,
and how much was still in the crankcase after
the ruined car was towed away.
Likewise, the Benz probably had anti-lock brakes;
these are designed to work with normal tires on
normal pavement; their anti-locking properties
would be entirely different, if the surface was
as slick as grease. I would think the brakes
would easily lock up, on such a surface, particularly
if the driver "stands" on the brakes in a tight
spot, like some sudden avoidance maneuver.
Anyway, I am beginning to ramble. I think you all
catch my drift here. Obviously, my main hypothesis,
at this point in time, is premeditated murder,
in the first degree (to use terms from American
law, and not British law).
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
-> Posted by: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail