Yes, I'd say murdering someone is a pretty good way of 'destroying their love', but surely there are less dramatic ways? Anyway, good to see all is right with the world. Diana on the front and some shit about the weather. You don't have to stand in the queue in TJ Hughes, listening to elderly people grumbling... here's a newspaper that does it for you - with a side order of tinfoil hat!
Sadly, I can't tell you what the article itself says, because although it was online
*update* It's still there, but in the 'Express Yourself' section, rather than the news section which is rather random. (Silly me for thinking it was news - maybe even the Express are facing some home truths). The front page promises 'experts speaking out', so who is doing the speaking?
PRINCESS Diana and Dodi Fayed were murdered when a plot to “end their relationship violently” went too far, resulting in the fatal crash in Paris, a top lawyer claimed last night.
Michael Mansfield QC, one of the nation’s most eminent legal brains, believes the deaths in the Alma Tunnel in 1997 were the result of a carefully orchestrated plan by unnamed parties to end the relationship.
That would be the same Michael Mansfield QC who represented Mohamed Al Fayed in the inquest into Diana's death. Feel free to Mandy Rice-Davies at this point. But here's a refreshing bit of honesty:
“Nobody has even identified the drivers of the various following vehicles. It is impossible to know who exactly has contrived this situation. No one really knows who actually planned it and who actually carried it out, but there was a plan.”
No-one knows anything, but there was a plan. Because...? Because. Just because. That's the only evidence we get. Because.
Mr Mansfield’s views, put forward in a speech in Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex, during his one-man tour at the weekend, were spelled out at the same time that investigative journalist John Morgan claims to have uncovered a “tidal wave of evidence” in relation to the case.
Ah, OK. What's this tidal wave, then? Prepare yourselves for the tsunami of evidence!
He believes the inquests into Diana and Dodi’s deaths, overseen by Lord Justice Scott Baker, neglected to hear evidence from a total of 176 relevant witnesses. Some 47 witnesses also had excerpts from their evidence read but were not made available for cross-examination, Mr Morgan claims. The many witnesses who were not called included Michael Burgess, Royal Coroner and Coroner for Surrey.
Absentees also included forensic pathologist Professor Dominique Lecomte, who declined to give evidence, and the forensic toxicologist Dr Gilbert Pepin. The author said of Lord Scott Baker’s inquest findings: “How could the jury arrive at an informed verdict when they were not given all this crucial information? They were in a ridiculous situation, kept in the dark. My researches showed the cover-up continued.”
Aaargh! I'm being overwhelmed! Help me! I'm drowning in evidence!
In Diana Inquest: The Untold Story, Mr Morgan, 53, from Brisbane, Australia, alleges a cover-up by the authorities in France. He also claims Parisian investigators bungled the inquiry. Mr Morgan further calls into question the efficiency of the autopsy carried out on the driver, Henri Paul, and highlights major conflicts on witness accounts regarding the testing of blood samples from Paul.
It is claimed the samples were tampered with and swapped with those from another body in the morgue. His book, the third in a series of four on Diana’s death, claims to demonstrate “the lengths the French authorities were prepared to go to in framing a dead, defenceless, sober and innocent driver”.
But that's not really evidence either. It's "I think this, therefore, because." Which, as you might point out, is perfectly good enough when you're writing a shabby tabloid tale, but not good enough in a courtroom; and I think perhaps that's why this kind of thing appeals particularly to the Express more than other papers.
The modern-day Express is all about assumptions being turned into conclusions, without the need for evidence. So we assume Diana was murdered, well then we must conclude it, because this man says so. So we assume immigrants are damaging the country, well then we must conclude it, because this 'think-tank' says so. So we assume TV or Facebook or the BBC is corrupting our kids, therefore we conclude it is, and here's someone who says so.
It's starting from the conclusion and then working backwards, ignoring any evidence to the contrary and concentrating on the few slivers that might prove what you're saying - just as, you might say, conspiracy theorists often do.
Thanks to Tabloid Watch for the extra info.