Princess Diana Could Have Been Pregnant, Maybe
“DIANA – She could have been pregnant expert tells jury.”
The Daily Express brings news on its front page of Princess Diana. Inside and: “Doctor admits: Diana may have been newly pregnant.”
Diana fans will enjoy the word “admits”. In the white heat of the inquest Dr Robert Chapman is left with no choice other then to admit that had Diana been in the very early stages of pregnancy there would have been no way of his knowing.
Dr Chapman is the home office pathologist who conducted Diana’s post-mortem.
Now at last there is value to be found in the £10million inquest. This is progress.
“Princess Diana was not pregnant when she died and was only enjoying a ‘friendship” with Dodi Fayed,” the Mail hears Diana’s driver Colin Tebbutt say on the record.
But, Mr Tebbutt, we put it to you that COULD have been pregnant. Admit that, at least. We all of us must.
Dr Chapman says he did not see any “indication when examining Diana’s uterus and ovaries” of the princess’s pregnancy.
As the Telegraph front page says: “DIANA INQUEST – ‘NO SIGN SHE WAS PREGNANT’.”
But that Diana could have been one, two or three weeks pregnant has been established. Now the case can finally move on and we can find out if Diana COULD have been planning to wear brown in town, COULD have been set for a bout of adult acne and COULD have been a natural brunette…
Posted: 27th, November 2007 | In: Princess Diana Inquest, Royal Family, Tabloids Comments (8) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Donna T on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- Geoff Jewitt on X Factor: Sex Pistols, Jamelia And Paul McCartney Ride The Jedward Bandwagon
- Bat E Bird on David Cameron Wants British Thanksgiving Parade, In Pictures
- Bat E Bird on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- carol on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
December 5th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
I’m not really going to bother replying to someone who can’t read (even a name) or form a coherent sentence. Your ravings simply fortify my belief that only nutters go for conspiracy theories.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:34 am
I agree with Audrey, You Itchy have your head in the sand, or can’t read or reason or want to know the truth. Why would the French do a partial Autopsy unless they wanted to hide any evidence of Diana being with child!!!??? Itchy have you never read how much Diana hated the Royal Family, living with Charles was pure Torture, (from her on lips). Diana wanted revenge and The Al Fayed family were loving to her, and her own father ask Al Fayed to look after his family as he was dying. Dodi took Diana to the home of the Duke of Windsor and his wife Simpson. On the day the landed in Paris. THIS WAS TO BE THEIR NEW HOME. As well as in Malibu California, Diana was deciding where her son’s would sleep when they visited her. So keep an open mind; and nothing will happen to Al Fayed it would be to obvious. A few million Muslims would take high offense to that and they would get Phillip or Charles I thing. If Diana was Pregnant it was the perfect revenge and I don’t doubt her of considering that. Diana was not stupic by any means. Dodi could give her anything she wanted, and her son William will give her back all Charles took when he beomes King. What a horribe thing to do to two boys. When all the testimony is inwe can all make a decision. I don’t think Mr. Fayed would spend all this money if he did not think he had a case. Read the evidence daily as I do, its very interesting. Paul was not druck in the original report to his parents, months later he was THREE TIMES THE LEGAL FRENCH DRUNK DRIVING; WOOPIE! PLEASE GIVE THE WORLD A BREAK. I owned a bar, no way could Paul have tied his shoe on one foot or have wide open dry eyes, drunk people wobble, have red weepy eyes, and fall off stools, wet their pants and become obnoxious with crying, laughing or fighting. Look at the last picture of Paul in the car. Look at his face, I think he thought to make a lot of money that night but not to get killed, why was only Rees wearing a belt. What a body guard. He can’t remember but he goes on talk show’s and screams Paul was drinking, How can he remember that? why did he let Paul drive, why did he not tell Dodi or Mr. Fayed. I don’t think Charles will make King, just think about that for a minute. Eye for an eye.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Audrey your talking crap. The truth is already there. The car was driven too fast, at night by an alcoholic who was well over the limit and suprise, suprise he crashed. The stupid passangers didn’t have seatbelts on and died as a result of injuries that possibly should have been detected by an off duty medic but weren’t. I think you will find similar stories emerging all over the developed world on a daily basis. Are their in-laws assassinating all them as well?
What would the royal families motive have been for goodness sake? An embarrassment if she married and dropped a sprog by a muslim? hardly. An embarrassment who his father was maybe. But would that be more embarrassing than her working her way through the England rugby team and the household cavalry? I would have thought the royal family would have been pleased if she had married someone else and got the hell out of their hair.
If your looking for a conspiracy look for a motive …. what about a grudge against the royal family? What about the fact that your son is going to have a child out of wedlock with an infidel?
and opportunity … what about the ability to hire an alcoholic as their driver.
You’re right about Charles though. Disgraceful! An embarrassment to the crown! He should think twice about having an alcoholic driver drive him through a dark underpass at an outrageous speed without wearing his seatbelt.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Will she ever go away?
November 27th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Lot of crap behind the Lady D assassination. Why do the French cover it up? Why has it taken the Brits 10 years to get a grand jury together? Doesn’t Justice work in the UK either?
In the USA we already know who assassinated JFK…
November 27th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
We all know that the full truth of this matter will never come out……….however, i really do not know why the establishment refuse to accept that she may well indeed have been prgnant, and may also have wanted to marry Dodi, and why ever not????
After all said and done, everyone ( even her children ) seem to think it is acceptable that Charles has not only gone on with his private life, but also flaunted his outrageous affair in front of his sons ( but that is alright) and had recognition of a divorcee becoming a part of the very public ‘Royal Family’, Which i am very sure would be a direct insult to our Past Queen mothers brother-in-law ( Edward )
My belief ……………. that she was, …. and is …. far too popular. She symbolised what many have wanted and had no conviction of courage to be ……….. she was honest, and knocked for it her whole life.
Mohammed Al Fayed ………………. You will NEVER prove your case, but you are the father, and father-in-law, that could never be condemned ………. you love and believe in that very tragic couple, and fight on and on to get justice………. You have my full admiration.
If there was a way that you could truly bring this case and the culprits to stand, i have no doubt that you would disappear ……………….. so take heart, some of us are listening.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
It was a gift for all of us
November 27th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
It was mine.