Jocky
11th December 2006, 10:20 AM
I watched with interest the first in a new series of documentaries on the BBC last night, which aims to take a critical look at conspiracy theories.
The subject matter was the tragic death of Diana Princess of Wales in 1997, which looks set to take over from JFK as the most whispered-about celebrity death in history. The programme featured interviews both with prominent conspiracy theorists and also with numerous professionals (doctors, police officers and forensic scientists) who were involved in the investigations. This is of course very timely with the imminent publication of Lord Steven's (hopefully) definitive report.
The 'evidence' offered by conspiracy theorists was (on the whole) efficiently debunked, although it became apparent that there are enough points of mystery about the details of what happened that there will always be room for wild speculation from people who are that way inclined. In particular, the fact that the driver of the other car involved was never conclusively identified, and that Henri Paul's movements in the hours leading up to the crash are not known, leave ample room for elaborate fabrications to be spun.
As ever with conspiracy theories, the gaping hole in the heart of them is HOW DO 'THEY' DO IT? How on earth could 'they' hold together a lie on the scale required to conceal an assassination, which would involve the compliance of hundreds of professionals in different organisations over many years? In truth of course, 'they' couldn't do it.
In order to get round such difficulties, conspiracy theorists resort to extraordinary claims (you know, the ones which require extraordinary evidence). Mohamed Al Fayed's fanciful notion that Price Philip can pick up the phone to MI5 and order them to kill people he doesn't like falls well and truly into that category - best laugh of the night ;D
IMO the real resolution of the mystery requires no more than the application of Occam's Razor. There is no need to invent complex and speculative explanations when simple and realistic ones which are consistent with the evidence already exist. In this case, the explanation is glaringly obvious - and I am a former Police Collision Analyst, when it comes to road safety I know whereof I speak.
Drunk drivers racing through narrow tunnels at high speed, in darkness, when nobody in the car is wearing a seat belt, is a recipe for death. There is nothing at all exotic about this - here in the UK (where we have the safest roads in the world) it happens on average at least once every single day. That is not an exaggeration, it is the literal truth (http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/statistics/dd0510.htm) :'(
Diana's death is in fact sadly unremarkable - but this sadness is compounded by the likelihood that three really important lessons which could be learnt from Lord Steven's report (Don't Drink And Drive, Always Wear A Seat Belt, Stick To The Speed Limit) will most probably be lost in a farrago of nonsense about spy rings, flashing lights and cover-ups. Sadly road safety is just too prosaic - some people seem to prefer wallowing in fanciful paranoia rather than facing up to boring and uncomfortable reality.
The subject matter was the tragic death of Diana Princess of Wales in 1997, which looks set to take over from JFK as the most whispered-about celebrity death in history. The programme featured interviews both with prominent conspiracy theorists and also with numerous professionals (doctors, police officers and forensic scientists) who were involved in the investigations. This is of course very timely with the imminent publication of Lord Steven's (hopefully) definitive report.
The 'evidence' offered by conspiracy theorists was (on the whole) efficiently debunked, although it became apparent that there are enough points of mystery about the details of what happened that there will always be room for wild speculation from people who are that way inclined. In particular, the fact that the driver of the other car involved was never conclusively identified, and that Henri Paul's movements in the hours leading up to the crash are not known, leave ample room for elaborate fabrications to be spun.
As ever with conspiracy theories, the gaping hole in the heart of them is HOW DO 'THEY' DO IT? How on earth could 'they' hold together a lie on the scale required to conceal an assassination, which would involve the compliance of hundreds of professionals in different organisations over many years? In truth of course, 'they' couldn't do it.
In order to get round such difficulties, conspiracy theorists resort to extraordinary claims (you know, the ones which require extraordinary evidence). Mohamed Al Fayed's fanciful notion that Price Philip can pick up the phone to MI5 and order them to kill people he doesn't like falls well and truly into that category - best laugh of the night ;D
IMO the real resolution of the mystery requires no more than the application of Occam's Razor. There is no need to invent complex and speculative explanations when simple and realistic ones which are consistent with the evidence already exist. In this case, the explanation is glaringly obvious - and I am a former Police Collision Analyst, when it comes to road safety I know whereof I speak.
Drunk drivers racing through narrow tunnels at high speed, in darkness, when nobody in the car is wearing a seat belt, is a recipe for death. There is nothing at all exotic about this - here in the UK (where we have the safest roads in the world) it happens on average at least once every single day. That is not an exaggeration, it is the literal truth (http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/statistics/dd0510.htm) :'(
Diana's death is in fact sadly unremarkable - but this sadness is compounded by the likelihood that three really important lessons which could be learnt from Lord Steven's report (Don't Drink And Drive, Always Wear A Seat Belt, Stick To The Speed Limit) will most probably be lost in a farrago of nonsense about spy rings, flashing lights and cover-ups. Sadly road safety is just too prosaic - some people seem to prefer wallowing in fanciful paranoia rather than facing up to boring and uncomfortable reality.