Anonymous's theory: "Lady Diana's death was not an accident"
Anonymous hacker group claims to have evidence that would expose the British royal family, proving that Lady Diana's death was not an accident, but a murder
The world-famous hacker group Anonymous claims to have documents that deny the official version of Lady Diana's death on August 31, 1997 in the Alma tunnel in Paris. For years, journalists, experts and writers have been interested in the untimely death of the Princess of Wales and her fiancé, the Egyptian billionaire Dodi al-Fayed. Pages of newspapers and books have been written, filled with words, entire television documentaries about these unexpected and excellent deaths. Some hypotheses definitely veer around the plot that would see the English royal family as a sort of "hidden direction" behind the incident in the Parisian tunnel.
According to the most extreme conjectures, Lady Diana was killed because she was pregnant with Dodi al-Fayed. For the Windsors it would have been unthinkable that Prince William, the future King of England, had a Muslim half-brother. Therefore, fearing the scandal, the royal family would have ordered the elimination of the princess. This theory is very close to the possible plot of a novel and in fact it has never been proven, indeed, the official analyzes of the case tell us that Lady Diana died in an accident and was not pregnant with her at the time of her death. There would be no background. Maybe it is we who build suggestions in our mind to explain a sudden death, absurd in its simplicity, even banality from a certain point of view.
Now Anonymous comes up with another possibility. Of course, the conditional is a must and every comma of the hacker group's statements must be taken with the proverbial pliers. Anonymous claims to have records that would compromise the royal family, placing it at the center of the death of the Princess of Wales. The incident would have been a cover up to cover up the murder of Lady Diana, who would have made bombshell recordings before she died. In these audio documents, William and Harry's mother allegedly told of an alleged sexual assault suffered by a Buckingham Palace employee.
The attack allegedly took place in the Royal Palace and apparently the culprit would be a person very close to Prince Charles. Someone who would still work for the heir to the throne now. Lady Diana would have liked to reveal this story but the royal family, frightened by the consequences, would not have allowed it. The matter is very serious and delicate, but no one has yet seen the evidence that Anonymous has spoken about. As always, we should maintain a skeptical attitude, in which judgment is suspended until there is incontrovertible data. If these documents exist, just show them. The veracity and reliability will be assessed.
In the meantime, we can begin to think about some elements that should sound an alarm bell in our mind. First, the theory is re-proposed that Lady Diana was killed by a greater power, in front of which it is difficult, if not impossible, to fight, namely the English royal family. Both in the hypothesis of Anonymous and in that of the princess expecting Dodi's son, we see Diana in a position of weakness, albeit correct from a moral point of view. In one case she would like to live her life, a fair and normal fact, but her alleged independent choices lead her to death, that is, to the deprivation of the fundamental right to which she aspired. This pattern is also repeated in the Anonymous version. Lady Diana would have taken sides against injustice and once again she would have paid the consequences.
Thus two opposite sides are created. On the one hand, the "good" Lady Diana, on the other the "bad" royal family. A vision that appears very simplistic and does not take into account the complexity of certain situations, family dynamics. Furthermore, the alleged motive explained by Anonymous would not hold up entirely. In the Alma tunnel al-Fayed also died, apparently unrelated to the alleged disagreements described by the hackers between Lady Diana and the Windsors. Why involve an innocent person, whose name would have made "noise"? Just to "build" the official version of the accident better? It would all seem a bit forced even if we brought up the hypothesis of collateral damage. However, in both cases we have no verifiable data to work with, so the rational (and scientific) reasoning method requires us to be cautious and wait for evidence.
