Princess Diana: Case Closed?

---

---

Perhaps a handful of people — but no more than that — have been as wildly popular in my lifetime as Princess Diana, who died in a car crash in a Paris tunnel in 1997.

She was popular long before her death, a living icon of the late 20th century, and I have always thought that the overwhelming sense of loss that people experienced fueled the rampant speculation that some sort of sinister conspiracy was to blame. Perhaps it was the unfairness of the loss of one so young that people couldn't accept. She was, after all, only 36. There had to be a comprehensible reason for it.

It is, therefore, appropriate that an official conclusion on whether Diana was murdered was issued less than a month after the 50th anniversary of the death of another prominent person that has long been at the heart of conspiracy theory stories — John F. Kennedy.

Ever since Diana died, there have been persistent rumors — helped along by the man who would have been her father–in–law, Egyptian businessman Mohamed Al–Fayed — that England–s elite Special Air Service played a role in the crash.

The rumor has had more credibility at some times than others, but I'm inclined to think maybe this will put the lid on it — unless evidence surfaces linking the SAS to the crash.

Exhumation Receives Approval

Pakistani officials have approved the exhumation of Benazir Bhutto's remains for an autopsy, CNN is reporting.

But the government apparently is standing behind its most recent version of events -- that Bhutto died as the result of her head striking a sunroof lever in her vehicle.

CNN quotes Brig. Javed Iqbal Cheema as saying, "We don't mind if the People's Party leadership wants her body to be exhumed and post-mortemed. They are most welcome, but we gave you what the facts are."

I'm glad there will be an autopsy, but it remains to be seen what kind of evidence we get and the conclusions that are reached.

We must be vigilant about verifying the authenticity of every autopsy photograph and video recording.

More About the Cause of Death

CNN reports that one of Benazir Bhutto's top aides, who helped bathe the body after the assassination, contends that "there were clear bullet injuries to her head."

The aide also says, "It's beginning to look like a coverup to me."

The aide refers to assertions by the Pakistani government that Bhutto suffered no gunshot or bomb shrapnel injuries, but instead died after striking her head on a lever inside her vehicle.

That is the third and most recent version of events as provided by the Pakistani government.

If there is a coverup in the works in Pakistan, I would say that al-Qaeda -- or whoever is behind the plot -- has a lot to learn about engineering and carrying out a successful coverup.

There have been high profile assassinations in this country -- i.e., John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King -- and there always has been a segment of the population that has been convinced that they were the results of conspiracies.

But if they were plots, they were designed to answer (however weakly, in some cases) questions that were bound to come up or confuse the issue on questions that couldn't be convincingly answered.

It's called "plausible deniability." You've got to pick a story and stick with it. Constantly changing a story to deal with inconvenient facts makes the case weaker.

If the responsibility for Bhutto's murder is being covered up, the perpetrators didn't plan well enough to deal effectively with the most obvious question that was likely to come up.

Was Bhutto shot from up close? (If you're familiar with Robert F. Kennedy's assassination, you know that a similar question has dogged the case for nearly 40 years. Kennedy's assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, fired his weapon from Kennedy's side, but witnesses have said there were bullet wounds in the back of Kennedy's head, supposedly fired from point-blank range. Sirhan was a few feet away, and he was never in a position to fire his gun at the back of Kennedy's head.)

This is why I have said that it probably will be necessary to exhume the body and perform a proper autopsy to obtain definitive answers.

An autopsy can tell us, for example, whether someone was struck by gunfire -- and how close the weapon was when it was fired. With the lack of security, it's possible that the shot was fired from inside the vehicle. The suicide bomber, who was captured on film firing a gun, may have been equipped only with blanks -- possibly a diversionary tactic. His bomb may have been intended to obliterate all evidence -- and accomplices.

But the most important evidence -- the body itself -- is still available.

The Washington Post reports that the Bush administration is worried about a new offensive by Islamic extremists in the region.

At the very least, in the United States, this is an important opportunity for voters to find out how much each presidential candidate really knows about the world and its politics.

If recent comments tell us anything about Mike Huckabee, for example, they indicate that those who expressed concerns about his lack of foreign policy experience were sadly correct in their assessments.

The New York Times reports that, in the aftermath of the assassination, candidates with foreign policy credentials who hadn't caught on with the voters (i.e., Joe Biden and Bill Richardson) are finding themselves in the spotlight. Whether those candidates remain in the spotlight, voters need to keep their attention on foreign policy.

George W. Bush's lack of foreign policy expertise came up briefly in the 2000 campaign, but it was soon reduced to a very low order of priority. Voters seemed to find the trait endearing and preferred to discuss the economy, taxes, Social Security and other domestic issues -- and leave foreign policy matters to Dick Cheney's "gravitas."

And that was despite the fact that terrorists attacked the U.S.S. Cole less than a month before the election.

David Frum says, in the National Post, that candidates in both parties have demonstrated "truly disturbing indifference to the outside world and its dangers," and he urges them to "confront some dangerously neglected facts."

What's the view of the crisis from other parts of the world? Well, The Australian says America fails to protect its Muslim allies. It's hard to argue that point.

In 2008, voters will have to debate the foreign policy merits of each candidate. We have to educate ourselves about the world and we have to insist on leaders who know as much about the globe as they do about voting districts and demographics.

If we're fortunate enough in the future to have another Benazir Bhutto on our side in the Muslim world, we have to do everything in our power to protect her. We clearly cannot count on governments like the one ruling Pakistan.

Isolationism is not practical. And neither is it practical to assume the rest of the world wants to be just like the United States.

Bhutto's Cause of Death -- Clarified?

It was reported today that Benazir Bhutto actually did not die from a gunshot wound or shrapnel from a bomb.

Although I guess you could say they contributed to her death.

Actually, it really isn't clear today what caused the two-time Pakistani prime minister's death. CNN reports that Pakistan's Interior Ministry claims Bhutto was not hit by the gunfire; instead, it appears she died from a fractured skull when her head struck a lever inside her vehicle. The lever allegedly was connected to the sunroof. Bhutto had been standing in the open sunroof prior to the attack.

A national security analyst for CNN says Bhutto's enemies are "trying to deny her a martyr's death" by minimizing the circumstances. And the Washington Post reports that Bhutto had many enemies, that there were many people who had the means -- and the motive -- to assassinate her.

Al-Qaeda remains a likely suspect, but apparently there were also those in the Pakistani government who had their reasons for wanting to see Bhutto dead.

I'm inclined to believe that al-Qaeda was involved. It seems to me that Osama bin Laden put a multi-million-dollar bounty on Bhutto's head some 10 years ago.

This is starting to look like another one of those cases we may never resolve. But we'll probably get to hear many conspiracy theories.

In The Hill, Sam Youngman writes that Sen. Hillary Clinton is calling for an independent international investigation into Bhutto's slaying.

In keeping with Muslim practice, Bhutto was buried today, the day after her assassination. She was laid to rest in the family's mausoleum in Garhi Khuda Bakhsh, near the remains of her father and two brothers.

The Islamabad International News reports the burial was carried out "amid touching scenes." Those "scenes" presumably included her husband and three children.

With questions surrounding the cause of death, I think it will be necessary to exhume the body and conduct an autopsy to get the answers. In my life, I have seen many cases that became shrouded in uncertainty because proper autopsies were not performed. It seems ridiculous not to take advantage of the knowledge that can be gained with today's forensic methods.

Friday was another day of violence and unrest in Pakistan. And it was another busy day on the campaign trail in the United States. At Townhall.com, Michael Medved says there are "five powerful messages for American voters –- and candidates" in yesterday's assassination.

The candidates, who have spent much of the campaign debating domestic issues, should read Medved's piece and address the threat of terrorism before Iowa's voters participate in Thursday's caucuses. I don't dispute the fact that it's important for voters to know how candidates feel about health care, the economy, energy, the environment and abortion, but it's essential for them to hear about terrorism.

Medved makes some good points. I don't always agree with what he says, but it's hard to argue with some of his logic in the immediate aftermath of yesterday's attack.

Those who ignore the implications of the attack do so at the risk of us all.