Google owned advertising software Adsense seems to have effectively acted in a sensorship role on the www.inlnews.com website,
that the www.inlnews.com website covers if one just typed in "INLNews" into a Google Web Search..
... at the time www.inlnews.com was heading to be under the 10,000th top website on the world wide web.
Then overnight Google decided to cancel all these hundreds of www.inlnews.com Google Web Links for hundreds on different subject matter we searches.
There was obviously some very powerful people in Google that was extremely concerned about the fast improving world wide global rank of the www.innews.com web site,
so these powerful people inside Goolge decided that immediate action had to be taken ... to stop the fast improving World Wide Global rank of the www.inlnews.com website...
It is believed that the reason why all the
hundreds of www.inlnews.com web links on Google were removed overnight from the Google Search Engine was to to stop the fast improving World Wide Global rank of the www.inlnews.com website
It has taken the last 7 years for www.inlnews.com from Google cancelling all these hundreds of www.inlnews.com Google Web Links
Also see:
http://inlnews.com/Freemasonry__History.html
http://inlnews.com/BilderbergGroupHistory.html
http://inlnews.com/Give_Peace_a_Chance.html
http://www.inlnews.com/CIASellDrugs_MediaLiesP1.html
http://www.inlnews.com/INLNewsCIAKGBSpyPhotosP1.php
http://www.inlnews.com/WhyWasSeanHoareMurdered.html
http://www.inlnews.com/WhoMurderedThomasAllwood.html
http://www.inlnews.com/CIAMI6ControlDrugDealing.html
http://www.inlnews.com/ChippingAwayTheBullSh_t.html
http://www.inlnews.com/Assange_FearsMurderInUSA.html
http://www.inlnews.com/RothschildWorldControl1.html
http://www.inlnews.com/BilderbergGroupHistoryP3.html
http://www.inlnews.com/Leo_Zagami_Illuminati_P2.html
http://www.inlnews.com/MI6_GlobalDrugTradeLords.php
http://www.inlnews.com/HitlerWasABritishAgent.html
http://www.whale.to/c/das_neue41.html
Das Neue, No. 41
Lady Diana was Killed by a Team of Specialists of the British MI-5
WIESBADEN, Oct. 9-- The cover story in issue No. 41, of the German illustrated weekly {Das Neue} hinted. The core of the story is an exclusive interview with "Glyn Jones", a former member of the elite military unit that observed Diana from 1985 to 1989, on orders from the MI-5.
After introducing the theme with a hint that Martine Monteil, the head of the Paris police investigation team, is looking into the case as an assassination case, and that the MI-5 is a suspect, Das Neue asks Jones about his 1985-1989 mission. He relates that he was with the "Royal Marines", then, and was operating upon directives coming from MI-5.
The job of his team "was not to spy on members of the Royal Family. Foreign agencies warned the MI-5 at that time, that there was a threat to Diana. That is why she was surveilled." "That implied: We would have had to kill her, if we were not able to prevent an abduction."
The main objective of the team was to protect the Royal House, the future King (Diana's son), and the Anglican Church. All of that was threatened by Diana's bad conduct, Jones said. When Das Neue asked, whether the "drunken" driver, Henri Paul, didn't play a role in the accident, Jones said: "Yes, in the end, it was a reason. But why did this accident occur, in the first place? Why is the French police not able to identify those two men, that stood on the bridge above the tunnel, who were firing shots on the car?" "Two shots were fired on the tires.
So far, this has not been made public. They are trying to cover it up." Jones said that traces of the shots would not necessarily be found, because "this depends on the angle at which the bullet hits--this can hardly be checked, if the tire is ripped into pieces.
This, at least, is how it is done in anti-terror measures in Northern Ireland, when any outside implication is to be covered up." Jones said that it is not French sloppiness which prevents a real investigation in Paris, but that it rather implies that "the French secret service is collaborating with the British secret service.
There are close contacts... [I]t would not be in the interest of the French government to let such things get out to the public." The interview was accompanied by a box, which explained how the sniper attack on Di's car could have occurred.
First of all, the British SAS is equipped with a special gun, the "Five-Seven" which is produced by the French firm, FN Herstal. This is an ultralight weapon, which works like a "heavy gun," however, because its ammunition can cut through steel and bullet-proof vests, from 200 meters away.
The special bullets, which have a weight of only 2 grams each, leave no visible tracks in the target.
Weapons expert "Bernard Sacrez" explained to Das Neue that "with this weapon, you can slice the tires of a car as if you used a razor blade. No tracks of the shot can be located, because the two-gram bullet disassembles completely, afterwards."
Al Fayed's security team included 8 former SAS agents, by the way, the Das Neue report said. Dodi's bodyguard Alexander Wingfield was one of them, and he switched shift with Trevor Rees-Jones (the body-guard that survived) that night. "Glyn Jones" said it looks like an orchestration, because the drivers also switched shifts that night.
http://www.public-interest.co.uk/diana/dimi5.htm
http://www.whale.to/b/james_andanson.html
James Andanson worked for MI6 British Intelligence as an informant
The development could support the theory that Andanson was murdered by the security services.
By Cyril Dixon
THE mystery over Princess Diana’s fatal car crash took another twist yesterday when startling new evidence emerged about the death of a key witness.
The Daily Express has uncovered dramatic new information which undermines the French police claim that photographer James Andanson doused himself and his black BMW with petrol and set himself alight.
Andanson was found dead in his burnt-out car three years after the smash which killed Diana, her lover Dodi Fayed and driver Henri Paul.
Andanson, suspected of causing the crash by driving a white Fiat Uno into their Mercedes, was said officially to have committed suicide.
But investigators have uncovered a receipt which shows that although Andanson, 54, did buy a substantial amount of fuel on the day he died, it was diesel, not petrol.
Unlike petrol, diesel is not highly inflammable at normal temperatures and would not have ignited if he had struck a match.
You would not be able to set light to diesel with a match.
He used his credit card to buy more than 100 litres of diesel on a visit to a hypermarket near Nant, southern France.
Sceptics would say it is far more likely that the experienced paparazzo bought it to fill up his car for the 400-mile journey back to his home in central France.
They would also think it unlikely for him to prepare his car for a long trip if he planned to kill himself just a few miles away.
The development could support the theory that Andanson was murdered by the security services.
Dodi’s father Mohamed Al Fayed believes he was on the intelligence payroll and that he was killed to stop him exposing a plot to assassinate his son and the Princess.
The Harrods owner’s belief is supported by the evidence of a new witness, a policeman, who said he saw what looked like a bullet hole in the dead photographer’s head.
The officer backs up claims by Christophe Pelat, the fireman who discovered the body, that Andanson had been shot in the head.
Two months ago, Pelat said: “I saw him at close range and I’m absolutely convinced that he had been shot in the head.”
Yesterday’s revelation came just days after the police officer who ran the initial inquiry into how Diana died in Paris’s Alma tunnel blamed the Fiat driver.
Jean Claude Mules said he had compelling evidence that the black Mercedes collided with the Fiat seconds before it ploughed into a pillar. He said his officers would have “had their killer” if they had succeeded in tracing the driver.
Andanson was found dead on May 4 2000 in woodland alongside a country road near Nant, in the Aveyron region of France.
He had apparently left his wife Elizabeth, 45, at their farmhouse in Lignieres, 170 miles south of Paris, and driven 400 miles south to Nant.
A police spokesman said at the time: “He took his own life by dousing himself and the car with petrol and then setting light to it.”
But Andanson’s credit card records show he went into a Géant hypermarket just a few miles away from where he was found dead.
He bought more than 100 litres of diesel and spent almost 600 francs.
Investigators are not certain what he did with the fuel. But his BMW 3 series’ saloon would hold only 60 litres and he may have filled up and transported the surplus in cans. Critically, experts say that it is inconceivable that Andanson would buy diesel to set himself alight.
Ray Holloway, of the Petrol Retailers Association, said: “With petrol it is the vapour that is the risk. It’s very different with diesel.
“Diesel is warmed and compressed to make it fire. You wouldn’t be able to set light to diesel with a match. It would just go out.
“The flashpoint for diesel, that is the temperature it would need to get to, is something like 63C.
“You would need to warm diesel up with something like a blow torch to have any hope of igniting it, and even then you wouldprobably have to be in a confined space.
“People often get burned when using petrol because they try setting light to the liquid. But what happens is the vapour ignites first.”
The riddle of Andanson’s death will be looked at by Lord Justice Scott Baker, the judge appointed to oversee Diana’s inquest. He has produced a list of 20 questions about the accident which most people assumed had been answered but which must now be re-examined.
Andanson, who worked for the Sipa agency, was famous for his celebrity portraits, including one of Greek shipping tycoon Aristotle Onassis on his death-bed.
But he is also rumoured to have been working for the security services. Former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson once alleged they use the paparazzi because they are good at tracking the whereabouts of high profile “targets”.
In the summer before the accident, when Diana and Dodi cruised the Mediterranean on his father’s yacht Jonikal, they were plagued by paparazzi. Andanson was one of the biggest players on that scene and was never far away from the couple.
Mr Al Fayed believes Diana, 36, and Dodi, 42, were murdered in a conspiracy driven by the Royal Family and carried out by the security services in August 1997.
He claims they had fallen in love after spending the summer together and planned to marry.
Mr Al Fayed claims the Royals objected to their romance because they did not want Prince William to have a stepfather who was non-white and a Muslim.
http://www.whale.to/b/diana_crash_witness.html
“Diana was beautiful, in a fresh-faced, English, outdoors-girl kind of way. She used her big blue eyes to their fullest advantage, melting the hearts of men and women through an expression of complete vulnerability. Diana’s eyes, like those of Marilyn Monroe, contained an appeal directed not to any individual but to the world at large. Please don’t hurt me, they seemed to say. She often looked as if she were on the verge of tears, in the manner of folk images of the Virgin Mary.”
“ …the Merovingian kings, from their founder Merovee to Clovis (who converted to Christianity in 496) were ‘pagan kings of the cult of Diana’.”
-Clive Prince, The Templar Revelation
“The cinquefoil (from the french, five-part) is a five petalled rose found in Christian symbolism of the Middle Ages. The five-petalled rose is often found affixed to the tops of Gothic arches, the vesica pisces-shaped doorways and windows thought to represent the womb of Mary. Some historians have speculated that the rose in Gothic architecture is a secret symbol of the feminine principle, one of a multitude of hermetic symbols found in these churches.The symbol itself dates back to Roman times, where it was called the ‘Rose of Venus.’ The rose, with its characteristic five petalled shape
mimicked the pentagrammatic path traced by the planet Venus in the night sky. This, combined with the flower’s natural beauty, made it an obvious symbol of the Goddess of love.”
The yoni and phallus were worshipped by nearly all ancient peoples as appropriate symbols of God’s creative power. The Garden of Eden, the Ark, the Gate of the Temple, the Veil of the Mysteries, the vesica piscis or oval nimbus, and the Holy Grail are important yonic symbols; the pyramid, the obelisk, the cone, the candle, the tower, the Celtic monolith, the spire, the campanile, the Maypole, and the Sacred Spear are symbolic of the phallus.
-Manly P. Hall
The Vesica Piscis, two interlinked circles, is also known as “the Yoni”. The name “yoni” refers to the middle portion of the interlocking circles, is derived from the Sanskrit meaning, “divine passage”. That the yoni is the feminine, the yoni should be viewed such that the divine passage becomes a correlation to sex, or male/female union. It is this correlation, and its relation to rebirth and regeneration that remains a basic truth at the very core of Occult structural foundations.
What more feminine symbol is there than the image of the vessel, the sacred womb of the mother? In patriarchal times, the Grail legends speak to the deepest parts of our souls in an archetypal quest for the feminine aspects of divinity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PDFs: You will receive a personally password protected and watermarked PDF. We ship as soon as possible, please allow for up to 48 hours delivery time. DIRECT BOOK ORDERS: Would you like to buy Greg Hallett Books? Please contact us via email, and we will handle the order for you. Please state the name of the books, and how many you would like, and we will arrange the book delivery for you. You can pay via Paypal or Money Transfer. For direct book orders please send an email to contact@theworldoftruth.net |
|||||||||||||||||||
Would you like to listen to more interviews with Greg Hallett and Jim Fetzer?
Then listen to THE REAL DEAL . . . http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/search?q=greg+HALLETT |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
“The Queen Mother... now that’s a serious piece of wizardry. The Queen Mother is a lot older than people think. To be honest, the Royal Family hasn’t died for a long time, they have just metamorphosised. It’s sort of cloning, but in a different way. They take pieces of flesh and rebuild the body from one little bit. Because it’s lizard, because it’s cold-blooded, it’s much easier for them to do Frankenstein shit than it is for us. The different bodies are just different electrical vibrations and they have got that secret, they’ve got the secret of the micro-currents, it’s so micro, so specific, these radio waves that actually create the bodies. These are the energies I work with when I’m healing.
They know the vibration of life and because they are cold-blooded, they are reptiles, they have no wish to make the Earth the perfect harmony it could be, or to heal the Earth from the damage that’s been done. The Earth’s been attacked for zeons by different extraterrestrials. It’s been like a football for so long. This place was a bus stop for many different aliens. All these aliens, they could cope with everything, including the noxious gases.
They’re landing all the time and coming up from the bowels of the Earth. They looked like reptiles originally, but they look like us when they get out now through the electrical vibration, that life key I talked about. They can manifest how they want to. All the real knowledge has been taken out and shredded and put back in another way. The Queen Mother is “Chief Toad” of this part of Europe and they have people like her in each continent. Most people, the hangers on, don’t know, you know, about the reptiles. They are just in awe of these people because they are so powerful.
“Bal moral is a very, very nasty place. That’s somewhere they want to dig underground. They will find reptile fossils, it goes back that far. Don’t think of people like the Queen Mother and Queen Victoria, as different people. Think of them as the same person which after a while has had to replace their coat. When the flesh dies, that energy, while it’s dying, will be immediately up someone else’s jacksy (backside). It’s very vampire, worse than vampire.
They are not going to come to you with hooked teeth and suck you’re blood. Fear is their food, they can actually take fear and manifest it into a tangible thing. The key is the vibrational current. At that vibrational current, they can manifest anything from anything. Its like a holographic image. We are all minerals and water vibrating. This is all an illusion we are living in. That’s the secret. You know when the monarchy’s fallen, it’s not the end of it. They will manifest in another form. The reptiles have never been defeated and this is the closest they have come to it.
The reason they are so threatened today is because the Earth is in such trouble and the mental power of people is returning. This is their most frightening time, but this is not going to kill them. There are long centuries before it’s over yet. The difference this time is that it’ll be more difficult for them and they are going to have to settle for less and the Earth people are going to get more.
But even though these reptilian ones are fuckers, they are sad, pathetic beasts really, while humanity is galloping towards light. They’re just pathetic lumps of nastiness who aren’t going to win. I can’t talk about this everywhere because they would just go ‘Christine, get a white coat, put it on backwards, get out’. But I want an end to the bullshit.”
Diana [film] Unlawful Killing
The director of a controversial Diana documentary says:
There was a sinister conspiracy but it began AFTER the crash12th May 2011Calm down dears, it’s only a documentary.The outrage generated by the announcement that Unlawful Killing (my film about the inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed) is to be screened in Cannes today has been so heated that I’m fully expecting the phone to ring, and my daughter Lily to say to me: ‘Dad, what have you been up to this time? Are you halfway between East Ham and Upney? Are you Barking?’I’ve even been attacked in this newspaper by the redoubtable A.N. Wilson, who expressed utter contempt for anyone who believes that Diana’s death might have been anything other than an accident.That struck me as odd, because I’m an avid reader of his work, and remember that on September 8, 2009, while reviewing the memoirs of Michael Mansfield QC (the barrister who represented Mohamed Al Fayed at the inquest), he wrote: ‘Mansfield has persuaded me that, as a matter of fact, there is something extremely fishy about the death of Princess Diana in the Paris underpass.’Or perhaps that was another A.N. Wilson?What’s caused the most heat this week is the inclusion of a photograph of Diana, taken shortly after the crash. I’ve been accused of cheap sensationalism (and worse), and Mohamed Al Fayed has also been attacked, even though he’s just a backer who had nothing to do with the editorial decision to include it.Incidentally, the only reason I needed a private backer at all was because, even though the inquest was the longest and most significant in British history, not one UK broadcaster would commission a documentary about it from me.Usually I can get programmes commissioned without undue difficulty, but Channel 4, Channel 5, Sky, and many others all stared blankly when we suggested the idea.And when my producer proposed (over lunch with the Director General) that the BBC might commission an investigative documentary about how the media had covered the inquest, and about how the coroner had conducted it (especially his extraordinary reluctance to call senior royals as witnesses, even though Diana had left letters stating that the Windsors were planning a car “accident” for her), the refusal was so powerful that it almost took the enamel off his teeth.Questions: Keith Allen's film explores the series of delays that have never been properly explainedAnyway, before I get that call from Lily, let me explain why the producers and I decided to include that photograph. And I’ll rehearse the arguments in front of the toughest audience of them all: Daily Mail readers.The photo is not used in the film for the purpose of shock. It is included as evidence, because it shows clearly that, although Diana had been injured in the crash, she was alert and very much alive. I repeat: it is not a picture of a dying woman.As medical evidence presented at the inquest confirmed, if Diana had been taken promptly to hospital by Dr Jean-Marc Martino, she could well have survived.Instead, due to a series of delays that have never been properly explained, it took one hour and 43 minutes to get her to a hospital just a couple of miles away, by which time her life was ebbing away.We briefly use one photograph as part of a sequence which asks: why was she not taken to hospital more quickly? What took place within Dr Martino’s ambulance (inside which she remained for well over an hour)? Why is Dr Martino’s evidence greatly at variance with the known facts? And why did no official inquiry ever interview (or even name) most of other people in the ambulance?Surely, if the inquest and police enquiries were as ‘thorough’ and ‘open’ as the voices of authority insist, that is the very least they would have done?My film is not about a conspiracy before the crash, but about a conspiracy after the crash, culminating in a six-month inquest which (it is my contention) sought to bury the truth, rather than reveal it. I don’t know whether I’ll convince you or not, but I hope you’ll reserve judgement until you have seen it for yourselves.Admittedly, that’s difficult at the moment, because the film cannot be shown in the UK (mainly because the questions it asks about the conduct of the coroner and police chiefs could lead to us all being imprisoned under contempt of court laws). But it will soon be showing widely throughout the world, so many of you will be able to see it elsewhere.Accusations: Keith Allen denies he is trying to make money out of a much-loved woman's deathOne final point. I’ve been accused of seeking to make money out of a much-loved woman’s death by making this documentary. That accusation is cheap, untrue and unworthy of those who make it.I knew that I would be taking some flak by going public, but I made this film because I believe (as privately does A.N. Wilson and most of the British public) that there is something extremely fishy about Diana’s death, and that we have all been lied to by the authorities.Frankly, if it was simply money I was after, then I wouldn’t have spent three long years making a documentary. I’d simply have signed up for another lucrative Hollywood blockbuster, or spent another three months in a forest in Hungary, pretending to be the Sheriff of Nottingham.After all, my legs look lovely in tights.
Diana [film] Unlawful KillingUnlawful Killing – the film the British won't get to see
My documentary about the Diana inquest will be shown everywhere but the UK. Here's why7 May 2011http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/07/unlawful-killing-film-you-wont-seeThe internet is a global lavatory wall, a Rabelaisian mixture of truth, lies, insanity and humour. I felt its power and madness this week, when an excerpt from my new film, Unlawful Killing, was leaked on to YouTube and seized on by US conspiracy theorists, who immediately began claiming that the CIA had murdered Princess Diana, thereby allowing others to dismiss my documentary as mad.Deriding its critics as mad is an age-old British establishment trick. My "inquest of the inquest" film contains footage of Diana recalling how the royals wanted her consigned to a mental institution, and the inquest coroner repeatedly questioning the sanity of anyone who wondered if the crash was more than an accident. His chief target was Mohamed Al Fayed, a man I once profiled for a Channel 4 documentary. Before I met him, I'd half-believed the media caricature of him as a madman, driven nuts by the death of his son, and wildly accusing the Windsors of having planned the 1997 crash. However, I found a man who was sane and funny but frustrated that Britain wouldn't hold an inquest into his son's death. Michael Mansfield QC thought it unfair too, and fought for one to be held; which was why the longest inquest in British legal history eventually began in 2007.Long before the inquest started, the eminently sane Mansfield had persuaded me that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the crash, and signs of a cover-up by the authorities. Many journalists agreed, but as the inquest drew near, I noticed that British newspapers (several of which had regularly run "Was Diana Murdered?" pieces) suddenly fell into line, and started insisting that the inquest was a waste of time. They raised no protest when virtually all the key French witnesses refused to participate, nor did they find it odd that not one senior royal was ordered to appear, even though Diana had stated in a lawyer's note that the Windsors were planning an "accident" to her car. Nor did they raise the issue of possible bias when legal proceedings involving the integrity of the royal family were to be heard in the royal courts of justice before a coroner who'd sworn an oath of allegiance to the Queen.I felt the need to raise it, so I asked every major UK broadcaster (BBC, ITV, C4, Five, Sky) to commission a TV documentary about the inquest. But they refused even to contemplate such a suggestion, so Associated Rediffusion and I began filming and financing it ourselves. Shortly before the inquest began, Fayed offered to fund our project, so we could make a feature-length cinema documentary instead. We agreed, on condition that we would report events in the way we saw them, and the deal was struck.Unlawful Killing is not about a conspiracy before the crash, but a provable conspiracy after the crash. A conspiracy organised not by a single scheming arch-fiend, but collectively by the British establishment – judges, lawyers, politicians, police chiefs, secret services, even newspaper editors – all of whom have been appointed to their positions because they are "a safe pair of hands". Just as compass needles all point north without being told to, so these people instinctively know what is expected of them when the state's interests are under threat and they act accordingly, quietly suppressing uncomfortable evidence or undermining the credibility of witnesses whose evidence contradicts the official narrative.Consider just a fraction of what transpired. Over 100 significant witnesses were not called to the inquest, or refused to appear. Blood tests allegedly proving the drunkenness of the driver Henri Paul were deemed "biologically inexplicable" by a toxicologist. A British crash expert found that Diana's seat belt had not been working. And so on.Strangest of all was the media coverage of the verdict. Inquest evidence showed conclusively that the crash was caused by an unidentified white Fiat Uno and several unidentified motorcycles, vehicles that were certainly not paparazzi, because uncontested police evidence confirmed that the paparazzi were nowhere near the tunnel at the time of the crash. The jury understood this, bringing in a verdict of "unlawful killing" by unidentified "following vehicles"; yet within seconds, the BBC was misreporting that the jury had blamed the paparazzi, and the rest of the media meekly followed suit. Which is why – three years on – barely anyone realises what the jury's troubling verdict really was.Why is the film being premiered next week at Cannes, three years after the inquest ended? Because British lawyers insisted on 87 cuts before any UK release could be contemplated. So rather than butcher the film, or risk legal action, we're showing it in France, then the US, and everywhere except the UK. Pity, because at a time when the mindless sugar rush of the royal wedding has been sending British Rrepublicans into a diabetic coma, it could act as a welcome antidote.
Diana: Can You See The Real Me? The Greatest Spiritual Energy Extraction Scam of the 20th Century5 February, 2009By Matthew DeloozeWell let me tell you 'bout the way she looked
The way she'd act and the colour of her hair
Her voice was soft and cool
Her eyes were clear and bright
But she's not thereFrom the song She’s Not There by the ZombiesFor those people are unaware of my work. I suggest you read some of my earlier articles before reading this one. I dedicate this article to the gullible masses of this world. I dedicate it to the innocent families, the Fathers, the Mothers, the Son’s and the Daughters who were roped in to an agenda, which caused them so much pain, through manipulation of their minds within the collective consciousness of the human race. One day the deception that controls our lives will be unveiled but there will be no victorious Knights of Light and there will be no defeated Knights of Dark either, there will only be the truth. The truth is not one colour. The truth is all colours. On the day that all colours can be seen all tears will stop and we will remember who we really are…………..
Hello fellow truth seekers (Nice to see you again-to see you nice again)
I now find myself able to start adding to the list of articles written by Matthew Delooze. This is one I have been waiting to write for several months simply because, as I believe it will help open more paths for some of us in the future and it is a form of baggage removal for your minds. To those people that see and feel something in the information I supply I will say please don’t lose faith no matter how things appear sometimes. Awakening from the hypnosis of the Serpent Cult is on a par with breaking an addiction to powerful drugs. You will be very up one minute and you will be very down the next minute. You will suffer. You are literally a food source and your farmers want you to continue to feed them. To the Serpent Cut we are simply on a par with cattle and to break free from the milk farm we have to get past locked doors, electric fences, stonewalls and numerous cattle grids. Our hoofs will hurt with every step. It can be far easier to turn back to the cowshed and surrender your milk. Indeed I see so called awakened people run back in to a comfort zone cattle shed everyday especially when their bank account or their cowardice tells them to.
I did mention some of the information I’m going to supply today to the nearly world famous ‘Brighton 59ers’ in Rottingdean back in October 2008, back when the clocks had gone back. I should mention that I have been booked to do a small talk in Blackpool (St Annes) on March 28th at the UK Probe International conference. So if any of you want to come please visit this website for details. I will be doing a short talk on birth to death and death to birth. Please feel free to come and chuck tomatoes at me if you are that way inclined and as long as they are not still in the can it’s fine with me.
I have mentioned in previous articles that I believe we need to open our minds further and see things from a different perspective. This is not to add more clutter to the hypocritical conspiracy communities either. It is easy to talk of corrupt governments and hypocritical religions. It is easy to demonstrate and rant outside Government buildings. I know I have done it. What I thought was my intuition, in the 1980’s, was telling me the only way to seek justice for the working classes was through demonstrations and trade union movements etc.
I now realise my intuition was ‘wrong’ but it was only ‘wrong’ as I saw it from a five sense level. I now say to myself now how can this be so? I ‘preach’ to everyone, if preach is the right word, that they should always follow their intuition. Am I changing my opinion about the number one fundamental rule to Spiritualism, ‘follow your intuition’, I think to myself? No I’m not. What I’m saying is that our intuition will take us to a place we can comfortably accept as being a learning place for us at that time but it is not necessary a place of truth the truth, it is only a stepping-stone to the truth. Your intuition will allow you to believe you have found some truth but your intuition, your spiritual direction if you like, is only making you comfortable enough to take the information in that you need to take in. In other words your intuition will lead you to things that are not necessarily true but they are things that will make the truth far easier to swallow on a later date.
That is where I want to start in this article, at a later date if you like because it is now eleven and half years since the ‘death’ of Princess Diana. Is that long enough to leave before you are smacked with the truth? It is also seven and half years since the 9/11 attacks. I have never written anything about either event before now either.
Would it seem daft of me to tell you I was given information about both these events in 1995/6? I suppose it is easy for me to claim that in 2009 and I realise I will seem a liar to the vast majority of folks for doing so anyway. That said I couldn’t see me gaining any possible benefit for claiming these things but please believe I’m lying about it if you want but I knew of a 9/11 event and a Diana type ‘death of a princess’ event in 1996, years before they happened, it was part of my awakening process.
Let’s start with Princess Diana shall we? I have to say that David Icke did a very good job, as he always does, of explaining the Princess Diana death situation. I have to agree with most of what I have ‘heard’ of David’s interpretation. I have not read The Biggest Secret though. I’m sure most of you will be aware of David’s stuff on Diana from years ago.
Anyway let’s get started eh?
I think you would have to go to some very far out places to find a human being that did not know of Princess Diana in this world. She was the shy and beautiful young lady that was going to marry her very own Prince charming wasn’t she? This prince charming was, as you know, Serpent Cult member Charles Windsor.
Probably the most famous photo of Charles and Diana
The Serpent Cult did a massive publicity job on Diana and Charles throughout the world. I remember in the early 1980’s when you couldn’t buy anything without ‘Diana & Charles are getting married’ written on it. You literally couldn’t wipe your arse on a toilet roll without Charles & Diana’s picture on the wrapper. The markets and shops had a field day selling cheap crappy pens, pencils, books, cups, mugs, plates, watches etc, etc, etc. Indeed all the little schoolgirls even had Princess Di plastic lunchboxes and bags. I’m sure Colin Fry had a Lady Di handbag too!
The reason for this massive publicity job, ladies and gentlemen, was simply because the Serpent Cult needed the masses to connect on an emotional and spiritual level with Diana. Charles was already connected to the collective consciousness but the Serpent Cult needed the masses to be totally connected to Diana because they knew she would be sacrificed years later.
The Serpent Cult needed the collective consciousness to bind with Diana to make the ritual successful from their point of view. Let me make it perfectly clear to all of you now. ‘The Serpent Cult did the PR job on Diana it was not Diana herself’
The Serpent Cult used all the tricks in the book to attract people from all walks of life in to respecting and loving Diana. Indeed even the anti-royals used to say they ‘hated the royal family apart from Diana’. Diana really was turned in to a Mrs Wonderful wasn’t she? I’m likely to get a punch on the nose for saying different eh?
There are millions of good folks who feel deeply spiritually connected to Diana, and I understand why, but I have the job of telling you that this was simply part of the scam. I get all the dirty jobs. So folks let me start as I mean to go on. Diana was simply another member of the Serpent Cult and she was here to help enslave us just as much as my mate Popey is and the rest of the secret rulers of this word are. Diana was a pied piper just like Popey and the rest of the puppets are.
We were all made to feel emotional about Diana, but I’m afraid that was the plot from day one. Oh I’m sure there are researchers out there that will claim, as is their right, that Diana was here to awaken us up and simply enable us to see that murderers and liars really do exist inside the Establishment and in the Royal family? Obviously it will help their fan base and their incomes if they appease Diana’s fans and claim she came to awaken the masses by showing the world the royals did her in and not claim that she came to help enslave them.
But come on folks didn’t we already know that that the royals are murderers? For fuck sake Henry the Eight used to chop the bloody heads off his wives in full public view, so if you didn’t realise the royal bloodline is already full of sadistic murderers then what can I say? What? You think the serpent bloodline has changed their personality traits do you? Listen… I’m not here to appease a fan base nor take your money so I tell you the truth when I say that ‘the Royals have always been incestuous murderers and liars and Diana was and still is a member of the same club’.
Diana was 100% Serpent bloodline and as far as I know her body wasn’t carrying any goodie two shoes cuckoo type soul either. I’m not going to tell fans of Diana that Diana was innocent just so you think I’m a nice chap I’m here to tell you she was up to the neck in it. She was 100% Serpent Cult.
Diana was 100% Serpent Cult: Bloodline and Soul.
The Royals/Illuminati are privy to higher levels of spiritual understanding than we are and they base their behaviour on that understanding.
I need to get something across to you before we go any further. I have mentioned this briefly before. Our deceptive ‘rulers ‘ continuously reincarnate in to this world in to positions of privilege and/or power. They are ‘destined’ if you like to carry out certain actions that will assist a multi-dimensional force to have control over the human race. They will be equipped with the guile and/or personality they need to carry out their duties and for this multi-dimensional force (Lower fourth reptilians or whatever else you wish to think of them as being) to be able to continue to rule over us they need our spiritual permission to do so. They need our emotional free will, they need our acceptance and they need a show of respect from us to enable them to rule us. These reincarnating members of the Serpent Cult' like Diana, will sometimes not have a clue, on a 5-sense conscious level, about what they are here to do. Living the luxurious high life on a five sense level can easily camouflage any hint of spiritual destiny and they, just like you, haven’t any clues that they are a dumbed down prisoner in this world on a five-sense level either. After all you think you and your mind are free don't you?
Sometimes the agents for the Serpent Cult will also be subjected to the same dumbing down process that you have. But under the surface a force will be operating within them that will make sure the wishes of the Serpent Cult are carried out.
I don’t know if Diana knew who she was or whom she represented but I do know she was given the guile and of course the means to be able ‘ to win hearts and minds’. The Serpent Cult writes the scripts in the lower fourth world for their agents to carry out in this world and their cast list is made up of very deceptive entities and they are very good at what they do. The Serpent Cult will make things happen in this world that will allow the said scripts to come to pass. Diana was a willing agent sent to take part in a sacrificial ritual, she was no angel of light nor was she a cuckoo soul sent undercover to awaken anyone. The said ritual involved is continuously repeated in a time loop situation and usually involves using the same participants to carry it out. It is simply part of the agenda to totally enslave mankind.
Diana carried out many rituals, as the rest of the Serpent Cult do, right under our noses.
I have said many, many times that the Serpent Cult created mythical deities (Gods and Goddesses) to act as their mediums to extract spiritual energy from this world in to another dimension.
‘Diana’ Spencer was not only a medium she was a fully signed up member of the Serpent Cult. She would gladly spend many short lifetimes on earth, in the lap of luxury of course, for the benefits to her and her masters existence in another dimension and the Serpent Cult created all the circumstances throughout her life just so she ‘fitted in’ with the symbolism needed for the ritual carried out in the Alma tunnel and for the spiritual energy it would provide for her master and herself in another dimension.
Just step back from the pathetic hype that surrounded her for a moment and you will see that she was simply ‘groomed’ to become a massive pied piper. As soon as she started appearing in the media she was never out of it. The entire media cartel hyped Diana constantly, so please ask yourself why this was so as I’m sure most of you reading this article are aware that the illuminati control all mainstream media? Do you honestly thing the illuminati controlled media couldn’t have made Diana in to whatever they wanted? A scrubber? A lunatic? A paranoid drama queen? You name it they could have done it to her but they didn’t. Why was this so? Don’t tell me it was the will of the masses please.
Diana: A natural pied piperon her wedding day
The entire illuminati controlled media actually made sure that even if Diana wasn’t seen in the best light morally they certainly made sure she always came out of events with mass sympathy and an emotional attachment with the public? Does that sound right if Diana was here simply to awaken the masses to the wrong doings of the murderous Royalty and the illuminati? Or does it sound more likely that the illuminati controlled media was really strongly behind Diana when required to increase the level her ‘worship’ value amongst the masses. Come on folks wake up here the fact is that the Serpent Cult with the means they have could have ordered mainstream media to slaughter Diana in the public eye but this never really happened over any long period of time. Ask yourself why. Why would the illuminati allow Diana to be the peoples Goddess especially for as long as they did?
I’ll tell you why. It’s because Diana’s murder was planned many years before it happened, before she was born even, and the script insisted that the whole world mourned Diana after she had been ritually sacrificed. Don’t forget folks Emotional Respect = Spiritual Energy. The only way the whole world would mourn her is to make her a people’s champion around the world.
Even the Royal Family played their part in this scam by openly playing to the script as ‘the official bad guys’, especially during the last couple of years of Diana’s life, but the public just went along with it too being suckered in like lemons. Big bad Queenie and dirt bag, Camilla shagging Charlie, versus squeaky-clean Diana wasn’t it? The public lapped it up and Diana’s worship value was increasing all the time. Diana was such a Goodie - Goodie compared to the bad guys in the Palace in the public eye eh?
Please consider the fact that the Royals would have and could have silenced Diana years before the actual sacrificial murder if they REALLY wanted to keep in the public’s good books. Oh no my friends the rest of the Royal family played the role of super bad guys to make Diana even more popular with the public and for good reason.
I haven’t time to go in to all the symbolic events in Diana’s life in this article. I believe David Icke has pointed out some of the links with Diana‘s bloodline and mentioned the symbolism behind the Alma tunnel and the 13th pillar being hit in the tunnel etc. Again I agree with most of what I have heard or seen about David’s opinion and it is worth a look back at his information on this matter. There is no need for me to drone on about the 'details of the crash' because you will already know them.
Diana was killed on symbolic ground in the Alma tunnel
I will though point out a couple of symbolic coincidences I have spotted myself later on. But it is for sure that Diana was murdered in a tunnel linked to the Goddess Diana and her sacrifice has too many other occult coincidences to be anything less than a ‘well executed sacrificial murder/ritual’.
So hang on a minute here. Why would the murderers go to so much trouble to carry out such act in full public scrutiny if it was simply a murder to shut Diana up and stop her being impregnated with a coloured Muslim? Come on folks get your thinking caps on. If the Royal family were simply pissed off that Diana was opening her mouth too much or because she was shagging a Muslim and they didn’t want a half African - half English baby appearing, to upset the Royal Family photo albums, then why not simply bump 'Diana' off quietly? Surely an excuse of ‘slipping on a corgi dog turd and breaking her neck’ sort of thing would suffice and save a lot of time with the conspiracy theories to boot wouldn’t it? Laugh at that pathetic excuse if you want but I think having an official excuse consisting of a driver, Henry Paul, that was 3-4 times over the drink drive limit and veins full of carbon dioxide with an official bodyguard sat next to him is even more pathetic don’t you? I realise the Royal Family wanted to put a few hundred miles between them and the murder scene but bloody hell…. Henry Paul was pissed up… case solved? Give over don’t make me laugh! But Even this fairy tale added to the emotion directed at Diana.
Anyway the point I am making is that the royals could have simply faked her suicide and claimed she something like she was wallowing in shame over her many flings with men. They could have faked her suicide over her eating disorder and her so called depression over Charles’s affair. Well couldn’t they?
I’ll tell you why it was because Diana was murdered in a ritual that will allow for the extraction of Spiritual energy made in and intended for use in this world to be transported to another and not because of her taste for sex with Muslims. Diana herself was exposed as a very promiscuous lady, let’s be blunt here truth seekers, even an ugly old sod like me was in with a chance of getting my leg over with Diana. She was opening hers legs to anyone that smiled at her.
Hewitt: He was just one of Diana’s many lovers.
Sex scandals amongst the royal family are nothing new anyway. Even the staff at the Palace were constantly up each other and that was just the blokes! Indeed even the dodgy butler, Paul Burrell was balls deep with the other male staff. Let’s be blunt, they are all up each other in high society circles and anyone else can join in as long as they are from a certain bloodline. Indeed Princess Anne and Prince Charles were both shagging at least one member of the Parker Bowles family at the same time and this was long before Diana was killed. It’s the norm for Royals and their staff to have sex parties and let’s also be blunt again and admit that Diana’s answer to not liking Charles’s adultery was to go out and shag as many folk as she could and commit adultery several times herself. She obviously got a taste for Asian or African men too. Admittedly this sort of behaviour would embarrass the phoney royal family on a 5-sense level but surely not enough to commit a symbolic murder on the scale of the Alma tunnel saga. Yet these are just some of the reasons given to the idiotic masses as being a good enough reason to create such a murder.
Burrel: He's as dodgy as a bag of monkeys... just like his paymasters
All the indications point to the fact that Diana was murdered at the very moment the whole world had been primed to consciously focus on her. I’m sure if you think about it properly with an open mind that you will at least partly agree with that statement. Just what circumstances led to the mass attention Diana was receiving at the time of her death?
Well she was portrayed, as the ‘victim’ for several years wasn’t she? She also beat Bulimia etc didn’t she? She had the guts to touch a man with aids didn’t she? She had been allowed to go on BBC TV and slag off the royal family wasn’t she? Hey and don’t tell me the fucking illuminati and the royal family didn’t 'allow' that to happen because the BBC dare not fart without asking the Queen and illuminati stooges if it is OK first! Take it from me the Royals/Illuminati arranged for Diana to spill the beans on TV because it was all part of the scam of attracting respect to Diana and turn her in to a goddess. Indeed she predicted her death and actually said she wanted the masses to call her the Queen of Hearts of that very show.
Don’t tell me the Royal family didn’t know this was going to happen. Diana became the self proclaimed Queen of Hearts and she also announced she would be killed. It was all part of the attack on the collective consiousness.
Diana was also the heroine for many charities. Well wasn’t she? (See my book, is it me for a moment, for information about charities) Her campaign against land mines also got her worldwide respect. She was literally being promoted, as a better-looking Mother Teresa wasn’t she? Again please tell me how this was allowed to happen in mainstream Serpent Cult controlled media if it would severely damage Serpent Cult members like the Royal family? I’ll tell you again Diana was 100% Serpent Cult. The Royal family didn’t give a monkeys about public opinion and time tells us that is true. I’m not saying that to hurt the luvvy dovey Diana fans I’m saying that to attempt to make you think and actually challenge the thoughts the hypnosis the Serpent Cult has placed in you through carrying out this ritual.
There is also the involvement of the Al Fayed family to consider because they are also members of the Serpent Cult. Oh I realise Daddy Al Fayed has played his part well. He has said a few things and chucked a few stones in the direction of Prince Philip and demanded an inquest, he has spent a few bob too. Indeed on a five-sense level Daddy Al Fayed was in his element telling the world that his own cult bloodline was mating with Royalty cult bloodline, in other words he was boasting about the fact that Dodi was giving Princess Diana one.
So when you think about it, as far as the Royal family and their public relations are concerned it was absolutely the worse time to actually have Diana bumped off. At the time of her death she was the most popular female on the planet. As I said an excuse liked ‘Diana slipped on a corgi dog turd’ or ‘it was an act of suicide because she was shamed over her many men friends’ would have been a far, far ,safer option than a very dodgy drunken car accident in the centre of Paris.
Anyway, I have visted Paris as most of you know and I have researched the area where Diana was sacrificed and I have researched all the monuments. I haven’t just been sat on a chair playing fairies gossiping on a forum you know! Most people believe the stature of liberty flame monument that is located above the Alma tunnel (pictured below) is an official monument that was built especially in memory of Diana.
Matthew Delooze in Paris on the Pont De L’Alma (Alma Bridge) looking at the 'Diana was victim to sacrificial murder monument'. ‘Candle in the Wind’. A flame on a black pentagram
It is not officially a monument dedicated to Diana. It was actually placed over the tunnel in 1987 and it is known as the liberty flame. Diana didn’t die until 1997, ten years later. So if you thought this monument was placed there after Diana was murdered forget it. That said it is now considered an official monument to the Diana ritual. Indeed I tell you now it was placed there as a monument for Diana 10 years ‘before she died’ although the powers that be claim it was there to recognise relations between France and the USA.
1987 was long before Diana even started her relationship with Dodi Fayed or before her marriage was in such a state too. The murder was not about Diana’s relationship or opening her mouth. So I tell you again that Diana’s murder was planned many years before it actually happened and on a spiritual level at least Diana played a very willing part in it. High rankers inside the Royal family would have known Diana had incarnated in to this world to carry out this ritual from detail before and at her birth, again the royal family are privy to information you are not. Diana would then have been groomed and she would have taken part in many other occult rituals including her wedding and the birth/ Christenings of her children and of course playing the role of the black virgin for Rome. Indeed, as some researchers have already pointed out she was married in St Paul’s (Temple of Apollo /Diana) and her funeral was in Westminster Abbey (Temple of Apollo/Diana) Please note now that she also gave birth to her first born at the summer solstice. Again Diana was 100% Serpent Cult.
Diana shows the world her son on the 21st June 1982
So let me get to the point eh? How many millions of people were very emotionally affected by the death of Diana? You can’t say for sure can you? It was literally the entire planet wasn’t it? Diana was loved by the entire world wasn’t she? Her death created one of the highest levels of mourning the world has ever seen? The entire planets energy was focussed not only on Diana but also on all the occult symbolism she carried.
I tell you the truth when I say that all the ‘hype’ over Diana had reached a climax just prior to her death. So what really happened on the night of her sacrificial murder? Well she literally collected the entire worlds spiritual energy and had it focused on the symbolism surrounding her death, that is, she was playing the role of the mythical goddess (Artemis). She was also, has previously pointed out by Mr Icke and by Ru Mills, a pseudonym for Rayelan Allan, sacrificed in the tunnel De L’ Alma that is supposed to be the location of an ancient sacrificial site, an ancient pagan temple placed on an energy line and dedicated to Artemis/ Diana Goddess of the Moon.
So what Diana actually did after being hyped as the most famous and most loved woman on the planet was gain the free willed adoration from the collective consciousness of the entire human race and then because of her ‘death’ and literally through her magnetism she got the energy created by her adoring fans ‘delivered’ to a temple and the temple is a pathway to the 4th dimension (L’ Alma passage). I have explained about the Paris energy lines before so please, if you are new to this information take time to read about it because it is vital you read at least this essay.
As it has been pointed out, the area around Pont De L'Alma is linked to an ancient pagan temple and linked to goddess worship and indeed linked to a symbolic passage to ‘Heaven’. So all the emotional respect directed at Diana’s death was also directed to the 4th dimension through its symbolic underworld figures such as Diana etc.
In my opinion, based on my own research, Diana was not a being of light that had come to expose things about a phony royal family she was simply another means to steal the spiritual energy that is created by genuine human emotional beings. Indeed Diana got the tag Queen of Hearts because (a) she had previously announced her preference for that title as part of the ritual and ( this was because her heart was to be removed in the Pont De L ‘Alma tunnel as part of the ritual. This should explain to you why there was a delay in moving her to hospital. It was not just a case of waiting for her to die in the tunnel it was because her heart was used in a ritual inside the tunnel because the tunnel was on symbolic ground. Hey you don’t have to believe me but I believe I am telling you the truth. If you want to believe Diana was the innocent party whilst everybody else in her family and indeed the Al Fayeds family were the bad guys then be my guests but i'm convinced every one of them is Serpent Cult.
The fact is though, ladies and gentlemen, that the Serpent Cult wanted Diana’s sacrifice to take place whilst the collective consciousness was indeed concentrating on her as some kind of symbolic Goddess and its obvious to me anyway that the hype worked. The Serpent Cult wanted the entire world’s emotions to focus on her life and death and of course also focus on ALL of the symbolism surrounding it. The Serpent Cult wanted the world to mourn Diana and feel very emotional about Diana. Why?
It’s simple; the massive outcry of emotional respect for Diana created a massive amount of Spiritual Energy. Don’t forget folks... Emotional Respect = Spiritual Energy.
So just what did the death of Diana definitely create? It created a massive amount of Spiritual Energy didn’t it? Well didn’t it? Just because the vast majority of the public fell for the scam does not mean it was not a scam. It was a very good scam indeed.
Diana was hyped all through her life and even more through her death. In my opinion this was to create energy but where did this energy go then? Did it go to feed the starving folks that Diana championed? Did it go to help the victims of landmines that Diana championed? Did it go to the aids victims that Diana championed? Did it bloody hell as like! It went to feed the lower fourth dimension simply because Diana came from the lower fourth and she was an agent for the lower fourth. She only used these charities to gain the emotional respect need to create spiritual energy.
Is it starting to make sense even to the ‘Diana was innocent positive energy’ merchants?
She was a positive energy of light icon was she? So worshipping the symbolic daughter of Zeus will free us all from illuminati control will it? That is utter bollocks in my opinion. And believe me a true icon of positivity wouldn’t get past the gates of Buckingham Palace and indeed a true positive energy entity couldn’t ever live with the hypocrisy Diana lived with.
Again Diana was 100% Serpent Cult and she helped carry out one of the biggest deceptions ever. It’s the same scam being carried out time and time again and the same suckers fall for it time and time again and the same suckers that fall for it lifetime after lifetime. I have been saying it for years, the Serpent Cult attract the masses to occult temples or symbolic locations, get them to feel emotional so the said emotions make energy and then the Serpent Cult harness the energy.
Diana’s death was just one massive ritual and millions of human beings were victim to one of the biggest deceptions ever. I’m sorry to say that but I believe there is no other explanation. Indeed I am 100% sure there is no other explanation.
I laugh and giggle when I see some so-called awakened people think Diana was a ‘people’s princess’. There is no such thing in my opinion. The immeasurable amounts of spiritual energy created in this deceptive scam went to the Serpent Cult not the people. That is why the ritual murder took place in a Serpent Cult symbolic temple; it was to feed the Serpent Cult. This was simply because Diana was actually a member of the Serpent Cult and not the person the illuminati made you think she was. Diana actually represented the entities of the Lower fourth dimension not the people who were made to love her. When we mourned Diana we actually fed the lower fourth.
Obviously Diana had to have the spiritual guile to pull it off and because she was indeed backed by the mass media it was a piece of cake for her to do so, especially when the world is full of dumbed down buffoons. Let's face it folks we have all been suckered by a pretty face and a cute smile at sometime in our lives.
Diana and her symbolism, (the ‘goddess’ etc) was literally an energy conductor for your spiritual energy. The Serpent Cult only need to use their well practised slick PR tricks and most of you us are putty in their hands. Diana was part of the deceptive force that enslaves us. I believe she would and did willingly deceive millions of people on a spiritual level. On a five-sense level she may not have seen the bigger picture but she willingly followed the script.
I realise some of you were/are so hypnotised by the Diana hype that you will not ever believe what I say. But I tell you for good reason that the Diana saga was just another deception carried out by the Serpent Cult. I’m afraid they are very good at deceiving us and I take no pleasure in saying the things I am saying in this article.
Can you start to see just how big this deception was?
Indeed even after her sacrificial murder the blind masses are still conned into giving spiritual energy to the lower fourth dimension. Diana received a very symbolic send off in Westminster Abbey didn’t she? The whole world wept and gave energy again through her symbolism and the Temple her funeral took place in.
Can you remember the song sung at her funeral? Elton John’s, Candle in the Wind? I don’t pretend to know the full scale of the occult meaning contained in the song but it is very, very connected to sacrificial murder of symbolic goddesses. Marilyn Monroe, like Diana Spencer was also a symbolic sex toy/ consort for Serpent Cult members too. She too was a pied piper and conductor of spiritual energy energy.
Marilyn was another Serpent Cult symbolic Goddess. Same Scam, different time and different location
Obviously that information might be easier to swallow now that I have explained the true reasons of Diana’s killing. Marilyn was just an earlier example of the same scam. I am not going in to great detail about Marilyn Monroe in this article as I wish to concentrate on Diana but details of Marilyn will be thoroughly provided by myself in the future, I really do believe her murder was linked through symbolism to Diana.
Oh sod it… Shall we regulars go deeper now for a few minutes?
.....OK. It’s about the ‘mythological’ figures that I say act as representatives for the Serpent Cult to attract and steal our spiritual energy. Indeed do you really want to know some real symbolism connected to the deaths of not only Diana but also Marilyn Monroe? Will you take it seriously? Do you even want to know the truth because I’m sure many people prefer to live lives under hypnosis and believe Diana was a ‘positive entity’? If your mind is closed there is no point listening to me ever again? I realise it is not nice to think you have been conned and it is not nice to ralise there isn’t any real goddess icon that will help you escape this world no matter how much you want to rely on one. Things are easier for you to cope with if you delude yourself aren’t they? Indeed most people need a guru these days to tell them when they need to go for a shite. Take this crystal with you to the bog (Sticking them up your arse is optional), light this scented candle in the bog, stick a picture of Colin Fry in the bog and then go around telling everyone you are you and you are free. We should all be born with these gadgets shouldn't we? We could save the pains of the awakening process from birth eh?
OK…. I’ll not only give my opinion about the death of Diana but I’ll briefly mention Marilyn too eh? We will solve two major mysteries in one go. After all it’s about flipping time we did solve the Diana scam isn’t it?
Diana and Marilyn were not just symbolic goddesses implanted into the mass consciousness by the Serpent Cult for just one reason (extraction of your energy through deception). They were literally representing the daughters of the sun gods. Do you want to know how? OK then. I believe Marilyn represented a Helen of Troy sex goddess type persona and of course Diana represented an ‘Artemis’ huntress goddess type persona. Diana (Artemis) was also actually given credit for creating the birth of Apollo the Sun god. Don’t forget that Diana (Artemis) created the birth of her own Son William at summer solstice in 1982. So please note now, experienced conspiracy buffs, and it is very important you take this in. Because of his mother’s symbolism and his date of birth William is indeed symbolically ‘Apollo’ . Don’t forget the Royals along with mythical deities operate on a different level of understanding and as sick as t sounds to your conditioned mind 'mothers are also sisters' and 'brothere are husband's and also son's' and visa versa, they are simply facets of the same diamond they are simply a deceptive force posing as siblings and therefore representing the creator gods. They are many faces but only one force.
Please note that William is now the spitting ‘image’ of his 'mother' and so please take extra special note that he is being hyped and will be promoted just like his mother was. His 'worship value' is being increased every year. A wedding or coronation in a symbolic temple on symbolic ground will set him on the path and destiny previously scripted by the Serpent Cult so please take note now that William is no King of Hearts he is 100% Serpent Cult, just like his mother was. Don’t be fooled again….
…. For now… please take it in that symbolically Helene (Marilyn) and Artemis (Diana) are both ‘daughters of Zeus’. OK? (Different name and face but exactly the same force)
The only thing that Marilyn has in common with Diana on a five-sense level, because of the years between them, is the fact they were both subjected to suspicious deaths and of course the Elton John song ‘Candle in the Wind’. Well isn’t it?
Elton John first performed the song 11 years after Marylyn died. He then did a similar version at the funeral of Diana. Most people know that I have pointed out the symbolism carried by Serpent Cult puppet Elton John on a few occasions. Elton John’s middle name is Hercules. Hercules in Greek Mythology is actually the brother of Artemis (Diana) and Helene (Marilyn.) So Hercules is obviously also the son of Zeus.
Elton and Diana? Hercules and Artemis?
On a five-sense level they are 'celebrities'… on a spiritual level they are Serpent Cult pied pipers and will steal and pass your energy to the 4th dimension.
So when you think about it anyone showing respect to Diana or Marilyn through the song ‘Candle in the Wind’, and millions upon million did, will also be showing respect to the celebrity faces literally the symbolic offspring of the sun creator god Zeus. This is how the Serpent Cult constantly deceive us. They know the rules of creation in this world.
When Diana’s funeral took place in Westminster Abbey (the location that was once a temple of Apollo/Artemis) the massive amount of overpowering emotional respect was indeed directed at both Diana and Elton John, whom I have now informed you are symbolically Hercules and Artemis, children of Zeus. Just a coincidence is it?
If it is just a coincidence it’s a very bloody good symbolic one. What are the odds of getting a Hercules and an Artemis in a Temple and millions of people show deep emotion towards them? Come on wake up for fuck’s sake, this Cult is taking the piss. I have said in many of my articles and in my books that we are conned into worshipping the Sun, as a means to worshipping inter-dimensional/ 4th dimensional entities by proxy if you like, it’s an inter-dimensional race of entities that claim to have created the sun, hence if they con you to worship the sun you also worship them. Zeus created the Sun and by us being conned in to worshipping the children of Zeus (Hercules and Armetis) we are actually worshipping the creators of the Sun Gods. It’s a 'food chain' and our love for Diana was the starting point in this ritual and in the deceptive food chain involved. Please let me explain in simple terms for those who are relatively new to my work.
The Food Chain created by Diana Sacrifice Ritual
Worship Diana Spencer the pied piper = Worship ancient deities like Artemis/Diana.
Worship Artemis/Diana the deities = Worship the creators of Artemis/Diana (Zeus)
Worship phony gods like Zeus/ Jupiter /Amen Ra = Worship their creators from the Lower 4th
The whole ‘spiritual energy food chain’ system is created by the deceptive Serpent Cult. Can you see by that simple list why the Serpent Cult needs symbolic pied pipers? Emotional respect is free will worship and free will worship will give those you worship the divine right to rule.
I tell you the truth again the Serpent Cult use their symbolic agents on Earth to play middlemen and pied pipers to extract your spiritual energy. This applies whether the actual pied piper is aware of events or not. Elton ‘Hercules’ John and Diana ‘Artemis’ Spencer are two such symbolic pied pipers and as daft as it sounds their masters are 4th dimensional entities that are alien to this world.
When we worship such pied pipers we also worship the symbolism behind them. Obviously these two very popular pied pipers are given their means, talent and guile, to enable them to become very good pied pipers. They simply allowed access to the true abilities that all human beings have. Sadly most of us have forgotten our true powers. (Apart from folks like that nice boy Colin Fry of course)
I wasn’t going to point out the deeper level of symbolism (Artemis, Apollo, Helene, Hercules) simply because the blind sheep that are hypnotised in to thinking Diana was here for good wouldn’t and couldn’t be able to take it in. They couldn’t accept Diana took part in a ritual that would deceive the masses let alone follow the path that leads from respect for Diana to the worship of the pagan creator gods like Zeus and then on to surrendering our spirits to inter-dimensional entities. The latter having created not only the myth of Zeus and also the physical body used by Diana to represent Zeus. But I know some of you can take it in so i did go deeper! Please breath the air that I send you now and will try to send you in the future. You can always blow it away if you do not like it or think it stinks.
Anyway let’s get back on track eh? We are having a busy day eh? Let’s not carry on as deep as this at least for a bit…
...So indeed as far as Diana is concerned the masses continue to fall for the same spiritual extraction scam in 2009 as they did in 1997. ‘The Temple of Diana’ at Althorp (Pictured below) is simply another conductor for the spiritual energy created through the emotional respect the human race ‘still’ has for Diana.
The Temple of Diana at Althorp
There is a lot of symbolism surrounding Althorp and Diana’s grave. I’m sure you will have read many things about it. I could add to that but I’m not going to because like the circumstances surrounding the actual murder of Diana it does not really matter. The blatant fact that you should be aware of is that a symbolic temple has been placed in Althorp (The Serpent Cult use this scam a lot at stately homes) and it is this that is now used as a replacement to the Alma tunnel as a focus of respect, and it is the official means to harness energy and transport it to the lower 4th. Its geometry will be in line with occult geometry and its location will be on some connecting energy line. The close up picture below shows the world (The halo or egg shape) that the temple is dedicated to deities and not the human body of Diana.
Diana was 100% Serpent Cult: The halo indicates Sun/ Moon deity but it also indicates rebirth from the egg
This Temple, on one level anyway, is on a par with the Flame that stands over the Paris version of the same temple she was murdered in (Godeess temple of Aremis/Diana). That is the Pont De L’ Alma area. I have indeed visited them but there are other reasons for creating this temple that I will try and explain on a simple level. The 'face' is black to represent the Black Virgin goddess role Diana took up for the Serpent Cult on many ocassions (Rituals dressed in black) but that’s not all my friends, not by a long chalk. I tell you the truth. The image is symbolic for Diana returning to this world ‘with the same looks’ so to speak. The collective spiritual energy directed at Diana from the human race will allow her to return to earth with the very same looks when she chooses to. It appears our Queen of Hearts was very, very, vain. The Spencers have built a 'museum' oin the grounds of Althorp. Those that read my article The Virgin Festival will now realise that the scam of putting 'temples to Diana' in the grounds of stately homes is not as daft as they thought when i first wrote it because Althorp is now on a par with Weston Park and it has added a museum too. Look at the picture below.
A combination of a museum and an occult monument (Temple) at Althorp.(See spitting out the feathers of the benu bird)
Inside the museum ( Respect temple for Artemis))
Sorry to go straight in and to the point. The Serpent Cult have placed the items you see inside this Temple to receive our free will permission to allow Diana to return to this world as many times as she chooses in the exact same physical image and equipped with the same guile. The 'figures' represent 'reincarnation' in the same body and the hanging profile picture is to symbolism that reincarnation will be with the same face. Does this make sense to you? Can you see that the Serpent Cult are aware of things in this world that they have blinded you too?
Diana wasn’t really doing the ‘good things’ for the world she was simply feeding her ego and getting energy from the masses which will give her the right incarnate as she pleases. It's the will of the masses. It's the will of the collective consciousness.
Hey… I may have jumped a couple of articles, or even a 60-dollar book, ahead of myself by telling you that part of the antidote for the serpents spell, but hey that’s the kinda dozy bugger I am. I’m not saying all the world has to visit this temple/museum to bring Diana back (to carry out the same con trick on you) because that permission was already given when she died, so believe me, it is just that she is so vain she wants to come back in future generations with the same ‘look’.
Anyway let’s settle down again, ladies and gentlemen,… back to brass tacks... Where were we?... Oh yes… All the emotional respect created for Diana even today in 2009, including that created by conspiracy theorists that still believe she was here for good, will be harnessed as spiritual energy through the official temple/museum at Althorp, just as the louvre pyramid and museum did in previous articles, and it will feed Serpent Cult entities in another dimension on a long term basis. That is why agents in the Serpent Cult encourage the emotions of the masses to be continually raised over the Diana issue, it is because they want to add more attention to the occult symbolism and goddess worship that is linked to the case and therefore harness more spiritual energy from the ritual.
A good example of this is Daddy Al Fayed. He kept the case going for years didn’t he? This man is ‘establishment’ to the core please be fooled no more by his guile. He has even placed his masters symbolism in his own palace (Harrods) to carry out the same scam (placing an altar in a building to turn it into a temple) and to appease his masters too and also ensure his bloodline can reincarnate as agents in the Serpent Cult.
The Altar in Harrods: !00% Serpent Cult.
The Al Fayeds are also100% Serpent Cult just like the Spencer family and the only reason Diana was led to have relationships with Muslims on a five sense level was to increase the ‘attention’ from the different cultures when she was actually sacrificed. If Diana had been having a relationship with a Christian at the time of her death the emotional attention from the Muslim world would not have been half as strong as it was for having a relationship with a Muslim and therefore the spiritual energy involved would have been far less powerful. OK?
Again Diana had the greatest PR job done for and this was entirely because she was a lamb to the slaughter and the slaughterers needed a very big audience. Let me point out that it does not matter on a 5-sense level who or what physically murdered Diana. It does not matter if it was Charles, Queenie, Henry Paul, MI6, CIA, Martians, Kermit the Frog or that nice mummies boy Colin Fry (What a jolly nice boy he is). Whoever it was will never ever be caught. Never.
I know that is wrong but it’s a fact.
If the system wanted a scapegoat they would have found one straightaway like it has done with many other assassinations. The ‘mystery’ of Diana’s death, as that of Marylyn Monroe, will always remain unsolved or classed as an accident/suicide simply because the Serpent Cult will continually use the rituals to create energy for themselves by manipulating the emotions of human beings. The reason no scapegoat will be found for the Diana murder is because the world has to see this ritual as an ‘official and natural event’ (An accident) and that is why the courts have announced it as an accident and not an open verdict. I hope those last few sentences bring comfort to those souls that have been angry over the official version of events. If the official version is of a natural event (An accident) the collective consciousness actually endorses the ritual because of the leaders it elected through free will. In other words you joined in the ritual and you obey the Serpent Cult on a spiritual level.
Again Diana was an agent for the Serpent Cult and she played pied piper to channel spiritual energy from this world to the 4th dimension. Can you see it? If so we are getting somewhere eh? If you can see how the scam works and you can accept, in principle at least, that spiritual energy can be transported through symbolic icons, symbolic monuments and symbolic events then it is time to leave the Diana story... so let’s move swiftly on to 9/11.
Four years further on from Diana’s death the WTC came down. You don’t need me to tell about that event do you? That’s because the Serpent Cult have embedded it on your soul and you have seen and heard a thousand different stories about it haven’t you. I’m certainly totally sick of hearing about it, don’t forget I was told about it in 95/96 and the reasons behind it so you can guess why I laugh at some of the theories.
Anyway, even if you are a hard faced anti-royal and didn’t give a flying fart about Diana you will know in your heart that 9/11 affected your emotions in one way or another. It didn’t matter if you had a member of you family in the WTC or you were a brainwashed Islamic soldier hoping for Jihad, those towers coming down caused a massive increase in emotion in this world.
Well didn’t they? Don't worry you were meant to feel emotional about it. So let’s get it sorted once and for all eh? Well at least it will be my one and only work on it.
Again, in my opinion, just like the Diana case it does not matter who is responsible for 9/11 on a 5-sense physical level. An inside job was it? Dubya Bush and his evil Masonic cronies was it? Bin Laden from a cave was it? The official mind controlled patsy Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was it? Maybe some slick and crafty holograms fooled the shit out of us? Perhaps it was just a slick movie set? Thunderbird two did it eh? Superman farting pessaries out his arse is another good theory of why the towers came down. The list has been endless and maybe the Superman theory is not the daftest that’s been mentioned.
9/11: Who was responsible on a 5-sense level? You will never know!
I’ll be blunt. Wake the hell up or you will be trapped in this world left pondering on many, many, different theories for many lifetimes. I mean that sincerely. Let’s not let the innocent victims of this event suffer for longer than they have too.
On a spiritual level it really does not matter what caused 9/11 on a five-sense level indeed it does not matter that it was used to start a cruel invasion of weaker countries in the five-sense world either. Let’s face it folks the wankers that rule this world can come up with any excuse to invade any country at any time. Who’s going to stop them? All those people that think Diana were the Queen of Hearts eh?
The ‘culprits‘, on a five sense level, that carried out the ‘physical’ side of 9/11 will never be brought to justice because the event was not carried out just for 5- sense reasons, it is the exact same scenario as the Diana event and it was simply carried out to create ‘mass emotion’ simply because emotion creates spiritual energy. Our spirituality creates our 5 sense reality so our spirituality brought the towers down.
It was indeed also the emotions of the people that were used as a feeble excuse to invade countries not the actual event itself. You can give your spiritual energy to anything you genuinely feel emotional about, or should I say give energy to anything you are made to feel emotional about, and this was a ‘world trade centre’ of energy on a symbolic level. Do you understand that?
The Serpent Cult were again attracting the free will spiritual energy of the entire human race and connecting it to their ‘symbolism’. The Serpent Cult needed worldwide spiritual ‘permission’ to carry on with their agenda and they certainly got it through 9/11. The majority of minds and souls fed the esoteric symbolism involved in the 9/11 incident and the aftermath of this event was one of a planned massive ‘sun worship’ ritual carried out worldwide in Churches, Temples, Synagogues and Mosques. Not only did the event attract global spiritual energy to the occult symbolism involved in the actual collapse of the twin towers but stright after the event the same spiritual energy was quickly transferred through the glodbal energy line network and through the global sun temples posing as different religious buildings and fed entities in the 4th dimension. In other words the 9/11 event crated a world wide ritual inside all the places of worship and indeed in civic buildings too. The human race actually, albetit unkowingly, endorsed 9/11 through those actions.
The masses were deceived from all sides but their false egos and conditioned minds would never allow them to see through the 9/11 scam because the only sanctuary their false egos and conditioned minds could run to, such as the churches and Mosques etc, were indeed only further ‘deceptions’ that were put in place by the Serpent Cult. The Serpent Cult hold no boundaries for their deceptions. The blind masses that went running to temples or took part in public gatherings about the event were literally running to praise the actual 4th dimensional perpetrators of 9/11, through the oitpouring of their emotions and therefore endorsed the event.
Symbolism and occult geometry/numerology is hidden in all the things that we create but sadly they don’t tell you that on Sesame Street
The same false egos and conditioned minds of the masses couldn’t see the Diana scam either and I realise most folk wouldn’t want to for this event. They even have a special Temple of Diana to worship her in forever now don’t they? (Nice One Mr Serpent!)
It is time to realise that the Serpent Cult created, in your minds at least, all the things you ‘hold dear’ as well as all the things you don’t hold dear. Events like the Diana sacrificial murder are being used to enslave you simple because they made you ‘hold her dear’ whilst loading her with their symbolism and you failing to see she was in the Serpent Cult all along. The Serpent Cult made Diana a goddess on Earth as an official representative from ‘Heaven’ (Heaven is our self created dimension that rules over this one if you want it to, (we decide who rules us through collective worship). By getting the masses to worship their agents on earth they get the masses to worship the entities in the fourth dimension that provided the said agents, this in turn therefore gives the entities in Heaven the right to rule us.
We have placed the forces behind Diana in ‘Heaven’ through our free will and therefore the said force can and does rule us.
In my opinion it is time for you to rule yourself if you want to be free. The choice is yours and only yours but only if you want to make it. It will be far easier to keep hold of the things you hold dear like icons similar to celebrities and bloodlines like the people’s princess and goddess ‘Diana’, but it is all a deception. You can empower yourself and the world by seeing through the Veil of the secret societies. You can heal this world and yourself simply by giving collective spiritual energy to it instead of giving it to the deceivers who steal it.
Give your heart to Dianaand the rest of the Serpent Cult if you feel it is right but I believe nothing will change in this world by doing so in my opinion. It costs nothing to think for yourself if you are provided with alternative information as another option does it?
If I went along with the ‘Diana was here to awaken us by exposing the Royals as murderers’ theme then I’m sure I could make more friends and of course money, if I was actually selling this information. That theme is laughable to me and I’m sure it is to some others when they really think about it, but I’m afraid not many do. I’m not here to make more friends anyway nor am I here to take your money. So please think what you like about the information I have provided because, as me mam used to say,... you can either like it or lump it!
I have told you this information, as I believe it should be told, without any fear and without any favour. I have told this information without seeking payment and the way my spiritual journey has directed me to see this information and to pass it on. I have done it the best way I can. It has taken many hours just to produce this article and that is without counting the time it took to research and understand. That took years.
I hope the information provided in this article arrives to the people that I want it to arrive to and I say to those folks that know me, that the words in this article are true and trustworthy and they will never let you down.
My life is up and down and changes daily, nay it changes by the hour , as I’m sure some of you empathise with that sort of thing. I humbly thank you for taking the time to read this article and on a lighter note I will say that it is not often you get two of the biggest conspiracies in the history of the world solved in one article, but that is what I believe you have had, if it is indeed the case then you are welcome to it. If you think it is just bag o' shite then that is fine to
May Love Reign O’er You All
Matthew Delooze
Prince Charles Not Harry’s Real Father; Ex Diana Lover Keeps Silent Because of Death Threats From Royal Family
by IAN HALPERIN(June 15, 2009) Prince Harry is the toast of NYC this week. Throngs of folks have lined the streets of Manhattan to greet Britain's popular prince with open arms.
Little do they realize that Harry could soon be stripped of his royal title because he's not the biological son of Prince Charles, an IUC investigation has revealed.
A longtime employee of Harry’s mother Princess Diana told IUC that the Royal Family was involved in a massive coverup to hide the fact that Diana's ex-lover James Hewitt is the Harry's real father.
According to the source Prince Philip threatened Hewitt's life if he didn't go along with the coverup.
"They made him lie about the timeline," the source told IUC. "Prince Philip told Hewitt he would destroy him if it ever leaked out. It's impossible that Charles is Harry's real father. Hewitt was on the scene as Diana's lover two years before Harry was born. Diana stopped having sex with Charles years before Harry was born. Harry looks exactly like Hewitt.The massive coverup involved Hewitt lying to the world about when his dalliance actually began with Diana. Originally he told the world he met Diana in 1986. Harry was born in 1984.
Under hypnosis for a tv interview Hewitt admitted he met Diana in 1981 or 1982, had sexual relations with her then -- some two years before Harry was born.
A relative of Hewitt told IUC that privately Hewitt has always believed he's Harry's dad but has denied it in public because he fears for his life. He also wants to protect his son from being dethroned.
"Bloody hell, Harry should call James his real father," the relative said. "It's the biggest lie in Britain since Neville Chamberlain assured the world some seven decades ago that Britain and Germany would never go to war. Prince Philip told James he'd kill him if he ever admitted the truth. That's why he keeps denying it."
The relative added that this is another example of why the Royal Family should be abolished. "They're the biggest crooks and liars in the world," he said. "All the evidence clearly demonstrates that James is Harry's real father. Just the way they killed Diana they’ll kill James. You'll see, one day his body will be found mysteriously in a hotel room and the Royals will try to convince the world that James committed suicide."
Unresolved Issues of the Diana and Dodi Inquestby John Morgan © 2008Nexus Magazine June-July 2008. Vol 15, No 4Was the verdict of the inquest into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed sound, or were the Royal Coroner's instructions to the jury part of an ongoing cover-up of what really happened in the Alma Tunnel on 31 August 1997?Key Witnesses Missed
Lack of Jury Access to Evidence
Inadequacies of Early Investigations
Diana's "Rocking" Ambulance
Diana's Anti-Landmines Campaign
Was There Judicial Bias?
Removal of Murder as a Possible Verdict
The Following Vehicles
Requirement of Jury Unanimity
Did Justice Prevail?After three-and-a-half days of deliberation, the jury at the British "Coroner's Inquests into the Deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Mr Dodi Fayed" finally delivered its verdict on Monday 7 April 2008. The 11 jurors sitting in London's Royal Courts of Justice had patiently listened to six months of evidence given by 268 witnesses.1 Their finding was that the 1997 crash which occurred in the Alma Tunnel in Paris had been caused by "unlawful killing, grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes" (transcript, page 5, lines 5-7, page 6, lines 16-18). The Royal Coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, had pointed out that unlawful killing equates to manslaughter.Did these final inquests (treated hereafter as the singular "inquest") answer the many questions that have surrounded the circumstances of the tragic crash? Did justice prevail, or was the inquest just another major event in continuing the cover-up of what truly happened in the Alma Tunnel on 31 August 1997?One fact is certain: the over 7,000 pages of inquest transcripts and evidence now comprise the most detailed account that exists of the Paris crash and the circumstances and events surrounding it.The jury also stated that "the crash was caused or contributed to by the speed and manner of driving" of both the Mercedes and the "following vehicles", and that the Mercedes driver's judgement was impaired "through alcohol" (5.20-24,7.6-10).This outcome from the inquest followed the French investigation, which was finalised in September 1999,- and the British investigation —Operation Paget —which was completed with the publication of the Paget Report in December 2006 ? Both these investigations found that the Alma Tunnel crash had been caused by a drunk driver, Henri Paul, who was speeding.Even after these two lengthy inquiries and now the inquest, there still remain critical, unresolved issues.Key Witnesses Missed
During his summing up on the morning of 31 March, Lord Justice Scott Baker claimed that the inquest had been extremely thorough and stated that the conspiracy theories regarding the crash "have been examined in the minutest detail through the evidence of over 250 witnesses" (9.21-23). The reality, though, is that there are over 50 important witnesses who were never cross-examined during this inquest. Some of these people's evidence is so central to the conclusions drawn by the jury that the omission of it could cast doubt on the validity of the final verdict.Because the crash occurred in France, most key witnesses were not residents of the United Kingdom and therefore were outside the jurisdiction of the Royal Coroner. Throughout the inquest, the government of France—where these witnesses generally lived—solidly maintained a position of refusing to cooperate. It failed to enforce the appearance of people who did not wish to be cross-examined.Included in this group of witnesses is Professor Dominique Lecomte, head of the Paris Institute of Forensic Medicine; she is the pathologist who carried out the first autopsy on the Mercedes driver, Henri Paul. The Paget Report revealed that, during that autopsy, 58 identifiable errors were made, including the failure to identify the body properly. Lecomte also conducted the initial external medical examinations of the bodies of Diana and Dodi.Another vital witness who evaded an appearance at the inquest is Dr Gilbert Pepin, the Paris toxicologist who carried out the alcohol testing on blood samples from both of Henri Paul's autopsies. It is the results of his testing that led to the high blood-alcohol readings that became the basis of the French and British investigations' conclusion that the crash was caused by a drunk driver.Generally during this inquest, when a witness was not made available for cross-examination, their statement(s) to the French or British police were read out instead. In the case of Lecomte and Pepin, who both had signed statements with the British police, these statements were not read out to the jury. Thus the jury was not provided with any direct evidence from the two most important witnesses regarding the circumstances in which the alleged blood-alcohol results from the driver of the Mercedes were based—yet it is these blood test results that are central to the jury's finding that Henri Paul was guilty of gross negligence.It is difficult to overstate the importance to this inquest of the evidence of Lecomte and Pepin. The question has to be asked: if Lecomte and Pepin have nothing to hide, then why did they not want to cooperate with the British inquest?If Diana, Princess of Wales, was murdered, then Lecomte and Pepin would have played key roles in the aftermath and the ensuing French cover-up.There are many other important witnesses who were not cross-examined. They include:• Tom Richardson, an American tourist who was the first pedestrian to rush into the Alma Tunnel immediately after hearing the noise of the crash. He was never interviewed by either the French or the British investigators.
• David Laurent, who had to swerve to avoid a slow-moving, old-model, light-coloured Fiat Uno-type car as he entered the Alma Tunnel, just seconds before the crash occurred behind him. His evidence is critical, as paint from an old-model white Fiat Uno was found on the Mercedes after the crash, and that Fiat Uno has never been officially identified. Laurent also was never interviewed by the British police.
• Father Frank Gelli, Diana's local Anglican minister at St Mary Abbots Church near Kensington Palace. He was a friend of Diana, and stated in a media interview in 2000 that Diana had asked him if he would perform the wedding when she married Dodi. Gelli performs a service in memory of Diana on 31 August each year outside the gates of Kensington Palace. He was never interviewed by either the French or the British investigators.
• Michel Massebeuf, the driver of Diana's ambulance following the crash. He is one of only three people who were in the ambulance, which didn't deliver Diana to the hospital until 2.06 am—one hour and 41 minutes after the crash. Massebeuf was never interviewed by the British police.
• A female student intern who was another one of the three people in Diana's ambulance. She assisted the ambulance doctor and must have been involved in administering Diana's treatment. This woman was never interviewed or named in any police investigation and remains anonymous to this day.
• Nicholas Langman and Richard Spearman, both MI6 agents who were operating out of the British Embassy in Paris at the end of August 1997. It has been alleged that both were involved in the organisation of the crash. They both made statements to the British investigators; these were not included in the Paget Report and were not read to the jury during the inquest.Lack of Jury Access to Evidence
The entire inquest process was hamstrung by the fact that witnesses were unable to recall clearly the detail of events that occurred so long ago. Throughout the six months of evidence, there were countless instances where those being cross-examined said: "I'm sorry. It is ten years ago now. I cannot remember."For the jury, this problem was exacerbated by the antiquated rule whereby they were unable to have access to the earlier official statements of cross-examined witnesses, which had been given during the initial French investigation and the later British Operation Paget. Many of the French eyewitness statements were taken within hours of the crash. It should be obvious to all concerned that these original statements, taken very soon after the events, would provide more accuracy than witness cross-examination over 10 years later. On the morning of 11 December 2007, the jurors themselves requested access to these statements. After some discussion in the Court, Lord Justice Scott Baker's decision was: "No, you cannot have the statements" (66.7).It is evident that if this had been an inquest without a jury, then the Coroner would have had access to all witness statements. Why should a jury have been any different?Inadequacies of Early Investigations
The failure of the French authorities to carry out a thorough and adequate investigation in the first place, when the events were still fresh in the minds of key witnesses, also contributed to the difficulties that faced the inquest.Take, for instance, the evidence of Alberto Repossi, the jeweller who sold Dodi Fayed the "engagement ring" (he was cross-examined on 10 December 2007). Repossi was never interviewed by the French, and thus his first testimony was not taken until the British Operation Paget officers interviewed him in September 2005, eight years after the crash.Likewise, Brian Anderson (17 October 2007. afternoon), a passenger in a taxi following behind the Mercedes and thus a key eyewitness to the crash, according to police records was never interviewed by the French. His first official testimony was taken by British officers on 31 August 2004, precisely seven years after the events he had to describe. To the shame of both the French and the British investigators, there are no records of any attempts being made to locate the driver of the taxi that Brian Anderson was in.American Joanna da Costa (formerly Luz) (22 October 2007, afternoon), one of the first two pedestrian eyewitnesses on the crash scene, was never interviewed by the French investigators. Her only interview was taken by the British police on 23 August 2004, but for some unknown reason this testimony was never included in the official police Paget Report.Where delays of up to a decade or more in the hearing of evidence have occurred, it is obvious that the accuracy of testimony could have been compromised.The recently completed inquest did, however, help to highlight the some of the areas where the early French investigation failed abysmally. For example, the inquest showed up mistakes made during the initial night-time investigations. Under cross-examination, French investigators blamed some of these errors on poor lighting. Sergeant Thierry Clotteaux (6 November, afternoon) admitted that "the lights were not so great" (50.17-18). Another police investigator, Hubert Pourceau (6 November, morning), stated that a 19-metre-long (Mercedes) tyre mark (7 November, 16.5-9) was missed "...because it was night-time and it was not very visible. They couldn't see it" (40.12-13).This begs the question: where was the forensic lighting that one would expect at any night-time crash scene, let alone the scene of arguably the most important car crash of the 20th century?Investigators revealed that during the night they had to rely on the lights of the emergency vehicles; then, after those vehicles had left the scene, they were reduced to using the dim tunnel lighting. Apparently they didnt even have their own torches!Diana's "Rocking" Ambulance
On the morning of 17 October 2007, a statement given to the French investigation by Thierry Orban, a photographic reporter, was read out to the inquest. Referring to the ambulance carrying Princess Diana, Orban stated: "I then followed the ambulance, preceded by motorcyclists and followed by a police car which kept us at a distance. After the Pont d'Austerlitz, opposite the Natural History Museum, the ambulance stopped, the driver got out hurriedly and got into the back. That was when I took the only photo of the ambulance, which is in any case blurred. It was rocking, as if they were doing a cardiac massage" (12.25, 13.1-8). This stoppage occurred within 500 metres of the hospital gates.In his statement to Operation Paget, Dr Martino, who was inside the ambulance, explained the situation: "I had the vehicle stopped in order to re-examine the Princess... I did not do any cardiac massage at that moment but it is not easy to do cardiac massage or resuscitation with a vehicle moving" (Report, p. 515).The ambulance driver Michel Massebeuf s statement to the French investigation was read to the inquest on the morning of 14 November. He described what happened: "However, in front of the Jardin des Plantes, the doctor [Martino] asked me to stop. We stopped for about five minutes, in order for him to be able to provide treatment that required a complete absence of movement" (23.15-20).This evidence raises the question: why did Thierry Orban witness a rocking ambulance if there was no cardiac massage taking place and "complete absence of movement" was required? This question was not put to Dr Martino when he was cross-examined on the afternoon of 24 January 2008.The statements by Thierry Orban and Michel Massebeuf were both inexplicably omitted from the Paget Report. Also, it is not known why Orban and Massebeuf were not cross-examined during this inquest.Diana's Anti-Landmines Campaign
A significant portion of inquest time was dedicated to evidence regarding the possibility that Diana was pregnant at the time of her death. This is a proposition put forward by the conspiracy camp as a possible motive for murder. The evidence, or lack thereof, has always indicated that this would appear to be an issue impossible to prove either way.If Diana was murdered, more likely as possible motives would have been other factors: the rapidly developing relationship between Diana and Dodi, and Diana's prominent and effective involvement in the international anti-landmines campaign.Diana's anti-landmines activity was a possible motive for murder that was almost completely ignored by the 832-page Paget Report, produced by Lord Stevens in December 2006.Michael Mansfield, QC, acting on behalf of Dodi Fayed's father Mohamed Al Fayed throughout the inquest, provided some compelling arguments regarding her campaign. During his cross-examination of the Conservative former Minister for the Armed Forces, The Hon. Nicholas Soames, MP (12 December 2007, afternoon), Mansfield quoted Soames's Tory colleagues at the time. One told Diana: "Don't meddle with things about which you know nothing" (81.15-16). Another described Diana as a "loose cannon" (75.25) when referring to her visit to the minefields of Angola in January 1997. Soames himself in 1997 portrayed Diana, Princess of Wales, as a "totally unguided missile" (64.6).Soames is alleged by Diana's close friend Simone Simmons to have directly threatened Diana with an "accident" if she continued with her anti-landmines activities. On the morning of 10 January 2008, Simmons gave evidence regarding a four-inch-thick anti-landmines dossier, titled "Profiting Out Of Misery", which Diana compiled in the last year of her life. Simmons stated that Diana claimed the dossier "...would prove that the British Government and many high-ranking public figures were profiting from their [landmines] proliferation in countries like Angola and Bosnia. The names and companies were well known, it was explosive and top of her list of culprits behind this squalid trade was the Secret Intelligence Service, the SIS [MI6], which she believed was behind the sale of so many of the British-made landmines that were causing so much misery to so many people. 'I'm going to go public with this and name names,' she declared" (52.13-22).London Daily Mail journalist and close friend of Diana, Richard Kay, said in his testimony to the inquest on 20 December (morning) that he received a phone call from Diana just hours before she died. He confirmed that during this call the Princess stated that she fully intended to "complete her obligations to...the anti-personnel landmines cause" (28.17-18). Kay said that this would have involved a future visit to the minefields of South East Asia.Was There Judicial Bias?
During Lord Justice Scott Baker's two-and-a-half days of summing up to the jury, he made some statements that should be subjected to scrutiny.On the afternoon of 31 March 2008, during his discussion of Diana's fears for her life, the Coroner stated: "One might have thought that if Diana had really feared for her life, she would have mentioned it to Mohamed Al Fayed at the time of the conversation with him shortly before the crash, when he said she told him she was pregnant and engaged" (129.23-25, 130.1-2).In saying this, Baker appeared to disregard the fact that Diana could not possibly have known the crash was about to occur. Why would she particularly mention it at that stage when she was on holiday, happy and in love, and she had already discussed her fears with Mohamed Al Fayed earlier during that summer.Early on 1 April, during his summing up of evidence given by Diana's butler Paul Burrell (14-16 January 2008), Baker recounted what Burrell alleges he was told by Her Majesty the Queen in December 1997: "Be careful, Paul; no one has been as close to a member of my family as you have. There are powers at work in this country of which we have no knowledge. Do you understand?" (5.9-12)The Coroner then went on to say: "Members of the jury, assuming something like those words were said, you may think it stretches one's imagination to breaking point to conclude that they have the remotest thing to do with a staged collision in a tunnel three and a half months before" (5.18-22).Burrell had only recently lost his boss in a car crash, the circumstances of which raised many unanswered questions. Yet Baker was effectively making out that the jurors were fools if they saw any connection between the Paris crash and the Queen's comment. Given the context in which Burrell had met his former boss, the Queen, because of post-crash events, and given that the meeting was within a few months of the crash, it seems reasonably logical that the comment could have had some connection with the crash.Later on the same day, 1 April, Baker summarised the evidence of David Laurent, who was driving through the tunnel ahead of the Mercedes immediately before the crash. In his statements that were read to the jury on the morning of 11 October 2007, Laurent related that he had to swerve to avoid a slow-moving car as he entered the Alma Tunnel. Baker stated that Laurent described this car as "a small light hatchback" (107.3-4). A closer look at David Laurent's evidence shows that he gave two descriptions of this car. In his first statement, given to the French police on 14 October 1997, he said: "It was a small light-coloured hatchback car" (23.17). His second statement, given to the French police in April 1998, has more detail: "It was an old model, a light coloured, white or beige, a Fiat Uno type car" (53.2-3). The Coroner changed "light coloured, white or beige" to "light", giving a completely different meaning to the description (107.4). Furthermore, he failed to mention "old model" and "Fiat Uno type car".Laurent's evidence is important because it indicates that the Fiat Uno, which made contact with the Mercedes immediately before the main crash, was seen moving slowly beforehand. This could corroborate later evidence given by Souad Moufakkir (6 November, afternoon), who also claimed to have seen the Fiat Uno slowing down prior to the crash. Laurent's evidence of the Uno being an old model was corroborated by George Dauzonne (29 October, morning), who was a witness to the Fiat Uno as it left the tunnel after the crash.Removal of Murder as a Possible Verdict
On the morning of 31 March, at the start of his summing up, Lord Justice Scott Baker announced to the jury that he was withdrawing murder from the possible verdicts available to them. He stated: "My direction in law to you is that it is not open to you to find that Diana and Dodi were unlawfully killed in a staged accident" (13.25, 14.1-2).Baker went on to explain: "When a coroner leaves a verdict of unlawful killing, in this case on the basis of a staged accident, to a jury, he must identify to the jury the evidence on which they could be sure of such a conclusion. But in this case sufficient evidence simply does not exist" (14.11-15).In what then may have seemed confusing to the jury, Baker continued: "This does not, however, mean that all the suggestions you have heard about the possibility of a staged crash are irrelevant.Because there is some evidence, albeit limited and of doubtful quality, that the crash was staged, it will be necessary for you to consider it in the context of the five verdicts that are open to you" (14.18-24).Baker appeared to be conceding that there was evidence of a staged crash, but not enough to enable him to allow the jury to be given the opportunity to decide that it was murder.This inquest was conducted in the midst of a background of unanswered questions regarding the crash that occurred in circumstances which have led millions of people around the world to believe it is possible that Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed were murdered. The jury members faithfully sat there through the six months of evidence, believing they had been assigned the task of determining whether this was in fact the case.It could be argued that, at the very last moment, the Coroner virtually pulled the rug out from underneath the inquest. The very purpose of the inquest was to establish whether Diana and Dodi were murdered.The very purpose of having a jury make the decision was in order to remove the possibility of an Establishment cover-up. What happened is that at the very end of the inquest. Coroner Baker ruled that the jury should no longer be entrusted with the power to decide on whether a murder took place. In so doing, instead of quelling allegations of a cover-up, Baker added fuel to them.The Following Vehicles
After this decision by the Coroner, the jury was left with five possible verdicts (31.24-25, 32.1-6):1) unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles);
2) unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes);
3) unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes);
4) accidental death;
5) open verdict.In giving these options, the Coroner also removed the possibility of the Mercedes's contact with the white Fiat Uno— which was travelling ahead of the Mercedes as it entered the tunnel—having an influence on the crash. During the inquest, clear forensic evidence was shown that proved the Mercedes was involved in a collision with this car. Because the Fiat Uno was in front of the Mercedes, it cannot be included in the term "following vehicles" in the possible verdict provided to the jury. Baker has failed to explain why he removed the Fiat Uno from suspicion as a possible cause of the crash.As discussed earlier, the jury chose the third option: "unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes)".The reason that the description is "following vehicles" is because these vehicles remain unidentified. It is therefore very surprising that in virtually every media report describing the jury verdict, the words "following vehicles" have been replaced by the word "paparazzi". There is actually no evidence which indicates that these vehicles were in fact driven by paparazzi.Eyewitnesses near the Alma Tunnel described several motorbikes closely pursuing or surrounding the Mercedes as it entered the tunnel:• Olivier Partouche, a chauffeur who was standing near his car across the road from the tunnel, witnessed a Mercedes "immediately followed by a number of motorcycles" (24
October, morning, 6.9-10).
• Francois Levistre, who was travelling ahead of the Mercedes, described seeing through his rear-vision mirror a "vehicle surrounded on either side by motorbikes" in his first statement made to French police on 1 September 1997, one day after the crash (Paget Report, p. 455; also see inquest transcript, 15 October, afternoon).
• Brian Anderson, who was travelling in a taxi that was overtaken by the speeding vehicles, described three motorbikes that "were in a cluster, like a swarm around the Mercedes" (17 October, afternoon, 98.24-25).Thus the eyewitness evidence clearly shows that the "following vehicles" mentioned in the jury verdict are in fact several motorbikes that were seen very close to the Mercedes as it entered the Alma Tunnel.On the afternoon of 2 October 2007, Scott Baker identified eight paparazzi who were near the Mercedes as it left Place de la Concorde. They were Benhamou, Guizard, Odekerken, Martinez, Arnal, Rat, Darmon and Chassery (95.10-11). It was also revealed that Benhamou rode a green Honda scooter; Guizard drove a grey Peugeot 205; Odekerken drove a Mitsubishi Pajero; Martinez and Arnal were in a black Fiat Uno; Rat and Darmon were on a blue Honda 650 motorcycle; and Chassery drove a black Peugeot 205 (94.3-10). This evidence shows that of the paparazzi pursuing the Mercedes, there was actually only one motorbike, a Honda 650. All the other pursuing paparazzi were either in cars or on a scooter.On 7 November 2007, Paget accident investigator Anthony Read revealed to the inquest that French investigators had conducted tests on the performance of a Honda 650, comparing it with the Mercedes S280 (afternoon, 103). They found that at full acceleration over 1,400 metres, the Honda 650 was the equivalent of 17 per cent slower than the Mercedes. Darmon, who was driving the Honda, gave evidence to the inquest (29 October, afternoon) that he lost sight of the Mercedes after he turned right, onto the expressway, after leaving Place de la Concorde. With Rat his passenger, they were the first of the paparazzi to arrive at the crash scene.After analysing the evidence, it becomes very clear that it is quite impossible for any of the motorbikes surrounding or closely pursuing the Mercedes as it entered the Alma Tunnel to have carried paparazzi. Instead, the motorbikes were unidentified— which is why they have been described in the jury's verdict simply as "the following vehicles".It is clear, however, from early eyewitness evidence that camera flashes were seen on the expressway just before the Alma Tunnel:• Bruno Bouaziz, a French police lieutenant, said in his 31 August 1997 statement, which was read out to the jury on the afternoon of 12 November 2007: "Witnesses told the first police to arrive at the scene that the Princess's car was travelling at high speed, chased by photographers on motorcycles. Others saw the Mercedes slowed down by a Ford Mondeo vehicle so that photographers riding motorcycles could take photographs" (118.18-23).
• Olivier Partouche said in a statement taken six hours after the crash: "...I think that I saw flashes before the vehicles disappeared into the underpass" (24 October, morning, 26.1-3).
• Clifford Gooroovadoo, who was standing near Partouche, said in his first statement, taken two hours after the crash, that he "saw a motorbike with two people on it and also saw that the pillion passenger of this motorbike was taking one photo after another in the direction of the vehicle that was making the noise [the Mercedes]" (12 March 2008, morning, 76.20-23).
• Benoit Boura (24 October, morning) was travelling eastbound (the opposite way to the Mercedes) towards the Alma Tunnel. He said in his second statement of 31 August 1997 that "before all this [the crash] happened, therefore before entering the tunnel, I saw flashes in the distance" (Paget Report, p. 454).On the morning of 27 November 2007, Baker himself stated: "I am very interested in trying to find any...photographs showing the journey of the Mercedes before the collision" (48.12-15).It is evident that if these photos of Diana and Dodi's final moments before the crash had been taken by paparazzi, then they would be worth millions of pounds and somehow they would have surfaced after the crash—whether in newspapers, TV or over the Internet. But no such photos have ever been published.This raises the question: who took these photos through the untinted windows of the Mercedes S280 on its final trip? Were they men on motorbikes masquerading as paparazzi with the purpose of harming the occupants of the Mercedes, but hoping that blame would later be attributed to the paparazzi?It is to the shame of both the French and British inquiries that, after five years of "thorough" investigation, none of these motorbikes has been identified.There are also motorbikes—probably the same ones—that were seen fleeing the crash scene, and cars including the white Fiat Uno that were witnessed fleeing after the crash. The reality is that the police on both sides of the Channel have only ever officially identified one vehicle in this entire case, and that is the crashed Mercedes S280.The question must be raised: if the riders, passengers and drivers of the vehicles that were clearly witnessed fleeing the crash scene have nothing to hide, why is it that not one of them has come forward to explain their actions?Requirement of Jury Unanimity
On the morning of 31 March 2008, as Coroner Scott Baker commenced his lengthy summing up, he instructed the jury: "Whatever your verdict, whether unlawful killing, accident or open, it must be unanimous. There are circumstances in which a majority verdict can be accepted, but they have not arisen in this case and, if they do, I shall give you a separate direction about it" (15.5-10).Later, on the morning of 2 April, just before he sent the jury out to deliberate, he reiterated: "With each verdict, whether unlawful killing, accident or open, it must be the verdict of all 11 of you" (51.22-23).At 3.30 pm on 7 April, after the jury had been out for three-and-a-half days without reaching a unanimous verdict, the Coroner told them: "The position is this, that the time has now been reached when I am able to accept from you a verdict upon which at least nine of you are agreed" (full-day transcript, 3.15-18).There is no correlation between Baker's earlier requirement that the verdict must be unanimous, and his later statement that some sort of mysterious time limit had been reached and the rules could be changed to a majority of nine being acceptable. The Coroner had already stated on 31 March that the "circumstances in which a majority verdict can be accepted have not arisen in this case". On 7 April, he made no attempt to explain in what way the circumstances had now changed to enable a majority verdict to be acceptable.This evidence indicates that, in reality, the result in the case of the inquest into the deaths of Diana and Dodi should have been a hung jury.Did Justice Prevail?
Did the inquest achieve justice for Diana, Princess of Wales, Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul?The following restraints were placed on the jury:
• no access to original witness statements, despite the crash having occurred over 10 years before:
• a large number of crucial witnesses failing to give evidence and not being required to;
• removal by the Coroner of murder as a possible verdict open to the jury.Was the inquest really thorough?Were the jury members provided with the evidence that really would have enabled them to achieve a unanimous verdict?Did the Coroner place trust in the ability of the jury to be able to decide on the evidence?It seems almost unfair that the jury should have been expected to reach a verdict in the above circumstances. It is as though the jury members achieved a verdict with at least one hand tied behind their back.It would also seem likely that the general public's perception, that the British and French governments have not been up front about the circumstances and events surrounding the Paris crash, would seem justified by the way in which this inquest was conducted.To those who say "It's over ten years now; it's time to move on": does the fact that a crime or a gross injustice occurred a decade ago mean that it is of less importance and significance than if it happened yesterday?It is this attitude of public complacency and wanting to "move on" by so many people that has helped enable one of the greatest crimes and, equally, one of the greatest cover-ups of our time to have been perpetrated and successfully carried out.Endnotes
1. To view and download transcripts and other published material from the "Coroner's Inquests into the Deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Mr Dodi Al Fayed", go to http://www.scottbakerinquests.gov.uk. Note that the page numbering in the transcripts is at the bottom of each page.
2. To view and download an English translation of the final report by the Public Prosecutor's Office in Paris, originally obtained by the London Sunday Times, go tohttp://www.geocities.com/wellesley/6226/report.htm?200613.3. To view and download the Operation Paget inquiry report, go to http://www.met.police.uk/news/operation_paget_report.htm.About the Author:
John Morgan is an investigative journalist and writer based in Brisbane, Australia. Since 2005, he has carried out extensive full-time research into the circumstances surrounding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. His book, Cover-up of a Royal Murder: Hundreds of Errors in the Paget Report (available from http://www.thedianaplot. com and http://www.allbookstores.com ), is reviewed in this edition of NEXUS.
John Morgan can be contacted by email at shining.bright@optusnet.com.au.
Princess Diana Was Pregnantby JIM KEITH (NITRONEWS)(9/6/1999) Recent French findings have not put to rest the suspicion that a conspiracy was responsible for the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, millionaire Dodi Fayed, and driver, Henri Paul, in Paris on August 31, 1997. The case for conspiracy is familiar enough to those who delve into the hidden side of world politics.
Diana had crossed the reigning House of Windsor, and had taken on the color of an enemy to the throne of Great Britain. Born of the competing Stuart Royal line, she had been a thorn in the side of the British Monarchy virtually from the beginning of her marriage to Prince Charles. She was far more popular than the aloof Charles, and a perception of unfair treatment by the Royal Family only added to already-numerous calls for the abolition of the Monarchy.
It is fair to think that Diana may have been seen by the House of Windsor as becoming dangerously powerful, and as a threat to their future. She was also viewed as a threat to other elements of the British establishment, including the arms industry, whose lucrative business in death was challenged by her calls for an international ban on land mines.Diana had already been targeted with surveillance and wiretaps by Britain's domestic intelligence agency, MI5, and through the leaking of her private conversations to the press.
At least two persons close to Diana and Dodi Fayed have told the press that the couple were planning on marrying. They had been dating for nine months, and Dodi's purchase of a quarter million dollar diamond ring for her provided additional confirmation.
A marriage to Dodi Fayed would have been seen by the British establishment as an alliance with the Muslim world, and there was the real possibility that Diana would convert to the Islamic faith. Equally important, Dodi's father was billionaire Muhammad Fayed, related to the Saudi Royal Family. He is alleged to have compromised many British politicians through the use of his bribes and other incentives.
Of central importance to the belief that Diana may have been murdered are unconfirmed reports that she was pregnant by Dodi Fayed at the time of her death. Certainly, the birth of a child with Egyptian blood, half-brother to Diana's sons, would have been seen as a devastating event to the rulers of Britain. So far, however, no conclusive proof has been offered that she was pregnant. I have now obtained the closest thing to proof that will probably ever be revealed.
Confirmation of Diana's pregnancy comes from a unique source: through the network of the Middle Eastern religious group called the Sufis. The Sufis are a meditative, mystical offshoot of the Islamic faith, and several members of this group are friends of the author.
In 1998, one of my Sufi contacts, who chooses to remain anonymous, travelled to London to participate in Dhikr, a remembrance of Allah. This ritual was attended by both Sufis and orthodox Muslims. My contact reports that while participating in this ceremony, he met Dodi Fayed's personal physician, a man who is a Muslim, but is not a Sufi. In private conversation, the physician told him that Diana and Dodi Fayed had planned on getting married, and that he had personally examined her and determined that she was pregnant.
If this is the case, why has this physician not come forward and told the press? One can only speculate. Perhaps this information is being kept secret as part of a larger indictment when Muhammad Fayed finally weighs in with proof of a conspiracy.
*** Jim Keith is one of America's best known conspiracy writers, having penned over ten published books. His works include Okbomb, a revealing account of the Oklahoma City bombing, and the acclaimed Casebook On The Men In Black.Death of Diana: Jim Keith Was Not Alone
by NITRO NEWS(Sep. 23, 1999) 48 hours after Nitro News published Jim Keith's shock article on Princess Diana's supposed pregnancy, he passed away at age 50 from a blood clot, and our servers crashed.
It was only yesterday that we managed to fix the technical glitch. A afterwards, we accessed the famed author's Nitro Mail account, which we had set up for him.
We discovered that Keith had received a wealth of eye-opening information about the Diana case, just hours before his untimely death.
According to his sources, Jim was not alone in his belief that the Princess of Wales was pregnant. Members of the German media uncovered evidence in late 1997 to support the stunning claim, although the story was never published outside the country.
But perhaps Diana herself provided the answer when she once wore the number "492" on her baseball hat during a secret visit to a London hospital. This number is the top line of the kabbalistic magic square for Saturn. The mysterious square is used in Islamic tradition as a sigil to aid women after childbirth.And in Britain, two mentors of Prince Charles, Michael Bentine and Laurens van der Post, died within days of each other. Both had backgrounds with British intelligence.
According to documentation, Dodi was aware of the dangers of leaving the Ritz well after midnight. In fact, he spoke to his father over the phone about serious security concerns.
Ex-MI6 spy Richard Tomlinson, in exclusive comments to Nitro News, admits that the Ritz was riddled with British intelligence officers that night - a fact that may have made Diana uncomfortable.
The Princess of Wales was a close friend of Lucia Flecha de Lima, the wife of the then ambassador from Brazil to the United States.
Keith's sources suggest that Diana and Dodi may have been headed to that embassy to escape trouble from MI6.
Since ex-spy Tomlinson exposed MI6's presence in the Diana case, he has been on the run: "MI6 have been harassing me relentlessly for the past two years," he told Editor Charles MacLaurin. "They have illegally banned me from entering France, even though I have a UK passport, and they have also used their influence in Australia to stop me getting a visa there."
There's no doubt that a pregnant Diana by Dodi would have been a huge embarrassment to the British Establishment. But was it a large enough embarrassment to murder them both?
If Jim Keith had lived to write another chapter in this tragic case, his answer may well have been yes.
Mass Control - Jim Keith's Final Book
Here stands the New Man.
His conception of reality is a dance of electronic images fired into his forebrain, a gossamer construction of his masters, designed so that he will not perceive the actual. His happiness is delivered to him through a tube or an electronic connection. His God lurks behind an electronic curtain - when the curtain is pulled away we find the CIA sorcerer, the media manipulator.
The late Jim Keith, famed Nitro News columnist and America's most beloved conspiracy writer, has written his final and greatest chapter. There has never been a book which so carefully and thoroughly exposes the secret plans to dominate world consciousness, and to put the reins of control in the hands of a few.
In the pages of this remarkable book, we see exposed for the first time a century of corruption, and the strange pieces of the puzzle finally put into place. Completed shortly before his untimely death, this book is a triumphant completion of Keith's life goal - to make sense of the terrifying, hidden history of world control.
Jim Keith
1949 - 1999
DIANA WAS NOT THE TARGETby Rayelan Allan http://www.rumormillnews.com/If the original plan had been followed, only Dodi would have died. Princess Diana would have lived. But the accident and its aftermath would have filled her with such horror, she never again would make any trouble for the Palace and her "handlers". The original plan was NOT followed. Somewhere between the MI6 document that made its way to the President, via the CIA and FBI Division 5; someone else, with another agenda, entered the picture. The story that has been released to the public states that Diana died from loss of blood due to a torn heart. The truth is so abhorrent and unspeakable, that even those who know it can not bring themselves to think about it, let alone speak it.
Within days of the death of Princess Diana, Rayelan Allan published an article titled “Who controls Diana, Controls the World.” While most of the world was in shock in the days immediately following the death of Lady Diana, writer Rayelan Allan got right on the story and reported the deeper circumstances. Her blockbuster report, “Who Controls Diana, Controls the World,” was issued only days after the tragic automobile “accident." It became an instant classic. Robert Anton Wilson, in his encyclopedic catalog of conspiracy theories, Everything Is Under Control, called Rayelan’’s article “the most intricately interesting scenario’’ to emerge.”
Brian Redman, Publisher, Conspiracy Nation
Article - By Rayelan Allan
Starting in May of 1996, I received ongoing updates on Princess Diana from the European desk of a major intelligence agency. The information which was passed to me laid out the plans which the International Elite, a.k.a. the New World Order (NWO), had in mind for her once she was fully and legally DI-vorced from Charles. In addition to information about Princess Diana, my source at the European desk provided me with regular updates of President Clinton, John F. Kennedy, Jr. and Hillary Clinton. The information was so amazing that I created a magazine in order to share it. The magazine, Rumor Mill News (http://www.rumormillnews.com), has evolved into one of the Internet’’s most popular conspiracy magazines. On June 6, 1996, Rumor Mill News released the following story.Princess Di in Chicago Hunting an American Husband –– NEWS ADVISORY WARNING –– Wives of wealthy and powerful men: Be on the look out!! The husband she gains may be your own!Reliable sources from the super market tabloids have confirmed our earlier breaking story that Di has her eyes set on being the First Lady of America ... According to these sources, the Princess of Wales has come to the United States in search of an American husband who will help her forget the pain and suffering she endured while living in the royal palaces and partaking of her fairytale life.Wives and girlfriends beware. It is rumored that sources close to the top of the invisible world government have concluded that Princess Di has the charisma and power to squelch all ugliness that would be involved in your divorce, accidental death or unfortunate suicide. If you have an inkling that your man may be the intended new husband of the Princess, it would behoove you to divorce and quickly disappear. Unless you want to end up on a mountainside like Ron Brown.Within 24 hours of the release of the Rumor Mill News’’ story on Diana, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a story in it’’s gossip column titled, ““Di Charms Windy City –– Di in Chi-town.””The article went on to describe Diana’’s visit to Chicago. It also gave the names of two of the three men she had danced with. Phil Donahue and Roger Wilkie were named, but the anonymous third fellow was never named. Who could the anonymous dance partner have been? Bill Clinton? Jay Rockefeller? George W. Bush? Maybe it was a playboy from Hollywood named Emad Fayed. Or could the anonymous suitor have been the handsome publisher of George magazine, the Prince of America, John F. Kennedy, Jr.?In the June issue of Rumor Mill News we presented an in-depth analysis of the breakup of the marriage of Prince Charles and Princess Diana. In the series of articles, we also presented information showing the connection between the royal family and the international bankers. We discussed the feud between the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, and we explored the connection between the Rockefeller family and President Bill Clinton. We can summarize by saying that international bankers are trying to merge the U.K. and the U.S. as the first step in creating a New World Order with One Government ruling everything. To accomplish this, they wanted to use Princess Diana and her children; both the born and unborn.Diana’’s ““handlers”” had decided that her popularity would have brought back the ““mythic”” Camelot days of the Kennedy years. A Royal Princess in the White House would have been the first step to turning the Presidency into a royal throne perpetuated through bloodline rather than ballot box. By the time William would become King of England, one of Diana’’s newly born American children would become an elected official, and well on his or her way to becoming President of the United States.In the same issue, Rumor Mill News presented the short list of American men that the New World Order had chosen for Diana. Diana would be allowed to choose her new husband from three men that had been handpicked for her. Each man represented a powerful New World Order family: Jay Rockefeller and George W. Bush represented their families respectively. The other candidate was Bill Clinton. All three men were married. Whoever the lucky man was, his wife would have been as unfortunate as her husband was lucky.Rumors have circulated in Arkansas since the time Bill Clinton’’s mother was born that she was the illegitimate daughter of Winthrop Rockefeller. This would explain how a back-water hillbilly from Hope, Arkansas ended up as a Rhodes Scholar, Governor of Arkansas and finally President of the United States. However, Clinton was angry with the Rockefellers because they had chosen to marry a legitimate Rockefeller to Diana. He turned his back on his own blood family, and defected to the enemy camp –– the Rothschilds.Diana had a mind and a heart of her own. The short list of husbands was not agreeable to her. Her first choice for a husband was John F. Kennedy, Jr.
On July 20, 1996, Rumor Mill News received an update from a source in Chicago. We were told that Diana’’s visit to the windy city was actually a clandestine meeting with Rothschild bankers. It appeared that the Rothschilds had bought the hand of the princess and would marry her to a man of their choice. Now it became clear why President Clinton had defected and joined the Rothschilds. Would Diana have been happy with Bill Clinton, or was Diana pressuring the Rothschilds to choose John Kennedy, Jr.?On Tuesday, September 24, 1996, President Clinton was in New York signing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This meeting had been planned for months, and the President could not get out of it. Knowing this, Hillary made sure that Princess Diana was invited to the White House on that day. The White House meeting between Hillary and Diana was only two days after the sudden, swift and secret marriage of John F. Kennedy, Jr. to Caroline Bessette. Could Hillary have been afraid that now that JFK, Jr. was no longer available, Diana would settle for Bill?At the White House breakfast, Hillary told Diana something that made her leave the United States immediately. What could Hillary have told Diana that would have made her turn and run? Maybe Hillary talked about Juanita Broderick, the woman who says Bill Clinton raped her. Maybe Hillary told her how Bill had killed Hillary’’s lover, Vince Foster. Diana understood this type of control. She believed Charles had ordered her bodyguard and best friend killed. Whatever Hillary said to Diana at that September White House meeting, Diana left the United States and never returned.Not only did she never return to the United States, she immediately began a relationship with the son of a powerful man whose disdain for the Royal Family matched her own. An MI-6 document shows that Diana began a relationship with Dodi Al Fayed in November of 1996, just days after the White House meeting with Hillary. Did Diana believe the Al Fayed family was powerful enough to protect her from whatever it was that Hillary had told her?The MI-6 document is one of several found by Vienna police when, acting on a tip from Mohammed Al Fayed, they arrested long-time CIA operative Oswald LeWinter. LeWinter was charged with trying to extort money from Mohammed Al Fayed for phony documents. Off the record, LeWinter claims the documents are real. He said, ““I had a choice at my arrest to identify the documents as genuine or as fakes. If I said genuine I would face charges in the U.S. of high treason... so I said they were forgeries and was arrested for Fraud.””Even though there were many secret documents in the hotel room where LeWinter was arrested, only one was released to the Vienna newspaper, The Kurier. The MI-6 document reads: ““1. Relationship initiated between Diana POW and Dodi aF according to reliable intel sources in November 1996. Intimacy begins shortly after they meet. (Report filed).””The New World Order and its OppositionA series of Rumor Mill News articles also covered the origins of the New World Order. We released information that was not widely known about a group of men who opposed the New World Order. This covert group, known only as Faction 2, was/is centered within a group of Austrian and Bavarian royal family members. These men all claim direct descent from one or both of two groups: the original Knights Templars and the Canaris Conspirators.Admiral Wilhelm Canaris headed the German Abwehr (military intelligence) during WWII. The conspirators who planned the assassination of Adolf Hitler were hidden and/or protected by the Abwehr. After the Hitler assassination attempt failed most of the conspirators were killed. The ones who were not captured made their way to the United States. Others, whose identities were not compromised, such as Kurt Waldheim, stayed in Europe. After the war, some of these men and their children were forced by the U.S. government to work for them, or be turned over to the Israelis to be tried and hung.The members of the Abwehr who ended up in the United States quickly began to seek out Americans they could trust. One of these Americans was an OSS (Office of Strategic Services –– the forerunner to the CIA) man named William Casey. The top men in the OSS came from the East Coast elite establishment. Most were connected with the powerful international banking families who had created the Federal Reserve Banking System. William Casey was a poor Irish Catholic from New York City. Even though he was smarter and more qualified than the rest, he did not have the right pedigree. This was made clear to him, and to many other ““poor”” boys who tried to be spies. William Casey continued his ties to government intelligence agencies until he became CIA Director under President Reagan.During Reagan’’s Administration a scandal known as Iran/Contra dominated the headlines. One of the top names in the scandal was Adnan Khashoggi. At the time, Khashoggi, an arms dealer, was considered the richest man in the world. His brother-in-law and partner was Mohammed Al Fayed, Dodi’’s father.The connection between Al Fayed and the Iran/Contra scandal was difficult to prove, but Richard Taus, former FBI agent, states that Al Fayed and Khashoggi were connected to the Iran/Contra scandal through Castle Securities. Castle Securities was formerly Drexel Company, which was connected to Drexel, Burnham, Lambert and the junk bonds scandal. Taus states that many people who were involved in Castle Securities were part of a group out of Freeport, Long Island known as the K-Team. Most if not all K-Team members were part of the Iran/Contra scandal. The K-Team had a front operation with a patriotic sounding name: the National Freedom Institute. The K-Team called its operations, ““The Enterprise.”” (Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, pp. 668-674)Taus reported that the K-Team was a CIA operation which included many infamous names such as Oliver North, Admiral John Poindexter, Richard Secord, and Adnan Khashoggi. Taus and Stich both state the K-Team was filled with assassins.At the beginning of the Iran/Contra scandal, Dodi Al Fayed was 24 years old. Many believe that Dodi acted in the capacity of a money launderer by investing the proceeds of his uncle’’s illegal arms deals in Hollywood films. During that time, Dodi produced two major hits: ““Chariots of Fire”” and ““The World According to Garp.””Another interesting aspect to the Iran/Contra scandal happened when Oliver North suggested that his group, i.e. the K-Team, tap U.S. allies for assistance. As Director of Central Intelligence, Casey endorsed the idea and informed Robert ““Bud”” McFarlane, the National Security Advisor to President Reagan, to seek assistance from South Africa as well as Israel. In 1984, Casey dispatched CIA officer Duane R. ““Dewey”” Clarridge to South Africa to ask for assistance. (Guts and Glory, Oliver North, p. 193) Princess Diana’’s father, Lord Earl Spencer, had business ventures in South Africa. His son, Charles Spencer, was a permanent resident of South Africa.Lord Earl Spencer was the best friend of Adnan Khashoggi’’s brother-in-law, Mohammed Al Fayed. Al Fayed was connected to the K-Team and their ““Enterprises”” through Castle Securities. The ten year friendship between Lord Spencer and Al Fayed eventually led to the introduction of Al Fayed’’s 40 year old son, Emad ““Dodi”” Al Fayed, to Princess Diana. Mohammed Al Fayed and Adnan Khashoggi had been connected to the K-Team through their business deals. The K-Team was/is made up of CIA operatives who were/are members of Faction 1 –– the New World Order, and Faction 2 –– the opposition to the NWO. Al Fayed and Khashoggi were connected to the men who make up Faction 2.Khashoggi, Al Fayed and many other members of Faction 2 are Muslims. Since Israel is allied with the New World Order, the enemies of Israel are natural allies of Faction 2. In reference to the MI-6 document, Mohammed Al Fayed has been quoted as saying, ““I intend to establish the truth behind the tragic events in Paris last August. MI-6 Director David Spedding is named in one telex and a squad from the Israeli secret service Mossad, referred to as the ““K-Team,”” appears in another.”” Al Fayed has to know that the K-Team referred to in the MI-6 document was not Israeli. Why did he place the blame on the Israelis? Did he hope to gain help from former allies in the old K-Team? The MI-6 document seized by Vienna police and published in the London Mirror reads in full as follows:DOMESTIC COLLECTION DIVISION Foreign Intelligence Information Report Directorate of Intelligence WARNING NOTICE - INTELLIGENCE SOURCES AND METHODS INVOLVED FURTHER DISSEMINATON AND USE OF THE INFORMATION SUBJECT TO CONTROLS STATED AT BEGINNING AND END OF REPORT REPORT CLASS: TOP SECRET REPORT NO: 00.D 831/173466-97 COUNTRY: France DATE DISTR: 17 June 1997 SUBJECT: File overview: Diana Princess Of Wales-Dodi REFERENCES DCI Case 64376 SOURCE: CASParis/CASLondon/COSGeneva/CASKingston/ UK citizen Ken Etheridge. 1. Relationship initiated between Diana POW and Dodi aF according to reliable intel sources in November 1996. Intimacy begins shortly after they meet. (Report filed) 2. Reliable source reports Palace seriously disturbed by liaison. PM considers any al Fayed relationship politically disastrous. Edinburgh (Prince Phillip -ed) sees serious threat to dynasty should relationship endure. Quote reported: ““Such an affair is racially and morally repugnant and no son of a bedouin camel trader is fit for the mother of a future king,”” Edinburgh. (Report filed) 3. Request from highest circles to DEA attache UK for 6 on Dodi re: Cocaine. See File forwarded to UK embassy DC. (Copy filed) 4. US liaison to MI6 requested by David Spedding for assistance in providing permanent solution to Dodi problem. Blessing of Palace secured (Twiz filed) 5. WHuse (White House -ed) denies Spedding (head of MI-6 –– ed) request. Harrison authorized only to arrange meeting for MI-6 representative with K-Team Geneva. (Twiz on file) 6. Meeting in Geneva reportedly successful (Report filed) 7. al Fayed Mercedes Limo stolen and returned with electronics missing. Reliable intel source confirms K-team involved. Source reports car rebuilt to respond to external radio controls. (Report filed).When Al Fayed saw this document, which Oswald LeWinter tried to sell him, he had to have known that the CIA was involved in the death of his son Dodi and Princess Diana. Al Fayed was connected to the CIA K-Team that was mentioned in the MI-6 document. Number 5 on the MI-6 document states that the White House, meaning President Clinton, denied Spedding’’s request. What had David Spedding requested? Number 4 from the MI-6 document tells us: ““4. US liaison to MI-6 requested by David Spedding for assistance in providing permanent solution to Dodi problem. Blessing of Palace secured. (Twiz filed).””David Spedding, head of MI-6, was requesting assistance from the United States in finding a permanent solution to the Dodi problem. The term ““permanent solution”” is a common Intelligence Community euphemism for murder. Even though the White House did not approve Spedding’’s request for a US liaison to MI-6 for the purpose of murdering Dodi, the White House did arrange a successful meeting with K-Team members in Geneva.Evidently, the Geneva K-Team members acted as independent contractors and picked up the ““contract”” on Dodi. It is a common practice for CIA agents to act as ““independent contractors”” so they can not be traced back to the CIA and to the United States. According to the MI-6 document, the K-Team stole one of Al Fayed’’s limos and began to make plans for Dodi’’s murder. The Limo was fitted with electronics that allowed it to be remote controlled.Diana fled from her White House meeting with Hillary and went directly to Mohammed Al Fayed. Had Diana’’s father told her to seek out Mohammed Al Fayed if she ever needed help or protection? If Lord Spencer was involved in business with Al Fayed and the K-Team, then Spencer would believe that Al Fayed had the means of protecting Diana. Even Lord Spencer’’s widow went to work for Al Fayed at Harrod’’s Department Store.
Al Fayed saw the benefits of a union between Princess Diana and his son Dodi. Had Diana married Dodi, she would have learned everything about the NWO from a group of men who were the age-old enemies of the NWO and the British Throne. Diana would have become the #1 enemy of her former in-laws. Both the NWO and the Palace were afraid that Diana could expose them to the world. When the NWO discovered Diana had sought out the Al Fayeds for protection and was planning to marry Dodi, they knew they had to do something so evil and so monstrous that Diana would fall in line and never again try to defy them. At this point, they still needed her to unite Britain and the U.S. as the first step to a One World Government.The men who planned the assassination of Dodi knew Diana was pregnant and would be marrying Dodi as soon as possible. They needed to act fast, before Diana and Dodi were married and living in the Paris Windsor Palace owned by Al Fayed. According to renegade MI-6 agent Richard Tomlinson:Ritz security boss Henri Paul, who drove the death car, was an MI-6 informer paid to spy on Diana and Dodi. The Diana crash was chillingly similar to a previous MI-6 plot. That plot was to assassinate the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic in Geneva using a powerful laser strobe light——similar to that described by witnesses to the Paris crash——to blind the driver.
Richard Tomlinson lived in Geneva. The assassination plan that Tomlinson claims was ““appropriated”” to use on Dodi had been created in Geneva. The K-Team that was enlisted by MI-6 was also in Geneva. Tomlinson further states:I was shown a document proposing an assassination of President Milosevic of Serbia. The plan was to use a strobe light to blind his driver as he went into a road tunnel in Geneva. When I heard witnesses in Paris talk about a bright flash before Diana’’s car crash, it made sense. A tunnel is a perfect place for an assassination, with fewer witnesses. The Paris tunnel is also ideal because there are no crash rails along the central pillars, so it’’s a death trap.Tomlinson says his claims about MI-6 involvement in Diana’’s death will shock the world. This sounds uncannily similar to the statement made by CIA operative Oswald LeWinter that, ““The true facts about the murder of Diana would shake the World to its foundations, since it involves a number of governments and more than a number of intelligence services.””The Mercedes that Diana and Dodi were using on the night of August 30, 1997 had been stolen five months earlier, on April 20th. This meant that the accident had been planned for at least five months. But who had planned it? As Diana told her therapist: ““One day I’’m going to go up in a helicopter, and it’’ll just blow up. MI5 will do away with me.”” (Diana On The Edge, Chris Hutchins & Dominic Midgely) Diana knew that the Palace thought she was a ““loose cannon,”” and she was certain they were not beyond murdering her.The MI-6 document shows that Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Palace and Prince Phillip –– the Duke of Edinburgh –– were seriously concerned about the relationship between Diana and Dodi. They believed it was politically disastrous and could threaten the dynasty. As this document states:2. Reliable source reports Palace seriously disturbed by liaison. PM considers any al Fayed relationship politically disastrous. Edinburgh sees serious threat to dynasty should relationship endure. Quote reported: ““Such an affair is racially and morally repugnant and no son of a bedouin camel trader is fit for the mother of a future king,”” Edinburgh. (Report filed)Richard Tomlinson has also stated:
There’’s an arrogant faction inside MI-6, part of the Eton/Oxford/Guards clique, who see themselves literally as defenders of the realm——and for them, that means the royals. When Di broke up with Charles, she immediately became the enemy. When she started a romance with Dodi Al Fayed, that raised an even more terrifying spectre.What if she’’d married him and turned Muslim? What if they’’d had children? The thought of Prince William, the future King of England, with a brown-skinned Muslim half-brother or sister was the worst possible scenario for them. In their eyes, Diana would single-handedly destroy the fabric of the nation they (MI-5 and MI-6) were pledged to defend.Backed by the Al Fayed millions, she could have set up a glittering rival court which would have made Buckingham Palace pale by comparison. She would have become the people’’s Queen, so she had to go.Mohammed Al Fayed had recently purchased the Paris Chateau previously owned by the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. This was the wedding gift he was going to give to Diana and Dodi. Tomlinson was right, the Paris Court of Diana and Dodi would have out-shined anything England could offer. Prince Phillip realized that his grandsons, William and Harry, would probably prefer spending time in Paris with their mother. This means that his grandsons would be influenced by ““the son of a bedouin camel trader,”” one that happened to be aligned with the age old enemies of the present British Throne. As Tomlinson says of the Palace:The thinking would go like this: after Diana’’s death the spotlight would turn back to the Palace, as it has; Prince Charles’’ popularity rating would start to climb as he wins back public sympathy, and it has done. And, importantly, Prince William will be firmly under Palace control. Mission accomplished. No Di, no rival court. Monarchy secure.If Richard Tomlinson lived in Geneva and was an MI-6 agent, then he probably knew the K-Team that lived in Geneva. Tomlinson has never said that Dodi, not Diana, was the target of the assassination team. Nowhere in the original MI-6 document does it say anything about killing Diana. What they had in mind for her would have been far worse than death.Since Tomlinson believes that Diana was also the target, it appears that sometime in the two and a half months between the writing of the MI-6 document on June 17, 1997 and the assassination on August 30, 1997 a new plan was filed. Possibly this new plan was in one of the many CIA documents found in Oswald LeWinter’’s Vienna hotel room. Because of Tomlinson’’s connection to the K-Team in Geneva, perhaps he knew that the plan had been changed.The Mossad ConnectionIn a book called Gideon’’s Spies, the claim is made that a Mossad agent named Maurice was in Paris at the Ritz Hotel trying to recruit the chauffeur, Henri Paul, on the very day the accident occurred. Henri Paul, the driver, was killed instantly. This book further states:In July 1998, Mohammed Al Fayed asked a number of questions in a letter he sent to every one of Britain’’s members of Parliament, urging them to raise the questions in the House of Commons. He claimed that ‘‘there is a force at work to stifle the answers I want.’’ His behavior was seen as the reaction of a grieving father lashing out in every direction. The questions deserve repeating, not because they shed any light on the role Mossad played in the closing weeks of Henri Paul’’s life, but because they show how the entire tragedy has gained a momentum that only the true facts can stop.Al Fayed wrote of a ““plot”” to get rid of Diana and his son and attempted to link all kinds of disparate events with his questions: ““Why did it take one hour and forty minutes to get the princess to hospital? Why have some of the photographers failed to give up some of the pictures they shot? Why was there a break-in that night at the London home of a photographer who handles paparazzi pictures? Why have all the closed-circuit television cameras in that part of Paris produced not one frame of videotape? Why were the speed cameras on the route out of film, and the traffic cameras not switched on? Why was the scene of the crash not preserved but reopened to traffic after a few hours? Who was the person in the press group outside the Ritz who was equipped like a news photographer? Who were the two unidentified men mingling in the crowd who later sat in the Ritz bar? They ordered in English, watching and listening in a marked way?Gideon’’s Spies seems to be a clever way of sowing disinformation and covering the tracks of any Mossad agents who happened to have been involved in the murder of Dodi and Diana.At the top of the MI-6 document the sources for the information are listed. One is a British citizen named Ken Etheridge. Ken Etheridge worked for one of Mohammed Al Fayed’’s enemies, Tiny Rowlands, who financed Allan Frankovich’’s film ““The Maltese Doublecross,”” about the downing of Pan Am 103. Rowlands financed the film for two reasons. One, he felt that he could drag Muslim terrorists and arms dealers into the film and thereby taint Al Fayed who was involved with arms dealers. The second reason was purely business. Rowlands wanted to get in good with Colonel Gaddaffi in order to obtain mining concessions near the Chad border.Rowlands sent Ken Etheridge to Spain to supervise the filming of DIA whistle-blower Les Coleman. Coleman stated that it was not the Libyans who downed Pan Am 103, it was Palestinian terrorists who were paid by Iran. This information put Rowlands in high regard with Colonel Gaddaffi. According to CIA sources:Etheridge was an Asset of MI-6 who had investigated Al Fayed some years back and who gave the CIA information about Al Fayed’’s weapons deals with his brother-in-law, Adnan Khashoggi. Etheridge’’s involvement with the Diana business is a round-about one in that he informed the CIA of the extent of Al Fayed’’s intrigues concerning his desire for a Dodi-Diana Union to the British Establishment, who has refused to grant Al Fayed citizenship for over thirty years.Early Reports State Diana Was Out of the CarEarly television coverage of the accident stated that Diana was out of the car and walking around. The first reports to be seen on television said that Diana was ““out of the car”” ... ““conscious”” ... ““suffering from a broken arm, a cut on her hip & a possible concussion.”” These reports stated that her injuries were ““not potentially life threatening, but serious.”” These reports are part of an article by Sabre called, ““Diana, Accident or Murder?”” Sabre began taping at approximately 12:35 a.m. from a satellite feed, shortly after the first bulletin aired. Initial reports were from the BBC and SKY. These remarks and the photos that were aired with them have never been reported since.Documents in the possession of the CIA state most of what has been laid out above. These documents were summarized for me by a CIA operative. In addition to stating many things that have been in the pubic domain for years, the documents also state the following. Some of the following information is so disturbing that it has taken me two full years to verify it and finally write about it.•• The target on the evening of August 30, 1997 was Dodi Al Fayed. The Palace had given its blessing for the elimination of Dodi Al Fayed, the father of the child Diana was carrying.
•• The Palace assumed Diana was about three months pregnant.
•• The original plan called for the death of Dodi AND an abortion for Diana!
•• The Palace ordered an abortion using the D&C method. It was performed in the ambulance while it was parked for nearly an hour, on the side of the street, on the way to the hospital.
•• The abortion was completed, but the loss of blood was too great and the advanced damage to internal organs was irreversible.
•• Diana died of blood loss caused by an abortion –– NOT from a torn heart!
•• The coverup of the truth was ordered by Bernadette Chodron de Courcel, the wife of President Chirac, who was informed immediately and sped to the hospital. Mme Chodron de Courcel is the power of Opus Dei in France.
•• To insure that Dodi died in the crash, the K-Team had one of their ““specialists”” positioned inside the Pont de L’’Alma tunnel. He was the one who reached into the car, as if he was checking to see if Dodi was alive. It is not known if Dodi was alive or dead when the ““specialist”” broke his neck. As he emerged from the car, he shook his head to let the members of his team, who were disguised as photographers, know that the deed was done. Dodi was dead.
•• There is a photograph of the ““specialist.”” It has been published in one of the tabloids, however, its significance was not known at the time.
•• Diana was alive. She was outside the car, walking. She knew Dodi was dead. When the ambulance arrived, Diana stepped into it herself. There is a photograph which shows her sitting inside the ambulance. She looks fine.While it is suspected that whoever performed the abortion was ordered to cause her death, this has not been confirmed. CIA sources state that the Palace did not want her dead. The Palace still hoped to use her to reunite Britain and the United States. The Palace also knew that secrets like this cannot be kept. If the Palace was involved in the murder of Diana, her two loving sons would eventually find this out. It was all right if William and Harry knew that the Palace, meaning their Grandparents, had ordered the death of their mother’’s Egyptian boyfriend. They knew they could make the boys understand why they did it. But the Palace could never make Prince William and Prince Harry understand why their mother had to be killed.If the Palace did not want her dead then who ordered it? And why? CIA sources have speculated that one or two men in powerful behind-the-scenes positions decided on their own that Diana was too much of a ““loose cannon”” to be trusted. These men decided it would be easier to control her if she was dead. Therefore, they arranged her death, so they could use her image to create a new world religion through which they could control the world.••Rayelan Allan publishes Rumor Mill News, one of the most popular conspiracy websites "http://www.rumormillnews.com"; . Rayelan’s 1999 book, Diana, Queen of Heaven –– the New World Religion is available at "http://www.dianaqueenofheaven.com"; ($12.00 + S&H). Her publishing company, Pigeon Point Publishing, has published seven other books and videos. Rayelan is preparing to start a web radio show, and is currently writing a revised and expanded edition of Diana, Queen of Heaven, due out in 2001.
From the Surfing the Apocalypse webpage:
"http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.com"
Princess Diana and her soon-to-be husband, Dodi Fayed, were fatally injured in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel. The site is ancient, dating back to the time of the Merovingian kings (ca. 500 - 751 A.D.), and before. In pre-Christian times, the Pont de l'Alma was a pagan sacrificial site. Note that in the pagan connotation, at least, sacrifice is not to be confused with murder: the sacrificial victim had to be a willing participant.
In the time of the Merovingian kings, the Pont de l'Alma was an underground chamber. Founder of the Merovingian dynasty was Merovaeus, said to be descended from the union of a sea creature and a French queen. Merovaeus followed the pagan cult of Diana. In Middle English, "soul" (Alma) has as etymology "descended from the sea." "Pont," has as a Latin root "pontifex," meaning a Roman high priest. (See also pons, pontis -- bridge; passage.)"Alma" comes from the Latin "almus," meaning nourishing. One translation of Pont de l'Alma would be "bridge of the soul." Another would be "passage of nourishment." All true European royalty is descended from the Merovingians, which are believed to be descendants of Jesus Christ.
During the Merovingian era, if two kings had a dispute over property, it was settled in combat at Pont de l'Alma. According to legend, anyone killed there goes straight to Heaven and sits at the right hand of God, watching over all his foe was to do. The person killed in combat was actually considered to be the "winner," since he became God's eyes on earth and even could manipulate events.
WHOEVER CONTROLS PRINCESS DIANA CONTROLS THE WORLD By Ru Mills.
DIANA QUEEN OF HEAVEN–
http://www:dianaqueenofheaven.com
Website of Rayelan Allan author of the book, Diana, Queen of Heaven.
This interesting and "prophetic" book is a must read to those not only interested in Diana, but in conspiracy, the new world order, the holy grail bloodline and how it all connects in this incredible detective story. From the site, here is an excerpt from the overview of the book:
Shortly after Princess Diana was murdered, an anonymous source called Rayelan Allan and told her that the place where Diana had been murdered was an ancient Temple of the Goddess Diana. Rayelan has been a researcher of esoteric history since the early 1970's. She was also married to Gunther Russbacher, a deep cover CIA/ONI operative who is a member of the Austro-Hungarian royal family. Because of her connections to government insiders and European royalty, as well as her background and research, she was able to quickly verify some of the things she was told.
Her anonymous source told her that Pont de L'Alma was a sacred portal which led directly to the Throne of Heaven. Going to her Latin and French dictionaries, she discovered that "Pont" means "bridge" and "Alma" means "soul". Her source had told her the site was a bridge across the "river of souls".
Pont de L'Alma, the site of the accident which killed Princess Diana, means "Bridge of the Soul."
"Alma" can also be spelled "almah". The word "almah" was a middle eastern word meaning "temple dancer". The word "Almah" also was the title given to the priestesses of the Temple of Diana. The Goddess Diana preceded Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed. It was the major religion of the Middle Eastern countries as well as Europe.
The source told Rayelan that the priestesses at Pont de L'Alma were able to leave their bodies, cross the bridge of souls and enter heaven. Her source told her that this site was used in the ancient days, in the same way as a modern day hospice is used. The Almahs of the Temple of Diana would leave their own bodies to accompany the soul of the dying person, across the Bridge of Souls into Heaven.
Another source told a colleague of Rayelan's that the site had been the place where the Merovingian Kings of Europe came to fight to the death to settle disputes. They came to Pont de L'Alma, because they knew that the one who was killed there, went directly to the Throne of Heaven, and would oversee and direct what the victor would do on earth. In other words, the one who was killed, became the winner.
Princess Diana was descended from Merovingian Kings. Legend has it that the Merovingian dynasty was descended from the House of David. Merovingians believe they are descended from the union between Jesus and Mary Magdalen. Jesus was descended from the House of David.
Shortly after Diana was killed, Rayelan Allan wrote an article called Diana, Queen of Heaven. The article was picked up by numerous newspapers across the United States and Europe. Several authors who have written books about the death of Princess Diana used Rayelan's article as reference. However, no one fully understood the deeper meaning of the article. Therefore, Rayelan decided to expand it into a book.
Her book Diana, Queen of Heaven tells about a secret cabal of powerful men who had sought to control Diana.
SEVERAL of the things "predicted" in the book have already come true: From page 77: Rayelan Allan predicted that "very soon, visions of Diana will begin to appear all over the world", (SEE VISIONS OF DIANA this is a hyperlink on the Surfing the Apocaplypse webpage http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.com) and On page 15 of Diana, Queen of Heaven, Rayelan states: "The Teachings of Diana, started appearing shortly after the death of the Princess....they tell of the sick and dying. Some were instantly healed by the Goddess... so say The Teachings of the Goddess Diana" The Bible of the Diana Cult." (THE CHURCH OF DIANA HAS ALREADY BEEN FORMED AND THE "BIBLE" OF DIANA WRITTEN)
Below is a report from Andrew Hennessey on his observation of the tape he listened to produced by David Icke, The Arizona Wilder Video:[back]The pineal gland or third eye in human terms is an alien piece of biochemistry in the human race - as any biochemistry text book will tell of its reptilian biochemistry - so it leads us to wonder whether or not the Aryan Race was a phase 2 hybrid created by the Shape Changing reptiles so that they could colonise this sector of the '3' dimensional cosmos.
Reptiles could do with a pineal gland - because they want its mystical powers, but it looks like they have been unable to integrate this organ into their own being - as it gives access to dimensions of incredible energy and spiritual purity that would be a bit off-putting to a species hell bent on slaughter. The Reptiles are trying to bring through the 'Old Ones' in fact as characterised by HP Lovecraft in 'the Dunwich Horror'.
They have a hypnotic gaze which fixes the victim - in a trance of terror - which promotes secretion of the pineal gland - at that point, they cannot hold human form any longer and shape shift in anticipation of supper. They have a pecking order at bloodfest ceremonies, and seem to need more and more blood these days as the planetary food supply is deteriorating in quality.
They have therefore capitalised on every Druidic and Magical date to try to get as much use out of the effect of the lunar cycle on female menstrual blood. See Star FireThey call this aspect of the menstrual blood Starfire, and indeed, one of the people in the UK Arizona Wilder 'fingers' as a Shape Shifter called Lawrence Gardiner has written an article about 'Starfire and menstrual blood' in Nexus magazine. He is also behind the 'Order of the Dragon' an attempt to assemble and register the pure bloodstock of the UK in London.
A list of other people Arizona Wilder says that she has seen shapeshift into Reptiles at these rituals;
USA: Bush and 2 sons, Albright, Kissinger, Reagan and nancy, J Rockefeller, Ford, Carter and LB Johnson. EUROPE: Queen Mum, Queen Liz II, Princess Margaret, Charles, Tony Blair, and prince Philip, Zacharia Sitchin, Lawrence Gardiner.
The big International and Interstellar leader she says is a chap called the Marquis de Libero - aka Pindar [phallus of the Dragon] who provides superior seed to impregnate the specially bred Aryan and Bloodline Children with - including - Princess Diana - who brought forth Prince William - Pindars son.
In the underground vaults of his castle in the Alsace Region of France, green glowing flourescent rocks turn stored menstrual blood black to be used at that special ritual - whilst in the great heat, clutches of Reptile Eggs incubate.
The Queen Mother is second to Pindar/Libero and she is carried on a rich ornate chair before she changes into something much bigger and stronger. At the ceremonies, volumous robes of red or purple richly decorated with gold, sewn jewels, and embroidered fleur de Lys are worn, not any human clothes for these would tear during the shift.
All the British House apparently have jewel encrusted goblets to drink the blood from the symbolic female 'grail' and a symbolic dagger to give it a bit of a stir. Arizona Wilder then went on to describe the appearance of the British Royal family when they have underwent the shape shift.
The Queen mum is 8 feet tall, with a snout, and fangs. All have a long tongue with hair-like protrusions - with claws for hands and feet. They have scales and these seem to disappear into one another, this, more pronounced on the back. Some have vestigial wings, all have a tail usually kept curled which is whipped about when agitated.
The Queen Mum has a beige belly and more darkly speckled and mottled brown from the head and spine. The body has protrusions running down the spine. The eyes are large and round, protruding, varying in clour from beige to yellow to yellow green - with a black vertical slit for a pupil - the eyes can be hooded. Charles apprently has two large protrusions just above where his human ears are.
The Queen [Liz II] is much darker, all over much more homogenous in marking, where the colours gradually and smoothly change to the head, tail and back.
Arizona Wilder says that the princess Diana death was a ritual public sacrifice to usher in the Age of Horus [Egyptian magical tradition - rebirth of the dead god Osiris]. Because the magicians like to mirror dates, the dark goddess Hecates number is 13, which was why the 31st august was chosen.
It was a mirror of a Isis, Osiris, Horus ritual because 3 people died and the unborn baby Diana was carrying was the very special 3 months old. Apparently Baron Rothschild had to be in the tunnel at the 13th pillar where the accident happened to take the soul of Diana - and indeed an ambulance did arrive on the scene a minute after the crash. The driver henri paul was Mind Controlled and trained for the crash. Bits of Diana were then eaten by the hierarchy. Arizona Wylder has said that some Spencers were there at these Rituals, but that Diana would not attend - and that symptoms of Bolemia and Anorexia were mind control techniques used on her.
Wylder also said that the smell of Dianas periods would have caused Charles to shape shift - especially whilst sleeping because the Reptiles cannot retain their human form without concentration.
Arizona Wilder came across as sincere with this disturbing account and spoke of the hideous abuse to which herself and her children had been subject. I can only reiterate that I hope to God the obscenities mentioned here are not true.
Andrew Hennessey
Transformation Studies Group
Edinburgh Scotland
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Shape Shifting Pope
This is from Ancientmysteriesms, one of BUFO Paranormal and UFO Radio Groups
Many of you older members may remember when I wrote a post, telling
you that I felt that the Pope was reptilian, based on what I saw
during a televised broadcast of him meeting with his cardinals.
He was hunched over, extending his hand out for the cardinals to
kiss , looking very frail. As one of the cardinals passed, he
glanced over to him and briefly watched him walk away. Well the
camera caught him just right and I seen his eyes which 'blew me
away'...His eyes were not human, they had briefly switched
to 'draconian'.
This always bothered me, because NO ONE else seemed to notice.
Well guess what...I found something.
Someone else noticed him and his draconia appearance in a prior
time and again it was presented through the television via camera.
Mary Sutherland
Below is his story:/
SHAPESHIFTING POPE (2)
Hello David, (David Icke)
I'm writing in response to the posted article on your website
concerning the Shapeshifting Pope. I too, saw Pope John Paul II face
contort on television back sometime in April of 2000.
It was during one of the Church ceremonies where he was drooling
heavy while speaking to the masses. I noticed a sudden change in his
face that looked like he was either really constipated or about to
have a stroke or heart attack. It seemed as though his face
contorted at first then vibrated very fast and switched back all
within 2 or 3 seconds.
I want to thank you for your book: The Biggest Secret. I only wish I
could've read something like that 20 years ago when I was a 10 year
old kid. I eat this stuff for breakfast. It was a real eye opener.
Ever since I could remember my earliest memories of life, I've
always felt like there was something not quite right with the
established way of life that 99% of we humans are so accustomed to.
Thanks again.
Rob--Chicago 6-12-2000
Here is another person that seen what I saw with the Pope:
Again I found it on the David Icke Site:
One of the main reasons I am corresponding is all to do with chapter
two, 'Don't mention The Reptiles'. It may come as shock to you, but
due to an inexplicable experience I had some years ago, I found
chapter two to be the least incredulous.
Whilst watching Pope John Paul11 on the tele doing one of his
rounds, his facial features appeared to metamorphose into some
hideous creature...reptilian, no less. All this happened within
tenths of a second before returning to human again. You are the very
first person I've had the courage to tell. Your book, I suppose,
gave me the confidence to do so. It's not the kind of thing you can
chat to the missus about is it? Nor anyone else either...save
yourself of course.
Greg
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What Did Princess Diana, John Denver And Sonny Bono Have In Common? Were They Killed By The Vatican-Led New World Order!All were killed within a time frame of five months and all were strongly opposed to the military establishment and especially the needless killing with land mines. Also, the father of Diana’s lover, Dodi, issues open letter, claiming MI6 and CIA involvement in pair’s death.By Greg Szymanski http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/Mar.%2012%202007.htmlMar. 12, 2007Many true warriors fighting Satan’s evil have been harassed, tortured and assassinated by the Vatican-led New World Order. In America, high-profile names like Abraham Lincoln, JFK, his brother Bobby and Martin Luther King come to mind, but rest assured there have been many, many more in a hit list far too long for this short article.Notwithstanding the lack of justice in finding the true perpetrators in the cases above, three more names should be included to the long list of Illuminati/Vatican-led hits disguised as either accidents or suicides.The three names that come to mind are John Denver, Sonny Bono and Princess Diana. And it is interesting to note all three died of supposed accidents within 5months of one another, Princess Diana in a Paris car accident on Aug. 31, 1997; John Denver in an Oct. 13, 1997 California plane crash; and Sonny Bono in an untimely ski accident in Lake Tahoe on Jan. 6, 1998.Some researchers may dispute whether Bono and Denver were actually true patriots, but, giving them the benefit of the doubt, one never really knows what's going on behind the scenes, especially in an organization as deceptive and diabolical as the Illuminati.Although all three were said to die accidentally, it should be remembered all three did have one thing in common. The one thing they had in common and overlooked by investigators was they all were highly outspoken against the military establishment and especially the land mine industry. Further, Denver was known as a man of peace, Bono considered somewhat of rebel in the Republican Party and Princess Diana, of course, after divorcing and denouncing English royalty was about to have a baby with a Muslim.If you recall at the time of their deaths, all three were trying to alert the world of the millions of land mines still killing millions of innocents around the world. Although there are obviously other reasons, the Vatican-led New World Order wanted Princess Diana out of the way, the land mine issue should not be overlooked as well strange five-month time frame surrounding all three deaths.Concerning Princess Diana, Mohammed Al Fayed, the father of her new lover, Dodi, who was also killed in the crash, said in a recent open letter that that MI6 and the CIA were covering-up the fact that the pair were assassinated.“I have pursued information in the United States under their Freedom of Information Act,” Al Fayed said. “The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) have confirmed that they hold 39 documents consisting of 1,056 pages of information relating to Diana and Dodi but they refuse to reveal it on the grounds of national security.“My American lawyers have been fighting for access to this vital information for the last year. A court in Washington DC has ordered the CIA to hand over the documents, but they have not complied. Recently we sought a subpoena to force the production of the documents – only to have the judge rule that, under the statute which allows subpoenas to be issued in connection with foreign proceedings, he did not have jurisdiction to issue a subpoena against the federal government. We have appealed and hope to get some movement soon, but it is a very slow business.”To try and get justice, Al Fayed recently released this open letter in order to let people know that he strongly feels MI6 and the CIA “murdered the People’s Princess and his my son, Dodi.”Here is a reprint of Al Fayed’s open letter:Most people are profoundly shocked, and rightly so, by the idea that Dodi and Diana were murdered.Yet it is my firm belief that Britain's racist establishment found their relationship utterly unacceptable, and so conspired with the intelligence services to have them killed. My repeated appeals for a full public inquiry in Britain into the Paris tragedy have been rejected out of hand by the prime minister, Tony Blair and the home secretary, Jack Straw but I shall never abandon my fight for disclosure of the full facts. The following open letter explains why.Since the 31st August 1997, the terrible day that my son Dodi and Princess Diana died in Paris, I have tried by all means that I know to get answers to the many questions left hanging in the air. I have been thwarted at every turn. The official French investigation has so far failed to resolve many key questions. The British government still refuses to hold a public inquiry. The intelligence services in France, Britain and the USA have stonewalled – though we know that intelligence services had Diana under surveillance on the fateful night in Paris. And, as we have seen only too clearly following the publication of the book by Trevor Rees-Jones (but one example), there has been a concerted campaign to discredit my attempts to get at the truth.I know that I am bitterly resented by some members of the British establishment. There are those who cannot accept that an Egyptian from a modest background should have become the owner of Harrods, http://www.harrods.com a shop they considered a part of their heritage. Others reckon me beyond the pale because of my part in revealing corruption in the highest places. For a few, I suspect, it is simply a matter of racism; though they would never dream of saying so in public, they despise foreigners – especially those with crinkly hair and dark skins. Behind the scenes, the extreme right-wing in Britain still wields enormous influence particularly in the press and the corridors of unelected power. In my experience these people are ruthless in their determination and will stop at nothing to achieve their ends.Certainly my attempts to make progress through the official channels are blocked consistently by a brick wall of silence and secrecy.When I met Mr Blair in May 1999 at a reception hosted by the Muslim Council, I gave him this paper which set out my concerns and asked for his help, and a copy of this memo which I had given to the Council. I heard nothing. Then my lawyers wrote to him. Again, nothing. The same wall of silence greeted my letters to the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Heads of MI5 and MI6. Such silence is rude and discourteous to me personally. I have given 35 years of my life to this country, paying hundreds of millions in taxes and employing tens of thousands of people. I have helped to win British firms overseas contracts worth billions of pounds. After making such a contribution to the country, I think I've earned the right to some answers. But more importantly, the people of Britain deserve answers: Diana was – in Tony Blair's words – "The People's Princess". A blanket refusal to answer legitimate questions can only fuel suspicion of foul play.These concerns were taken up in Parliament by the Conservative MP Charles Wardle. He did so of his own volition. In an adjournment debate in July 1999 he set out with great force and clarity the many reasons for holding a full inquiry in Britain into the Paris crash, conducted openly for all to see and follow. He requested a formal response from the Home Office; none has been forthcoming.I have pursued information in the United States under their Freedom of Information Act. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA)I have confirmed that they hold 39 documents consisting of 1,056 pages of information relating to Diana and Dodi but they refuse to reveal it on the grounds of national security. My American lawyers have been fighting for access to this vital information for the last year. A court in Washington DC has ordered the CIA to hand over the documents, but they have not complied. Recently we sought a subpoena to force the production of the documents – only to have the judge rule that, under the statute which allows subpoenas to be issued in connection with foreign proceedings, he did not have jurisdiction to issue a subpoena against the federal government. We have appealed and hope to get some movement soon, but it is a very slow business.The attitude of the British government was well-illustrated recently. On 27 February The Sunday Times published an article headlined "Spy agencies listened in on Diana". In this article, "former intelligence officials" confirmed to the newspaper that spy agencies in Britain and America "eavesdropped on Diana". The very next day, in response to my earlier demands for an official statement on this matter, I received a letter from the Treasury Solicitor, categorically denying any such activity by the security services, or those working on their behalf. Given that Diana was mother to the future King, and was often at odds with the Royal Family, it is frankly unbelievable that the security forces were taking no interest in her – but the official line attempts to deny the obvious.According to Stephen Dorril's newly published history of Britain's overseas intelligence service, "MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations" (p788):"... the late Princess of Wales had clearly been under some kind of surveillance, as evidenced by the 1,050-page dossier held by the US National Security Agency detailing private telephone conversations between Diana and American friends intercepted at MI6's request ". (emphasis added)It is hardly surprising that my efforts to uncover the truth about the Paris crash have made me a lot of enemies. But I have been shocked at the lengths that these people will go to in their attempts to discredit me. The Daily and Sunday Telegraph newspapers, considered by many to be the heart of reactionary opinion in Britain, have mounted an extraordinarily vicious and sustained campaign. Since the crash they have printed a never-ending stream of hostile articles – about 150 in all – accusing me of everything from tax evasion to sexual harassment. Their fellow-travelers, The Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday and the London Evening Standard have joined in the fun. (For a more detailed account, see Mohamed Al Fayed and the Press). While seeking to portray me as some kind of fantasist, they show no interest themselves in establishing the facts. If they are able to prove me wrong, why don't they do so?The most recent attack on me was The Daily Telegraph's publication of extracts from the book "The Bodyguard's Story" by Trevor Rees-Jones. This account was, in fact, compiled by a committee and crafted by a ghostwriter. It is based substantially on the recollections of others because Rees-Jones himself has no memory of the crash itself and only partial recall of much else.He has simply been used as a vehicle to sensationalize a book which peddles the lies of those hell-bent on silencing me. And he has clearly forgotten completely about the confidentiality clause in his contract of employment with me.The motives behind the book are plain: they are to clear Trevor and his friend Kez Wingfield, the other bodyguard that night, of all responsibility for the tragedy and also to get "some recompense for what's happened." Everything in the book is shaped by these twin objectives of shifting the blame and selling the book. Trevor is consistently portrayed as a saint while I am relentlessly cast as the evil genius trying to manipulate his memories to support wild conspiracy theories. It is all rubbish and deeply ironic when it is Trevor and those who collaborated with him who are manipulating the truth for their own ends. Trevor has admitted that they – lawyers included – are all part of the book deal and so will share the profits. Like everyone else, I have the greatest sympathy for Trevor. He went through hell. But I cannot overlook the fact that, on the night, he failed to carry out established security procedures. Had he done so, the couple might be alive today.Interestingly, the ghostwriter Moira Johnston is best-known for a book on a famous court case concerning so-called "recovered memories." In her third-person narrative, individuals have a startling recall of precisely what they were thinking and saying more than two and a half years ago and, even more remarkable, an exact knowledge of what other people were thinking and saying when key events took place!Every trick in the book, every tabloid technique known to man, has been employed to fashion a fiction that parades as the truth. I bitterly resent this malicious book and its intrusion on my private family life and security arrangements. I simply cannot understand why I was refused an injunction when Tony Blair was awarded one to stop a book about his family written by a well-intentioned nanny who is a friend of the family! Sometimes the law really is an ass.The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers have claimed quite wrongly that "The Bodyguard's Story" demolishes many of my theories. In fact, it contains no new information and actually lends weight to my conviction that Henri Paul was not drunk at all.Both Trevor and Kez continue to insist that Paul gave no indication whatsoever of being drunk before he got behind the wheel. They had been with him for extended periods that evening and still maintain that there was nothing in his behaviour or general conduct to suggest that he had been drinking. If this is the case, how then do they account for the inquiry finding that, within three minutes of leaving the hotel, he was more than three times over the drink-drive limit?The book makes several claims (about the engagement ring and the reported last words of Diana) which are wrong, but otherwise it consists of little more than gossip and innuendo designed to clear the bodyguards of any responsibility for what happened. Despite this, the Establishment has hailed it as a work of great significance. Like the recent revelation that the brother-in-law ofThe Sunday Telegraph editor is a senior MI6 officer, it shows how far the influence of the Establishment extends. I remain convinced that most fair-minded people believe there was foul play in Paris. Even The Daily Telegraph Home Affairs Editor Philip Johnston was recently forced to acknowledge:"Since the serialization began, this newspaper and others connected with the book have been contacted by people who just cannot come to terms with the banal circumstances of the Princess's death. One caller yesterday berated The Daily Telegraph for 'covering up what everyone knows is the truth' ".Like Trevor Rees-Jones, I too would like to move on and lead a normal life but the Establishment is making that impossible. It is their constant refusal to answer perfectly straightforward questions that drives me on. They should know that the efforts to discredit and destroy me will not succeed and that I will never give up my fight to discover the full facts about the deaths of Dodi and Diana. I am not alone in wanting answers. There is widespread public unease about the circumstances of the tragedy. Very many ordinary people in this country want answers and they deserve them.In my own mind I must be certain that what happened in Paris was truly God's will and not the will of others. I have great faith that God will guide and protect me in my search and I fear no one. I am equally sure that one day the truth will be known.
MI6 and the Princess of Walesby Richard John Charles TomlinsonAttached below is a sworn and testified statement that I have made on 12th May 1999 to the enquiry into the deaths of the Princess of Wales, Dodi Al Fayed, and Henri Paul. I firmly believe that MI6 have information in their files that would assist Judge Stephan's enquiry. Why don't they yield up this information? They should not be entitled to use the Official Secrets Act to protect themselves from investigation into the deaths of three people, particularly in the case of an incident of this magnitude and historical importance.I, Richard John Charles Tomlinson, former MI6 officer, of Geneva, Switzerland hereby declare:1.I firmly believe that there exist documents held by the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) that would yield important new evidence into the cause and circumstances leading to the deaths of the Princess of Wales, Mr Dodi Al Fayed, and M. Henri Paul in Paris in August 1997.2.I was employed by MI6 between September 1991 and April 1995. During that time, I saw various documents that I believe would provide new evidence and new leads into the investigation into these deaths. I also heard various rumours � which though I was not able to see supporting documents � I am confident were based on solid fact.3.In 1992, I was working in the Eastern European Controllerate of MI6 and I was peripherally involved in a large and complicated operation to smuggle advanced Soviet weaponry out of the then disintegrating and disorganised remnants of the Soviet Union. During 1992, I spent several days reading the substantial files on this operation. These files contain a wide miscellany of contact notes, telegrams, intelligence reports, photographs etc, from which it was possible to build up a detailed understanding of the operation. The operation involved a large cast of officers and agents of MI6. One more than one occasion, meetings between various figures in the operation took place at the Ritz Hotel, Place de Vendome, Paris. There were in the file several intelligence reports on these meetings, which had been written by one of the MI6 officers based in Paris at the time (identified in the file only by a coded designation). The source of the information was an informant in the Ritz Hotel, who again was identified in the files only by a code number. The MI6 officer paid the informant in cash for his information. I became curious to learn more about the identity of this particular informant, because his number cropped up several times and he seemed to have extremely good access to the goings on in the Ritz Hotel. I therefore ordered this informant's personal file from MI6's central file registry. When I read this new file, I was not at all surprised to learn that the informant was a security officer of the Ritz Hotel. Intelligence services always target the security officer's of important hotels because they have such good access to intelligence. I remember, however, being mildly surprised that the nationality of this informant was French, and this stuck in my memory, because it is rare that MI6 succeeds in recruiting a French informer. I cannot claim that I remember from this reading of the file that the name of this person was Henri Paul, but I have no doubt with the benefit of hindsight that this was he. Although I did not subsequently come across Henri Paul again during my time in MI6, I am confident that the relationship between he and MI6 would have continued until his death, because MI6 would never willingly relinquish control over such a well placed informant. I am sure that the personal file of Henri Paul will therefore contain notes of meetings between him and his MI6 controlling officer right up until the point of his death. I firmly believe that these files will contain evidence of crucial importance to the circumstances and causes of the incident that killed M. Paul, together with the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed.4.The most senior undeclared officer in the local MI6 station would normally control an informant of M. Paul's usefulness and seniority. Officers declared to the local counter-intelligence service (in this case the Directorate de Surveillance Territoire, or DST) would not be used to control such an informant, because it might lead to the identity of the informant becoming known to the local intelligence services. In Paris at the time of M. Paul's death, there were two relatively experienced but undeclared MI6 officers. The first was Mr Nicholas John Andrew LANGMAN, born 1960. The second was Mr Richard David SPEARMAN, again born in 1960. I firmly believe that either one or both of these officers will be well acquainted with M Paul, and most probably also met M. Paul shortly before his death. I believe that either or both of these officers will have knowledge that will be of crucial importance in establishing the sequence of events leading up to the deaths of M.Paul, Dodi Al Fayed and the Princess of Wales. Mr Spearman in particular was an extremely well connected and influential officer, because he had been, prior to his appointment in Paris, the personal secretary to the Chief of MI6 Mr David SPEDDING. As such, he would have been privy to even the most confidential of MI6 operations. I believe that there may well be significance in the fact that Mr Spearman was posted to Paris in the month immediately before the deaths.5.Later in 1992, as the civil war in the former Yugoslavia became increasingly topical, I started to work primarily on operations in Serbia. During this time, I became acquainted with Dr Nicholas Bernard Frank FISHWICK, born 1958, the MI6 officer who at the time was in charge of planning Balkan operations. During one meeting with Dr Fishwick, he casually showed to me a three-page document that on closer inspection turned out to be an outline plan to assassinate the Serbian leader President Slobodan Milosevic. The plan was fully typed, and attached to a yellow "minute board", signifying that this was a formal and accountable document. It will therefore still be in existence. Fishwick had annotated that the document be circulated to the following senior MI6 officers: Maurice KENDWRICK-PIERCEY, then head of Balkan operations, John RIDDE, then the security officer for Balkan operations, the SAS liaison officer to MI6 (designation MODA/SO, but I have forgotten his name), the head of the Eastern European Controllerate (then Richard FLETCHER) and finally Alan PETTY, the personal secretary to the then Chief of MI6, Colin McCOLL. This plan contained a political justification for the assassination of Milosevic, followed by three outline proposals on how to achieve this objective. I firmly believe that the third of these scenarios contained information that could be useful in establishing the causes of death of Henri Paul, the Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al Fayed. This third scenario suggested that Milosevic could be assassinated by causing his personal limousine to crash. Dr Fishwick proposed to arrange the crash in a tunnel, because the proximity of concrete close to the road would ensure that the crash would be sufficiently violent to cause death or serious injury, and would also reduce the possibility that there might be independent, casual witnesses. Dr Fishwick suggested that one way to cause the crash might be to disorientate the chauffeur using a strobe flash gun, a device which is occasionally deployed by special forces to, for example, disorientate helicopter pilots or terrorists, and about which MI6 officers are briefed about during their training. In short, this scenario bore remarkable similarities to the circumstances and witness accounts of the crash that killed the Princess of Wales, Dodi Al Fayed, and Henri Paul. I firmly believe that this document should be yielded by MI6 to the Judge investigating these deaths, and would provide further leads that he could follow.6.During my service in MI6, I also learnt unofficially and second-hand something of the links between MI6 and the Royal Household. MI6 are frequently and routinely asked by the Royal Household (usually via the Foreign Office) to provide intelligence on potential threats to members of the Royal Family whilst on overseas trips. This service would frequently extend to asking friendly intelligence services (such as the CIA) to place members of the Royal Family under discrete surveillance, ostensibly for their own protection. This was particularly the case for the Princess of Wales, who often insisted on doing without overt personal protection, even n overseas trips. Although contact between MI6 and the Royal Household was officially only via the Foreign Office, I learnt while in MI6 that there was unofficial direct contact between certain senior and influential MI6 officers and senior members of the Royal Household. I did not see any official papers on this subject, but I am confident that the information is correct. I firmly believe that MI6 documents would yield substantial leads on the nature of their links with the Royal Household, and would yield vital information about MI6 surveillance on the Princess of Wales in the days leading to her death.7.I also learnt while in MI6 that one of the "paparazzi" photographers who routinely followed the Princess of Wales was a member of "UKN", a small corps of part-time MI6 agents who provide miscellaneous services to MI6 such as surveillance and photography expertise. I do not know the identity of this photographer, or whether he was one of the photographers present at the time of the fatal incident. However, I am confident that examination of UKN records would yield the identity of this photographer, and would enable the inquest to eliminate or further investigate that potential line of enquiry.8.On Friday August 28 1998, I gave much of this information to Judge Herv� Stephan, the French investigative Judge in charge of the inquest into the accident. The lengths which MI6, the CIA and the DST have taken to deter me giving this evidence and subsequently to stop me talking about it, suggests that they have something to hide.9.On Friday 31 July 1998, shortly before my appointment with Judge Herv� Stephan, the DST arrested me in my Paris hotel room. Although I have no record of violent conduct I was arrested with such ferocity and at gunpoint that I received a broken rib. I was taken to the headquarters of the DST, and interrogated for 38 hours. Despite my repeated requests, I was never given any justification for the arrest and was not shown the arrest warrant. Even though I was released without charge, the DST confiscated from me my laptop computer and Psion organiser. They illegally gave these to MI6 who took them back to the UK. They were not returned for six months, which is illegal and caused me great inconvenience and financial cost.10.On Friday 7th August 1998 I boarded a Qantas flight at Auckland International airport, New Zealand, for a flight to Sydney, Australia where I was due to give a television interview to the Australian Channel Nine television company. I was in my seat, awaiting take off, when an official boarded the plane and told me to get off. At the airbridge, he told me that the airline had received a fax "from Canberra" saying that there was a problem with my travel papers. I immediately asked to see the fax, but I was told that "it was not possible". I believe that this is because it didn't exist. This action was a ploy to keep me in New Zealand so that the New Zealand police could take further action against me. I had been back in my Auckland hotel room for about half an hour when the New Zealand police and NZSIS, the New Zealand Secret Intelligence Service, raided me. After being detained and searched for about three hours, they eventually confiscated from me all my remaining computer equipment that the French DST had not succeeded in taking from me. Again, I didn't get some of these items back until six months later.11.Moreover, shortly after I had given this evidence to Judge Stephan, I was invited to talk about this evidence in a live television interview on America's NBC television channel. I flew from Geneva to JFK airport on Sunday 30 August to give the interview in New York on the following Monday morning. Shortly after arrival at John F Kennedy airport, the captain of the Swiss Air flight told all passengers to return to their seats. Four US Immigration authority officers entered the plane, came straight to my seat, asked for my passport as identity, and then frogmarched me off the plane. I was taken to the immigration detention centre, photographed, fingerprinted, manacled by my ankle to a chair for seven hours, served with deportation papers (exhibit 1) and then returned on the next available plane to Geneva. I was not allowed to make any telephone calls to the representatives of NBC awaiting me in the airport. The US Immigration Officers - who were all openly sympathetic to my situation and apologised for treating me so badly - openly admitted that they were acting under instructions from the CIA.12.In January of this year, I booked a chalet in the village of Samoens in the French Alps for a ten day snowboarding holiday with my parents. I picked up my parents from Geneva airport in a hire car on the evening of January 8, and set off for the French border. At the French customs post, our car was stopped and I was detained. Four officers from the DST held me for four hours. At the end of this interview, I was served with the deportation papers below (exhibit 2), and ordered to return to Switzerland. Note that in the papers, my supposed destination has been changed from "Chamonix" to "Samoens". This is because when first questioned by a junior DST officer, I told him that my destination was "Chamonix". When a senior officer arrived an hour or so later, he crossed out the word and changed it to "Samoens", without ever even asking or confirming this with me. I believe this is because MI6 had told them of my true destination, having learnt the information through surveillance on my parent's telephone in the UK. My banning from France is entirely illegal under European law. I have a British passport and am entitled to travel freely within the European Union. MI6 have "done a deal" with the DST to have me banned, and have not used any recognised legal mechanism to deny my rights to freedom of travel. I believe that the DST and MI6 have banned me from France because they wanted to prevent me from giving further evidence to Judge Stephan's inquest, which at the time, I was planning to do.13.Whatever MI6's role in the events leading to the death of the Princess of Wales, Dodi Al Fayed and Henri Paul, I am absolutely certain that there is substantial evidence in their files that would provide crucial evidence in establishing the exact causes of this tragedy. I believe that they have gone to considerable lengths to obstruct the course of justice by interfering with my freedom of speech and travel, and this in my view confirms my belief that they have something to hide. I believe that the protection given to MI6 files under the Official Secrets Act should be set aside in the public interest in uncovering once and for all the truth behind these dramatic and historically momentous events.
MI6 & The Lying Game: Rosa Monckton and the Oxbridge spooks...
I/Ops news-alliance.com
In December 2003, Daily Mail journalist Sue Reid, with whom we have worked in the past investigating the alleged ‘suicide’ of Dr David Kelly, quoted a source, who insisted on remaining anonymous, saying that Diana went to a leading London hospital to undergo a pregnancy scan, days before she joined Dodi on holiday. The result is unknown and the test was conducted in the utmost secrecy.
But then Diana’s self-confessed ‘best friend’ Rosa Monckton, claims that Diana menstruated only a week before the crash, while they were on holiday in Greece. It is clear that Monckton believes she cannot be challenged on this issue but former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson alleges that Rosa’s husband, Dominic Lawson, former editor of the Sunday Telegraph newspaper and Spectator magazine, provided journalistic cover for MI6 officers while he was editor of The Spectator.
Rosa’s brother, the Honourable Anthony Leopold Colyer Monckton, a diplomat, was also an MI6 spy according to Tomlinson. It should be noted that Dominic Lawson has never sued any publication or person for alleging he was an MI6 stringer. Dominic Lawson, is of course, the son of former Tory Chancellor Nigel Lawson and brother of famous TV ‘kitchen goddess’ Nigella Lawson. The very same Nigel Lawson who detested Mohamed Al Fayed for besmirching his beloved Tories.
Tomlinson alleges that Dominic Lawson provided cover for an agent named ironically ‘Spencer’, who was put on the case of a young Russian diplomat, Pluton Obukhov, in Tallin, capital city of Estonia. In an excerpt from Tomlinson’s ‘banned’ book (The Big Breach) published in Pravda, it was revealed that Spencer, returning from a visit to Information Operations (I/Ops), which plants stories or propaganda in the British press, remarked, “Flippin’ outrageous. They’ve got the editor of the Spectator magazine on the books. He’s called ‘smallbrow’. He’s agreed to le me go to Tallin undercover as a freelancer for his magazine. The only condition is that I have to write an article which he’ll publish if he likes it’, the cheeky bastard wants a story courtesy of the taxpayer.”
The allegations that Dominic Lawson was a paid asset of MI6 have also been made in parliament but he has always denied ever having been an agent. How likely is it that he would admit it? Again, we reiterate that Lawson has brought no libel action against any publication alleging he was an MI6 asset, or a ‘stringer’ planted on newspapers by the spooks to further their covert propagandist agenda.
Other disturbing aspects of the unlikely ‘friendship’ between Diana and Rosa were raised by Paris-based journalist Jane Tawbase in a EuroBusiness investigation into Monckton and Lawson. She wrote: ‘Rosa Monckton, a generation older, made an odd friend for the often unhappy princess. A svelte sophisticate and a wealthy working woman, her first relationships and loyalties lay, almost from when she was born, with the Queen. She was a regular visitor to the royal household all her life and was, for that reason, more given to loyalty to the crown than to an unhappy and disruptive outsider, one who was seriously damaging the public image of the royal family.’
On closer inspection, the relationship between Monckton and the ‘disruptive’ Diana, is somewhat inexplicable, perhaps just very odd. Diana was a fashion goddess and fitness fanatic who delighted in shopping and modern music. Monckton, by contrast, is a highly cerebral woman of the world, married to a man with links to MI6 that no journalist or newspaper editor should ever have.
Jane Tawbase also raises two further questions on this murky subject and throws more light on the matter than most before or after her. She wrote: ‘Whether Rosa Monckton introduced her brother to the princess and whether he was part of the MI6 operation. It was almost unthinkable that he was not.’ In her second point she wrote: ‘Did MI6 ask Rosa Monckton to do the key job of moving into the princess’s inner circle and become her confidante? It would certainly have made the job easier.’
Dissident MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson, who has been harassed for years by the French and British authorities, is certain that Monckton’s brother is a spy. It should be noted that Anthony and Rosa’s grandfather worked for Edward VIII and kept a close watch on him for the security services throughout the abdication and beyond. Like Diana, the British Establishment were determined to rid themselves of Edward VIII. The Queen Mother, however, said that Diana was a greater threat to the House of Windsor than Wallis-Simpson and Edward VIII put together. Tawbase concludes that, ‘It would indeed be ironic if history had repeated itself and Rosa Monckton performed the same role for MI6 with regard to Princess Diana.’
In these circumstances, it is perhaps understandable that Rosa Monckton declared that Diana was not pregnant. It must also be noted that no one else can give witness to Monckton’s suggestion that Diana menstruated while they holidayed in Greece, nor should her statement be regarded as fact, it is opinion. Monckton simply expects everyone to believe her version of events because she was Diana’s ‘friend’. And again, it must be stated that Diana abhorred everything to do with the State and was convinced that hired assassins were trying to kill her. It is puzzling why Diana formed a friendship with Monckton.
We must turn to the testimony of Richard Tomlinson, who has been deliberately ignored by the French authorities. His affidavit to judge Herve Stephan was dismissed. Stephan showed no interest in Tomlinson’s affidavit but the British certainly did and MI6 led a campaign of arrests and harassment against its dissident officer across the world to disrupt his life and attempt to silence him….
Tomlinson also revealed that during his time with MI6, he discovered that there was an informal but direct link between certain MI6 officers of senior rank and royal courtiers. St James’s Palace and Buckingham Palace are easy access points for the spooks through the back-channel process. Many of these ‘men’ share an Oxbridge background with royal courtiers and the relationship continues for life. They would all have known of the CIA eavesdropping operation against Diana and certainly shared the intel ‘product’.
In the Paget Report, Sir John Stevens alleges that MI6 and MI5 were not aware of the CIA operation. Indeed, he salaciously goes as far to say that the CIA were only interested in Diana’s ‘contacts’ and prime among which were Mohamed Al Fayed and his murdered son Dodi Fayed. By definition, if the CIA were watching Diana’s contacts, then Diana was also being watched. Obviously, Sir John Stevens, the faithful Establishment plod, knows this but at the same time, he must presume the general public to be completely stupid. His tale is defeated with elementary logic.
British Intelligence certainly would have been told of the surveillance operation on Diana and her contacts and highly likely also, they would have been given access to the product of the eavesdropping. It is also perfectly clear to anyone with experience of modern surveillance that Diana would have been tracked through the signal from her mobile phone. Such signals allow the target to be pinpointed to within a metre of their location. The same is also true of Dodi Fayed, Wingfield, Rees-Jones and Henri Paul etc.
As a ‘reward’ for his indiscretions, Tomlinson was arrested at gunpoint by the French DST (Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire) at his home. He suffered a broken rib in the operation against him despite the fact that he has no record of violence. The DST agents were ordered to go in hard to teach him a lesson. The whole arrest was designed to shake him to the core and think better of opening his mouth in future. And this is an interesting point which requires further analysis.
By their very nature, ‘fantasists’ or people who make things up, are ignored, not arrested at gunpoint and violently assaulted. Again, if Tomlinson was at least mistaken, or indeed lying about the matters he revealed, there would have been no need to arrest him and he could simply have been dismissed as a former employee with a furtive imagination. The fact he was arrested in such brutal fashion, proves conclusively that Tomlinson has revealed too many truths that powerful people would prefer to remain buried. It is also noteworthy that Tomlinson has not been accused of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’ by his detractors.
In the event, Tomlinson was questioned for over eighteen hours at the Paris HQ of the DST to discourage him from giving evidence to the Stephan inquiry. But he did appear before Stephan and told him, “As long as they [MI6] can get away with doing something then that’s their only limit about what they will do. This includes assassination.”
Diana’s decision to embrace Islam and highly likely produce a mixed-race brother or sister to the heirs to the throne of England, and her anti-landmines campaign were enough to warrant her elimination. But there is more still in the shape of the ‘secrets’ she held in her little box of treasures at Kensington Palace.
Paul Burrell, often referred to as ‘Diana’s rock’ was aware of the box and most, if not all of its contents. Following his arrest on the grounds that he unlawfully took over 300 items from Kensington Palace, after the princess’s funeral, he was interrogated again and again by Scotland Yard detectives, who shook him up quite badly but failed to break him.
In his book A Royal Duty, he relates his experience of the arrest and what the political police were looking for: ‘Then DS Milburn asked me two bizarre questions: “Do you have a manuscript of the memoirs you are writing?” If there was one moment when I knew the officers were stabbing in the dark, that was it. No such manuscript existed.’
Burrell then explains the events of the following morning: ‘The next morning, DS Roger Milburn returned. On instructions from Andrew Shaw, I said nothing to his volley of questions. Again, his curiosity seemed to focus more on the contents of a box, sensitive paperwork and a manuscript.’
Burrell’s trial was a landmine for the monarchy and the Queen could not risk her former butler, revealing some of what he saw. In open court, just before the trial collapsed, a truly revealing encounter took place that gave the world some insight of what was in Diana’s box of treasures.
Burrell wrote: ‘The full picture emerged with the judge’s approval. Scotland Yard was looking for a signet ring given to the princess by Major James Hewitt; a resignation letter from her private secretary Patrick Jephson; letters from Prince Philip to the princess; and a tape, which became known after the trial as the Rape Tape.
It was a recording made by the princess in 1996 when she informally interviewed former KP orderly and ex-Welsh Guardsman George Smith. He had alleged that after a night of heavy drinking he had been raped in 1989 by a male member of staff who worked for Prince Charles. It all came to a head because George who had worked at Highgrove, St James’s Palace and KP, had been suffering nightmares, was drinking heavily, and his marriage was falling apart. He blamed it all on an incident that he said he was bottling up.’
‘The princess knew the member of staff in question. From that moment on she loathed him. “I know what that evil bugger did. I know what he did to George, and I will never forgive him for that,” she seethed, after her futile attempts to bring about justice. He [George Smith] never returned to work, and accepted a settlement [Fiona Shackleton] at the end of his employment of around £40,000.’
‘The princess ensured that the tape never saw the light of day. But the mystery of its whereabouts, and the threat its contents posed, emerged during the police investigation of my case. Lady Sarah McCorquodale had asked that Scotland Yard ‘ascertain’ the contents of the box. In court, DS Milburn said: “I was looking for the contents of that box. All of a sudden, the undertones behind the raid on my home became clear.’
As the trial wore on it was obvious Burrell would have to take the stand. The prospect of ‘Diana’s rock’ hurling highly explosive stones at the British Establishment was enough to prompt the Queen to recall a conversation she had with Burrell in December 1997 at Buckingham Palace in which Burrell told her that he was taking a number of the princess’s items into safekeeping.
The exchange was a chilling encounter for Burrell. He wrote of it: ‘As the meeting neared its end, the Queen said one more thing to me. Looking over her half-rimmed spectacles, she said: “Be careful, Paul. No one has been as close to a member of my family as you have. There are ‘powers’ at work in this country about which we have no knowledge,’ and she fixed me with a stare where her eyes made clear the ‘do you understand?’.
‘She [Queen] might have been referring to the domestic intelligence service MI5 because, have no doubt, the Queen does not know of its secret work and ‘darker practices’ but she is aware of the power it is capable of wielding. Like the royal household, the intelligence services are given carte blanche to act in whatever way is considered to be in the best interests of state and monarchy.’
‘At my December 1997 meeting with the Queen and as my statement had made clear: ‘I feared at the time of the princess’s death that there was a conspiracy to change the course of history, and erase certain parts of her life from it. Mrs Frances Shand Kydd spent two weeks shredding personal correspondence and documents.’
Piers Morgan in his own memoir, The Insider, explains that he tried to help Burrell and have the quasi-case against him dropped, he wrote: -
17 January 2001 – I rang Mark Bolland at the Palace.
‘You guys are mad, Mark. Burrell could say anything in the stand.’
‘I know, I know,’ he replied despondently.
‘It’s a mess.’
‘Well, end it now, before it’s too late.’
‘We can’t, the police are running the case now.’
A cornered Burrell could be a very dangerous beast. This will go on for weeks, and can only be damaging to the Royal Family. They must be mad allowing Burrell to potentially take the stand. Cornered and desperate, he might say anything, and he knows the lot because he was there. There’s also no way he stole Diana’s stuff, anyone who knows him knows that. He could make more money from what’s in his mind than he ever could from a few of her trinkets.
The Establishment were again courting disaster by trying to silence Burrell. In reality, the tactic worked in reverse, virtually ensuring that Burrell, facing five years in prison if convicted, would open up before the glaring eyes of the world to save his own skin.
By 16 September 1997, bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones had opened his eyes. The worry for the British Establishment was the strong possibility that he would remember what happened in the moments before the Mercedes crashed. Rees-Jones can certainly remember fastening his seatbelt just seconds before the car crashed but claims that he cannot remember anything after that. But again, damning further clarification comes in the shape of Piers Morgan and his memoir The Insider.
Morgan wrote: ‘Tuesday, 16 September 1997 – I had a brief chat with Fayed today and he said that Rees-Jones is awake, and having flashbacks of the crash. ‘Can we have the first interview?’ Fayed was anxious. ‘He needs to tell us what happened first, that is the most important thing. Then perhaps he can talk to you. But we must be careful Piers, he is in a very bad way.’ To this day, Al Fayed has not told the world what Rees-Jones said to him!
Naturally, Rees-Jones, who suffered terrible injuries, claims that he can remember nothing. Can he remember coming round in the hospital in the presence of Al Fayed and having ‘flashbacks of the crash’? We do not wish to be offensive to Rees-Jones, particularly given the injuries he suffered, but we do not think his story holds up in the slightest under examination. He can remember some things but not others, selective memory loss not amnesia.
For instance, Rees-Jones can remember leaving the Ritz Hotel on the rue Cambon and that a white Fiat Uno was tailing them. He then recounts that he saw a white Fiat Uno again on the approach to the Alma Tunnel. He also recalls that he fastened his seatbelt and encouraged the others to do the same moments before impact. At the very moment he fastened his seatbelt, the white Fiat Uno was careering into the path of the Mercedes but Rees-Jones does not remember that....
His memory falls apart when it comes to events in the Alma Tunnel. He can remember belting up, not verbally at that time, but cannot remember seeing the white Fiat Uno in the tunnel nor a blinding white flash. If he can remember fastening his seatbelt, he can remember what happened in the very next seconds involving the white Fiat Uno and the blinding flash of light and the escaping motorbike.
It is little wonder that the majority of people do not believe Rees-Jones. We will go further and state that he is lying about not being able to remember the juicy bits, the crucial events immediately before the Mercedes crashed. Either that, or he has made it all up about seeing a white Fiat Uno and fastening his seatbelt and encouraging the others to do the same. But then, why would he do that? This man wants his cake and to eat it but the majority of people do not swallow his 'sweetened' version of events.
Rumours are rife in the media world that Rees-Jones has been threatened by British intelligence. If he opens his mouth and suddenly remembers what happened in the crucial seconds to impact, he might not be so lucky a second time. Rees-Jones is also still subject to the Official Secrets Act and government lawyers can make that mean whatever they want it to mean. Theoretically, the OSA should apply only to the period one was in service but the strictures of the Act apply for the rest of one’s life and Rees-Jones knows this only too well.
There is also the fact that in Northern Ireland, Rees-Jones, a former paratrooper with experience of putting enemy targets under surveillance, worked closely at times with British Army Intelligence and he will know only too well what the Force Research Unit, MI6 and The Increment are capable of. On his testimony that he cannot remember the vital seconds before I impact, Rees-Jones should not be believed. The claim is that he suffers from amnesia, only in part mind you, and that we should have sympathy for him.
We genuinely sympathise with the fact that he suffered terrible injuries in the crash but one must remain logical and rational and not succumb to emotional impulses. In his book, The Bodyguard’s Story, he repeats the same old tale, over and over again: he cannot remember the ‘juicy bits’ but has no problem dishing out all the old crumbs of information he wants us to know. And we know people in the media world, who are certain that Rees-Jones has been silenced by British Intelligence.
An important note to end this article on comes in the form of a quote from former MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson: “There is an arrogant faction in MI6, part of the Oxbridge clique, which doesn’t try to hide dedication to the royal family and their self-appointment as defenders of the realm.” And spooks excel at the lying game, as par for the course of their ‘training’ and ethics by prerequisite, are irrelevant.…
http://www.news-alliance.com/mi6__the_lying_game.html
MI6 & The Lying Game: Rosa Monckton and the Oxbridge spooks...
I/Ops news-alliance.com
In December 2003, Daily Mail journalist Sue Reid, with whom we have worked in the past investigating the alleged ‘suicide’ of Dr David Kelly, quoted a source, who insisted on remaining anonymous, saying that Diana went to a leading London hospital to undergo a pregnancy scan, days before she joined Dodi on holiday. The result is unknown and the test was conducted in the utmost secrecy.
But then Diana’s self-confessed ‘best friend’ Rosa Monckton, claims that Diana menstruated only a week before the crash, while they were on holiday in Greece. It is clear that Monckton believes she cannot be challenged on this issue but former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson alleges that Rosa’s husband, Dominic Lawson, former editor of the Sunday Telegraph newspaper and Spectator magazine, provided journalistic cover for MI6 officers while he was editor of The Spectator.
Rosa’s brother, the Honourable Anthony Leopold Colyer Monckton, a diplomat, was also an MI6 spy according to Tomlinson. It should be noted that Dominic Lawson has never sued any publication or person for alleging he was an MI6 stringer. Dominic Lawson, is of course, the son of former Tory Chancellor Nigel Lawson and brother of famous TV ‘kitchen goddess’ Nigella Lawson. The very same Nigel Lawson who detested Mohamed Al Fayed for besmirching his beloved Tories.
Tomlinson alleges that Dominic Lawson provided cover for an agent named ironically ‘Spencer’, who was put on the case of a young Russian diplomat, Pluton Obukhov, in Tallin, capital city of Estonia. In an excerpt from Tomlinson’s ‘banned’ book (The Big Breach) published in Pravda, it was revealed that Spencer, returning from a visit to Information Operations (I/Ops), which plants stories or propaganda in the British press, remarked, “Flippin’ outrageous. They’ve got the editor of the Spectator magazine on the books. He’s called ‘smallbrow’. He’s agreed to le me go to Tallin undercover as a freelancer for his magazine. The only condition is that I have to write an article which he’ll publish if he likes it’, the cheeky bastard wants a story courtesy of the taxpayer.”
The allegations that Dominic Lawson was a paid asset of MI6 have also been made in parliament but he has always denied ever having been an agent. How likely is it that he would admit it? Again, we reiterate that Lawson has brought no libel action against any publication alleging he was an MI6 asset, or a ‘stringer’ planted on newspapers by the spooks to further their covert propagandist agenda.
Other disturbing aspects of the unlikely ‘friendship’ between Diana and Rosa were raised by Paris-based journalist Jane Tawbase in a EuroBusiness investigation into Monckton and Lawson. She wrote: ‘Rosa Monckton, a generation older, made an odd friend for the often unhappy princess. A svelte sophisticate and a wealthy working woman, her first relationships and loyalties lay, almost from when she was born, with the Queen. She was a regular visitor to the royal household all her life and was, for that reason, more given to loyalty to the crown than to an unhappy and disruptive outsider, one who was seriously damaging the public image of the royal family.’
On closer inspection, the relationship between Monckton and the ‘disruptive’ Diana, is somewhat inexplicable, perhaps just very odd. Diana was a fashion goddess and fitness fanatic who delighted in shopping and modern music. Monckton, by contrast, is a highly cerebral woman of the world, married to a man with links to MI6 that no journalist or newspaper editor should ever have.
Jane Tawbase also raises two further questions on this murky subject and throws more light on the matter than most before or after her. She wrote: ‘Whether Rosa Monckton introduced her brother to the princess and whether he was part of the MI6 operation. It was almost unthinkable that he was not.’ In her second point she wrote: ‘Did MI6 ask Rosa Monckton to do the key job of moving into the princess’s inner circle and become her confidante? It would certainly have made the job easier.’
Dissident MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson, who has been harassed for years by the French and British authorities, is certain that Monckton’s brother is a spy. It should be noted that Anthony and Rosa’s grandfather worked for Edward VIII and kept a close watch on him for the security services throughout the abdication and beyond. Like Diana, the British Establishment were determined to rid themselves of Edward VIII. The Queen Mother, however, said that Diana was a greater threat to the House of Windsor than Wallis-Simpson and Edward VIII put together. Tawbase concludes that, ‘It would indeed be ironic if history had repeated itself and Rosa Monckton performed the same role for MI6 with regard to Princess Diana.’
In these circumstances, it is perhaps understandable that Rosa Monckton declared that Diana was not pregnant. It must also be noted that no one else can give witness to Monckton’s suggestion that Diana menstruated while they holidayed in Greece, nor should her statement be regarded as fact, it is opinion. Monckton simply expects everyone to believe her version of events because she was Diana’s ‘friend’. And again, it must be stated that Diana abhorred everything to do with the State and was convinced that hired assassins were trying to kill her. It is puzzling why Diana formed a friendship with Monckton.
We must turn to the testimony of Richard Tomlinson, who has been deliberately ignored by the French authorities. His affidavit to judge Herve Stephan was dismissed. Stephan showed no interest in Tomlinson’s affidavit but the British certainly did and MI6 led a campaign of arrests and harassment against its dissident officer across the world to disrupt his life and attempt to silence him….
Tomlinson also revealed that during his time with MI6, he discovered that there was an informal but direct link between certain MI6 officers of senior rank and royal courtiers. St James’s Palace and Buckingham Palace are easy access points for the spooks through the back-channel process. Many of these ‘men’ share an Oxbridge background with royal courtiers and the relationship continues for life. They would all have known of the CIA eavesdropping operation against Diana and certainly shared the intel ‘product’.
In the Paget Report, Sir John Stevens alleges that MI6 and MI5 were not aware of the CIA operation. Indeed, he salaciously goes as far to say that the CIA were only interested in Diana’s ‘contacts’ and prime among which were Mohamed Al Fayed and his murdered son Dodi Fayed. By definition, if the CIA were watching Diana’s contacts, then Diana was also being watched. Obviously, Sir John Stevens, the faithful Establishment plod, knows this but at the same time, he must presume the general public to be completely stupid. His tale is defeated with elementary logic.
British Intelligence certainly would have been told of the surveillance operation on Diana and her contacts and highly likely also, they would have been given access to the product of the eavesdropping. It is also perfectly clear to anyone with experience of modern surveillance that Diana would have been tracked through the signal from her mobile phone. Such signals allow the target to be pinpointed to within a metre of their location. The same is also true of Dodi Fayed, Wingfield, Rees-Jones and Henri Paul etc.
As a ‘reward’ for his indiscretions, Tomlinson was arrested at gunpoint by the French DST (Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire) at his home. He suffered a broken rib in the operation against him despite the fact that he has no record of violence. The DST agents were ordered to go in hard to teach him a lesson. The whole arrest was designed to shake him to the core and think better of opening his mouth in future. And this is an interesting point which requires further analysis.
By their very nature, ‘fantasists’ or people who make things up, are ignored, not arrested at gunpoint and violently assaulted. Again, if Tomlinson was at least mistaken, or indeed lying about the matters he revealed, there would have been no need to arrest him and he could simply have been dismissed as a former employee with a furtive imagination. The fact he was arrested in such brutal fashion, proves conclusively that Tomlinson has revealed too many truths that powerful people would prefer to remain buried. It is also noteworthy that Tomlinson has not been accused of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’ by his detractors.
In the event, Tomlinson was questioned for over eighteen hours at the Paris HQ of the DST to discourage him from giving evidence to the Stephan inquiry. But he did appear before Stephan and told him, “As long as they [MI6] can get away with doing something then that’s their only limit about what they will do. This includes assassination.”
Diana’s decision to embrace Islam and highly likely produce a mixed-race brother or sister to the heirs to the throne of England, and her anti-landmines campaign were enough to warrant her elimination. But there is more still in the shape of the ‘secrets’ she held in her little box of treasures at Kensington Palace.
Paul Burrell, often referred to as ‘Diana’s rock’ was aware of the box and most, if not all of its contents. Following his arrest on the grounds that he unlawfully took over 300 items from Kensington Palace, after the princess’s funeral, he was interrogated again and again by Scotland Yard detectives, who shook him up quite badly but failed to break him.
In his book A Royal Duty, he relates his experience of the arrest and what the political police were looking for: ‘Then DS Milburn asked me two bizarre questions: “Do you have a manuscript of the memoirs you are writing?” If there was one moment when I knew the officers were stabbing in the dark, that was it. No such manuscript existed.’
Burrell then explains the events of the following morning: ‘The next morning, DS Roger Milburn returned. On instructions from Andrew Shaw, I said nothing to his volley of questions. Again, his curiosity seemed to focus more on the contents of a box, sensitive paperwork and a manuscript.’
Burrell’s trial was a landmine for the monarchy and the Queen could not risk her former butler, revealing some of what he saw. In open court, just before the trial collapsed, a truly revealing encounter took place that gave the world some insight of what was in Diana’s box of treasures.
Burrell wrote: ‘The full picture emerged with the judge’s approval. Scotland Yard was looking for a signet ring given to the princess by Major James Hewitt; a resignation letter from her private secretary Patrick Jephson; letters from Prince Philip to the princess; and a tape, which became known after the trial as the Rape Tape.
It was a recording made by the princess in 1996 when she informally interviewed former KP orderly and ex-Welsh Guardsman George Smith. He had alleged that after a night of heavy drinking he had been raped in 1989 by a male member of staff who worked for Prince Charles. It all came to a head because George who had worked at Highgrove, St James’s Palace and KP, had been suffering nightmares, was drinking heavily, and his marriage was falling apart. He blamed it all on an incident that he said he was bottling up.’
‘The princess knew the member of staff in question. From that moment on she loathed him. “I know what that evil bugger did. I know what he did to George, and I will never forgive him for that,” she seethed, after her futile attempts to bring about justice. He [George Smith] never returned to work, and accepted a settlement [Fiona Shackleton] at the end of his employment of around £40,000.’
‘The princess ensured that the tape never saw the light of day. But the mystery of its whereabouts, and the threat its contents posed, emerged during the police investigation of my case. Lady Sarah McCorquodale had asked that Scotland Yard ‘ascertain’ the contents of the box. In court, DS Milburn said: “I was looking for the contents of that box. All of a sudden, the undertones behind the raid on my home became clear.’
As the trial wore on it was obvious Burrell would have to take the stand. The prospect of ‘Diana’s rock’ hurling highly explosive stones at the British Establishment was enough to prompt the Queen to recall a conversation she had with Burrell in December 1997 at Buckingham Palace in which Burrell told her that he was taking a number of the princess’s items into safekeeping.
The exchange was a chilling encounter for Burrell. He wrote of it: ‘As the meeting neared its end, the Queen said one more thing to me. Looking over her half-rimmed spectacles, she said: “Be careful, Paul. No one has been as close to a member of my family as you have. There are ‘powers’ at work in this country about which we have no knowledge,’ and she fixed me with a stare where her eyes made clear the ‘do you understand?’.
‘She [Queen] might have been referring to the domestic intelligence service MI5 because, have no doubt, the Queen does not know of its secret work and ‘darker practices’ but she is aware of the power it is capable of wielding. Like the royal household, the intelligence services are given carte blanche to act in whatever way is considered to be in the best interests of state and monarchy.’
‘At my December 1997 meeting with the Queen and as my statement had made clear: ‘I feared at the time of the princess’s death that there was a conspiracy to change the course of history, and erase certain parts of her life from it. Mrs Frances Shand Kydd spent two weeks shredding personal correspondence and documents.’
Piers Morgan in his own memoir, The Insider, explains that he tried to help Burrell and have the quasi-case against him dropped, he wrote: -
17 January 2001 – I rang Mark Bolland at the Palace.
‘You guys are mad, Mark. Burrell could say anything in the stand.’
‘I know, I know,’ he replied despondently.
‘It’s a mess.’
‘Well, end it now, before it’s too late.’
‘We can’t, the police are running the case now.’
A cornered Burrell could be a very dangerous beast. This will go on for weeks, and can only be damaging to the Royal Family. They must be mad allowing Burrell to potentially take the stand. Cornered and desperate, he might say anything, and he knows the lot because he was there. There’s also no way he stole Diana’s stuff, anyone who knows him knows that. He could make more money from what’s in his mind than he ever could from a few of her trinkets.
The Establishment were again courting disaster by trying to silence Burrell. In reality, the tactic worked in reverse, virtually ensuring that Burrell, facing five years in prison if convicted, would open up before the glaring eyes of the world to save his own skin.
By 16 September 1997, bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones had opened his eyes. The worry for the British Establishment was the strong possibility that he would remember what happened in the moments before the Mercedes crashed. Rees-Jones can certainly remember fastening his seatbelt just seconds before the car crashed but claims that he cannot remember anything after that. But again, damning further clarification comes in the shape of Piers Morgan and his memoir The Insider.
Morgan wrote: ‘Tuesday, 16 September 1997 – I had a brief chat with Fayed today and he said that Rees-Jones is awake, and having flashbacks of the crash. ‘Can we have the first interview?’ Fayed was anxious. ‘He needs to tell us what happened first, that is the most important thing. Then perhaps he can talk to you. But we must be careful Piers, he is in a very bad way.’ To this day, Al Fayed has not told the world what Rees-Jones said to him!
Naturally, Rees-Jones, who suffered terrible injuries, claims that he can remember nothing. Can he remember coming round in the hospital in the presence of Al Fayed and having ‘flashbacks of the crash’? We do not wish to be offensive to Rees-Jones, particularly given the injuries he suffered, but we do not think his story holds up in the slightest under examination. He can remember some things but not others, selective memory loss not amnesia.
For instance, Rees-Jones can remember leaving the Ritz Hotel on the rue Cambon and that a white Fiat Uno was tailing them. He then recounts that he saw a white Fiat Uno again on the approach to the Alma Tunnel. He also recalls that he fastened his seatbelt and encouraged the others to do the same moments before impact. At the very moment he fastened his seatbelt, the white Fiat Uno was careering into the path of the Mercedes but Rees-Jones does not remember that....
His memory falls apart when it comes to events in the Alma Tunnel. He can remember belting up, not verbally at that time, but cannot remember seeing the white Fiat Uno in the tunnel nor a blinding white flash. If he can remember fastening his seatbelt, he can remember what happened in the very next seconds involving the white Fiat Uno and the blinding flash of light and the escaping motorbike.
It is little wonder that the majority of people do not believe Rees-Jones. We will go further and state that he is lying about not being able to remember the juicy bits, the crucial events immediately before the Mercedes crashed. Either that, or he has made it all up about seeing a white Fiat Uno and fastening his seatbelt and encouraging the others to do the same. But then, why would he do that? This man wants his cake and to eat it but the majority of people do not swallow his 'sweetened' version of events.
Rumours are rife in the media world that Rees-Jones has been threatened by British intelligence. If he opens his mouth and suddenly remembers what happened in the crucial seconds to impact, he might not be so lucky a second time. Rees-Jones is also still subject to the Official Secrets Act and government lawyers can make that mean whatever they want it to mean. Theoretically, the OSA should apply only to the period one was in service but the strictures of the Act apply for the rest of one’s life and Rees-Jones knows this only too well.
There is also the fact that in Northern Ireland, Rees-Jones, a former paratrooper with experience of putting enemy targets under surveillance, worked closely at times with British Army Intelligence and he will know only too well what the Force Research Unit, MI6 and The Increment are capable of. On his testimony that he cannot remember the vital seconds before I impact, Rees-Jones should not be believed. The claim is that he suffers from amnesia, only in part mind you, and that we should have sympathy for him.
We genuinely sympathise with the fact that he suffered terrible injuries in the crash but one must remain logical and rational and not succumb to emotional impulses. In his book, The Bodyguard’s Story, he repeats the same old tale, over and over again: he cannot remember the ‘juicy bits’ but has no problem dishing out all the old crumbs of information he wants us to know. And we know people in the media world, who are certain that Rees-Jones has been silenced by British Intelligence.
An important note to end this article on comes in the form of a quote from former MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson: “There is an arrogant faction in MI6, part of the Oxbridge clique, which doesn’t try to hide dedication to the royal family and their self-appointment as defenders of the realm.” And spooks excel at the lying game, as par for the course of their ‘training’ and ethics by prerequisite, are irrelevant.…
http://www.news-alliance.com/mi6__the_lying_game.html
Diana Murder: Coverup Turns Deadly |
Jeffrey Steinberg writing in Executive Intelligence Review
Nearly three years after the Paris car crash that claimed the lives of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed, the cover-up of that tragedy has taken a deadly turn, prompting some experts to recall the pileup of corpses that followed the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Over the course of four years, after President Kennedy was shot on Nov. 22, 1963, at least 37 eyewitnesses and other sources of evidence about the crime, including one member of the infamous Warren Commission, which oversaw the cover-up, died under mysterious circumstances. On May 5, 2000, police in the south of France found a badly burned body inside the wreckage of a car, deep in the woods near Nantes. The body was so charred that it took police nearly a month before DNA tests confirmed that the dead man was Jean-Paul "James" Andanson, a 54-year-old millionaire photographer, who was among the paparazzi stalking Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed during the week before their deaths. From the day of the fatal crash in the Place de l'Alma tunnel, that killed Diana, Dodi, and driver Henri Paul, and severely injured bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones, Andanson had been at the center of the controversy. Mohamed Al-Fayed, the father of Dodi Fayed, and the owner of Harrods Department Store in London and the Paris Ritz Hotel, has labelled the Aug. 31, 1997 crash a murder, ordered by the British royal family, and most likely executed through agents and assets of the British secret intelligence service MI6--with collusion from French officials, whose cooperation in the cover-up would have been essential. At least seven eyewitnesses to the crash said that they saw a white Fiat Uno and a motorcycle speed out of the tunnel, seconds after the crash. Forensic tests have confirmed that a white Fiat Uno collided with the Mercedes carrying Diana and Dodi, and that this collision was a significant factor in the crash. Several eyewitnesses told police that they saw a powerful flash of light just seconds before the Mercedes swerved out of control and crashed into the 13th pillar of the Alma tunnel. That bright light--either a camera flash or a far more powerful flash of a laser weapon--was probably fired by the passenger on the back of the speeding motorcycle. Both the motorcycle and the white Fiat fled the crash scene, and police claim they have been unable to locate either vehicle, or identify the drivers or the passengers. ANDANSON'S WHITE FIAT
Andanson had been in and around Sardinia during the last week of August 1997, as Diana and Dodi vacationed in the Mediterranean. He joined several dozen other paparazzi, who were stalking the couple's every move. He was back in France on Aug. 30, the day that Diana and Dodi flew to Paris. And that is where the facts about Andanson's activities and whereabouts get very fuzzy. For reasons that he never revealed, sometime before dawn on Aug. 31, 1997, less than six hours after the crash in the Alma tunnel, Andanson boarded a flight at Orly Airport near Paris, bound for Corsica. Andanson claimed that he was not in Paris earlier in the evening, when the crash occurred, but he never produced any evidence, save a receipt for the purchase of gasoline elsewhere in France (which he could have doctored or obtained from another person), to prove he was not in the city. His son James and his daughter Kimberly told police that they thought their father was grape-harvesting in the Bordeaux region. Andanson's wife Elizabeth claimed that she had been at home with her husband all night, at their country home, Le Manoir de la Bergerie, in Cher, until he abruptly left for Orly, at 3:45 a.m., to catch the crack-of-dawn flight to Corsica. Pressed on her version of the story, Mrs. Anderson later admitted to reporters and police that her husband was constantly on the run, and she could have been mistaken about the night in question. She told {The Express}, a British newspaper, "It was always very difficult to recall James's precise movements because he was always coming and going. The family was very used to that and so never paid a great deal of attention to the times he came and went." What makes Andanson's precise itinerary the night of the fatal crash so vital is this: He owned and drove a white Fiat Uno. The car was repainted shortly after the Aug. 31, 1997 Alma tunnel crash, and was sold by Andanson in October 1997. And, although the official report of the French authorities investigating the crash concluded that Andanson's car was not involved in the crash, French forensic reports made available to {The Express} told a very different story. One report in the files of Judge Herve Stephan, the chief investigating magistrate in the Diana-Dodi crash probe, described the tests on Andanson's Fiat: "The comparative analysis of the infrared spectra characterizing the vehicle's original paint, reference Bianco 210, and the trace on the side-view mirror of the Mercedes shows that their absorption bands are identical." In laymen's terms, the paint scratches from the Fiat found on the side-view mirror of the Mercedes were identical to the paint samples taken from the matching spot on Andanson's Fiat. The report continued: "The comparative analysis between the infrared spectra characterizing the black polymer taken from the vehicle's fender, and the trace taken from the door of the Mercedes, show that their absorption bands are identical." In short, despite the French investigators' endorsement of Andanson's alibi, the forensic tests strongly suggested that his car may have been {the} white Fiat Uno involved in the fatal crash. John Macnamara, the Harrods director of security, and a retired senior Scotland Yard supervisor of investigations, told reporters: "Mr. Andanson had for some time been a prime suspect who had relentlessly pursued Diana and Dodi prior to their arrival in Paris. We have always believed that Andanson was at the scene and that more investigation should have been done into his possible involvement." Macnamara added, "We believe that his death is no coincidence and that this is a line of inquiry which may help to discover the truth. Was Mr. Andanson killed because of what he knew? That is a question we want answered." THE `SUICIDE' SOAP OPERA
Needless to say, Andanson's death stirred up renewed interest in Diana's death at a most inopportune time for the British royals, and those in France who abetted the cover-up. Sometime in September, an appellate court in Paris will rule on Al-Fayed's motion to order Judge Stephan to reopen the crash probe, based on the fact that Stephan shut down his probe before certain vital avenues of inquiry were fully explored, and in contradiction to his own interim report, which cited several glaring paradoxes in the evidence that remained unresolved at the point that he abruptly closed down his investigation last year and blamed the crash on driver Henri Paul. For example, U.S. intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency, have all acknowledged, in response to Freedom of Information Act queries, that they have thousands of pages of documents on Princess Diana. Those documents, for the most part, remain under lock and key. In addition to those documents and other relevant evidence, it has been recently exposed that a secret U.S.-U.K. joint surveillance program, code-named "Project Echelon," had apparently been involved in round-the-clock monitoring of Princess Diana's telephone conversations, while she was at home in England and travelling around the globe. Until the contents of these U.S. government files and electronic intercepts have been reviewed by French investigators, Al-Fayed's lawyers have argued, the probe cannot be considered complete. And the U.S. Justice Department continues to stonewall on indicting three Americans who were involved in an attempted $20 million extortion of Al-Fayed in April 1998, centered around purported "CIA documents" proving that British intelligence assassinated Diana and Dodi. While the "CIA documents["] seized from one of the plotters have been confirmed to have been clever forgeries, questions remain about the accuracy of the content of the documents. In a flagrant effort to dampen interest in the Andanson factor, the June 11 {Mail on Sunday}, a pro-royalist tabloid, ran a story proclaiming "Wife's Affair Led to Paparazzi Man's Car Blaze Suicide." The {Mail on Sunday} dutifully peddled the French government's cover story: "The millionaire photographer who trailed Diana, Princess of Wales in St. Tropez just days before her death, committed suicide when he discovered his wife was cheating on him, French police have revealed.... The eccentric millionaire--who was hailed by colleagues as one of the godfathers of paparazzi photography, and who flew a Union Flag over his house to show his love of Britain--was facing a family crisis at the time of his death." {Mail on Sunday} reporter Ian Sparks quoted an unnamed colleague of Andanson's at the Sipa Agency in Paris, making the preposterously contradictory claim that Andanson "was desperate to save his marriage. We would never have guessed he would do something so terrible." He committed suicide to save his marriage! Right. A French police spokesman told Sparks, "He took his own life by dousing himself and the car with petrol and then setting light to it." Andanson's widow Elizabeth, and their son James have rejected the idea that Andanson's death was suicide. Sources close to the family told {EIR} that they have pressed French officials to conduct a murder investigation into Andanson's death 400-miles from his home. The sources dismiss the bogus "marital problems" story and additionally report that Andanson was in high spirits over his new job with the Sipa Agency. THE PLOT THICKENS
Just after midnight on June 16, just one week after Andanson's death was first made public, three masked men armed with handguns, broke into the Sipa office in Paris, shooting a security guard in the foot. The three assailants dismantled all of the security cameras in the office, and proceeded to enter several specific offices, clearly aware of exactly what they were looking for. They made off with several cameras, laptop computers, and computer hard drives. Sipa's office employs more than 200 people, and operates 24-hours a day. The three invaders spent three hours in the office, holding other employees hostage. According to one of the hostages, the men were never concerned about the French police arriving at the scene. This hostage was convinced that the three "burglars" were themselves working for some branch of the French Secret Service. Furthermore, the source confirmed that Andanson had worked for French and, undoubtedly, British security agencies. The owner of Sipa, Sipa Hioglou, has worked closely with French intelligence, and, not surprisingly, has been one of the primary sources of the "marital problems/suicide" cover story about Andanson's death, "confessing" to French police and reporters that Andanson had confided in him that he planned to take his own life. Hioglou, in the days following the bizarre break-in and hostage siege of his office, also told police that he suspected that the raid was done on behalf of a disgruntled celebrity who was angry that her picture had been taken by a Sipa paparazzo without her permission. In stark contrast, other Sipa employees have told the police that the idea that Andanson committed suicide was preposterous, and that they suspect that the break-in was related to his death. WHAT IS GOING ON?
The Sipa raid, the obvious work of French Secret Service assets, raises some very troubling questions. If Macnamara and Al-Fayed are right, and Andanson was at the crash site on Aug. 31, 1997, and his white Fiat was the car that collided with the Mercedes, what documentation exists of his presence at the tunnel? What photographs exist of the crash scene, and what do they reveal? Was some of this material seized from the Sipa offices in the recent break-in, to assure that it never sees the light of day? Evidence has recently come to light, that within hours of the crash, British and French secret service agencies carried out a series of similar break-ins at the homes and offices of several photo-agency personnel, in a desperate search [for] photos of the crash site that may have been transmitted in the hours immediately after the Alma tunnel collision, and before word of Princess Diana's death was made public. (EIR} has obtained copies of sworn statements from two London-based photographers, Darryn Paul Lyons and Lionel Cherruault, which reveal that British intelligence was hyperactive in the hours immediately after the Alma tunnel crash, desperately seeking any revealing photographs that might have been spirited out of Paris. Lyons identified himself as the "Chairman of `Big Pictures,' ... an international photographic agency in London, New York, and Sydney, specializing in obtaining and selling unique and exclusive celebrity-based photographs." At 12:30 a.m. on Aug. 31, 1997, Lyons received a phone call from a Paris paparazzo, Lorent Sola, who said that he had a dozen photographs of the accident at the Alma tunnel. Sola offered to electronically transmit the photos to Lyons immediately, and Lyons rushed off to his office, receiving the high-resolution photographs at approximately 3 a.m. Lyons immediately began negotiating with several large news organizations in the United States and Britain to sell the pictures for $250,000. Lyons and Sola conferred after word of Diana's death was made public, and they decided to withdraw the offer of the pictures. Copies of the photos were placed in Lyons' office safe. Sometime between 11 p.m. on Aug. 31 and 12:30 a.m. on Sept. 1, the electricity at Lyons' office was mysteriously cut, although no other power outages in the office building or the neighborhood occurred. Lyons, convinced that either the office was being robbed, or bombed, called the police. In his sworn statement, Lyons declared that he believed that secret service agents had broken into his office and either searched the premises or planted surveillance and listening devices. Lionel Cherruault, a photo London-based journalist for Sipa Agency, in his sworn statement, reported that, at 1:45 a.m. on Aug. 31, 1997, he received a call at his home from a freelance photographer in Florida, informing him that he was expecting to soon be in possession of photographs of the tunnel crash. Cherruault told the Florida contact that he was interested. After word of Diana's death was announced, the deal fell through. But Cherruault, who was in contact with his boss at Sipa, stated that, at approximately 3:30 a.m. on Sept. 1, while he and his wife and daughter were asleep, his home was broken into, his wife's car was stolen, and his car was moved. Computer disks used for transmitting photographs, and other electronic equipment, were stolen, and the front door of their home was left wide open. Even though cash, credit cards, and jewelry were visible in the study where the burglars stole the computer equipment, none of those valuables were taken, making it clear that this was not an ordinary break-in. The next day, a police officer came to Cherruault's home and confirmed that the break-in was clearly the work of "Special Branch, MI5, MI6, call it what you like, this was no ordinary burglary." The officer said that the home had "been targetted." The man, whose name Cherruault was unable to recall, assured him "not to worry, your lives were not in danger," according to the sworn statement. The official police report of the Cherruault break-in, which has been reviewed by {EIR}, confirmed that "The computer equipment stolen contained a huge library of royal photographs and appears to have been the main target for the perpetrators." ANOTHER THREAD OF THE COVER-UP
One of the other still-unresolved issues in the Alma crash probe, three years after the fact, revolves around the medical evidence. Al-Fayed has been battling in court in Britain for the right to participate in the official inquest into the death of Princess Diana, arguing that since both Diana and Dodi died in the crash, therefore he should be entitled to officially participate in both inquests. The courts have preliminarily ruled that he has the right to contest the Royal Coroner's rejection of his participation in the Diana inquest, which will only occur after the French appellate process has been completed, sometime later this year. However, in April of this year, the attorneys representing Al-Fayed received a copy of a suppressed memorandum, prepared by Professors Dominique Lecomte and Andre Lienhart, two French forensic pathologists working for Judge Stephan, suggesting that British authorities, including the Royal Coroner, Dr. Burton, had interceded to conceal some aspects of the official British autopsy. The two French doctors were in London on June 23, 1998, where they met with British coroners Drs. Burton and Burgess, forensic pathologist Dr. Chapman, and Scotland Yard Superintendant Jeffrey Rees. They were given copies of the English autopsy report on Princess Diana, but, according to their contemporaneous notes on the meeting, were told that the document was provided for their "private and personal use," and that it should not be included in the formal file of Judge Stephan. Any material in that official investigative file was automatically made available to attorneys representing all the interested parties in the French probe, including Al-Fayed's attorneys. This two-and-a-half year suppression of the Lecomte-Lienhart memorandum has once again raised serious questions about the legitimacy of the "official" autopsy of the Princess of Wales, including questions that arose at the time of her death, as to whether she was pregnant. The mayhem surrounding the deaths of Diana and Dodi, and now Andanson, raises questions about the circumstance in Paris on that night in late August 1997--questions that the House of Windsor in general, and Prince Philip in particular, have long sought to suppress. The time may be fast approaching that the well-orchestrated three-year cover-up is about to blow apart, and at least part of the truth about the death of the "People's Princess" see the light of day. And that is something that the Windsors and the mandarins of MI6 may not be able to survive. Jeffery Steinberg E.I.R ‘A friend in Paris travels to work every day through the underpass in which Princess Diana died. On the day of the incident she noticed all of the security cameras were turned to the wall and actually mentioned it to her husband. The next time they were allowed through the tunnel, the cameras were repositioned.’ B. NEWALL, Rochdale, Lancs. Letters page, the Daily Mail, February 2000. Diana murder
NEW WITNESS EVIDENCE PROVES THAT PAPARAZZO JAMES ANDANSON WAS SHOT IN THE HEAD!
http://www.news-alliance.com/_another_suicide.html French Fireman Christophe Pelat ..James Andanson, alleged to have burned himself to death..,...,,.John Macnamara In the aftermath of the crash, Mohamed Al Fayed brought in his security chief John Macnamara to head a private investigation, at the behest of the Harrod’s chief. Using unique sources and excellent contacts, it did not take McNamara long to discover that Andanson owned a white Fiat Uno and that he usually kept it on his farm in Lignières in Central France.
Macnamara states that when he found this shabby white Fiat Uno, his sharp-witted investigators noted the fact that the car had been fitted with a new rear tail, which would be entirely logical if the taillight had been seriously damaged in an accident. Andanson sold the white Fiat Uno a month after the crash. Macnamara’s agent found the car in a garage but was immediately arrested for interfering with the police ‘investigation’. The police limited the hunt for the Fiat Uno to the outskirts of Paris and ruled out that it could be found anywhere else in France.
French police were alerted by Macnamara and his team of the existence of the white Fiat Uno and that it was owned by a man who had been following Diana. Rees-Jones, with what remaining memory he claims to have, recalls seeing a white Fiat Uno on the rue Cambon as they pulled off on the fateful journey. Andanson’s recently sold white Fiat Uno had been re-sprayed and there was no documentation to confirm the date of the re-spray. One might have thought the Paris police would be grateful for the information gleaned from Macnamara’s team of investigators. On the contrary, the former Scotland Yard detective was assured that if he ‘interfered’ with the ‘investigation’ again, he would be charged with a criminal offence. Quite apart from the fact that the French were not having a British detective to be seen upstaging them, it was clear that Andanson was a non-issue, in much the same way that it was decided by senior officials in the Alma Tunnel to stick to the ‘accident’ theory within an hour of the crash.
James Andanson, who Richard Tomlinson states was on the books of MI6 as a paid freelancer, was also something of a mystery in the same genre as Henri Paul. Andanson’s real name was Jean Paul Gonin but he took the name of Andanson when he married his wife Elizabeth. He flew a Union Jack on his farmhouse, saying he “loved” Britain and the British national flag. This is an odd aberration for a Frenchman, given the traditional ‘rivalry’, to put it mildly, between France and Britain. Andanson was one of the richest photographers in the world. But he was hated by many people, who disliked his bullying attitude and aggressive manner. Some of his ‘targets’ have described him as a ‘thug with a camera’, which indeed he used as a weapon to carve out a very comfortable living. Filmed as part of a documentary, Andanson was seen to cherish his white Fiat Uno, which was old and shabby, just as witnesses at the Alma Tunnel confirmed and were ignored by both French and British authorities, who had for once forgotten their ancient ‘rivalry’. In the documentary Andanson explains that his faithful car had taken him over a colossal distance of 325,000 kilometres.
In the Riviera resort of St jean Cap Ferrat, he ‘casually’ bumped into the owner of Fiat, the industrialist Giovanni Agnelli. The following day, Agnelli recognised Andanson in the town and struck up a short conversation. Andanson, desperate to impress, as usual, explained how he loved his Fiat and how it had been such a reliable vehicle. Agnelli, eager to play the magnanimous billionaire, promised he would give Andanson a brand new Fiat Uno when his shabby old car had done 500,000 kilometres.
Andanson, could not resist the temptation to brag about Agnelli’s generous offer. And yet, so proud of the reliable white Fiat Uno, for which he was promised a brand new replacement on completing the requisite 500,000 kilometres, just a month after the crash at the Alma Tunnel, he sold his ‘pride and joy’. As already explained, the car was refurbished with new rear tail light and re-sprayed. All the common signs of covering up ‘accidental’ damage. But the French police, incorrigibly bent on the accident theory, were not interested in Andanson and his white Fiat Uno….
One of Andanson’s colleagues at the SIPA photo agency in Paris, confirmed that Andanson had often boasted of working for French and British Intelligence services. This would fit in with Andanson’s boastful, arrogant nature, a man who believed he was untouchable. He would also boast to friends and neighbours that he was at the Alma Tunnel on the night of the crash and that police were not “clever enough to catch me.”
The arrogant braggart boasted to friends and neighbours that he even photographed and taped the last moments of Diana in the tunnel. The French Special Branch believe that Andanson’s role for the intelligence services was to harass, intimidate, watch and sometimes eliminate a personality. The French Special Branch were investigating Andanson at the time of his death on the grounds that he was suspected to have played a leading role in the ‘suicide’ of former French Prime Minister, Pierre Eugène Bérégovoy in 1993. French Special Branch believe Bérégovoy did not kill himself and was instead murdered.
Bérégovoy, apparently, had committed suicide by shooting himself ‘twice’ in the head; the second bullet was attributed to a nervous reflex, said French police, again playing the guessing game, and his death was ruled a ‘suicide’. Yet again, the Bérégovoy case is one of an ‘extraordinary’ personality defying the mechanics of human physiology by shooting himself twice in the head, the first bullet not being enough to kill him. The exit wound in his head was too small for that associated with a .357 Magnum, the alleged ‘suicide’ weapon. He left no note or letter explaining why he was going to kill himself.
French Special Branch state that there are witness statements to put Andanson in Nevers, central France, on the day Bérégovoy killed himself a couple of miles away. Andanson’s widow Elisabeth also confirms that he was in Nevers on the day Bérégovoy was found dead. Forensic evidence shows that Bérégovoy was shot from long distance and which contradicts the police report that he shot himself twice in the head. French Special Branch also reveal that Andanson was present on the day that Diana and Dodi died and he was present on the days of the deaths of Lolo Ferrari, porn star, Dalida, singer, Bernard Buffet, the painter and the pop star Claude François, who sang the French version of ‘if I had a hammer’. Andanson certainly had an uncanny habit of approaching people who died suddenly thereafter and he was always in the immediate vicinity on the same day. The French Special Branch say that he had an ‘intuition’ that certain people were going to die and he just happened to be nearby. Of course, no one is suggesting that Andanson was clairvoyant but rather that he had inside-knowledge that someone was about to die and was probably more accurate than a clairvoyant. And rumours abound that Andanson took the last picture of the Mercedes S280 from his white Fiat Uno and that final burst from his powerful flashbulb blinded Henri Paul, causing him to crash. A multiple burst from a flashbulb of the type used by professional photographers can cause epileptic fit and is just as strong as an Anti-Personnel Device flashgun. The crash could indeed have been accident, caused by the multiple burst from Andanson’s flashbulb but if Andanson did not intend to off-road the Mercedes, why swerve into its path?
And there is also the issue of who was driving the white Fiat Uno? Certainly, Andanson could not have driven the car and fired his camera at the same time. Witnesses say that two people were in the white Fiat Uno and one looked like he was hiding his head under a tartan blanket as the car left the Alma Tunnel.
Former senior detective John Macnamara explains the subject in this way: “You have a Mercedes that’s done a 180 degree turn, having crashed into the thirteenth pillar and yet the Fiat Uno survives everything, which suggests to me that that was a very professional driver. I can well believe, as a detective with 24 years experience, why Mr Al Fayed believes that his son Dodi and Princess Diana were murdered.”
French Special Branch also discovered from Andanson’s diary, that he spent part of the day of 23 August on the yacht Jonikal at the same time as Diana and Dodi. Commentators have spoken of the abnormality of him being on the yacht but Commander Mules suggests that Andanson had made a deal with Diana to photograph her in a high-cut swimsuit. It should be noted that Andanson once made £100,000 for a single photograph of Prince Charles with a suspected ‘mistress’, presumed to be his nanny Tiggy.
And two weeks after the crash, the Criminal Brigade finally admitted that red-and-white optical debris found in the tunnel entrance in the right-hand lane came from the rear light of a Fiat Uno built in Italy between May 1983 and September 1989. This matched the paint deposits on the front right wing mirror and body panels of a white Fiat Uno made in Italy between 1983 and 1989. Andanson’s white fiat Uno was made during the same period. But the Criminal Brigade limited the search for the white Fiat Uno to two departments (districts) of Paris, near to the Alma Tunnel and the remainder of France was ruled out of the investigation. When John Macnamara’s team of detectives found Andanson’s white Fiat Uno, they were arrested and Macnamara was warned that he would be charged with a criminal offence if he interfered again with the ‘investigation’. Macnamara’s team clearly had done a professional job and were not interested in limiting their search area to a couple of Paris suburbs. But French police did not want to take the matter any further and Andanson knew only too well that the police would not be able to touch him. In effect, Macnamara and his team of professional investigators were warned off because they were doing a better job than the French Criminal Brigade or more likely that they had got too close to the truth by finding Andanson’s white Fiat Uno. But the ever so mercurial Andanson was living on borrowed time. He bragged often to friends and neighbours, who were used to his boasts, that he was at the Alma Tunnel on the night of the crash. He also bragged to work colleagues that he was in the employ of French and British Intelligence – he was a “loose cannon”. But before he was put out of action permanently, he had much wriggling to do. Andanson may have denied to the police that he was in Paris on 30/31 August, chasing Diana but he boasted to a neighbour of having not only been in Paris, but that he was present when Diana was killed and that he filmed and taped the incident and that could only have been from inside his white Fiat Uno, which was not driven by him. Confidential police forensic reports hidden in Judge Stephan’s report, put Andanson at the Alma Tunnel but the matter went no further and Lord Stevens has also ignored this fact.
Even though his son, James said he thought his father was grape harvesting that particular morning in Bordeaux. Apparently, he had left home at 04.00hrs to travel to Bordeaux, over three hours after the crash and more than enough time to get back home from Paris, a couple of hours’ drive away, before setting off to pick grapes and cement a cover story for future reference. In the Paget Report, John Stevens wrote: ‘The initial contact between the French police and James Andanson was by telephone on 11 February 1998. Lieutenant Eric Gigou of the Brigade Criminelle tried to arrange an appointment to interview him. This was as a result of the police becoming aware of his ownership of a white Fiat Uno. The exchange was somewhat terse. Lieutenant Gigou reported that James Andanson said ‘He does not have the time to waste with the police’ and that he ‘Refuses to receive policemen in his manor and that he has no time to give.’ During this telephone call Lieutenant Gigou recorded ‘…on the day of the accident he was in Saint-Tropez and that he therefore had nothing to do with the case’ (French Dossier D4546-D4547).’ A very simple text book case for the French police. Andanson says he was not there [Alma Tunnel] and that is it, no further investigation into his implausible claim. Criminals across the world must be hoping for the same treatment. ‘I was not there, I was somewhere else, sir, when that person was killed,’ would seem to be the ideal alibi to prevent a thorough investigation. In reality the reverse is always true. Of course, everyone knows that in criminal cases, alibis are thoroughly tested and investigated. But the French and British authorities decided from the outset that the fatal crash was an accident and there would be no criminal investigation. In the Paget Report, Stevens adopts the same dismissive stance and has only skimmed the surface of available witness testimony, which was his purpose from the outset. The faithful Establishment plod, had no intention of upsetting the apple cart from which he draws his own succour. In essence, the paint scratches found on the Mercedes came from a white Fiat Uno but Judge Stephan ruled that the Uno played only a “passive” part in the crash. The reality is that the Mercedes was thrown off course by the Uno swerving into its path and with the combination of a series of near-blinding flashes of white light, Henri Paul slammed into the thirteenth pillar. But it all became academic in 2000, when Andanson was found dead in his BMW, 400 miles away from his home in Nant, central France, on the site of a French army training area. Andanson’s skeleton was, in fact, found by French soldiers, who had seen smoke rising on the horizon and gone to investigate the burned out wreck in the woodland. Andanson was so badly burned that he could only be identified by DNA tests. And the location in itself was something of a mystery. Research shows that when people know they are dying, they find a primitive urge to return to the place of their birth or their favourite home. But Andanson, supposedly, threw human nature aside, drove 400 miles away from home, drove a further two miles along a potholed lane, scraped another mile along cow pastures, into dense forest, found a clearing few local people knew existed, which begs the question how he knew it existed, and set in motion the process of killing himself. Andanson, supposedly, doused himself with over 20 litres of petrol, enough to drown him, fixed his seatbelt, locked the doors of his BMW from the outside, crossed his arms, and torched the car from the inside. When his skeleton was found, his arms, what remained of them, were still crossed. One has to imagine the sheer agony and terror of burning to death. He would have thrashed around like a madman in the final minute or so of his life but he was found, as if sitting comfortably, which is completely unbelievable. Police believed he had killed himself, but a French fireman, Christophe Pelat, who attended the burning wreck of the car, says he appeared to have a bullet hole in his skull. Pelat has since declined to comment on whether he has been interviewed by Stevens’ detectives but has agreed to testify the Inquest in October 2007. Along with everything else, the police immediately decided that Andanson had committed suicide in the most implausibly horrific circumstances. We have never come across a case of anyone committing suicide by burning to death in car. Why not just use pills or a gun? Conveniently, of course, the inferno destroyed all valuable forensic evidence in the car and there was little left of Andanson’s skeleton and he left no suicide note. Almost reminds one of the ‘suicide’ of Dr David Kelly during the prelude to the illegal Iraq war. But, right on cue, came Sir John Stevens, during the press release of the Paget Report, to tell us that he had once attended an almost identical ‘suicide’ and that we should not think it strange that Andanson killed himself in this manner. It should also be noted that Stevens did not mention the name of the victim or the incident, time, date etc. so the press could investigate the matter and we must therefore assume his tiresome little tale was produced simply for effect… "A lie becomes a truth and then becomes a lie again," George Orwell Andanson’s family and particularly his widow did not accept the ‘suicide’ fantasy proposed by French Police and insisted a criminal investigation should be conducted but the police, true to form, said that the possibility that Andanson was murdered was “fantasy”. And part of the “fantasy” is that no one has ever found the keys to his locked car. In fact, the car doors were locked from the outside. Was Houdini present? Did Andanson lock the doors from the outside and by act of magic, disappear the keys into thin air? More likely that his killers in the DST made the mistake of taking the keys with them. Nominalisation dictates that there will always be one mistake. The biggest mistake of the French police is deluding themselves that anyone with a rational brain could possibly believe their tales which defy the laws of logic. The view in the intelligence community is that Andanson had been talking too much and someone decided to silence him ad infinitum before he revealed seriously damaging information in the murders of Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul. There is also clear evidence, from his colleagues that he threatened to come clean about what happened that night and was prepared to release the photographs and that was quite simply a ‘bridge too far’ for his handlers. Andanson’s friend François Dard said, “He told us that he was there. He was behind them. He was following behind. He saw the accident and all but he wasn’t stopped by the police. He left. It is impossible that he committed suicide. We are convinced of it. To be burned alive in a car – we don’t believe it at all.” In fact, no one with half brain cell believes that Andanson committed suicide in the circumstances ascribed. And a week after his death, the SIPA photo agency in Paris, which he co-founded, was raided by three armed men, wearing balaclavas. They shot a security guard in the foot and held dozens of employees hostage for several hours. Staff phoned the police but they did not turn up. A member of staff said: “They seemed to know exactly what they were looking for and were confident enough to remain in a busy building for several hours, though they stole nothing of real value.” Indeed, the ‘raiders’ disabled the CCTV cameras in the offices and did not seem stressed about the police turning up. For armed ‘robbers’ they were incredibly relaxed about the whole thing. And yet again, they took computer hard drives, laptops, cameras and the storage media for photographs. They knew exactly what they were looking for. SIPA staff are convinced that the ‘raid’ had something to do with Andanson and believe French spooks carried out the seizure of property at gunpoint. There is also talk that the ‘raiders’ many have been British SAS troopers, from the MI6’s disposal team The Increment, who are alleged to have been involved in the crash at the tunnel. Contacts we have spoken to in Paris, however, are adamant that the French DST were behind the armed ‘robbery’ and they were intent on removing the last damaging traces linking the DST and MI6 to the murders of Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul. As journalists we have an obligation to protect sources of information. The raid on the SIPA office was almost identical to the raids on the Big Pictures office in London and the home of Lionel Cherruault on the night after the crash. What exactly the French DST were looking for at the SIPA office is not known. It is believed, though, that there was evidence in the office, put there by Andanson, of his involvement in the crash and that he was at the tunnel. If Diana’s death was an ‘accident’, according to the theories of the British and French authorities, why were any of these raids necessary? By definition, ‘accidents’ do not need to be covered up because they are caused by chance events. And suicidal people, usually acting impulsively, do not make intricate plans to burn themselves to death, locking the doors from the outside and losing the keys to the car. James Andanson, was murdered by the French DST to prevent him from destroying the ‘great accident theory’ and the DST were also behind the raid on the SIPA office to eliminate the last traces of evidence. They must have thought it was the end of the story, how very wrong they were! French Coverup of Diana Assassination Exposed!
by Jeffrey Steinberg and Allen Douglas
As the result of interviews with a dozen well-placed sources and eyewitnesses in Paris and London, EIR has assembled the most comprehensive profile yet to be published, of the events surrounding the Aug. 31, 1997 murder of Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed, and Henri Paul.
While many crucial questions remain unanswered, one overriding fact emerges from the assembled evidence: The French authorities have systematically suppressed evidence, intimidated and gagged key witnesses, badly bungled the most vital forensic tests, and prevented any outside agencies, including the families of the deceased, from even raising questions about the conduct of the French officials handling the investigation. Moreover, as one American source familiar with the investigation put it, the failure of the French emergency medical team at the scene of the crash, to get Princess Diana to a hospital where she could have received life-saving attention, for nearly two hours, would have resulted in manslaughter prosecution of the responsible officials had the crash occurred in the United States.
And who were those officials? According to several sources, interviewed by EIR, the Paris Police Prefect (police chief), Philippe Massoni, was at the crash site in the tunnel under the Place de l'Alma; and, the French interior minister, Jean-Pierre Chevenement, was at the Pitie Salpetriere Hospital prior to the arrival of the ambulance carrying Princess Diana. On Nov. 10, Tim Luckhurst, the assistant editor of The Scotsman, and the co-author of a detailed investigative report on the events that transpired in the Place de L'Alma tunnel immediately following the crash, confirmed that Massoni was in the tunnel, overseeing the rescue and preliminary forensic investigation. Even the French media reported that, along with Massoni, other top-ranking French officials were also at the tunnel, including Patrick Rioux, chief of the Judiciary Police, and Martine Monteil, head of the Criminal Brigade.
The very presence of these high-ranking French government officials, necessarily placed them in charge of the so- called rescue effort. The evidence shows that Princess Diana's death was almost certainly the direct result of criminal negligence by these French authorities.
Unless the ongoing cover-up by French officials is broken, there is no doubt that the deaths of Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed, and Henri Paul will go down in history as another Dreyfus Affair, in which a French government's mishandling of an important case led to its downfall. Already, French authorities have announced that they do not expect to complete their "official" probe of the car crash until the end of 1998 - more than 12 months from now.
In the interest of breaking that French official cover-up, we publish the following documentary account.
1. The events of Aug. 30-31, 1997
Surveillance And Harassment On Arrival
Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed arrived in Paris by private jet from Sardinia during the day of Aug. 30, 1997. From the moment they left the airport to drive into Paris, they were besieged by a small army of paparazzi. Along the route into Paris, the Mercedes carrying Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed was harassed by a black Peugeot, which, while driving in front of the Mercedes, jammed on its brakes without reason several times, to allow paparazzi in other cars and on high- speed motorcycles to come up alongside Dodi and Diana and harass them.
Later in the afternoon, when Diana and Dodi were on the Avenue des Champs Elysees, the same black Peugeot showed up. One of Dodi Fayed's bodyguards confronted the driver of the Peugeot, who retorted that the couple had not seen anything, compared to the harassment they would experience as the day wore on.
Initially, Dodi Fayed had planned to dine with Princess Diana at a Paris restaurant on the evening of Aug. 30. In fact, they left the Ritz Hotel at approximately 7:30 p.m., expecting not to return. Apparently, the continued harassment prompted them to change their plans and return to the Ritz Hotel, which is owned by Dodi Fayed's father, Mohamed al-Fayed, and dine there in a private suite.
Henri Paul, the deputy security chief of the Ritz Hotel, was on duty all day. He left the hotel shortly after Dodi and Diana departed for dinner. When Dodi and Diana unexpectedly returned to the hotel shortly after 9:30 p.m., Paul was contacted on his mobile phone, and voluntarily returned to work. Although Paul's precise whereabouts between 7:30 p.m. and approximately 9:45 p.m., when he returned to the Ritz Hotel, are still not known, there has been no evidence to date, suggesting that he was drinking alcohol during this time. On the contrary, teams of British journalists who tried to track down leads, provided by the French police, on Paul's so- called wild drinking bout while he was off duty, failed to turn up a single witness who saw Paul take so much as a single drink. Several of the bars identified by French official "leakers," were not even open during the hours when Paul was allegedly drinking himself into a stupor.
Further, the hotel's internal, closed-circuit TV cameras continuously followed Paul, once he returned to his duties. They showed Paul to be sober. During those final several hours at...the hotel, Paul was in the constant company of other security professionals, all of whom vouched for his sobriety, after the barrage of French police-inspired media leaks accused Paul of being drunk and high on prescription drugs. One of the last things that Trevor Rees-Jones, the bodyguard who survived the tunnel crash, remembers, is that he, too, considered Paul to be perfectly sober and fit to drive. Contrary to another French government-leaked "big lie," Paul was qualified to drive the Mercedes 280-S. He had been to Germany on two occasions, taking the Daimler Benz special driving courses, which he passed with flying colors.
Surveillance At The Ritz
The Ritz Hotel is located between the Place Vendome and Rue Cambon in the heart of Paris. It is one of the most elegant hotels in the city. It is next door to the Ministry of Justice. Yet, as a group of approximately 35 paparazzi gathered in front of the hotel, shortly after Dodi and Diana returned from their aborted effort to dine out, there was no move by French police to provide security to the couple, or even place barricades between the couple's car and the paparazzi-despite the earlier incidents of aggressive paparazzi harassment of the couple, and the threats from the driver of the Peugeot. These minimal efforts, which the French authorities chose not to take, could have potentially saved the lives of the three crash victims.
In addition to the well-known army of paparazzi, there were other eyes following the couple during their final hours. Virtually all of the buildings in the neighborhood of the Ritz Hotel have sophisticated closed-circuit television cameras- both inside and outside. Much of the activity of the paparazzi and the other observers has been captured on tape. Yet, the French police, in response to queries from the families of the three victims, repeatedly have denied the existence of any CCTV film footage or still photographs that shed any light on the events of the evening.
Sources have provided EIR with some details of what those CCTV shots do, in fact, reveal.
Mingled in with the crowd of paparazzi, gathered outside the Place Vendome main entrance to the Ritz Hotel, were a number of other individuals, carefully watching the scene. Several of these observers also were in the hotel. At approximately 9:45 p.m., at about the time that Dodi and Diana were returning to the Ritz Hotel, two English-speaking men, at- tempting to appear as if they were paparazzi, entered the Ritz and sat down at the main lobby bar. They ordered several rounds of drinks, and remained in the bar, carefully observing the lobby, until shortly before midnight. Their identities remain unknown, but their suspicious presence inside the hotel lobby is noteworthy.
The Decoy Effort And The Spotter
According to several sources familiar with the details of Dodi and Diana's final hours alive, Dodi Fayed made the decision that he and Princess Diana would leave the hotel by the back entrance at 38 Rue Cambon, in a backup car that was called to the hotel just hours before the fateful last ride. The plan was to have one of Dodi Fayed's security guards, Alexander "Kes" Wingfield, walk out the front door of the hotel and signal the drivers of the Mercedes and the Land rover (which was the trail car), that the couple would be coming down in five minutes. At that moment, Dodi and Diana got into the back seat of the Mercedes 280-S, driven by Henri Paul, with Dodi's other regular bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, in the front passenger seat. As they sped off, the paparazzi were still in front of the hotel oblivious to the departure. Had this been merely a typical paparazzi "photo stakeout," the plan would have likely succeeded, and the couple would have slipped off into the night.
Tragically, this was anything but a typical stakeout. The CCTV cameras reveal that there was a spotter at the back of the hotel, who immediately realized what was happening. That still-unidentified man immediately placed a call on a mobile phone. A moment later, the paparazzi in front of the hotel were on their motorcycles, chasing after the Mercedes.
Sources familiar with these events caution that it should not be presumed that the mobile phone call by the spotter was necessarily placed to one of the paparazzi in front of the hotel. Other actions were apparently triggered by that call, involving at least two cars that were lying in wait for the Mercedes near the Place de L'Alma tunnel.
The failed evasion attempt, in fact, turned into a target- of-opportunity for a vehicular homicide. It was the only occasion in which Dodi and Diana ever travelled in a car, without a trail car carrying security guards.
The Chase And The Crash
As the Mercedes 280-S left the rear of the Ritz Hotel, several dozen of the paparazzi, finally alerted to the diversion, set out in hot pursuit. Although the events of the next several minutes are not fully known, as the Mercedes drove through the heart of Paris, a half-dozen eyewitnesses have testified that, as the Mercedes took a right turn onto the Voie Georges Pompidou, a highway running along the right bank of the Seine River, about two kilometers from the entrance of the Place de L'Alma tunnel, there were a number of cars and motorcycles aggressively chasing behind.
Brian Anderson, an American businessman from California, was driving in a taxi along the Voie George Pompidou, when he saw the Mercedes 280-S driving past, with two motorcycles and other cars right on its tail. Anderson told reporters from NBC "Dateline" that the Mercedes was travelling at a rapid, but safe speed, of approximately 60 miles per hour, but that there were clearly other vehicles attempting to harass the Mercedes, as it headed toward the tunnel entrance. Anderson also noted that the driver of the Mercedes appeared to be perfectly in command of the situation, and showed no signs of being drunk.
Brenda Wells, a London-born secretary living and working in Paris, told police that her car was run off the road near the entrance to the Place de L'Alma tunnel by a dark- colored Fiat Uno that sped past her in pursuit of the Mercedes. Wells has been missing from her apartment for several weeks, and there is some concern that she has become a victim of foul play.
Mohamed Medjahdi and Souad Mousakkir were driving on the Voie Georges Pompidou at about 50 mph in their Citroen, in front of the Mercedes, and Medjahdi told Fox TV that he saw two cars speed past the Mercedes, as others were coming up menacingly from behind.
Francois Levy, a retired ship's captain from Rouen, France, was also driving in front of the Mercedes, as the cars entered the tunnel. He contacted attorneys for the Ritz Hotel, who passed his account on to the French police. "In my rearview mirror, I saw the car [the Mercedes] in the middle of the tunnel with the motorcycle on its left, pulling ahead, and then swerving to the right directly in front of the car," Levy said. "As the motorcycle swerved and before the car lost control, there was a flash of light, but then I was out of the tunnel and heard, but did not see, the impact." He continued, "I immediately pulled my car over to the curb, but my wife said: 'Let's get out of here. It's a terrorist attack.' There were two people on the motorcycle."
On Sept. 7, Journal du Dimanche published interviews with two other witnesses, who requested to remain anonymous. The first told the publication: "The Mercedes was driving on the right hand, shortly before the entry of the tunnel, preceded by a dark-colored automobile, of which make I cannot say. This car clearly was attempting to force the Mercedes to brake. The driver of the Mercedes veered into the left-hand lane, and then entered the tunnel." The witness said that his attention was drawn to the scene by the loud sound of the Mercedes' gears being suddenly lowered.
The second witness interviewed by Journal du Dimanche was walking along the Seine River, when he was startled by "the sound of a motor humming very loudly." He said he saw a Mercedes "travelling behind another automobile. I believe the reason the Mercedes accelerated so suddenly, was to try to veer into the left lane, and pass that car."
Bernard Dartevelle, the attorney for the Ritz Hotel, told Associated Press's Paris correspondent, Jocelyn Noveck, on Sept. 8, that he had been shown copies of two photographs confiscated by Paris. police, that showed driver Henri Paul blinded by a bright flash of light. Dartevelle described the two pictures: "One sees very distinctly the driver dazzled by a flash. One sees very distinctly the bodyguard at his side, who with a brisk gesture lowers the visor to protect himself from the flash, and one sees very distinctly Princess Diana turning to look behind the vehicle, and one sees very distinctly the yellow headlight of a motorcycle." Dartevelle added, "The photo taken before the first photo of the accident shows the Mercedes taken from very close. . . . A driver, who is maybe a photographer, and a motorcyclist, also perhaps a photographer, are very directly implicated in this accident."
The cumulative accounts of these eyewitnesses confirms that the Mercedes carrying Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana was under attack by several cars and motorcycles, working in tandem, at the point that the Mercedes careened off the tunnel pillars, hit the right wall of the tunnel, and then crashed headlong into pillar number 13.
There are suggestions of a blinding flash of light, as described by Dartevelle, and corroborated by other witnesses. Security experts have confirmed that both British and French intelligence services have developed, and deployed mobile lasers, or dazers, which temporarily blind a target, and also cause sudden, sharp, paralyzing pain in the optic nerve. These anti-personnel lasers, which have been used in Africa, the Balkans, and in the Persian Gulf War, are light and mobile, and could easily be used from the back seat of a car. One type of these "dazer" devices widely available in Europe, is the size of a fountain pen, and can be purchased for as little as $35. Such weapons may have been used by the attackers. Other sources told EIR that many of the paparazzi carry cameras that are equipped with super-powered flashes, that are capable of penetrating bullet-proof glass, and dark-tinted glass, to photograph passengers inside targeted cars. These flashes give off near-blinding light. Contrary to stories leaked by the French authorities, the Mercedes 280-S that was carrying Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana in that final ride, was not bullet-proofed. Nor did it have specially darkened windows.
Was a blinding laser used in the attack? Or, were other blinding lights used to intentionally incapacitate Henri Paul seconds before the fatal crash? These are among the questions that may never be answered.
But, other questions are being gradually answered, including whether the Mercedes was struck by another car inside the tunnel, just before the crash.
From the moment that the first eyewitnesses came forward to speak to the media and the French police, there were reports that a dark-colored car had smashed into the Mercedes a split second before the crash. These reports were consistent with all of the eyewitness accounts catalogued above. For two weeks, the French authorities leaked story after story to the press, dismissing the idea of a "second car" as sheer foolishness, and outright interference in their investigation.
However, finally, on Sept. 15, the London Daily Telegraph, in a story by Julian Nundy from Paris, noted, "Paris police investigating the crash . . . have found a mysterious scratch along the right-hand side of the tangled wreckage of, the Mercedes in which she was a passenger. Although investigators say they had '98%' dismissed theories that another vehicle ahead of the Mercedes might have caused it to swerve out of control, they say the paint stripe along the side of the car, could indicate a brush with another vehicle."
The same day, another eyewitness, who requested to remain anonymous, told France 2 television, "At that time I saw two cars. One a sedan-type of a dark color, accelerated sharply, and from that moment, the Mercedes, which was going very fast, bumped into the sedan, and lost control."
It would be another two weeks, before the French authorities finally admitted that they had, indeed, found the paint marks of a Fiat Uno on the right-side of the mangled Mercedes. They had also found parts of a rear brake light fixture embedded in the front of the Mercedes, and other parts of a Fiat Uno near the crash site.
Yet, no Fiat Uno owner had come forward to tell police that he or she had been involved in the crash, as one would expect an innocent party to the crash, to do. Nor has anyone approached the tabloid press to proclaim, "I was nearly killed by Diana's reckless chauffeur," and make financial demands on the Ritz Hotel. The car remains missing. The owner and driver are unknown.
In a bad parody of Inspector Clouseau, the French police, a month after the crash, finally began their search for the missing Fiat Uno. The belated search has been further compounded by a series of French police leaks, which have sowed additional confusion about the color of the missing car: The first accounts, consistent with all the witness stories, described the missing Fiat Uno as dark blue. But, subsequent accounts, all leaked by the French police, described the missing car as black, red, and white. French authorities are now saying that the hunt for the Fiat Uno, alone, will require the resources of one-fourth of the investigative squad of the Paris Police, and will take close to one year to complete.
A Crucial Witness
At the moment of the crash at the Place de L' Alma tunnel, London attorney Gary Hunter was in Paris with his wife. They were in their room on the third floor of the Royal Alma Hotel, at 35 Rue Jean Goujon. In an exclusive interview with EIR on Nov. 12, Hunter recounted what he heard and saw. At approximately 12:25 a.m., on Sunday, Aug. 31, through the open window of his hotel room, Hunter heard the sounds of the automobile crash inside the tunnel. He ran to the window. Hunter, contrary to initial accounts in the London Sunday Times on Sept. 21, had no line of sight on the tunnel, which was behind the hotel. However, he did see two cars turn left, onto Rue Jean Goujon, within less than two minutes of the crash. The first car was a dark vehicle, which was immediately followed by a white vehicle, which, he believes, was a Mercedes. The two cars sped past the hotel "at break-neck speed, almost reckless speed." Hunter told the Sunday Times that he thought they were travelling at 60-70 mph. The two cars were driving in tandem, "with the white car nearly on the bumper of the smaller dark car." The two vehicles sped up to the corner past the hotel, where there is a traffic circle. They sped out of sight. The strange behavior of the two cars, according to Hunter, "made me feel it may be linked to the crash sounds in the tunnel. . . . My initial thoughts were that these were people fleeing from something."
At the time he saw the two cars speeding past his hotel, Gary Hunter had no idea that the crash in the tunnel under the Place de L'Alma had involved Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed. He did not learn of their deaths until the next morning, and, as Hunter described it to EIR, he and his wife were shattered by the news. On Monday, the Hunters returned to London. By Tuesday morning, Hunter decided that "what I saw may have been important." He contacted attorneys for the al Fayed family. They made an appointment to meet on Wednesday, which was postponed. They finally met, in London, on Thursday morning, and Gary Hunter told the lawyers what he had heard and seen. The attorneys assured him that his verbal account would be passed on to the French authorities investigating the crash. Indeed, on Friday, Sept. 5, Hunter was called by the al Fayed attorneys, who confirmed that his account had been delivered to the appropriate French officials.
Hunter never heard another word from the French police for weeks. On Sept. 8, Hunter returned to Paris, where he was scheduled to give an interview to NBC-TV. While in Paris, he contacted the French authorities and volunteered to give them a statement. They refused to see him. Hunter told EIR that his decision to give an interview to the London Sunday Times was motivated by concern that the French refused to interview him. Two days after his interview appeared in the Sunday Times, he got a response - of sorts. The London Evening Standard published a story, based on unnamed sources in the French investigative squad, branding Hunter's story "ludicrous." The unnamed officials were quoted as saying that they were "tired of the meddling" in their investigation.
It was only after the Fiat Uno story was finally corroborated, and Hunter's remarks picked up by other media, that the French authorities finally asked Scotland Yard to take a statement from him. That took place at the end of October.
Gary Hunter was, by no means, the only highly credible, impartial witness, who was treated shabbily by the French authorities. Brian Anderson, the California businessman who saw the Mercedes 280-S being pursued by other cars and motorcycles, offered to give a statement to the French police. For his troubles, he had his passport confiscated for hours. Yet, the police never came to take a formal statement from him.
2. The Death Of Princess Diana
Meanwhile, back at the tunnel . . .
Henri Paul and Dodi Fayed both died instantly in the crash in the Place de L'Alma tunnel. Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones, seated in the front passenger seat, had buckled his seat belt shortly before the crash. This probably saved his life.
Princess Diana also survived the crash. She sustained serious injuries and was bleeding internally, but the first doctor on the scene of the crash believed that she would survive, with proper emergency medical care. Dr. Frederic Mailliez was driving through the Place de L'Alma and happened on the site, just minutes after the crash. According to a lengthy news account, published in The Scotsman on Sept. 29, Dr. Mailliez did not believe that Princess Diana's condition was desperate. He later told a French medical journal, "I thought her life could be saved." Dr. Mailliez was an experienced emergency medical professional, who worked at one time for the SAMU, the French government's emergency ambulance service, before going to work for a private medical response outfit called SOS Medecins.
Dr. Mailliez found Princess Diana lying on the back seat of the Mercedes, according to his account to The Scotsman. Contrary to stories leaked by French authorities to the press, she was not pinned in the rear compartment. The back seat of the Mercedes had not been seriously damaged in the crash, and there was no obstruction to getting at Diana. The French authorities issued these initial false reports in response to queries why it had taken an incredible one hour and 43 minutes, from the time that the first ambulance arrived at the crash site, to deliver Princess Diana to the hospital-four miles away.
Further, Romuald Rat, one of the most thuggish of the paparazzi, who was later charged with possible complicity in the Mercedes crash, was observed by one eyewitness at the crash site, leaning over Princess Diana as she lay semi-conscious in the back seat of the Mercedes, just before the first emergency rescue crew arrived.
Dr. Mailliez moved Diana's head to allow her to breathe. He called the emergency hotline to report the details of the crash on his car phone. He was told that ambulances had already been dispatched to the scene. He then administered oxygen, and ensured that Diana was not going to choke to death~h or swallow her tongue. When SAMU arrived on the scene, Dr. Mailliez left, confident that she would be quickly brought to a nearby hospital. He had ah~already concluded, on the basis of Princess Diana's vital signs, and her movements, that she was bleeding internally.
The first doctors to arrive with the ambulance and the other emergency vehicles reached the same conclusion, according to statements given to The Scotsman. One doctor who asked to remain anonymous said: "She was sweating and her blood pressure had dropped. She had the external signs of internal hemorrhage."
Diana was lying across the back seat of the Mercedes, with most of her body leaning outside the car, when the ambulance arrived, approximately 15-16 minutes after the crash, according to one of the ambulance crew, who also spoke to The Scotsman. She was almost immediately removed from the car.
Yet, Diana remained at the crash site for another hour, before she was placed in an ambulance and driven, at less than 25 mph, to a hospital on the other side of the Seine River, four miles away. The decision to bring Princess Diana to La Pitie Salpetriere Hospital was evidently made by the senior French government officials on the spot, Paris Police Chief Massoni and Interior Minister Chevenement. Massoni was in the tunnel, and Chevenement was already at La Pitie Salpetriere, in phone contact with the rescue crew in the tunnel. Yet, there are five other hospitals closer to the crash site, all with advanced emergency capabilities.
One highly respected French doctor who specializes in emergency response, told EIR, in an exclusive interview, that Princess Diana should have been taken to the Val de Grace, "which is much closer than La Pitie. That is a military hospital. Every political figure who is in a car crash or is injured is taken there." The doctor added: "The firemen, who were on the scene of the crash, are part of the Army. They undoubtedly notified the Val de Grace, which has a top team of trauma specialists on duty 'round the clock. I might have helicoptered her in. She would have been on the operating block a few minutes after being stabilized. This woman was one of the world's most powerful and influential people. She would normally have been given top priority and top treatment. She was not."
Not only was Princess Diana not brought to Val de Grace. She was not brought to Cochin Hospital, the Hotel Dieu, Lariboisiere, or the private American Hospital - all of which were closer than La Pitie Salpetriere, and all of which had qualified personnel and emergency facilities to repair the damaged arteries.
There is no credible explanation for why the French emergency personnel at the scene waited for more than an hour to place Princess Diana into the ambulance. There is no credible explanation for why the four-mile ride, through barren Paris streets, took 43 minutes! There is certainly no credible explanation for why the ambulance stopped for ten minutes outside the French Natural History Museum, just a few hundred yards from Le Pitie Salpetriere Hospital, as confirmed to both The Scotsman and the British weekly The People!
In a case where a crash victim has been diagnosed as suffering from internal bleeding, there is only one proper course of action. The victim should be stabilized, and then be rushed to a hospital for surgery. Unless the internal bleeding is stopped, the patient bleeds to death.
This is precisely what happened to Princess Diana. From The Scotsman:
"What is puzzling about the treatment offered to Diana is that she was not hospitalized until her condition had deteriorated to a critical extent. She suffered a series of heart attacks in the tunnel and on the way to the hospital, and had a massive cardiac arrest within minutes of arriving at La Pitie Salpetriere. The truth is that she was dead on arrival in the operating theater, although the surgical team battled against all the odds to revive her. 3. The Henri Paul Autopsy
The Drunk Driver Hoax
For the first 48 hours after the crash, French authorities and their controlled media focussed all the attention on the paparazzi, blaming their aggressive hounding of Diana and Dodi, for what was already being described as a high-speed crash: Then, the story leaked by the French authorities changed, ostensibly because the results of the blood tests performed on driver Henri Paul showed that he had alcohol levels in his bloodstream three times the legal limit. Suddenly, the paparazzi were exonerated, and the entire world media blame for the death of Princess Diana and Dodi shifted to "the drunk driver," Henri Paul.
In the weeks that followed the initial leaked autopsy findings, the French authorities embellished the tale. A purported second autopsy revealed that Paul had been also high on two powerful prescription drugs, one of which, not coincidentally, was often prescribed to chronic alcoholics. Several weeks later,,the French "official" leaks reported that further testing showed that Paul had been on a drinking binge for several weeks, prior to the crash, according to tests of his hair.
From the outset, there was strong contradictory evidence. Friends, co-workers, and relatives universally disputed the media attempts to portray Paul as a sullen, depressed alcoholic: Further, Paul had gone for his annual physical exam, to qualify for renewal of his pilot's license (See Certificate), 48 hours before the crash. He not only passed the physical exam. According to the Doctor who administered the exam, there were no signs of any damage to Paul's liver, a usual sure-fire sign of alcoholism. The French autopsy report also confirmed that Paul's liver was
healthy at the time of his death. It has been confirmed that between 10 p.m. and midnight, Paul drank two glasses of Ricards and water at the Ritz Hotel bar. The alcohol content of those drinks was very small. Yet, for the blood alcohol tests to have been accurate, Paul would have had to have gone through three bottles of strong red wine, or a dozen glasses of alcohol, earlier in the day, to have still shown such strong alcohol presence in his blood at 12:25 a.m. on the morning of Aug.31, at the time of the crash. Both the doctor who regularly performed the annual pilot's license rigorous physical exams and Paul's personal physician told the media that Paul had never been diagnosed as an alcoholic, and had never received prescriptions for either of the two drugs allegedly found in his bloodstream. Ultimately, the French police admitted that there was no record anywhere in France of such prescriptions in Henri Paul's name. But this did not in any way deter the continuing media characterization of Paul as "the drunk driver."
Gross Incompetence . . . Or Worse
There is another explanation for this anomaly. The postmortem on Paul was either hopelessly bungled by gross incompetence, or the results were tampered with. Here are the facts as reported to EIR. You, the reader, can draw your own conclusions.
From the moment that the French authorities began leaking the purported forensic findings (that Paul had been driving the Mercedes high on booze and prescription drugs), his family began demanding that a separate, independent autopsy be conducted.
The French authorities refused to allow the Paul family to hire their own forensic pathologist to conduct an independent set of tests. In fact, the French authorities only would release Paul's body to his family, for proper burial, if they agreed that the body would be cremated or buried without any further tests.
Ultimately, the French officials agreed to release a copy of the written results of the original post-mortem to the families of the deceased. Two independent teams of noted forensic pathologists reviewed the written report, and their conclusions were astonishing.
Dr. Peter Vanezis conducted one of the reviews with a colleague from Lausanne. Dr. Vanezis is a noted British pathologist who holds the Regis Chair of Forensic Medicine at Glasgow University. He was used by the United Nations in both Bosnia and Rwanda, to determine whether genocide had occurred, following the discovery of mass graves. He was the forensic pathologist who established that the woman who had been the pretender to the Romanov throne, was a phony.
Dr. Vanezis and his colleague spent 12 hours, reviewing the first post-mortem report. They found, first, that the report established that there was no deterioration of Paul's liver, in itself evidence that the "chronic alcoholic" line was a lie. The rest of the report was a horror story of bungling, violation of standard procedures and protocols, and unanswered questions. The personnel who performed the test clearly treated it as a "garden variety" car crash.
The report did not identify the temperature at which the body was stored, from the time it was removed from the car to when the tests were performed. There was no chain of custody provided.
Henri Paul's body had been crushed in the crash. His stomach, heart, and liver had been crushed and burst open. Thus, the entire chest cavity was badly contaminated by other body fluids, food residues, and so on, mixed together with the blood. Under such circumstances, it is standard practice to take blood samples from other parts of the body, particularly the limbs, which are far from the contaminated chest cavity. But, the first post-mortem report was only conducted on the blood taken from the contaminated chest cavity.
French authorities had leaked to the press that there had been two "independent" post-mortems conducted, and both had revealed the same presence of large amounts of alcohol in Paul's blood. The report provided to the families revealed that the so-called independent tests had been performed on the identical contaminated blood sample from the chest, which had been divided in half and given to two separate laboratories to test. So, in reality, there was only one test. Furthermore, French officials claimed that a urine sample had been taken as well. But the report showed no results of urine tests.
Dr. Vanezis and his associate prepared a detailed memorandum, raising all of their concerns about the forensic report. Their memorandum was passed along to the magistrates in charge of the investigation, Herve Stephan and Marie-Christine Devidal. Dr. Vanezis's report demanded answers ta a dozen or more disturbing questions he had posed. The family of Paul and other victims of the crash demanded that they be authorized to have an independent, outside autopsy done on Paul's body. The French authorities would only allow a French doctor to perform such an outside test; and, not surprisingly, not one qualified French forensic pathologist was willing to get involved with such an independent test.
A second team of prominent forensic pathologists in Lausanne, Switzerland, in the meantime, had been sent the original forensic report. They drew almost identical conclusions to those in the Vanezis report. They, too, were horrified over the outright incompetence and violation of the most elementary procedures by the French government personnel. A third independent audit of the first post-mortem was conducted by a team at St. Georges Hospital in London, and their results were the same.
So, at best, the only forensic evidence - the only evidence period - that showed Henri Paul to have been drunk on the night of Aug. 30-31, was incompetent, insofar as it was thoroughly unreliable. At worst, it was another instance of willful sabotage and cover-up by the French government. And, this was not the last of the French misconduct and lying.
4. A Tissue Of Lies
There are many other willful lies that have been told by the French authorities and dutifully put out by the world media. Each of these lies, taken individually, could be written off as inconsequential. But, taken as a whole, they constitute a willful attempt by the French authorities to cover up evidence - that Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed, and Henri Paul were the victims of a murder plot. Given the fact that Princess Diana's death was at the hands of the French government - at the highest level of the Jospin Socialist Party administration - it should come as no surprise that their account of the crash at the Place de L'Alma tunnel, from beginning to end, was a tissue of lies. (See also, Synopsis of Autopsy Findings Provided for this Site)
Here are some of the most egregious lies, uncovered by the EIR investigative team.
1. "The speedometer proved Henri Paul was driving at a recklessly fast speed." Virtually all news accounts in the immediate hours after the crash reported that the speedometer of the Mercedes had been frozen at over 180 kilometers per hour, when the first rescue workers and witnesses arrived on the scene. This "evidence" was used to establish that Paul was speeding recklessly at the time the crash occurred. After the so-called post-mortem results were leaked, purporting that Paul had been drunk and high on prescription drugs, much of the world media pronounced the case a cut-and-dried instance of drunk driving. In fact, EIR has confirmed that the speedometer of the Mercedes was at zero!
This is consistent with claims by the car's manufacturer, Daimler Benz, that whenever a Mercedes 280-S is in an accident, even a crash at reasonably slow speed, the speedometer will freeze at zero. It is no wonder that the French authorities rejected Daimler Benz's offer to send a team of safety engineers to France to assist in the crash investigation.
2. "Diana was trapped in the back seat." For weeks, the French authorities justified the long delay in getting Princess Diana to a hospital with claims that the rear compartment of the car had been crushed, and it required a lengthy effort by French firemen and rescue workers to pry her body loose from the back seat. Eventually, after a number of early eyewitnesses inside the tunnel came forward, the French government was forced to retract the story, and admit that the rear compartment had not been damaged in the crash.
3. "The Mercedes was a faster, armored vehicle". Initial media reports, provided by the French authorities, had identified the Mercedes carrying Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed as the much faster 600 model. Early reports also claimed that the car was armored. In fact, the Mercedes 280-S, a four-cylinder car incapable of reaching high speeds quickly, had been called up from a pool of cars available to the Ritz Hotel just hours before the fateful ride.
EIR has recently learned that the French police have established that the missing Fiat Uno is a turbo model manufactured between 1984 and 1987. This Fiat has a higher acceleration rate than the Mercedes 280-S, and a higher top speed. This means that the Fiat was capable of passing and cutting off the Mercedes, and accelerating to avert serious damage in a collision.
4. "Henri Paul had goaded the paparazzi, 'You won't catch me tonight.'" Early media coverage, based on leaks from the French government, reported that, as Paul was leaving the Ritz Hotel, he had taunted the paparazzi, shouting, "You won't catch me tonight." In fact, as we reported at great length above, Paul at no time had any contact with any of the paparazzi. The Mercedes left the Ritz Hotel from a rear exit and there was never any communication between him and the paparazzi. The purpose of this fairy tale was to further the idea that Paul was drunk and "out of control" shortly before the crash. CCTV footage, taken from cameras at the Ritz Hotel and from adjacent buildings, fully confirm EIR's account of events.
5. "There are no photographs of the chase." All along the route that the Mercedes took, from the Ritz Hotel, along the Voie Georges Pompidou, to the entrance to the Place de L'Alma tunnel, there are both outside CCTV cameras, and special radar-activated cameras installed by the French police. If, at any time, the Mercedes or the cars and motorcycles chasing after it had gone beyond the speed limit, the radar cameras should have automatically snapped pictures. These pictures should have provided the police with a time-sequence account of the final moment's before the crash.
But the French authorities have systematically claimed - through press leaks, and in response to queries by the families of the deceased - that no such pictures exist. We are to believe that every one of the cameras was either broken or out of film. Yet, other drivers, who were passing along the Voie Georges Pompidou shortly before the Mercedes chase, were indeed later contacted by French police and told that there were photographs showing that they were speeding. Incredibly, the French authorities also continue to insist that none of the outside CCTV cameras on any of the buildings along the route show anything relevant to the crash probe.
6. "The paparazzi were nowhere near Henri Paul's car at the point of the crash". Some accounts, based on French government leaks, claimed that the nearest paparazzi were 400 meters behind the Mercedes 280-S at the point the crash took place. This lie, aimed at pinning the entire blame for the crash on "the speeding drunk driver Henri Paul," is discredited by the testimony of Anderson, Levy, and Wells, as well as a half-dozen other eyewitnesses who have requested to remain anonymous.
7. "Henri Paul was not qualified to drive the Mercedes". Paul had received specialty driver training from Daimler Benz in Germany. Contrary to some French press claims, Paul was not required to have any kind of special driver's license, in order to drive the Mercedes 280-S.
The cumulative effect of these falsehoods, each traced back to French government sources, to date, has been a ruthless cover-up on the part of the French - who clearly have a great deal to hide.
Katharine Kanter and Christine Bierre, from our Paris office, contributed to this article.
|
There will never be documents about it. Never
|
Author Gennady Sokolov
|
“The Queen Mother... now that’s a serious piece of wizardry. The Queen Mother is a lot older than people think. To be honest, the Royal Family hasn’t died for a long time, they have just metamorphosised. It’s sort of cloning, but in a different way. They take pieces of flesh and rebuild the body from one little bit. Because it’s lizard, because it’s cold-blooded, it’s much easier for them to do Frankenstein shit than it is for us. The different bodies are just different electrical vibrations and they have got that secret, they’ve got the secret of the micro-currents, it’s so micro, so specific, these radio waves that actually create the bodies. These are the energies I work with when I’m healing.
They know the vibration of life and because they are cold-blooded, they are reptiles, they have no wish to make the Earth the perfect harmony it could be, or to heal the Earth from the damage that’s been done. The Earth’s been attacked for zeons by different extraterrestrials. It’s been like a football for so long. This place was a bus stop for many different aliens. All these aliens, they could cope with everything, including the noxious gases.
They’re landing all the time and coming up from the bowels of the Earth. They looked like reptiles originally, but they look like us when they get out now through the electrical vibration, that life key I talked about. They can manifest how they want to. All the real knowledge has been taken out and shredded and put back in another way. The Queen Mother is “Chief Toad” of this part of Europe and they have people like her in each continent. Most people, the hangers on, don’t know, you know, about the reptiles. They are just in awe of these people because they are so powerful.
“Bal moral is a very, very nasty place. That’s somewhere they want to dig underground. They will find reptile fossils, it goes back that far. Don’t think of people like the Queen Mother and Queen Victoria, as different people. Think of them as the same person which after a while has had to replace their coat. When the flesh dies, that energy, while it’s dying, will be immediately up someone else’s jacksy (backside). It’s very vampire, worse than vampire.
They are not going to come to you with hooked teeth and suck you’re blood. Fear is their food, they can actually take fear and manifest it into a tangible thing. The key is the vibrational current. At that vibrational current, they can manifest anything from anything. Its like a holographic image. We are all minerals and water vibrating. This is all an illusion we are living in. That’s the secret. You know when the monarchy’s fallen, it’s not the end of it. They will manifest in another form. The reptiles have never been defeated and this is the closest they have come to it.
The reason they are so threatened today is because the Earth is in such trouble and the mental power of people is returning. This is their most frightening time, but this is not going to kill them. There are long centuries before it’s over yet. The difference this time is that it’ll be more difficult for them and they are going to have to settle for less and the Earth people are going to get more.
But even though these reptilian ones are fuckers, they are sad, pathetic beasts really, while humanity is galloping towards light. They’re just pathetic lumps of nastiness who aren’t going to win. I can’t talk about this everywhere because they would just go ‘Christine, get a white coat, put it on backwards, get out’. But I want an end to the bullshit.”
Diana [film] Unlawful Killing
The director of a controversial Diana documentary says: There was a sinister conspiracy but it began AFTER the crash
12th May 2011Calm down dears, it’s only a documentary.The outrage generated by the announcement that Unlawful Killing (my film about the inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed) is to be screened in Cannes today has been so heated that I’m fully expecting the phone to ring, and my daughter Lily to say to me: ‘Dad, what have you been up to this time? Are you halfway between East Ham and Upney? Are you Barking?’I’ve even been attacked in this newspaper by the redoubtable A.N. Wilson, who expressed utter contempt for anyone who believes that Diana’s death might have been anything other than an accident.That struck me as odd, because I’m an avid reader of his work, and remember that on September 8, 2009, while reviewing the memoirs of Michael Mansfield QC (the barrister who represented Mohamed Al Fayed at the inquest), he wrote: ‘Mansfield has persuaded me that, as a matter of fact, there is something extremely fishy about the death of Princess Diana in the Paris underpass.’Or perhaps that was another A.N. Wilson?What’s caused the most heat this week is the inclusion of a photograph of Diana, taken shortly after the crash. I’ve been accused of cheap sensationalism (and worse), and Mohamed Al Fayed has also been attacked, even though he’s just a backer who had nothing to do with the editorial decision to include it.Incidentally, the only reason I needed a private backer at all was because, even though the inquest was the longest and most significant in British history, not one UK broadcaster would commission a documentary about it from me.Usually I can get programmes commissioned without undue difficulty, but Channel 4, Channel 5, Sky, and many others all stared blankly when we suggested the idea.And when my producer proposed (over lunch with the Director General) that the BBC might commission an investigative documentary about how the media had covered the inquest, and about how the coroner had conducted it (especially his extraordinary reluctance to call senior royals as witnesses, even though Diana had left letters stating that the Windsors were planning a car “accident” for her), the refusal was so powerful that it almost took the enamel off his teeth.Questions: Keith Allen's film explores the series of delays that have never been properly explainedAnyway, before I get that call from Lily, let me explain why the producers and I decided to include that photograph. And I’ll rehearse the arguments in front of the toughest audience of them all: Daily Mail readers.The photo is not used in the film for the purpose of shock. It is included as evidence, because it shows clearly that, although Diana had been injured in the crash, she was alert and very much alive. I repeat: it is not a picture of a dying woman.As medical evidence presented at the inquest confirmed, if Diana had been taken promptly to hospital by Dr Jean-Marc Martino, she could well have survived.Instead, due to a series of delays that have never been properly explained, it took one hour and 43 minutes to get her to a hospital just a couple of miles away, by which time her life was ebbing away.We briefly use one photograph as part of a sequence which asks: why was she not taken to hospital more quickly? What took place within Dr Martino’s ambulance (inside which she remained for well over an hour)? Why is Dr Martino’s evidence greatly at variance with the known facts? And why did no official inquiry ever interview (or even name) most of other people in the ambulance?Surely, if the inquest and police enquiries were as ‘thorough’ and ‘open’ as the voices of authority insist, that is the very least they would have done?My film is not about a conspiracy before the crash, but about a conspiracy after the crash, culminating in a six-month inquest which (it is my contention) sought to bury the truth, rather than reveal it. I don’t know whether I’ll convince you or not, but I hope you’ll reserve judgement until you have seen it for yourselves.Admittedly, that’s difficult at the moment, because the film cannot be shown in the UK (mainly because the questions it asks about the conduct of the coroner and police chiefs could lead to us all being imprisoned under contempt of court laws). But it will soon be showing widely throughout the world, so many of you will be able to see it elsewhere.Accusations: Keith Allen denies he is trying to make money out of a much-loved woman's deathOne final point. I’ve been accused of seeking to make money out of a much-loved woman’s death by making this documentary. That accusation is cheap, untrue and unworthy of those who make it.I knew that I would be taking some flak by going public, but I made this film because I believe (as privately does A.N. Wilson and most of the British public) that there is something extremely fishy about Diana’s death, and that we have all been lied to by the authorities.Frankly, if it was simply money I was after, then I wouldn’t have spent three long years making a documentary. I’d simply have signed up for another lucrative Hollywood blockbuster, or spent another three months in a forest in Hungary, pretending to be the Sheriff of Nottingham.After all, my legs look lovely in tights.
Diana [film] Unlawful KillingUnlawful Killing – the film the British won't get to see
My documentary about the Diana inquest will be shown everywhere but the UK. Here's why7 May 2011http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/07/unlawful-killing-film-you-wont-seeThe internet is a global lavatory wall, a Rabelaisian mixture of truth, lies, insanity and humour. I felt its power and madness this week, when an excerpt from my new film, Unlawful Killing, was leaked on to YouTube and seized on by US conspiracy theorists, who immediately began claiming that the CIA had murdered Princess Diana, thereby allowing others to dismiss my documentary as mad.Deriding its critics as mad is an age-old British establishment trick. My "inquest of the inquest" film contains footage of Diana recalling how the royals wanted her consigned to a mental institution, and the inquest coroner repeatedly questioning the sanity of anyone who wondered if the crash was more than an accident. His chief target was Mohamed Al Fayed, a man I once profiled for a Channel 4 documentary. Before I met him, I'd half-believed the media caricature of him as a madman, driven nuts by the death of his son, and wildly accusing the Windsors of having planned the 1997 crash. However, I found a man who was sane and funny but frustrated that Britain wouldn't hold an inquest into his son's death. Michael Mansfield QC thought it unfair too, and fought for one to be held; which was why the longest inquest in British legal history eventually began in 2007.Long before the inquest started, the eminently sane Mansfield had persuaded me that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the crash, and signs of a cover-up by the authorities. Many journalists agreed, but as the inquest drew near, I noticed that British newspapers (several of which had regularly run "Was Diana Murdered?" pieces) suddenly fell into line, and started insisting that the inquest was a waste of time. They raised no protest when virtually all the key French witnesses refused to participate, nor did they find it odd that not one senior royal was ordered to appear, even though Diana had stated in a lawyer's note that the Windsors were planning an "accident" to her car. Nor did they raise the issue of possible bias when legal proceedings involving the integrity of the royal family were to be heard in the royal courts of justice before a coroner who'd sworn an oath of allegiance to the Queen.I felt the need to raise it, so I asked every major UK broadcaster (BBC, ITV, C4, Five, Sky) to commission a TV documentary about the inquest. But they refused even to contemplate such a suggestion, so Associated Rediffusion and I began filming and financing it ourselves. Shortly before the inquest began, Fayed offered to fund our project, so we could make a feature-length cinema documentary instead. We agreed, on condition that we would report events in the way we saw them, and the deal was struck.Unlawful Killing is not about a conspiracy before the crash, but a provable conspiracy after the crash. A conspiracy organised not by a single scheming arch-fiend, but collectively by the British establishment – judges, lawyers, politicians, police chiefs, secret services, even newspaper editors – all of whom have been appointed to their positions because they are "a safe pair of hands". Just as compass needles all point north without being told to, so these people instinctively know what is expected of them when the state's interests are under threat and they act accordingly, quietly suppressing uncomfortable evidence or undermining the credibility of witnesses whose evidence contradicts the official narrative.Consider just a fraction of what transpired. Over 100 significant witnesses were not called to the inquest, or refused to appear. Blood tests allegedly proving the drunkenness of the driver Henri Paul were deemed "biologically inexplicable" by a toxicologist. A British crash expert found that Diana's seat belt had not been working. And so on.Strangest of all was the media coverage of the verdict. Inquest evidence showed conclusively that the crash was caused by an unidentified white Fiat Uno and several unidentified motorcycles, vehicles that were certainly not paparazzi, because uncontested police evidence confirmed that the paparazzi were nowhere near the tunnel at the time of the crash. The jury understood this, bringing in a verdict of "unlawful killing" by unidentified "following vehicles"; yet within seconds, the BBC was misreporting that the jury had blamed the paparazzi, and the rest of the media meekly followed suit. Which is why – three years on – barely anyone realises what the jury's troubling verdict really was.Why is the film being premiered next week at Cannes, three years after the inquest ended? Because British lawyers insisted on 87 cuts before any UK release could be contemplated. So rather than butcher the film, or risk legal action, we're showing it in France, then the US, and everywhere except the UK. Pity, because at a time when the mindless sugar rush of the royal wedding has been sending British Rrepublicans into a diabetic coma, it could act as a welcome antidote.
Diana: Can You See The Real Me? The Greatest Spiritual Energy Extraction Scam of the 20th Century5 February, 2009By Matthew DeloozeWell let me tell you 'bout the way she looked
The way she'd act and the colour of her hair
Her voice was soft and cool
Her eyes were clear and bright
But she's not thereFrom the song She’s Not There by the ZombiesFor those people are unaware of my work. I suggest you read some of my earlier articles before reading this one. I dedicate this article to the gullible masses of this world. I dedicate it to the innocent families, the Fathers, the Mothers, the Son’s and the Daughters who were roped in to an agenda, which caused them so much pain, through manipulation of their minds within the collective consciousness of the human race. One day the deception that controls our lives will be unveiled but there will be no victorious Knights of Light and there will be no defeated Knights of Dark either, there will only be the truth. The truth is not one colour. The truth is all colours. On the day that all colours can be seen all tears will stop and we will remember who we really are…………..
Hello fellow truth seekers (Nice to see you again-to see you nice again)
I now find myself able to start adding to the list of articles written by Matthew Delooze. This is one I have been waiting to write for several months simply because, as I believe it will help open more paths for some of us in the future and it is a form of baggage removal for your minds. To those people that see and feel something in the information I supply I will say please don’t lose faith no matter how things appear sometimes. Awakening from the hypnosis of the Serpent Cult is on a par with breaking an addiction to powerful drugs. You will be very up one minute and you will be very down the next minute. You will suffer. You are literally a food source and your farmers want you to continue to feed them. To the Serpent Cut we are simply on a par with cattle and to break free from the milk farm we have to get past locked doors, electric fences, stonewalls and numerous cattle grids. Our hoofs will hurt with every step. It can be far easier to turn back to the cowshed and surrender your milk. Indeed I see so called awakened people run back in to a comfort zone cattle shed everyday especially when their bank account or their cowardice tells them to.
I did mention some of the information I’m going to supply today to the nearly world famous ‘Brighton 59ers’ in Rottingdean back in October 2008, back when the clocks had gone back. I should mention that I have been booked to do a small talk in Blackpool (St Annes) on March 28th at the UK Probe International conference. So if any of you want to come please visit this website for details. I will be doing a short talk on birth to death and death to birth. Please feel free to come and chuck tomatoes at me if you are that way inclined and as long as they are not still in the can it’s fine with me.
I have mentioned in previous articles that I believe we need to open our minds further and see things from a different perspective. This is not to add more clutter to the hypocritical conspiracy communities either. It is easy to talk of corrupt governments and hypocritical religions. It is easy to demonstrate and rant outside Government buildings. I know I have done it. What I thought was my intuition, in the 1980’s, was telling me the only way to seek justice for the working classes was through demonstrations and trade union movements etc.
I now realise my intuition was ‘wrong’ but it was only ‘wrong’ as I saw it from a five sense level. I now say to myself now how can this be so? I ‘preach’ to everyone, if preach is the right word, that they should always follow their intuition. Am I changing my opinion about the number one fundamental rule to Spiritualism, ‘follow your intuition’, I think to myself? No I’m not. What I’m saying is that our intuition will take us to a place we can comfortably accept as being a learning place for us at that time but it is not necessary a place of truth the truth, it is only a stepping-stone to the truth. Your intuition will allow you to believe you have found some truth but your intuition, your spiritual direction if you like, is only making you comfortable enough to take the information in that you need to take in. In other words your intuition will lead you to things that are not necessarily true but they are things that will make the truth far easier to swallow on a later date.
That is where I want to start in this article, at a later date if you like because it is now eleven and half years since the ‘death’ of Princess Diana. Is that long enough to leave before you are smacked with the truth? It is also seven and half years since the 9/11 attacks. I have never written anything about either event before now either.
Would it seem daft of me to tell you I was given information about both these events in 1995/6? I suppose it is easy for me to claim that in 2009 and I realise I will seem a liar to the vast majority of folks for doing so anyway. That said I couldn’t see me gaining any possible benefit for claiming these things but please believe I’m lying about it if you want but I knew of a 9/11 event and a Diana type ‘death of a princess’ event in 1996, years before they happened, it was part of my awakening process.
Let’s start with Princess Diana shall we? I have to say that David Icke did a very good job, as he always does, of explaining the Princess Diana death situation. I have to agree with most of what I have ‘heard’ of David’s interpretation. I have not read The Biggest Secret though. I’m sure most of you will be aware of David’s stuff on Diana from years ago.
Anyway let’s get started eh?
I think you would have to go to some very far out places to find a human being that did not know of Princess Diana in this world. She was the shy and beautiful young lady that was going to marry her very own Prince charming wasn’t she? This prince charming was, as you know, Serpent Cult member Charles Windsor.
Probably the most famous photo of Charles and Diana
The Serpent Cult did a massive publicity job on Diana and Charles throughout the world. I remember in the early 1980’s when you couldn’t buy anything without ‘Diana & Charles are getting married’ written on it. You literally couldn’t wipe your arse on a toilet roll without Charles & Diana’s picture on the wrapper. The markets and shops had a field day selling cheap crappy pens, pencils, books, cups, mugs, plates, watches etc, etc, etc. Indeed all the little schoolgirls even had Princess Di plastic lunchboxes and bags. I’m sure Colin Fry had a Lady Di handbag too!
The reason for this massive publicity job, ladies and gentlemen, was simply because the Serpent Cult needed the masses to connect on an emotional and spiritual level with Diana. Charles was already connected to the collective consciousness but the Serpent Cult needed the masses to be totally connected to Diana because they knew she would be sacrificed years later.
The Serpent Cult needed the collective consciousness to bind with Diana to make the ritual successful from their point of view. Let me make it perfectly clear to all of you now. ‘The Serpent Cult did the PR job on Diana it was not Diana herself’
The Serpent Cult used all the tricks in the book to attract people from all walks of life in to respecting and loving Diana. Indeed even the anti-royals used to say they ‘hated the royal family apart from Diana’. Diana really was turned in to a Mrs Wonderful wasn’t she? I’m likely to get a punch on the nose for saying different eh?
There are millions of good folks who feel deeply spiritually connected to Diana, and I understand why, but I have the job of telling you that this was simply part of the scam. I get all the dirty jobs. So folks let me start as I mean to go on. Diana was simply another member of the Serpent Cult and she was here to help enslave us just as much as my mate Popey is and the rest of the secret rulers of this word are. Diana was a pied piper just like Popey and the rest of the puppets are.
We were all made to feel emotional about Diana, but I’m afraid that was the plot from day one. Oh I’m sure there are researchers out there that will claim, as is their right, that Diana was here to awaken us up and simply enable us to see that murderers and liars really do exist inside the Establishment and in the Royal family? Obviously it will help their fan base and their incomes if they appease Diana’s fans and claim she came to awaken the masses by showing the world the royals did her in and not claim that she came to help enslave them.
But come on folks didn’t we already know that that the royals are murderers? For fuck sake Henry the Eight used to chop the bloody heads off his wives in full public view, so if you didn’t realise the royal bloodline is already full of sadistic murderers then what can I say? What? You think the serpent bloodline has changed their personality traits do you? Listen… I’m not here to appease a fan base nor take your money so I tell you the truth when I say that ‘the Royals have always been incestuous murderers and liars and Diana was and still is a member of the same club’.
Diana was 100% Serpent bloodline and as far as I know her body wasn’t carrying any goodie two shoes cuckoo type soul either. I’m not going to tell fans of Diana that Diana was innocent just so you think I’m a nice chap I’m here to tell you she was up to the neck in it. She was 100% Serpent Cult.
Diana was 100% Serpent Cult: Bloodline and Soul.
The Royals/Illuminati are privy to higher levels of spiritual understanding than we are and they base their behaviour on that understanding.
I need to get something across to you before we go any further. I have mentioned this briefly before. Our deceptive ‘rulers ‘ continuously reincarnate in to this world in to positions of privilege and/or power. They are ‘destined’ if you like to carry out certain actions that will assist a multi-dimensional force to have control over the human race. They will be equipped with the guile and/or personality they need to carry out their duties and for this multi-dimensional force (Lower fourth reptilians or whatever else you wish to think of them as being) to be able to continue to rule over us they need our spiritual permission to do so. They need our emotional free will, they need our acceptance and they need a show of respect from us to enable them to rule us. These reincarnating members of the Serpent Cult' like Diana, will sometimes not have a clue, on a 5-sense conscious level, about what they are here to do. Living the luxurious high life on a five sense level can easily camouflage any hint of spiritual destiny and they, just like you, haven’t any clues that they are a dumbed down prisoner in this world on a five-sense level either. After all you think you and your mind are free don't you?
Sometimes the agents for the Serpent Cult will also be subjected to the same dumbing down process that you have. But under the surface a force will be operating within them that will make sure the wishes of the Serpent Cult are carried out.
I don’t know if Diana knew who she was or whom she represented but I do know she was given the guile and of course the means to be able ‘ to win hearts and minds’. The Serpent Cult writes the scripts in the lower fourth world for their agents to carry out in this world and their cast list is made up of very deceptive entities and they are very good at what they do. The Serpent Cult will make things happen in this world that will allow the said scripts to come to pass. Diana was a willing agent sent to take part in a sacrificial ritual, she was no angel of light nor was she a cuckoo soul sent undercover to awaken anyone. The said ritual involved is continuously repeated in a time loop situation and usually involves using the same participants to carry it out. It is simply part of the agenda to totally enslave mankind.
Diana carried out many rituals, as the rest of the Serpent Cult do, right under our noses.
I have said many, many times that the Serpent Cult created mythical deities (Gods and Goddesses) to act as their mediums to extract spiritual energy from this world in to another dimension.
‘Diana’ Spencer was not only a medium she was a fully signed up member of the Serpent Cult. She would gladly spend many short lifetimes on earth, in the lap of luxury of course, for the benefits to her and her masters existence in another dimension and the Serpent Cult created all the circumstances throughout her life just so she ‘fitted in’ with the symbolism needed for the ritual carried out in the Alma tunnel and for the spiritual energy it would provide for her master and herself in another dimension.
Just step back from the pathetic hype that surrounded her for a moment and you will see that she was simply ‘groomed’ to become a massive pied piper. As soon as she started appearing in the media she was never out of it. The entire media cartel hyped Diana constantly, so please ask yourself why this was so as I’m sure most of you reading this article are aware that the illuminati control all mainstream media? Do you honestly thing the illuminati controlled media couldn’t have made Diana in to whatever they wanted? A scrubber? A lunatic? A paranoid drama queen? You name it they could have done it to her but they didn’t. Why was this so? Don’t tell me it was the will of the masses please.
Diana: A natural pied piperon her wedding day
The entire illuminati controlled media actually made sure that even if Diana wasn’t seen in the best light morally they certainly made sure she always came out of events with mass sympathy and an emotional attachment with the public? Does that sound right if Diana was here simply to awaken the masses to the wrong doings of the murderous Royalty and the illuminati? Or does it sound more likely that the illuminati controlled media was really strongly behind Diana when required to increase the level her ‘worship’ value amongst the masses. Come on folks wake up here the fact is that the Serpent Cult with the means they have could have ordered mainstream media to slaughter Diana in the public eye but this never really happened over any long period of time. Ask yourself why. Why would the illuminati allow Diana to be the peoples Goddess especially for as long as they did?
I’ll tell you why. It’s because Diana’s murder was planned many years before it happened, before she was born even, and the script insisted that the whole world mourned Diana after she had been ritually sacrificed. Don’t forget folks Emotional Respect = Spiritual Energy. The only way the whole world would mourn her is to make her a people’s champion around the world.
Even the Royal Family played their part in this scam by openly playing to the script as ‘the official bad guys’, especially during the last couple of years of Diana’s life, but the public just went along with it too being suckered in like lemons. Big bad Queenie and dirt bag, Camilla shagging Charlie, versus squeaky-clean Diana wasn’t it? The public lapped it up and Diana’s worship value was increasing all the time. Diana was such a Goodie - Goodie compared to the bad guys in the Palace in the public eye eh?
Please consider the fact that the Royals would have and could have silenced Diana years before the actual sacrificial murder if they REALLY wanted to keep in the public’s good books. Oh no my friends the rest of the Royal family played the role of super bad guys to make Diana even more popular with the public and for good reason.
I haven’t time to go in to all the symbolic events in Diana’s life in this article. I believe David Icke has pointed out some of the links with Diana‘s bloodline and mentioned the symbolism behind the Alma tunnel and the 13th pillar being hit in the tunnel etc. Again I agree with most of what I have heard or seen about David’s opinion and it is worth a look back at his information on this matter. There is no need for me to drone on about the 'details of the crash' because you will already know them.
Diana was killed on symbolic ground in the Alma tunnel
I will though point out a couple of symbolic coincidences I have spotted myself later on. But it is for sure that Diana was murdered in a tunnel linked to the Goddess Diana and her sacrifice has too many other occult coincidences to be anything less than a ‘well executed sacrificial murder/ritual’.
So hang on a minute here. Why would the murderers go to so much trouble to carry out such act in full public scrutiny if it was simply a murder to shut Diana up and stop her being impregnated with a coloured Muslim? Come on folks get your thinking caps on. If the Royal family were simply pissed off that Diana was opening her mouth too much or because she was shagging a Muslim and they didn’t want a half African - half English baby appearing, to upset the Royal Family photo albums, then why not simply bump 'Diana' off quietly? Surely an excuse of ‘slipping on a corgi dog turd and breaking her neck’ sort of thing would suffice and save a lot of time with the conspiracy theories to boot wouldn’t it? Laugh at that pathetic excuse if you want but I think having an official excuse consisting of a driver, Henry Paul, that was 3-4 times over the drink drive limit and veins full of carbon dioxide with an official bodyguard sat next to him is even more pathetic don’t you? I realise the Royal Family wanted to put a few hundred miles between them and the murder scene but bloody hell…. Henry Paul was pissed up… case solved? Give over don’t make me laugh! But Even this fairy tale added to the emotion directed at Diana.
Anyway the point I am making is that the royals could have simply faked her suicide and claimed she something like she was wallowing in shame over her many flings with men. They could have faked her suicide over her eating disorder and her so called depression over Charles’s affair. Well couldn’t they?
I’ll tell you why it was because Diana was murdered in a ritual that will allow for the extraction of Spiritual energy made in and intended for use in this world to be transported to another and not because of her taste for sex with Muslims. Diana herself was exposed as a very promiscuous lady, let’s be blunt here truth seekers, even an ugly old sod like me was in with a chance of getting my leg over with Diana. She was opening hers legs to anyone that smiled at her.
Hewitt: He was just one of Diana’s many lovers.
Sex scandals amongst the royal family are nothing new anyway. Even the staff at the Palace were constantly up each other and that was just the blokes! Indeed even the dodgy butler, Paul Burrell was balls deep with the other male staff. Let’s be blunt, they are all up each other in high society circles and anyone else can join in as long as they are from a certain bloodline. Indeed Princess Anne and Prince Charles were both shagging at least one member of the Parker Bowles family at the same time and this was long before Diana was killed. It’s the norm for Royals and their staff to have sex parties and let’s also be blunt again and admit that Diana’s answer to not liking Charles’s adultery was to go out and shag as many folk as she could and commit adultery several times herself. She obviously got a taste for Asian or African men too. Admittedly this sort of behaviour would embarrass the phoney royal family on a 5-sense level but surely not enough to commit a symbolic murder on the scale of the Alma tunnel saga. Yet these are just some of the reasons given to the idiotic masses as being a good enough reason to create such a murder.
Burrel: He's as dodgy as a bag of monkeys... just like his paymasters
All the indications point to the fact that Diana was murdered at the very moment the whole world had been primed to consciously focus on her. I’m sure if you think about it properly with an open mind that you will at least partly agree with that statement. Just what circumstances led to the mass attention Diana was receiving at the time of her death?
Well she was portrayed, as the ‘victim’ for several years wasn’t she? She also beat Bulimia etc didn’t she? She had the guts to touch a man with aids didn’t she? She had been allowed to go on BBC TV and slag off the royal family wasn’t she? Hey and don’t tell me the fucking illuminati and the royal family didn’t 'allow' that to happen because the BBC dare not fart without asking the Queen and illuminati stooges if it is OK first! Take it from me the Royals/Illuminati arranged for Diana to spill the beans on TV because it was all part of the scam of attracting respect to Diana and turn her in to a goddess. Indeed she predicted her death and actually said she wanted the masses to call her the Queen of Hearts of that very show.
Don’t tell me the Royal family didn’t know this was going to happen. Diana became the self proclaimed Queen of Hearts and she also announced she would be killed. It was all part of the attack on the collective consiousness.
Diana was also the heroine for many charities. Well wasn’t she? (See my book, is it me for a moment, for information about charities) Her campaign against land mines also got her worldwide respect. She was literally being promoted, as a better-looking Mother Teresa wasn’t she? Again please tell me how this was allowed to happen in mainstream Serpent Cult controlled media if it would severely damage Serpent Cult members like the Royal family? I’ll tell you again Diana was 100% Serpent Cult. The Royal family didn’t give a monkeys about public opinion and time tells us that is true. I’m not saying that to hurt the luvvy dovey Diana fans I’m saying that to attempt to make you think and actually challenge the thoughts the hypnosis the Serpent Cult has placed in you through carrying out this ritual.
There is also the involvement of the Al Fayed family to consider because they are also members of the Serpent Cult. Oh I realise Daddy Al Fayed has played his part well. He has said a few things and chucked a few stones in the direction of Prince Philip and demanded an inquest, he has spent a few bob too. Indeed on a five-sense level Daddy Al Fayed was in his element telling the world that his own cult bloodline was mating with Royalty cult bloodline, in other words he was boasting about the fact that Dodi was giving Princess Diana one.
So when you think about it, as far as the Royal family and their public relations are concerned it was absolutely the worse time to actually have Diana bumped off. At the time of her death she was the most popular female on the planet. As I said an excuse liked ‘Diana slipped on a corgi dog turd’ or ‘it was an act of suicide because she was shamed over her many men friends’ would have been a far, far ,safer option than a very dodgy drunken car accident in the centre of Paris.
Anyway, I have visted Paris as most of you know and I have researched the area where Diana was sacrificed and I have researched all the monuments. I haven’t just been sat on a chair playing fairies gossiping on a forum you know! Most people believe the stature of liberty flame monument that is located above the Alma tunnel (pictured below) is an official monument that was built especially in memory of Diana.
DISCLAIMER: THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SITE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN
Haslam's role itself needs checking, he retired (mental health) in Oct 1989 on his 42nd birthday. Haslam ran over and killed a pedestrian when drunk (no charges brought. Why?) Haslam RIP trolled a young lad on the Daily Telegraph. He is suing The Met. As a witness his credibility is zero.
The Jesuits run things, not the Zionists: http://theunhivedmind.com/wordpress2/
The Jesuits have run things for hundreds of years. Look into it.
By the way, I'm a Christian.
But Jesuitism is not Christian, and never was.
A timely post. Thank you Aang for keeping this issue in the spotlight.
Southern Investigations even by the standards of the usual PI business, was a VERY INTERESTING organisation.
Before the recent allegations concerning Lord Stevens, it was already widely reported that DCS Cook was being watched/harassed by private investigators hired by the NOtW:
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/9137287.News_of_the_World__harassed__Daniel_Morgan_murder_detective_as__favour_to_suspect_/
DCS Cook was the lead police officer charged with the re-investigation of the notorious and still unsolved murder of Daniel Morgan (he was axed in the head in a pub car park in Sydenham). BTW the first police investigation was run out of Catford Police Station and featured DS Sid Fillery in a very prominent role. Unfortunately for the Met Police DS Fillery has since been implicated by many as being linked to the murder and later worked for Southern Investigations. All of these details are available in the public domain and yet are attracting surprisingly (or unsurprisingly depending on how you see it) little high profile coverage. I should add that DS Sid Fillery has also since been convicted of child pornography.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/11/daniel-morgan-axe-murder-case-timeline
http://danielmorganmurderedbythemet.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/ex-detective-child-porn-addict-sid.html
http://zoompad.blogspot.co.uk/2012_02_01_archive.html
http://worldblogofblogs.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/blog-of-blogs-blog-of-blogs-03ix2012.html
There are also links from DS Fillery and Catford Police station to the Stephen Lawrence murder suspect David Norris (through his father Clifford Norris being linked to Fillery) and the death of DC Alan 'Taffy' Holmes. Again these facts are publicly available and yet have received relatively little exposure.
Carol A. Valentine
Aang your avid readers may also be interested in the following info:
In the week after Stephen Lawrence was murdered, his parent's lawyer, Imran Khan, bombarded the murder inquiry headquarters at Eltham police station with demands for information. Were any supsects identified, he asked, and had any been arrested? On 27 April four days after the murder, DCI Brian Weeden replied, promising better liaison with the family.
On 30 April a very senior officer, Commander Ray Adams, who was based at Eltham, signed a letter to the solicitor indicating that "Chief Superintendent Philpot is available as well to assist you and other interested parties." Why did the commander intervene in this way?
When he gave evidence to the Lawrence inquiry on 16 July, Mr Adams explained that he was "helping out with correspondence".
Under cross-examination from Michael Mansfield for the Lawrence family. Mr Adams insisted he had not known anything about the investigation. He had not known the names of the suspects, he had never heard of Clifford Norris, the gangster whose son David was an early supect for the murder: and he did not even know that the murder nquiry was based in his own police station. He was helping out with a letter and had no intention of playing any further part in the proceedings.
He had little chance to do much else. The letter, which was drafted on 30 April, was not sent until the 4 May. On the same morning Mr Adams left the police force never to return. He was ordered to go off sick with a bad back. He retired the following August. He later joined the international investigators, Kroll Associates, as did another senior officer in the Lawrence inquiry, former detective chief superintendent William Illsley.
Those attending the inquiry that day were puzzled as to the drift of Mansfield's questions to Adams. This was cleared up by Jeremy Gompertz QC, for the Metropolitan Police, who asked Adams:
Q: Putting it boldly, the suggestion is that you are a corrupt, dishonest former police officer who did his best to slow down, if not stop, the arrest of David Norris and others because of an association with David Norris's father Clifford. You know that is the effect of the questioning this morning?
A: Yes sir, I do.
Q: Is there the slightest truth in it?
A: Sir, I have brought my retirement certificate here today because I thought it might be relevent. I am describedd as exemplary. I am one of the most decorated police officers in this country. To suggest that I tried to influence this inquiry is an instult to me and it is an insult to the Lawrence family. I would describe it as rubbish, as nonsense, as spurious, as invented. It is a Merlin's borth of magic an innuendo and nudges. There is not an ounce of truth in it. I defy anybody to produce one ounce of evidence to suggest this. It does not exist. It hurts me.
SOURCE: PRIVATE EYE 957 p.27
Carol A. Valentine
Jeffrey Steinberg writing in Executive Intelligence Review
Nearly three years after the Paris car crash that claimed the lives of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed, the cover-up of that tragedy has taken a deadly turn, prompting some experts to recall the pileup of corpses that followed the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Over the course of four years, after President Kennedy was shot on Nov. 22, 1963, at least 37 eyewitnesses and other sources of evidence about the crime, including one member of the infamous Warren Commission, which oversaw the cover-up, died under mysterious circumstances.
On May 5, 2000, police in the south of France found a badly burned body inside the wreckage of a car, deep in the woods near Nantes. The body was so charred that it took police nearly a month before DNA tests confirmed that the dead man was Jean-Paul "James" Andanson, a 54-year-old millionaire photographer, who was among the paparazzi stalking Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed during the week before their deaths.
From the day of the fatal crash in the Place de l'Alma tunnel, that killed Diana, Dodi, and driver Henri Paul, and severely injured bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones, Andanson had been at the center of the controversy.
Mohamed Al-Fayed, the father of Dodi Fayed, and the owner of Harrods Department Store in London and the Paris Ritz Hotel, has labelled the Aug. 31, 1997 crash a murder, ordered by the British royal family, and most likely executed through agents and assets of the British secret intelligence service MI6--with collusion from French officials, whose cooperation in the cover-up would have been essential.
At least seven eyewitnesses to the crash said that they saw a white Fiat Uno and a motorcycle speed out of the tunnel, seconds after the crash. Forensic tests have confirmed that a white Fiat Uno collided with the Mercedes carrying Diana and Dodi, and that this collision was a significant factor in the crash. Several eyewitnesses told police that they saw a powerful flash of light just seconds before the Mercedes swerved out of control and crashed into the 13th pillar of the Alma tunnel. That bright light--either a camera flash or a far more powerful flash of a laser weapon--was probably fired by the passenger on the back of the speeding motorcycle. Both the motorcycle and the white Fiat fled the crash scene, and police claim they have been unable to locate either vehicle, or identify the drivers or the passengers.
ANDANSON'S WHITE FIAT
Andanson had been in and around Sardinia during the last week of August 1997, as Diana and Dodi vacationed in the Mediterranean. He joined several dozen other paparazzi, who were stalking the couple's every move. He was back in France on Aug. 30, the day that Diana and Dodi flew to Paris. And that is where the facts about Andanson's activities and whereabouts get very fuzzy.
For reasons that he never revealed, sometime before dawn on Aug. 31, 1997, less than six hours after the crash in the Alma tunnel, Andanson boarded a flight at Orly Airport near Paris, bound for Corsica. Andanson claimed that he was not in Paris earlier in the evening, when the crash occurred, but he never produced any evidence, save a receipt for the purchase of gasoline elsewhere in France (which he could have doctored or obtained from another person), to prove he was not in the city.
His son James and his daughter Kimberly told police that they thought their father was grape-harvesting in the Bordeaux region. Andanson's wife Elizabeth claimed that she had been at home with her husband all night, at their country home, Le Manoir de la Bergerie, in Cher, until he abruptly left for Orly, at 3:45 a.m., to catch the crack-of-dawn flight to Corsica.
What makes Andanson's precise itinerary the night of the fatal crash so vital is this: He owned and drove a white Fiat Uno. The car was repainted shortly after the Aug. 31, 1997 Alma tunnel crash, and was sold by Andanson in October 1997. And, although the official report of the French authorities investigating the crash concluded that Andanson's car was not involved in the crash, French forensic reports made available to {The Express} told a very different story.
One report in the files of Judge Herve Stephan, the chief investigating magistrate in the Diana-Dodi crash probe, described the tests on Andanson's Fiat: "The comparative analysis of the infrared spectra characterizing the vehicle's original paint, reference Bianco 210, and the trace on the side-view mirror of the Mercedes shows that their absorption bands are identical." In laymen's terms, the paint scratches from the Fiat found on the side-view mirror of the Mercedes were identical to the paint samples taken from the matching spot on Andanson's Fiat.
The report continued: "The comparative analysis between the infrared spectra characterizing the black polymer taken from the vehicle's fender, and the trace taken from the door of the Mercedes, show that their absorption bands are identical."
In short, despite the French investigators' endorsement of Andanson's alibi, the forensic tests strongly suggested that his car may have been {the} white Fiat Uno involved in the fatal crash.
John Macnamara, the Harrods director of security, and a retired senior Scotland Yard supervisor of investigations, told reporters: "Mr. Andanson had for some time been a prime suspect who had relentlessly pursued Diana and Dodi prior to their arrival in Paris. We have always believed that Andanson was at the scene and that more investigation should have been done into his possible involvement."
Macnamara added, "We believe that his death is no coincidence and that this is a line of inquiry which may help to discover the truth. Was Mr. Andanson killed because of what he knew? That is a question we want answered."
THE `SUICIDE' SOAP OPERA
Needless to say, Andanson's death stirred up renewed interest in Diana's death at a most inopportune time for the British royals, and those in France who abetted the cover-up. Sometime in September, an appellate court in Paris will rule on Al-Fayed's motion to order Judge Stephan to reopen the crash probe, based on the fact that Stephan shut down his probe before certain vital avenues of inquiry were fully explored, and in contradiction to his own interim report, which cited several glaring paradoxes in the evidence that remained unresolved at the point that he abruptly closed down his investigation last year and blamed the crash on driver Henri Paul.
For example, U.S. intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency, have all acknowledged, in response to Freedom of Information Act queries, that they have thousands of pages of documents on Princess Diana. Those documents, for the most part, remain under lock and key. In addition to those documents and other relevant evidence, it has been recently exposed that a secret U.S.-U.K. joint surveillance program, code-named "Project Echelon," had apparently been involved in round-the-clock monitoring of Princess Diana's telephone conversations, while she was at home in England and travelling around
the globe.
Until the contents of these U.S. government files and electronic intercepts have been reviewed by French investigators, Al-Fayed's lawyers have argued, the probe cannot be considered complete. And the U.S. Justice Department continues to stonewall on indicting three Americans who were involved in an attempted $20 million extortion of Al-Fayed in April 1998, centered around purported "CIA documents" proving that British intelligence assassinated Diana and Dodi. While the "CIA documents["] seized from one of the plotters have been confirmed to have been clever forgeries, questions remain about the accuracy of the content of the documents.
In a flagrant effort to dampen interest in the Andanson factor, the June 11 {Mail on Sunday}, a pro-royalist tabloid, ran a story proclaiming "Wife's Affair Led to Paparazzi Man's Car Blaze Suicide." The {Mail on Sunday} dutifully peddled the French government's cover story: "The millionaire photographer who trailed Diana, Princess of Wales in St. Tropez just days before her death, committed suicide when he discovered his wife was cheating on him, French police have revealed.... The eccentric millionaire--who was hailed by colleagues as one of the godfathers of paparazzi photography, and who flew a Union Flag over his house to show his love of Britain--was facing a family crisis at the time of his death."
{Mail on Sunday} reporter Ian Sparks quoted an unnamed colleague of Andanson's at the Sipa Agency in Paris, making the preposterously contradictory claim that Andanson "was desperate to save his marriage. We would never have guessed he would do something so terrible."
He committed suicide to save his marriage!
Right.
A French police spokesman told Sparks, "He took his own life by dousing himself and the car with petrol and then setting light to it."
Andanson's widow Elizabeth, and their son James have rejected the idea that Andanson's death was suicide. Sources close to the family told {EIR} that they have pressed French officials to conduct a murder investigation into Andanson's death 400-miles from his home. The sources dismiss the bogus "marital problems" story and additionally report that Andanson was in high spirits over his new job with the Sipa Agency.
THE PLOT THICKENS
Just after midnight on June 16, just one week after Andanson's death was first made public, three masked men armed with handguns, broke into the Sipa office in Paris, shooting a security guard in the foot. The three assailants dismantled all of the security cameras in the office, and proceeded to enter several specific offices, clearly aware of exactly what they were looking for. They made off with several cameras, laptop computers, and computer hard drives.
Sipa's office employs more than 200 people, and operates 24-hours a day. The three invaders spent three hours in the office, holding other employees hostage. According to one of the hostages, the men were never concerned about the French police arriving at the scene. This hostage was convinced that the three "burglars" were themselves working for some branch of the French Secret Service. Furthermore, the source confirmed that Andanson had worked for French and, undoubtedly, British security agencies.
The owner of Sipa, Sipa Hioglou, has worked closely with French intelligence, and, not surprisingly, has been one of the primary sources of the "marital problems/suicide" cover story about Andanson's death, "confessing" to French police and reporters that Andanson had confided in him that he planned to take his own life. Hioglou, in the days following the bizarre break-in and hostage siege of his office, also told police that he suspected that the raid was done on behalf of a disgruntled celebrity who was angry that her picture had been taken by a Sipa paparazzo without her permission.
In stark contrast, other Sipa employees have told the police that the idea that Andanson committed suicide was preposterous, and that they suspect that the break-in was related to his death.
WHAT IS GOING ON?
The Sipa raid, the obvious work of French Secret Service assets, raises some very troubling questions. If Macnamara and Al-Fayed are right, and Andanson was at the crash site on Aug. 31, 1997, and his white Fiat was the car that collided with the Mercedes, what documentation exists of his presence at the tunnel? What photographs exist of the crash scene, and what do they reveal? Was some of this material seized from the Sipa offices in the recent break-in, to assure that it never sees the light of day?
Evidence has recently come to light, that within hours of the crash, British and French secret service agencies carried out a series of similar break-ins at the homes and offices of several photo-agency personnel, in a desperate search [for] photos of the crash site that may have been transmitted in the hours immediately after the Alma tunnel collision, and before word of Princess Diana's death was made public.
(EIR} has obtained copies of sworn statements from two London-based photographers, Darryn Paul Lyons and Lionel Cherruault, which reveal that British intelligence was hyperactive in the hours immediately after the Alma tunnel crash, desperately seeking any revealing photographs that might have been spirited out of Paris.
Lyons identified himself as the "Chairman of `Big Pictures,' ... an international photographic agency in London, New York, and Sydney, specializing in obtaining and selling unique and exclusive celebrity-based photographs." At 12:30 a.m. on Aug. 31, 1997, Lyons received a phone call from a Paris paparazzo, Lorent Sola, who said that he had a dozen photographs of the accident at the Alma tunnel. Sola offered to electronically transmit the photos to Lyons immediately, and Lyons rushed off to his office, receiving the high-resolution photographs at approximately 3 a.m. Lyons immediately began negotiating with several large news organizations in the United States and Britain to sell the pictures for $250,000.
Lyons and Sola conferred after word of Diana's death was made public, and they decided to withdraw the offer of the pictures. Copies of the photos were placed in Lyons' office safe.
Sometime between 11 p.m. on Aug. 31 and 12:30 a.m. on Sept. 1, the electricity at Lyons' office was mysteriously cut, although no other power outages in the office building or the neighborhood occurred. Lyons, convinced that either the office was being robbed, or bombed, called the police. In his sworn statement, Lyons declared that he believed that secret service agents had broken into his office and either searched the premises or planted surveillance and listening devices.
Lionel Cherruault, a photo London-based journalist for Sipa Agency, in his sworn statement, reported that, at 1:45 a.m. on Aug. 31, 1997, he received a call at his home from a freelance photographer in Florida, informing him that he was expecting to soon be in possession of photographs of the tunnel crash. Cherruault told the Florida contact that he was interested. After word of Diana's death was announced, the deal fell through.
But Cherruault, who was in contact with his boss at Sipa, stated that, at approximately 3:30 a.m. on Sept. 1, while he and his wife and daughter were asleep, his home was broken into, his wife's car was stolen, and his car was moved. Computer disks used for transmitting photographs, and other electronic equipment, were stolen, and the front door of their home was left wide open. Even though cash, credit cards, and jewelry were visible in the study where the burglars stole the computer equipment, none of those valuables were taken, making it clear that this was not an ordinary break-in. The next day, a police officer came to Cherruault's home and confirmed that the break-in was clearly the work of "Special Branch, MI5, MI6, call it what you like, this was no ordinary burglary." The officer said that the home had "been targetted." The man, whose name Cherruault was unable to recall, assured him "not to worry, your lives were not in danger," according to the sworn statement.
The official police report of the Cherruault break-in, which has been reviewed by {EIR}, confirmed that "The computer equipment stolen contained a huge library of royal photographs and appears to have been the main target for the perpetrators."
ANOTHER THREAD OF THE COVER-UP
One of the other still-unresolved issues in the Alma crash probe, three years after the fact, revolves around the medical evidence. Al-Fayed has been battling in court in Britain for the right to participate in the official inquest into the death of Princess Diana, arguing that since both Diana and Dodi died in the crash, therefore he should be entitled to officially participate in both inquests. The courts have preliminarily ruled that he has the right to contest the Royal Coroner's rejection of his participation in the Diana inquest, which will only occur after the French appellate process has been completed, sometime later this year.
However, in April of this year, the attorneys representing Al-Fayed received a copy of a suppressed memorandum, prepared by Professors Dominique Lecomte and Andre Lienhart, two French forensic pathologists working for Judge Stephan, suggesting that British authorities, including the Royal Coroner, Dr. Burton, had interceded to conceal some aspects of the official British autopsy. The two French doctors were in London on June 23, 1998, where they met with British coroners Drs. Burton and Burgess, forensic pathologist Dr. Chapman, and Scotland Yard Superintendant Jeffrey Rees. They were given copies of the English autopsy report on Princess Diana, but, according to their contemporaneous notes on the meeting, were told that the document was provided for their "private and personal use," and that it should not be included in the formal file of Judge Stephan.
Any material in that official investigative file was automatically made available to attorneys representing all the interested parties in the French probe, including Al-Fayed's attorneys.
This two-and-a-half year suppression of the Lecomte-Lienhart memorandum has once again raised serious questions about the legitimacy of the "official" autopsy of the Princess of Wales, including questions that arose at the time of her death, as to whether she was pregnant.
The mayhem surrounding the deaths of Diana and Dodi, and now Andanson, raises questions about the circumstance in Paris on that night in late August 1997--questions that the House of Windsor in general, and Prince Philip in particular, have long sought to suppress. The time may be fast approaching that the well-orchestrated three-year cover-up is about to blow apart, and at least part of the truth about the death of the "People's Princess" see the light of day. And that is something that the Windsors and the mandarins of MI6 may not be able to survive.
Jeffery Steinberg E.I.R
‘A friend in Paris travels to work every day through the underpass in which Princess Diana died. On the day of the incident she noticed all of the security cameras were turned to the wall and actually mentioned it to her husband. The next time they were allowed through the tunnel, the cameras were repositioned.’
http://www.whale.to/b/pap1.html
NEW WITNESS EVIDENCE PROVES THAT PAPARAZZO JAMES ANDANSON WAS SHOT IN THE HEAD!
French Fireman Christophe Pelat ..James Andanson, alleged to have burned himself to death..,...,,.John Macnamara
http://www.news-alliance.com/_another_suicide.html
French Fireman Christophe Pelat ..James Andanson, alleged to have burned himself to death..,...,,.John Macnamara
In the aftermath of the crash, Mohamed Al Fayed brought in his security chief John Macnamara to head a private investigation, at the behest of the Harrod’s chief. Using unique sources and excellent contacts, it did not take McNamara long to discover that Andanson owned a white Fiat Uno and that he usually kept it on his farm in Lignières in Central France.
Macnamara states that when he found this shabby white Fiat Uno, his sharp-witted investigators noted the fact that the car had been fitted with a new rear tail, which would be entirely logical if the taillight had been seriously damaged in an accident. Andanson sold the white Fiat Uno a month after the crash. Macnamara’s agent found the car in a garage but was immediately arrested for interfering with the police ‘investigation’. The police limited the hunt for the Fiat Uno to the outskirts of Paris and ruled out that it could be found anywhere else in France.
French police were alerted by Macnamara and his team of the existence of the white Fiat Uno and that it was owned by a man who had been following Diana. Rees-Jones, with what remaining memory he claims to have, recalls seeing a white Fiat Uno on the rue Cambon as they pulled off on the fateful journey. Andanson’s recently sold white Fiat Uno had been re-sprayed and there was no documentation to confirm the date of the re-spray.
One might have thought the Paris police would be grateful for the information gleaned from Macnamara’s team of investigators. On the contrary, the former Scotland Yard detective was assured that if he ‘interfered’ with the ‘investigation’ again, he would be charged with a criminal offence. Quite apart from the fact that the French were not having a British detective to be seen upstaging them, it was clear that Andanson was a non-issue, in much the same way that it was decided by senior officials in the Alma Tunnel to stick to the ‘accident’ theory within an hour of the crash.
James Andanson, who Richard Tomlinson states was on the books of MI6 as a paid freelancer, was also something of a mystery in the same genre as Henri Paul. Andanson’s real name was Jean Paul Gonin but he took the name of Andanson when he married his wife Elizabeth. He flew a Union Jack on his farmhouse, saying he “loved” Britain and the British national flag. This is an odd aberration for a Frenchman, given the traditional ‘rivalry’, to put it mildly, between France and Britain.
Andanson was one of the richest photographers in the world. But he was hated by many people, who disliked his bullying attitude and aggressive manner. Some of his ‘targets’ have described him as a ‘thug with a camera’, which indeed he used as a weapon to carve out a very comfortable living. Filmed as part of a documentary, Andanson was seen to cherish his white Fiat Uno, which was old and shabby, just as witnesses at the Alma Tunnel confirmed and were ignored by both French and British authorities, who had for once forgotten their ancient ‘rivalry’. In the documentary Andanson explains that his faithful car had taken him over a colossal distance of 325,000 kilometres.
In the Riviera resort of St jean Cap Ferrat, he ‘casually’ bumped into the owner of Fiat, the industrialist Giovanni Agnelli. The following day, Agnelli recognised Andanson in the town and struck up a short conversation. Andanson, desperate to impress, as usual, explained how he loved his Fiat and how it had been such a reliable vehicle. Agnelli, eager to play the magnanimous billionaire, promised he would give Andanson a brand new Fiat Uno when his shabby old car had done 500,000 kilometres.
Andanson, could not resist the temptation to brag about Agnelli’s generous offer. And yet, so proud of the reliable white Fiat Uno, for which he was promised a brand new replacement on completing the requisite 500,000 kilometres, just a month after the crash at the Alma Tunnel, he sold his ‘pride and joy’. As already explained, the car was refurbished with new rear tail light and re-sprayed. All the common signs of covering up ‘accidental’ damage. But the French police, incorrigibly bent on the accident theory, were not interested in Andanson and his white Fiat Uno….
One of Andanson’s colleagues at the SIPA photo agency in Paris, confirmed that Andanson had often boasted of working for French and British Intelligence services. This would fit in with Andanson’s boastful, arrogant nature, a man who believed he was untouchable. He would also boast to friends and neighbours that he was at the Alma Tunnel on the night of the crash and that police were not “clever enough to catch me.”
The arrogant braggart boasted to friends and neighbours that he even photographed and taped the last moments of Diana in the tunnel. The French Special Branch believe that Andanson’s role for the intelligence services was to harass, intimidate, watch and sometimes eliminate a personality. The French Special Branch were investigating Andanson at the time of his death on the grounds that he was suspected to have played a leading role in the ‘suicide’ of former French Prime Minister, Pierre Eugène Bérégovoy in 1993. French Special Branch believe Bérégovoy did not kill himself and was instead murdered.
Bérégovoy, apparently, had committed suicide by shooting himself ‘twice’ in the head; the second bullet was attributed to a nervous reflex, said French police, again playing the guessing game, and his death was ruled a ‘suicide’. Yet again, the Bérégovoy case is one of an ‘extraordinary’ personality defying the mechanics of human physiology by shooting himself twice in the head, the first bullet not being enough to kill him. The exit wound in his head was too small for that associated with a .357 Magnum, the alleged ‘suicide’ weapon. He left no note or letter explaining why he was going to kill himself.
French Special Branch state that there are witness statements to put Andanson in Nevers, central France, on the day Bérégovoy killed himself a couple of miles away. Andanson’s widow Elisabeth also confirms that he was in Nevers on the day Bérégovoy was found dead. Forensic evidence shows that Bérégovoy was shot from long distance and which contradicts the police report that he shot himself twice in the head. French Special Branch also reveal that Andanson was present on the day that Diana and Dodi died and he was present on the days of the deaths of Lolo Ferrari, porn star, Dalida, singer, Bernard Buffet, the painter and the pop star Claude François, who sang the French version of ‘if I had a hammer’.
Andanson certainly had an uncanny habit of approaching people who died suddenly thereafter and he was always in the immediate vicinity on the same day. The French Special Branch say that he had an ‘intuition’ that certain people were going to die and he just happened to be nearby. Of course, no one is suggesting that Andanson was clairvoyant but rather that he had inside-knowledge that someone was about to die and was probably more accurate than a clairvoyant.
And rumours abound that Andanson took the last picture of the Mercedes S280 from his white Fiat Uno and that final burst from his powerful flashbulb blinded Henri Paul, causing him to crash. A multiple burst from a flashbulb of the type used by professional photographers can cause epileptic fit and is just as strong as an Anti-Personnel Device flashgun. The crash could indeed have been accident, caused by the multiple burst from Andanson’s flashbulb but if Andanson did not intend to off-road the Mercedes, why swerve into its path?
And there is also the issue of who was driving the white Fiat Uno? Certainly, Andanson could not have driven the car and fired his camera at the same time. Witnesses say that two people were in the white Fiat Uno and one looked like he was hiding his head under a tartan blanket as the car left the Alma Tunnel.
Former senior detective John Macnamara explains the subject in this way: “You have a Mercedes that’s done a 180 degree turn, having crashed into the thirteenth pillar and yet the Fiat Uno survives everything, which suggests to me that that was a very professional driver. I can well believe, as a detective with 24 years experience, why Mr Al Fayed believes that his son Dodi and Princess Diana were murdered.”
French Special Branch also discovered from Andanson’s diary, that he spent part of the day of 23 August on the yacht Jonikal at the same time as Diana and Dodi. Commentators have spoken of the abnormality of him being on the yacht but Commander Mules suggests that Andanson had made a deal with Diana to photograph her in a high-cut swimsuit. It should be noted that Andanson once made £100,000 for a single photograph of Prince Charles with a suspected ‘mistress’, presumed to be his nanny Tiggy.
And two weeks after the crash, the Criminal Brigade finally admitted that red-and-white optical debris found in the tunnel entrance in the right-hand lane came from the rear light of a Fiat Uno built in Italy between May 1983 and September 1989. This matched the paint deposits on the front right wing mirror and body panels of a white Fiat Uno made in Italy between 1983 and 1989. Andanson’s white fiat Uno was made during the same period.
But the Criminal Brigade limited the search for the white Fiat Uno to two departments (districts) of Paris, near to the Alma Tunnel and the remainder of France was ruled out of the investigation. When John Macnamara’s team of detectives found Andanson’s white Fiat Uno, they were arrested and Macnamara was warned that he would be charged with a criminal offence if he interfered again with the ‘investigation’. Macnamara’s team clearly had done a professional job and were not interested in limiting their search area to a couple of Paris suburbs. But French police did not want to take the matter any further and Andanson knew only too well that the police would not be able to touch him.
In effect, Macnamara and his team of professional investigators were warned off because they were doing a better job than the French Criminal Brigade or more likely that they had got too close to the truth by finding Andanson’s white Fiat Uno. But the ever so mercurial Andanson was living on borrowed time. He bragged often to friends and neighbours, who were used to his boasts, that he was at the Alma Tunnel on the night of the crash. He also bragged to work colleagues that he was in the employ of French and British Intelligence – he was a “loose cannon”. But before he was put out of action permanently, he had much wriggling to do.
Andanson may have denied to the police that he was in Paris on 30/31 August, chasing Diana but he boasted to a neighbour of having not only been in Paris, but that he was present when Diana was killed and that he filmed and taped the incident and that could only have been from inside his white Fiat Uno, which was not driven by him. Confidential police forensic reports hidden in Judge Stephan’s report, put Andanson at the Alma Tunnel but the matter went no further and Lord Stevens has also ignored this fact.
Even though his son, James said he thought his father was grape harvesting that particular morning in Bordeaux. Apparently, he had left home at 04.00hrs to travel to Bordeaux, over three hours after the crash and more than enough time to get back home from Paris, a couple of hours’ drive away, before setting off to pick grapes and cement a cover story for future reference.
In the Paget Report, John Stevens wrote: ‘The initial contact between the French police and James Andanson was by telephone on 11 February 1998. Lieutenant Eric Gigou of the Brigade Criminelle tried to arrange an appointment to interview him. This was as a result of the police becoming aware of his ownership of a white Fiat Uno. The exchange was somewhat terse. Lieutenant Gigou reported that James Andanson said ‘He does not have the time to waste with the police’ and that he ‘Refuses to receive policemen in his manor and that he has no time to give.’ During this telephone call Lieutenant Gigou recorded ‘…on the day of the accident he was in Saint-Tropez and that he therefore had nothing to do with the case’ (French Dossier D4546-D4547).’
A very simple text book case for the French police. Andanson says he was not there [Alma Tunnel] and that is it, no further investigation into his implausible claim. Criminals across the world must be hoping for the same treatment. ‘I was not there, I was somewhere else, sir, when that person was killed,’ would seem to be the ideal alibi to prevent a thorough investigation. In reality the reverse is always true.
Of course, everyone knows that in criminal cases, alibis are thoroughly tested and investigated. But the French and British authorities decided from the outset that the fatal crash was an accident and there would be no criminal investigation. In the Paget Report, Stevens adopts the same dismissive stance and has only skimmed the surface of available witness testimony, which was his purpose from the outset. The faithful Establishment plod, had no intention of upsetting the apple cart from which he draws his own succour.
In essence, the paint scratches found on the Mercedes came from a white Fiat Uno but Judge Stephan ruled that the Uno played only a “passive” part in the crash. The reality is that the Mercedes was thrown off course by the Uno swerving into its path and with the combination of a series of near-blinding flashes of white light, Henri Paul slammed into the thirteenth pillar. But it all became academic in 2000, when Andanson was found dead in his BMW, 400 miles away from his home in Nant, central France, on the site of a French army training area. Andanson’s skeleton was, in fact, found by French soldiers, who had seen smoke rising on the horizon and gone to investigate the burned out wreck in the woodland. Andanson was so badly burned that he could only be identified by DNA tests. And the location in itself was something of a mystery.
Research shows that when people know they are dying, they find a primitive urge to return to the place of their birth or their favourite home. But Andanson, supposedly, threw human nature aside, drove 400 miles away from home, drove a further two miles along a potholed lane, scraped another mile along cow pastures, into dense forest, found a clearing few local people knew existed, which begs the question how he knew it existed, and set in motion the process of killing himself.
Andanson, supposedly, doused himself with over 20 litres of petrol, enough to drown him, fixed his seatbelt, locked the doors of his BMW from the outside, crossed his arms, and torched the car from the inside. When his skeleton was found, his arms, what remained of them, were still crossed. One has to imagine the sheer agony and terror of burning to death. He would have thrashed around like a madman in the final minute or so of his life but he was found, as if sitting comfortably, which is completely unbelievable.
Police believed he had killed himself, but a French fireman, Christophe Pelat, who attended the burning wreck of the car, says he appeared to have a bullet hole in his skull. Pelat has since declined to comment on whether he has been interviewed by Stevens’ detectives but has agreed to testify the Inquest in October 2007. Along with everything else, the police immediately decided that Andanson had committed suicide in the most implausibly horrific circumstances. We have never come across a case of anyone committing suicide by burning to death in car. Why not just use pills or a gun?
Conveniently, of course, the inferno destroyed all valuable forensic evidence in the car and there was little left of Andanson’s skeleton and he left no suicide note. Almost reminds one of the ‘suicide’ of Dr David Kelly during the prelude to the illegal Iraq war. But, right on cue, came Sir John Stevens, during the press release of the Paget Report, to tell us that he had once attended an almost identical ‘suicide’ and that we should not think it strange that Andanson killed himself in this manner. It should also be noted that Stevens did not mention the name of the victim or the incident, time, date etc. so the press could investigate the matter and we must therefore assume his tiresome little tale was produced simply for effect… "A lie becomes a truth and then becomes a lie again," George Orwell
Andanson’s family and particularly his widow did not accept the ‘suicide’ fantasy proposed by French Police and insisted a criminal investigation should be conducted but the police, true to form, said that the possibility that Andanson was murdered was “fantasy”. And part of the “fantasy” is that no one has ever found the keys to his locked car. In fact, the car doors were locked from the outside. Was Houdini present?
Did Andanson lock the doors from the outside and by act of magic, disappear the keys into thin air? More likely that his killers in the DST made the mistake of taking the keys with them. Nominalisation dictates that there will always be one mistake. The biggest mistake of the French police is deluding themselves that anyone with a rational brain could possibly believe their tales which defy the laws of logic.
The view in the intelligence community is that Andanson had been talking too much and someone decided to silence him ad infinitum before he revealed seriously damaging information in the murders of Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul. There is also clear evidence, from his colleagues that he threatened to come clean about what happened that night and was prepared to release the photographs and that was quite simply a ‘bridge too far’ for his handlers.
Andanson’s friend François Dard said, “He told us that he was there. He was behind them. He was following behind. He saw the accident and all but he wasn’t stopped by the police. He left. It is impossible that he committed suicide. We are convinced of it. To be burned alive in a car – we don’t believe it at all.” In fact, no one with half brain cell believes that Andanson committed suicide in the circumstances ascribed. And a week after his death, the SIPA photo agency in Paris, which he co-founded, was raided by three armed men, wearing balaclavas. They shot a security guard in the foot and held dozens of employees hostage for several hours. Staff phoned the police but they did not turn up. A member of staff said: “They seemed to know exactly what they were looking for and were confident enough to remain in a busy building for several hours, though they stole nothing of real value.”
Indeed, the ‘raiders’ disabled the CCTV cameras in the offices and did not seem stressed about the police turning up. For armed ‘robbers’ they were incredibly relaxed about the whole thing. And yet again, they took computer hard drives, laptops, cameras and the storage media for photographs. They knew exactly what they were looking for. SIPA staff are convinced that the ‘raid’ had something to do with Andanson and believe French spooks carried out the seizure of property at gunpoint.
There is also talk that the ‘raiders’ many have been British SAS troopers, from the MI6’s disposal team The Increment, who are alleged to have been involved in the crash at the tunnel. Contacts we have spoken to in Paris, however, are adamant that the French DST were behind the armed ‘robbery’ and they were intent on removing the last damaging traces linking the DST and MI6 to the murders of Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul.
As journalists we have an obligation to protect sources of information. The raid on the SIPA office was almost identical to the raids on the Big Pictures office in London and the home of Lionel Cherruault on the night after the crash. What exactly the French DST were looking for at the SIPA office is not known. It is believed, though, that there was evidence in the office, put there by Andanson, of his involvement in the crash and that he was at the tunnel. If Diana’s death was an ‘accident’, according to the theories of the British and French authorities, why were any of these raids necessary? By definition, ‘accidents’ do not need to be covered up because they are caused by chance events.
And suicidal people, usually acting impulsively, do not make intricate plans to burn themselves to death, locking the doors from the outside and losing the keys to the car. James Andanson, was murdered by the French DST to prevent him from destroying the ‘great accident theory’ and the DST were also behind the raid on the SIPA office to eliminate the last traces of evidence.
They must have thought it was the end of the story, how very wrong they were!
http://www.whale.to/c/french_coverup.html
French Coverup of Diana Assassination Exposed!
by Jeffrey Steinberg and Allen Douglas
As the result of interviews with a dozen well-placed sources and eyewitnesses in Paris and London, EIR has assembled the most comprehensive profile yet to be published, of the events surrounding the Aug. 31, 1997 murder of Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed, and Henri Paul.
While many crucial questions remain unanswered, one overriding fact emerges from the assembled evidence: The French authorities have systematically suppressed evidence, intimidated and gagged key witnesses, badly bungled the most vital forensic tests, and prevented any outside agencies, including the families of the deceased, from even raising questions about the conduct of the French officials handling the investigation. Moreover, as one American source familiar with the investigation put it, the failure of the French emergency medical team at the scene of the crash, to get Princess Diana to a hospital where she could have received life-saving attention, for nearly two hours, would have resulted in manslaughter prosecution of the responsible officials had the crash occurred in the United States.
And who were those officials? According to several sources, interviewed by EIR, the Paris Police Prefect (police chief), Philippe Massoni, was at the crash site in the tunnel under the Place de l'Alma; and, the French interior minister, Jean-Pierre Chevenement, was at the Pitie Salpetriere Hospital prior to the arrival of the ambulance carrying Princess Diana. On Nov. 10, Tim Luckhurst, the assistant editor of The Scotsman, and the co-author of a detailed investigative report on the events that transpired in the Place de L'Alma tunnel immediately following the crash, confirmed that Massoni was in the tunnel, overseeing the rescue and preliminary forensic investigation. Even the French media reported that, along with Massoni, other top-ranking French officials were also at the tunnel, including Patrick Rioux, chief of the Judiciary Police, and Martine Monteil, head of the Criminal Brigade.
The very presence of these high-ranking French government officials, necessarily placed them in charge of the so- called rescue effort. The evidence shows that Princess Diana's death was almost certainly the direct result of criminal negligence by these French authorities.
Unless the ongoing cover-up by French officials is broken, there is no doubt that the deaths of Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed, and Henri Paul will go down in history as another Dreyfus Affair, in which a French government's mishandling of an important case led to its downfall. Already, French authorities have announced that they do not expect to complete their "official" probe of the car crash until the end of 1998 - more than 12 months from now.
In the interest of breaking that French official cover-up, we publish the following documentary account.
1. The events of Aug. 30-31, 1997
Surveillance And Harassment On Arrival
Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed arrived in Paris by private jet from Sardinia during the day of Aug. 30, 1997. From the moment they left the airport to drive into Paris, they were besieged by a small army of paparazzi. Along the route into Paris, the Mercedes carrying Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed was harassed by a black Peugeot, which, while driving in front of the Mercedes, jammed on its brakes without reason several times, to allow paparazzi in other cars and on high- speed motorcycles to come up alongside Dodi and Diana and harass them.
Later in the afternoon, when Diana and Dodi were on the Avenue des Champs Elysees, the same black Peugeot showed up. One of Dodi Fayed's bodyguards confronted the driver of the Peugeot, who retorted that the couple had not seen anything, compared to the harassment they would experience as the day wore on.
Initially, Dodi Fayed had planned to dine with Princess Diana at a Paris restaurant on the evening of Aug. 30. In fact, they left the Ritz Hotel at approximately 7:30 p.m., expecting not to return. Apparently, the continued harassment prompted them to change their plans and return to the Ritz Hotel, which is owned by Dodi Fayed's father, Mohamed al-Fayed, and dine there in a private suite.
Henri Paul, the deputy security chief of the Ritz Hotel, was on duty all day. He left the hotel shortly after Dodi and Diana departed for dinner. When Dodi and Diana unexpectedly returned to the hotel shortly after 9:30 p.m., Paul was contacted on his mobile phone, and voluntarily returned to work. Although Paul's precise whereabouts between 7:30 p.m. and approximately 9:45 p.m., when he returned to the Ritz Hotel, are still not known, there has been no evidence to date, suggesting that he was drinking alcohol during this time. On the contrary, teams of British journalists who tried to track down leads, provided by the French police, on Paul's so- called wild drinking bout while he was off duty, failed to turn up a single witness who saw Paul take so much as a single drink. Several of the bars identified by French official "leakers," were not even open during the hours when Paul was allegedly drinking himself into a stupor.
Further, the hotel's internal, closed-circuit TV cameras continuously followed Paul, once he returned to his duties. They showed Paul to be sober. During those final several hours at...the hotel, Paul was in the constant company of other security professionals, all of whom vouched for his sobriety, after the barrage of French police-inspired media leaks accused Paul of being drunk and high on prescription drugs. One of the last things that Trevor Rees-Jones, the bodyguard who survived the tunnel crash, remembers, is that he, too, considered Paul to be perfectly sober and fit to drive. Contrary to another French government-leaked "big lie," Paul was qualified to drive the Mercedes 280-S. He had been to Germany on two occasions, taking the Daimler Benz special driving courses, which he passed with flying colors.
Surveillance At The Ritz
The Ritz Hotel is located between the Place Vendome and Rue Cambon in the heart of Paris. It is one of the most elegant hotels in the city. It is next door to the Ministry of Justice. Yet, as a group of approximately 35 paparazzi gathered in front of the hotel, shortly after Dodi and Diana returned from their aborted effort to dine out, there was no move by French police to provide security to the couple, or even place barricades between the couple's car and the paparazzi-despite the earlier incidents of aggressive paparazzi harassment of the couple, and the threats from the driver of the Peugeot. These minimal efforts, which the French authorities chose not to take, could have potentially saved the lives of the three crash victims.
In addition to the well-known army of paparazzi, there were other eyes following the couple during their final hours. Virtually all of the buildings in the neighborhood of the Ritz Hotel have sophisticated closed-circuit television cameras- both inside and outside. Much of the activity of the paparazzi and the other observers has been captured on tape. Yet, the French police, in response to queries from the families of the three victims, repeatedly have denied the existence of any CCTV film footage or still photographs that shed any light on the events of the evening.
Sources have provided EIR with some details of what those CCTV shots do, in fact, reveal.
Mingled in with the crowd of paparazzi, gathered outside the Place Vendome main entrance to the Ritz Hotel, were a number of other individuals, carefully watching the scene. Several of these observers also were in the hotel. At approximately 9:45 p.m., at about the time that Dodi and Diana were returning to the Ritz Hotel, two English-speaking men, at- tempting to appear as if they were paparazzi, entered the Ritz and sat down at the main lobby bar. They ordered several rounds of drinks, and remained in the bar, carefully observing the lobby, until shortly before midnight. Their identities remain unknown, but their suspicious presence inside the hotel lobby is noteworthy.
The Decoy Effort And The Spotter
According to several sources familiar with the details of Dodi and Diana's final hours alive, Dodi Fayed made the decision that he and Princess Diana would leave the hotel by the back entrance at 38 Rue Cambon, in a backup car that was called to the hotel just hours before the fateful last ride. The plan was to have one of Dodi Fayed's security guards, Alexander "Kes" Wingfield, walk out the front door of the hotel and signal the drivers of the Mercedes and the Land rover (which was the trail car), that the couple would be coming down in five minutes. At that moment, Dodi and Diana got into the back seat of the Mercedes 280-S, driven by Henri Paul, with Dodi's other regular bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, in the front passenger seat. As they sped off, the paparazzi were still in front of the hotel oblivious to the departure. Had this been merely a typical paparazzi "photo stakeout," the plan would have likely succeeded, and the couple would have slipped off into the night.
Tragically, this was anything but a typical stakeout. The CCTV cameras reveal that there was a spotter at the back of the hotel, who immediately realized what was happening. That still-unidentified man immediately placed a call on a mobile phone. A moment later, the paparazzi in front of the hotel were on their motorcycles, chasing after the Mercedes.
Sources familiar with these events caution that it should not be presumed that the mobile phone call by the spotter was necessarily placed to one of the paparazzi in front of the hotel. Other actions were apparently triggered by that call, involving at least two cars that were lying in wait for the Mercedes near the Place de L'Alma tunnel.
The failed evasion attempt, in fact, turned into a target- of-opportunity for a vehicular homicide. It was the only occasion in which Dodi and Diana ever travelled in a car, without a trail car carrying security guards.
The Chase And The Crash
As the Mercedes 280-S left the rear of the Ritz Hotel, several dozen of the paparazzi, finally alerted to the diversion, set out in hot pursuit. Although the events of the next several minutes are not fully known, as the Mercedes drove through the heart of Paris, a half-dozen eyewitnesses have testified that, as the Mercedes took a right turn onto the Voie Georges Pompidou, a highway running along the right bank of the Seine River, about two kilometers from the entrance of the Place de L'Alma tunnel, there were a number of cars and motorcycles aggressively chasing behind.
Brian Anderson, an American businessman from California, was driving in a taxi along the Voie George Pompidou, when he saw the Mercedes 280-S driving past, with two motorcycles and other cars right on its tail. Anderson told reporters from NBC "Dateline" that the Mercedes was travelling at a rapid, but safe speed, of approximately 60 miles per hour, but that there were clearly other vehicles attempting to harass the Mercedes, as it headed toward the tunnel entrance. Anderson also noted that the driver of the Mercedes appeared to be perfectly in command of the situation, and showed no signs of being drunk.
Brenda Wells, a London-born secretary living and working in Paris, told police that her car was run off the road near the entrance to the Place de L'Alma tunnel by a dark- colored Fiat Uno that sped past her in pursuit of the Mercedes. Wells has been missing from her apartment for several weeks, and there is some concern that she has become a victim of foul play.
Mohamed Medjahdi and Souad Mousakkir were driving on the Voie Georges Pompidou at about 50 mph in their Citroen, in front of the Mercedes, and Medjahdi told Fox TV that he saw two cars speed past the Mercedes, as others were coming up menacingly from behind.
Francois Levy, a retired ship's captain from Rouen, France, was also driving in front of the Mercedes, as the cars entered the tunnel. He contacted attorneys for the Ritz Hotel, who passed his account on to the French police. "In my rearview mirror, I saw the car [the Mercedes] in the middle of the tunnel with the motorcycle on its left, pulling ahead, and then swerving to the right directly in front of the car," Levy said. "As the motorcycle swerved and before the car lost control, there was a flash of light, but then I was out of the tunnel and heard, but did not see, the impact." He continued, "I immediately pulled my car over to the curb, but my wife said: 'Let's get out of here. It's a terrorist attack.' There were two people on the motorcycle."
On Sept. 7, Journal du Dimanche published interviews with two other witnesses, who requested to remain anonymous. The first told the publication: "The Mercedes was driving on the right hand, shortly before the entry of the tunnel, preceded by a dark-colored automobile, of which make I cannot say. This car clearly was attempting to force the Mercedes to brake. The driver of the Mercedes veered into the left-hand lane, and then entered the tunnel." The witness said that his attention was drawn to the scene by the loud sound of the Mercedes' gears being suddenly lowered.
The second witness interviewed by Journal du Dimanche was walking along the Seine River, when he was startled by "the sound of a motor humming very loudly." He said he saw a Mercedes "travelling behind another automobile. I believe the reason the Mercedes accelerated so suddenly, was to try to veer into the left lane, and pass that car."
Bernard Dartevelle, the attorney for the Ritz Hotel, told Associated Press's Paris correspondent, Jocelyn Noveck, on Sept. 8, that he had been shown copies of two photographs confiscated by Paris. police, that showed driver Henri Paul blinded by a bright flash of light. Dartevelle described the two pictures: "One sees very distinctly the driver dazzled by a flash. One sees very distinctly the bodyguard at his side, who with a brisk gesture lowers the visor to protect himself from the flash, and one sees very distinctly Princess Diana turning to look behind the vehicle, and one sees very distinctly the yellow headlight of a motorcycle." Dartevelle added, "The photo taken before the first photo of the accident shows the Mercedes taken from very close. . . . A driver, who is maybe a photographer, and a motorcyclist, also perhaps a photographer, are very directly implicated in this accident."
The cumulative accounts of these eyewitnesses confirms that the Mercedes carrying Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana was under attack by several cars and motorcycles, working in tandem, at the point that the Mercedes careened off the tunnel pillars, hit the right wall of the tunnel, and then crashed headlong into pillar number 13.
There are suggestions of a blinding flash of light, as described by Dartevelle, and corroborated by other witnesses. Security experts have confirmed that both British and French intelligence services have developed, and deployed mobile lasers, or dazers, which temporarily blind a target, and also cause sudden, sharp, paralyzing pain in the optic nerve. These anti-personnel lasers, which have been used in Africa, the Balkans, and in the Persian Gulf War, are light and mobile, and could easily be used from the back seat of a car. One type of these "dazer" devices widely available in Europe, is the size of a fountain pen, and can be purchased for as little as $35. Such weapons may have been used by the attackers. Other sources told EIR that many of the paparazzi carry cameras that are equipped with super-powered flashes, that are capable of penetrating bullet-proof glass, and dark-tinted glass, to photograph passengers inside targeted cars. These flashes give off near-blinding light. Contrary to stories leaked by the French authorities, the Mercedes 280-S that was carrying Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana in that final ride, was not bullet-proofed. Nor did it have specially darkened windows.
Was a blinding laser used in the attack? Or, were other blinding lights used to intentionally incapacitate Henri Paul seconds before the fatal crash? These are among the questions that may never be answered.
But, other questions are being gradually answered, including whether the Mercedes was struck by another car inside the tunnel, just before the crash.
From the moment that the first eyewitnesses came forward to speak to the media and the French police, there were reports that a dark-colored car had smashed into the Mercedes a split second before the crash. These reports were consistent with all of the eyewitness accounts catalogued above. For two weeks, the French authorities leaked story after story to the press, dismissing the idea of a "second car" as sheer foolishness, and outright interference in their investigation.
However, finally, on Sept. 15, the London Daily Telegraph, in a story by Julian Nundy from Paris, noted, "Paris police investigating the crash . . . have found a mysterious scratch along the right-hand side of the tangled wreckage of, the Mercedes in which she was a passenger. Although investigators say they had '98%' dismissed theories that another vehicle ahead of the Mercedes might have caused it to swerve out of control, they say the paint stripe along the side of the car, could indicate a brush with another vehicle."
The same day, another eyewitness, who requested to remain anonymous, told France 2 television, "At that time I saw two cars. One a sedan-type of a dark color, accelerated sharply, and from that moment, the Mercedes, which was going very fast, bumped into the sedan, and lost control."
It would be another two weeks, before the French authorities finally admitted that they had, indeed, found the paint marks of a Fiat Uno on the right-side of the mangled Mercedes. They had also found parts of a rear brake light fixture embedded in the front of the Mercedes, and other parts of a Fiat Uno near the crash site.
Yet, no Fiat Uno owner had come forward to tell police that he or she had been involved in the crash, as one would expect an innocent party to the crash, to do. Nor has anyone approached the tabloid press to proclaim, "I was nearly killed by Diana's reckless chauffeur," and make financial demands on the Ritz Hotel. The car remains missing. The owner and driver are unknown.
In a bad parody of Inspector Clouseau, the French police, a month after the crash, finally began their search for the missing Fiat Uno. The belated search has been further compounded by a series of French police leaks, which have sowed additional confusion about the color of the missing car: The first accounts, consistent with all the witness stories, described the missing Fiat Uno as dark blue. But, subsequent accounts, all leaked by the French police, described the missing car as black, red, and white. French authorities are now saying that the hunt for the Fiat Uno, alone, will require the resources of one-fourth of the investigative squad of the Paris Police, and will take close to one year to complete.
A Crucial Witness
At the moment of the crash at the Place de L' Alma tunnel, London attorney Gary Hunter was in Paris with his wife. They were in their room on the third floor of the Royal Alma Hotel, at 35 Rue Jean Goujon. In an exclusive interview with EIR on Nov. 12, Hunter recounted what he heard and saw. At approximately 12:25 a.m., on Sunday, Aug. 31, through the open window of his hotel room, Hunter heard the sounds of the automobile crash inside the tunnel. He ran to the window. Hunter, contrary to initial accounts in the London Sunday Times on Sept. 21, had no line of sight on the tunnel, which was behind the hotel. However, he did see two cars turn left, onto Rue Jean Goujon, within less than two minutes of the crash. The first car was a dark vehicle, which was immediately followed by a white vehicle, which, he believes, was a Mercedes. The two cars sped past the hotel "at break-neck speed, almost reckless speed." Hunter told the Sunday Times that he thought they were travelling at 60-70 mph. The two cars were driving in tandem, "with the white car nearly on the bumper of the smaller dark car." The two vehicles sped up to the corner past the hotel, where there is a traffic circle. They sped out of sight. The strange behavior of the two cars, according to Hunter, "made me feel it may be linked to the crash sounds in the tunnel. . . . My initial thoughts were that these were people fleeing from something."
At the time he saw the two cars speeding past his hotel, Gary Hunter had no idea that the crash in the tunnel under the Place de L'Alma had involved Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed. He did not learn of their deaths until the next morning, and, as Hunter described it to EIR, he and his wife were shattered by the news. On Monday, the Hunters returned to London. By Tuesday morning, Hunter decided that "what I saw may have been important." He contacted attorneys for the al Fayed family. They made an appointment to meet on Wednesday, which was postponed. They finally met, in London, on Thursday morning, and Gary Hunter told the lawyers what he had heard and seen. The attorneys assured him that his verbal account would be passed on to the French authorities investigating the crash. Indeed, on Friday, Sept. 5, Hunter was called by the al Fayed attorneys, who confirmed that his account had been delivered to the appropriate French officials.
Hunter never heard another word from the French police for weeks. On Sept. 8, Hunter returned to Paris, where he was scheduled to give an interview to NBC-TV. While in Paris, he contacted the French authorities and volunteered to give them a statement. They refused to see him. Hunter told EIR that his decision to give an interview to the London Sunday Times was motivated by concern that the French refused to interview him. Two days after his interview appeared in the Sunday Times, he got a response - of sorts. The London Evening Standard published a story, based on unnamed sources in the French investigative squad, branding Hunter's story "ludicrous." The unnamed officials were quoted as saying that they were "tired of the meddling" in their investigation.
It was only after the Fiat Uno story was finally corroborated, and Hunter's remarks picked up by other media, that the French authorities finally asked Scotland Yard to take a statement from him. That took place at the end of October.
Gary Hunter was, by no means, the only highly credible, impartial witness, who was treated shabbily by the French authorities. Brian Anderson, the California businessman who saw the Mercedes 280-S being pursued by other cars and motorcycles, offered to give a statement to the French police. For his troubles, he had his passport confiscated for hours. Yet, the police never came to take a formal statement from him.
2. The Death Of Princess Diana
Meanwhile, back at the tunnel . . .
Henri Paul and Dodi Fayed both died instantly in the crash in the Place de L'Alma tunnel. Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones, seated in the front passenger seat, had buckled his seat belt shortly before the crash. This probably saved his life.
Princess Diana also survived the crash. She sustained serious injuries and was bleeding internally, but the first doctor on the scene of the crash believed that she would survive, with proper emergency medical care. Dr. Frederic Mailliez was driving through the Place de L'Alma and happened on the site, just minutes after the crash. According to a lengthy news account, published in The Scotsman on Sept. 29, Dr. Mailliez did not believe that Princess Diana's condition was desperate. He later told a French medical journal, "I thought her life could be saved." Dr. Mailliez was an experienced emergency medical professional, who worked at one time for the SAMU, the French government's emergency ambulance service, before going to work for a private medical response outfit called SOS Medecins.
Dr. Mailliez found Princess Diana lying on the back seat of the Mercedes, according to his account to The Scotsman. Contrary to stories leaked by French authorities to the press, she was not pinned in the rear compartment. The back seat of the Mercedes had not been seriously damaged in the crash, and there was no obstruction to getting at Diana. The French authorities issued these initial false reports in response to queries why it had taken an incredible one hour and 43 minutes, from the time that the first ambulance arrived at the crash site, to deliver Princess Diana to the hospital-four miles away.
Further, Romuald Rat, one of the most thuggish of the paparazzi, who was later charged with possible complicity in the Mercedes crash, was observed by one eyewitness at the crash site, leaning over Princess Diana as she lay semi-conscious in the back seat of the Mercedes, just before the first emergency rescue crew arrived.
Dr. Mailliez moved Diana's head to allow her to breathe. He called the emergency hotline to report the details of the crash on his car phone. He was told that ambulances had already been dispatched to the scene. He then administered oxygen, and ensured that Diana was not going to choke to death~h or swallow her tongue. When SAMU arrived on the scene, Dr. Mailliez left, confident that she would be quickly brought to a nearby hospital. He had ah~already concluded, on the basis of Princess Diana's vital signs, and her movements, that she was bleeding internally.
The first doctors to arrive with the ambulance and the other emergency vehicles reached the same conclusion, according to statements given to The Scotsman. One doctor who asked to remain anonymous said: "She was sweating and her blood pressure had dropped. She had the external signs of internal hemorrhage."
Diana was lying across the back seat of the Mercedes, with most of her body leaning outside the car, when the ambulance arrived, approximately 15-16 minutes after the crash, according to one of the ambulance crew, who also spoke to The Scotsman. She was almost immediately removed from the car.
Yet, Diana remained at the crash site for another hour, before she was placed in an ambulance and driven, at less than 25 mph, to a hospital on the other side of the Seine River, four miles away. The decision to bring Princess Diana to La Pitie Salpetriere Hospital was evidently made by the senior French government officials on the spot, Paris Police Chief Massoni and Interior Minister Chevenement. Massoni was in the tunnel, and Chevenement was already at La Pitie Salpetriere, in phone contact with the rescue crew in the tunnel. Yet, there are five other hospitals closer to the crash site, all with advanced emergency capabilities.
One highly respected French doctor who specializes in emergency response, told EIR, in an exclusive interview, that Princess Diana should have been taken to the Val de Grace, "which is much closer than La Pitie. That is a military hospital. Every political figure who is in a car crash or is injured is taken there." The doctor added: "The firemen, who were on the scene of the crash, are part of the Army. They undoubtedly notified the Val de Grace, which has a top team of trauma specialists on duty 'round the clock. I might have helicoptered her in. She would have been on the operating block a few minutes after being stabilized. This woman was one of the world's most powerful and influential people. She would normally have been given top priority and top treatment. She was not."
Not only was Princess Diana not brought to Val de Grace. She was not brought to Cochin Hospital, the Hotel Dieu, Lariboisiere, or the private American Hospital - all of which were closer than La Pitie Salpetriere, and all of which had qualified personnel and emergency facilities to repair the damaged arteries.
There is no credible explanation for why the French emergency personnel at the scene waited for more than an hour to place Princess Diana into the ambulance. There is no credible explanation for why the four-mile ride, through barren Paris streets, took 43 minutes! There is certainly no credible explanation for why the ambulance stopped for ten minutes outside the French Natural History Museum, just a few hundred yards from Le Pitie Salpetriere Hospital, as confirmed to both The Scotsman and the British weekly The People!
In a case where a crash victim has been diagnosed as suffering from internal bleeding, there is only one proper course of action. The victim should be stabilized, and then be rushed to a hospital for surgery. Unless the internal bleeding is stopped, the patient bleeds to death.
This is precisely what happened to Princess Diana. From The Scotsman:
"What is puzzling about the treatment offered to Diana is that she was not hospitalized until her condition had deteriorated to a critical extent. She suffered a series of heart attacks in the tunnel and on the way to the hospital, and had a massive cardiac arrest within minutes of arriving at La Pitie Salpetriere. The truth is that she was dead on arrival in the operating theater, although the surgical team battled against all the odds to revive her.
"No convincing explanation has been offered for the delay. The surgical team at the hospital had a long time in which to prepare for the arrival of their patient. They were in telephone communication with the doctors in the tunnel from the very beginning and were on formal alert from 1 a.m. Diana did not arrive until at least one hour later."
3. The Henri Paul Autopsy
The Drunk Driver Hoax
For the first 48 hours after the crash, French authorities and their controlled media focussed all the attention on the paparazzi, blaming their aggressive hounding of Diana and Dodi, for what was already being described as a high-speed crash: Then, the story leaked by the French authorities changed, ostensibly because the results of the blood tests performed on driver Henri Paul showed that he had alcohol levels in his bloodstream three times the legal limit. Suddenly, the paparazzi were exonerated, and the entire world media blame for the death of Princess Diana and Dodi shifted to "the drunk driver," Henri Paul.
In the weeks that followed the initial leaked autopsy findings, the French authorities embellished the tale. A purported second autopsy revealed that Paul had been also high on two powerful prescription drugs, one of which, not coincidentally, was often prescribed to chronic alcoholics. Several weeks later,,the French "official" leaks reported that further testing showed that Paul had been on a drinking binge for several weeks, prior to the crash, according to tests of his hair.
From the outset, there was strong contradictory evidence. Friends, co-workers, and relatives universally disputed the media attempts to portray Paul as a sullen, depressed alcoholic: Further, Paul had gone for his annual physical exam, to qualify for renewal of his pilot's license (See Certificate), 48 hours before the crash. He not only passed the physical exam. According to the Doctor who administered the exam, there were no signs of any damage to Paul's liver, a usual sure-fire sign of alcoholism. The French autopsy report also confirmed that Paul's liver was
healthy at the time of his death. It has been confirmed that between 10 p.m. and midnight, Paul drank two glasses of Ricards and water at the Ritz Hotel bar. The alcohol content of those drinks was very small. Yet, for the blood alcohol tests to have been accurate, Paul would have had to have gone through three bottles of strong red wine, or a dozen glasses of alcohol, earlier in the day, to have still shown such strong alcohol presence in his blood at 12:25 a.m. on the morning of Aug.31, at the time of the crash.
Both the doctor who regularly performed the annual pilot's license rigorous physical exams and Paul's personal physician told the media that Paul had never been diagnosed as an alcoholic, and had never received prescriptions for either of the two drugs allegedly found in his bloodstream. Ultimately, the French police admitted that there was no record anywhere in France of such prescriptions in Henri Paul's name. But this did not in any way deter the continuing media characterization of Paul as "the drunk driver."
Gross Incompetence . . . Or Worse
There is another explanation for this anomaly. The postmortem on Paul was either hopelessly bungled by gross incompetence, or the results were tampered with. Here are the facts as reported to EIR. You, the reader, can draw your own conclusions.
From the moment that the French authorities began leaking the purported forensic findings (that Paul had been driving the Mercedes high on booze and prescription drugs), his family began demanding that a separate, independent autopsy be conducted.
The French authorities refused to allow the Paul family to hire their own forensic pathologist to conduct an independent set of tests. In fact, the French authorities only would release Paul's body to his family, for proper burial, if they agreed that the body would be cremated or buried without any further tests.
Ultimately, the French officials agreed to release a copy of the written results of the original post-mortem to the families of the deceased. Two independent teams of noted forensic pathologists reviewed the written report, and their conclusions were astonishing.
Dr. Peter Vanezis conducted one of the reviews with a colleague from Lausanne. Dr. Vanezis is a noted British pathologist who holds the Regis Chair of Forensic Medicine at Glasgow University. He was used by the United Nations in both Bosnia and Rwanda, to determine whether genocide had occurred, following the discovery of mass graves. He was the forensic pathologist who established that the woman who had been the pretender to the Romanov throne, was a phony.
Dr. Vanezis and his colleague spent 12 hours, reviewing the first post-mortem report. They found, first, that the report established that there was no deterioration of Paul's liver, in itself evidence that the "chronic alcoholic" line was a lie. The rest of the report was a horror story of bungling, violation of standard procedures and protocols, and unanswered questions. The personnel who performed the test clearly treated it as a "garden variety" car crash.
The report did not identify the temperature at which the body was stored, from the time it was removed from the car to when the tests were performed. There was no chain of custody provided.
Henri Paul's body had been crushed in the crash. His stomach, heart, and liver had been crushed and burst open. Thus, the entire chest cavity was badly contaminated by other body fluids, food residues, and so on, mixed together with the blood. Under such circumstances, it is standard practice to take blood samples from other parts of the body, particularly the limbs, which are far from the contaminated chest cavity. But, the first post-mortem report was only conducted on the blood taken from the contaminated chest cavity.
French authorities had leaked to the press that there had been two "independent" post-mortems conducted, and both had revealed the same presence of large amounts of alcohol in Paul's blood. The report provided to the families revealed that the so-called independent tests had been performed on the identical contaminated blood sample from the chest, which had been divided in half and given to two separate laboratories to test. So, in reality, there was only one test. Furthermore, French officials claimed that a urine sample had been taken as well. But the report showed no results of urine tests.
Dr. Vanezis and his associate prepared a detailed memorandum, raising all of their concerns about the forensic report. Their memorandum was passed along to the magistrates in charge of the investigation, Herve Stephan and Marie-Christine Devidal. Dr. Vanezis's report demanded answers ta a dozen or more disturbing questions he had posed. The family of Paul and other victims of the crash demanded that they be authorized to have an independent, outside autopsy done on Paul's body. The French authorities would only allow a French doctor to perform such an outside test; and, not surprisingly, not one qualified French forensic pathologist was willing to get involved with such an independent test.
A second team of prominent forensic pathologists in Lausanne, Switzerland, in the meantime, had been sent the original forensic report. They drew almost identical conclusions to those in the Vanezis report. They, too, were horrified over the outright incompetence and violation of the most elementary procedures by the French government personnel. A third independent audit of the first post-mortem was conducted by a team at St. Georges Hospital in London, and their results were the same.
So, at best, the only forensic evidence - the only evidence period - that showed Henri Paul to have been drunk on the night of Aug. 30-31, was incompetent, insofar as it was thoroughly unreliable. At worst, it was another instance of willful sabotage and cover-up by the French government. And, this was not the last of the French misconduct and lying.
4. A Tissue Of Lies
There are many other willful lies that have been told by the French authorities and dutifully put out by the world media. Each of these lies, taken individually, could be written off as inconsequential. But, taken as a whole, they constitute a willful attempt by the French authorities to cover up evidence - that Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed, and Henri Paul were the victims of a murder plot. Given the fact that Princess Diana's death was at the hands of the French government - at the highest level of the Jospin Socialist Party administration - it should come as no surprise that their account of the crash at the Place de L'Alma tunnel, from beginning to end, was a tissue of lies. (See also, Synopsis of Autopsy Findings Provided for this Site)
Here are some of the most egregious lies, uncovered by the EIR investigative team.
1. "The speedometer proved Henri Paul was driving at a recklessly fast speed." Virtually all news accounts in the immediate hours after the crash reported that the speedometer of the Mercedes had been frozen at over 180 kilometers per hour, when the first rescue workers and witnesses arrived on the scene. This "evidence" was used to establish that Paul was speeding recklessly at the time the crash occurred. After the so-called post-mortem results were leaked, purporting that Paul had been drunk and high on prescription drugs, much of the world media pronounced the case a cut-and-dried instance of drunk driving. In fact, EIR has confirmed that the speedometer of the Mercedes was at zero!
This is consistent with claims by the car's manufacturer, Daimler Benz, that whenever a Mercedes 280-S is in an accident, even a crash at reasonably slow speed, the speedometer will freeze at zero. It is no wonder that the French authorities rejected Daimler Benz's offer to send a team of safety engineers to France to assist in the crash investigation.
2. "Diana was trapped in the back seat." For weeks, the French authorities justified the long delay in getting Princess Diana to a hospital with claims that the rear compartment of the car had been crushed, and it required a lengthy effort by French firemen and rescue workers to pry her body loose from the back seat. Eventually, after a number of early eyewitnesses inside the tunnel came forward, the French government was forced to retract the story, and admit that the rear compartment had not been damaged in the crash.
3. "The Mercedes was a faster, armored vehicle". Initial media reports, provided by the French authorities, had identified the Mercedes carrying Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed as the much faster 600 model. Early reports also claimed that the car was armored. In fact, the Mercedes 280-S, a four-cylinder car incapable of reaching high speeds quickly, had been called up from a pool of cars available to the Ritz Hotel just hours before the fateful ride.
EIR has recently learned that the French police have established that the missing Fiat Uno is a turbo model manufactured between 1984 and 1987. This Fiat has a higher acceleration rate than the Mercedes 280-S, and a higher top speed. This means that the Fiat was capable of passing and cutting off the Mercedes, and accelerating to avert serious damage in a collision.
4. "Henri Paul had goaded the paparazzi, 'You won't catch me tonight.'" Early media coverage, based on leaks from the French government, reported that, as Paul was leaving the Ritz Hotel, he had taunted the paparazzi, shouting, "You won't catch me tonight." In fact, as we reported at great length above, Paul at no time had any contact with any of the paparazzi. The Mercedes left the Ritz Hotel from a rear exit and there was never any communication between him and the paparazzi. The purpose of this fairy tale was to further the idea that Paul was drunk and "out of control" shortly before the crash. CCTV footage, taken from cameras at the Ritz Hotel and from adjacent buildings, fully confirm EIR's account of events.
5. "There are no photographs of the chase." All along the route that the Mercedes took, from the Ritz Hotel, along the Voie Georges Pompidou, to the entrance to the Place de L'Alma tunnel, there are both outside CCTV cameras, and special radar-activated cameras installed by the French police. If, at any time, the Mercedes or the cars and motorcycles chasing after it had gone beyond the speed limit, the radar cameras should have automatically snapped pictures. These pictures should have provided the police with a time-sequence account of the final moment's before the crash.
But the French authorities have systematically claimed - through press leaks, and in response to queries by the families of the deceased - that no such pictures exist. We are to believe that every one of the cameras was either broken or out of film. Yet, other drivers, who were passing along the Voie Georges Pompidou shortly before the Mercedes chase, were indeed later contacted by French police and told that there were photographs showing that they were speeding. Incredibly, the French authorities also continue to insist that none of the outside CCTV cameras on any of the buildings along the route show anything relevant to the crash probe.
6. "The paparazzi were nowhere near Henri Paul's car at the point of the crash". Some accounts, based on French government leaks, claimed that the nearest paparazzi were 400 meters behind the Mercedes 280-S at the point the crash took place. This lie, aimed at pinning the entire blame for the crash on "the speeding drunk driver Henri Paul," is discredited by the testimony of Anderson, Levy, and Wells, as well as a half-dozen other eyewitnesses who have requested to remain anonymous.
7. "Henri Paul was not qualified to drive the Mercedes". Paul had received specialty driver training from Daimler Benz in Germany. Contrary to some French press claims, Paul was not required to have any kind of special driver's license, in order to drive the Mercedes 280-S.
The cumulative effect of these falsehoods, each traced back to French government sources, to date, has been a ruthless cover-up on the part of the French - who clearly have a great deal to hide.
Katharine Kanter and Christine Bierre, from our Paris office, contributed to this article.
Web: http://www.consciousape.comBooks:
[2009] PRINCESS DIANA: THE EVIDENCE by Jon King & John Beveridge
[2001] Hidden Evidence by John King and John Beveridge
Book review by Stephen Reid
External
[vid] Princess Diana Evidence of Assassination: Jon King on Edge Media TV Boston Brakes, Camilla car accident (20:00), Land mines (32) 200 Million land mines deployed around the world, 200 million stockpiled, 3 weeks after Diana died Clinton did a U turn on banning land mines, CCTV (35) turned inwards, 3 vehicles disappeared without trace (40), Anderson in tunnel (47), Professor DominiqueLecompte (50), Boston Brakes assassination (1:00:00), seat belt jammed (1:00:44), media primed (1:00:20), Tomlinson got at, Henri Paul MI6 agent, patsy (1:12:00), embalmed illegally, Keith Moss gave order who was Consul general at British embassy (1:20:00), Burrell ordered to burn her personal belongings, crucial forensic evidence (1:23:00), Charles had team of embalmers with him when he went to France incase French didn't get there first (1:24:00), engagement ring (1:25:00), DA Ministry of Defence notice to pull newspaper story around his book (1:34:00)
http://www.whale.to/b/morgan1.html
Unresolved Issues of the Diana and Dodi Inquest
by John Morgan © 2008
Email: shining.bright@optusnet.com.au
Website: http://www.thedianaplot.com
Nexus Magazine June-July 2008. Vol 15, No 4
Was the verdict of the inquest into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed sound, or were the Royal Coroner's instructions to the jury part of anongoing cover-up of what really happened in the Alma Tunnel on 31 August 1997?
Key Witnesses Missed
Lack of Jury Access to Evidence
Inadequacies of Early Investigations
Diana's "Rocking" Ambulance
Diana's Anti-Landmines Campaign
Was There Judicial Bias?
Removal of Murder as a Possible Verdict
The Following Vehicles
Requirement of Jury Unanimity
Did Justice Prevail?
After three-and-a-half days of deliberation, the jury at the British "Coroner's Inquests into the Deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Mr Dodi Fayed" finally delivered its verdict on Monday 7 April 2008. The 11 jurors sitting in London's Royal Courts of Justice had patiently listened to six months of evidence given by 268 witnesses.1 Their finding was that the 1997 crash which occurred in the Alma Tunnel in Paris had been caused by "unlawful killing, grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes" (transcript, page 5, lines 5-7, page 6, lines 16-18). The Royal Coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, had pointed out that unlawful killing equates to manslaughter.
Did these final inquests (treated hereafter as the singular "inquest") answer the many questions that have surrounded the circumstances of the tragic crash? Did justice prevail, or was the inquest just another major event in continuing the cover-up of what truly happened in the Alma Tunnel on 31 August 1997?
One fact is certain: the over 7,000 pages of inquest transcripts and evidence now comprise the most detailed account that exists of the Paris crash and the circumstances and events surrounding it.
The jury also stated that "the crash was caused or contributed to by the speed and manner of driving" of both the Mercedes and the "following vehicles", and that the Mercedes driver's judgement was impaired "through alcohol" (5.20-24,7.6-10).
This outcome from the inquest followed the French investigation, which was finalised in September 1999,- and the British investigation —Operation Paget —which was completed with the publication of the Paget Report in December 2006 ? Both these investigations found that the Alma Tunnel crash had been caused by a drunk driver, Henri Paul, who was speeding.
Even after these two lengthy inquiries and now the inquest, there still remain critical, unresolved issues.
Key Witnesses Missed
During his summing up on the morning of 31 March, Lord Justice Scott Baker claimed that the inquest had been extremely thorough and stated that the conspiracy theories regarding the crash "have been examined in the minutest detail through the evidence of over 250 witnesses" (9.21-23). The reality, though, is that there are over 50 important witnesses who were never cross-examined during this inquest. Some of these people's evidence is so central to the conclusions drawn by the jury that the omission of it could cast doubt on the validity of the final verdict.
Because the crash occurred in France, most key witnesses were not residents of the United Kingdom and therefore were outside the jurisdiction of the Royal Coroner. Throughout the inquest, the government of France—where these witnesses generally lived—solidly maintained a position of refusing to cooperate. It failed to enforce the appearance of people who did not wish to be cross-examined.
Included in this group of witnesses is Professor Dominique Lecomte, head of the Paris Institute of Forensic Medicine; she is the pathologist who carried out the first autopsy on the Mercedes driver, Henri Paul. The Paget Report revealed that, during that autopsy, 58 identifiable errors were made, including the failure to identify the body properly. Lecomte also conducted the initial external medical examinations of the bodies of Diana and Dodi.
Another vital witness who evaded an appearance at the inquest is Dr Gilbert Pepin, the Paris toxicologist who carried out the alcohol testing on blood samples from both of Henri Paul's autopsies. It is the results of his testing that led to the high blood-alcohol readings that became the basis of the French and British investigations' conclusion that the crash was caused by a drunk driver.
Generally during this inquest, when a witness was not made available for cross-examination, their statement(s) to the French or British police were read out instead. In the case of Lecomte and Pepin, who both had signed statements with the British police, these statements were not read out to the jury. Thus the jury was not provided with any direct evidence from the two most important witnesses regarding the circumstances in which the alleged blood-alcohol results from the driver of the Mercedes were based—yet it is these blood test results that are central to the jury's finding that Henri Paul was guilty of gross negligence.
It is difficult to overstate the importance to this inquest of the evidence of Lecomte and Pepin. The question has to be asked: if Lecomte and Pepin have nothing to hide, then why did they not want to cooperate with the British inquest?
If Diana, Princess of Wales, was murdered, then Lecomte and Pepin would have played key roles in the aftermath and the ensuing French cover-up.
There are many other important witnesses who were not cross-examined. They include:
• Tom Richardson, an American tourist who was the first pedestrian to rush into the Alma Tunnel immediately after hearing the noise of the crash. He was never interviewed by either the French orthe British investigators.
• David Laurent, who had to swerve to avoid a slow-moving, old-model, light-coloured Fiat Uno-type car as he entered the Alma Tunnel, just seconds before the crash occurred behind him. His evidence is critical, as paint from an old-model white Fiat Uno was found on the Mercedes after the crash, and that Fiat Uno has never been officially identified. Laurent also was never interviewed by the British police.
• Father Frank Gelli, Diana's local Anglican minister at St Mary Abbots Church near Kensington Palace. He was a friend of Diana, and stated in a media interview in 2000 that Diana had asked him if he would perform the wedding when she married Dodi. Gelli performs a service in memory of Diana on 31 August each year outside the gates of Kensington Palace. He was never interviewed by either the French or the British investigators.
• Michel Massebeuf, the driver of Diana's ambulance following the crash. He is one of only three people who were in the ambulance, which didn't deliver Diana to the hospital until 2.06 am—one hour and 41 minutes after the crash. Massebeuf was never interviewed by the British police.
• A female student intern who was another one of the three people in Diana's ambulance. She assisted the ambulance doctor and must have been involved in administering Diana's treatment. This woman was never interviewed or named in any police investigation and remains anonymous to this day.
• Nicholas Langman and Richard Spearman, both MI6 agents who were operating out of the British Embassy in Paris at the end of August 1997. It has been alleged that both were involved in the organisation of the crash. They both made statements to the British investigators; these were not included in the Paget Report and were not read to the jury during the inquest.
Lack of Jury Access to Evidence
The entire inquest process was hamstrung by the fact that witnesses were unable to recall clearly the detail of events that occurred so long ago. Throughout the six months of evidence, there were countless instances where those being cross-examined said: "I'm sorry. It is ten years ago now. I cannot remember."
For the jury, this problem was exacerbated by the antiquated rule whereby they were unable to have access to the earlier official statements of cross-examined witnesses, which had been given during the initial French investigation and the later British Operation Paget. Many of the French eyewitness statements were taken within hours of the crash. It should be obvious to all concerned that these original statements, taken very soon after the events, would provide more accuracy than witness cross-examination over 10 years later. On the morning of 11 December 2007, the jurors themselves requested access to these statements. After some discussion in the Court, Lord Justice Scott Baker's decision was: "No, you cannot have the statements" (66.7).
It is evident that if this had been an inquest without a jury, then the Coroner would have had access to all witness statements. Why should a jury have been any different?
Inadequacies of Early Investigations
The failure of the French authorities to carry out a thorough and adequate investigation in the first place, when the events were still fresh in the minds of key witnesses, also contributed to the difficulties that faced the inquest.
Take, for instance, the evidence of Alberto Repossi, the jeweller who sold Dodi Fayed the "engagement ring" (he was cross-examined on 10 December 2007). Repossi was never interviewed by the French, and thus his first testimony was not taken until the British Operation Paget officers interviewed him in September 2005, eight years after the crash.
Likewise, Brian Anderson (17 October 2007. afternoon), a passenger in a taxi following behind the Mercedes and thus a key eyewitness to the crash, according to police records was never interviewed by the French. His first official testimony was taken by British officers on 31 August 2004, precisely seven years after the events he had to describe. To the shame of both the French and the British investigators, there are no records of any attempts being made to locate the driver of the taxi that Brian Anderson was in.
American Joanna da Costa (formerly Luz) (22 October 2007, afternoon), one of the first two pedestrian eyewitnesses on the crash scene, was never interviewed by the French investigators. Her only interview was taken by the British police on 23 August 2004, but for some unknown reason this testimony was never included in the official police Paget Report.
Where delays of up to a decade or more in the hearing of evidence have occurred, it is obvious that the accuracy of testimony could have been compromised.
The recently completed inquest did, however, help to highlight the some of the areas where the early French investigation failed abysmally. For example, the inquest showed up mistakes made during the initial night-time investigations. Under cross-examination, French investigators blamed some of these errors on poor lighting. Sergeant Thierry Clotteaux (6 November, afternoon) admitted that "the lights were not so great" (50.17-18). Another police investigator, Hubert Pourceau (6 November, morning), stated that a 19-metre-long (Mercedes) tyre mark (7 November, 16.5-9) was missed "...because it was night-time and it was not very visible. They couldn't see it" (40.12-13).
This begs the question: where was the forensic lighting that one would expect at any night-time crash scene, let alone the scene of arguably the most important car crash of the 20th century?
Investigators revealed that during the night they had to rely on the lights of the emergency vehicles; then, after those vehicles had left the scene, they were reduced to using the dim tunnel lighting. Apparently they didnt even have their own torches!
Diana's "Rocking" Ambulance
On the morning of 17 October 2007, a statement given to the French investigation by Thierry Orban, a photographic reporter, was read out to the inquest. Referring to the ambulance carrying Princess Diana, Orban stated: "I then followed the ambulance, preceded by motorcyclists and followed by a police car which kept us at a distance. After the Pont d'Austerlitz, opposite the Natural History Museum, the ambulance stopped, the driver got out hurriedly and got into the back. That was when I took the only photo of the ambulance, which is in any case blurred. It was rocking, as if they were doing a cardiac massage" (12.25, 13.1-8). This stoppage occurred within 500 metres of the hospital gates.
In his statement to Operation Paget, Dr Martino, who was inside the ambulance, explained the situation: "I had the vehicle stopped in order to re-examine the Princess... I did not do any cardiac massage at that moment but it is not easy to do cardiac massage or resuscitation with a vehicle moving" (Report, p. 515).
The ambulance driver Michel Massebeuf s statement to the French investigation was read to the inquest on the morning of 14 November. He described what happened: "However, in front of the Jardin des Plantes, the doctor [Martino] asked me to stop. We stopped for about five minutes, in order for him to be able to provide treatment that required a complete absence of movement" (23.15-20).
This evidence raises the question: why did Thierry Orban witness a rocking ambulance if there was no cardiac massage taking place and "complete absence of movement" was required? This question was not put to Dr Martino when he was cross-examined on the afternoon of 24 January 2008.
The statements by Thierry Orban and Michel Massebeuf were both inexplicably omitted from the Paget Report. Also, it is not known why Orban and Massebeuf were not cross-examined during this inquest.
Diana's Anti-Landmines Campaign
A significant portion of inquest time was dedicated to evidence regarding the possibility that Diana was pregnant at the time of her death. This is a proposition put forward by the conspiracy camp as a possible motive for murder. The evidence, or lack thereof, has always indicated that this would appear to be an issue impossible to prove either way.
If Diana was murdered, more likely as possible motives would have been other factors: the rapidly developing relationship between Diana and Dodi, and Diana's prominent and effective involvement in the international anti-landmines campaign.
Diana's anti-landmines activity was a possible motive for murder that was almost completely ignored by the 832-page Paget Report, produced by Lord Stevens in December 2006.
Michael Mansfield, QC, acting on behalf of Dodi Fayed's father Mohamed Al Fayed throughout the inquest, provided some compelling arguments regarding her campaign. During his cross-examination of the Conservative former Minister for the Armed Forces, The Hon. Nicholas Soames, MP (12 December 2007, afternoon), Mansfield quoted Soames's Tory colleagues at the time. One told Diana: "Don't meddle with things about which you know nothing" (81.15-16). Another described Diana as a "loose cannon" (75.25) when referring to her visit to the minefields of Angola in January 1997. Soames himself in 1997 portrayed Diana, Princess of Wales, as a "totally unguided missile" (64.6).
Soames is alleged by Diana's close friend Simone Simmons to have directly threatened Diana with an "accident" if she continued with her anti-landmines activities. On the morning of 10 January 2008, Simmons gave evidence regarding a four-inch-thick anti-landmines dossier, titled "Profiting Out Of Misery", which Diana compiled in the last year of her life. Simmons stated that Diana claimed the dossier "...would prove that the British Government and many high-ranking public figures were profiting from their [landmines] proliferation in countries like Angola and Bosnia. The names and companies were well known, it was explosive and top of her list of culprits behind this squalid trade was the Secret Intelligence Service, the SIS [MI6], which she believed was behind the sale of so many of the British-made landmines that were causing so much misery to so many people. 'I'm going to go public with this and name names,' she declared" (52.13-22).
London Daily Mail journalist and close friend of Diana, Richard Kay, said in his testimony to the inquest on 20 December (morning) that he received a phone call from Diana just hours before she died. He confirmed that during this call the Princess stated that she fully intended to "complete her obligations to...the anti-personnel landmines cause" (28.17-18). Kay said that this would have involved a future visit to the minefields of South East Asia.
Was There Judicial Bias?
During Lord Justice Scott Baker's two-and-a-half days of summing up to the jury, he made some statements that should be subjected to scrutiny.
On the afternoon of 31 March 2008, during his discussion of Diana's fears for her life, the Coroner stated: "One might have thought that if Diana had really feared for her life, she would have mentioned it to Mohamed Al Fayed at the time of the conversation with him shortly before the crash, when he said she told him she was pregnant and engaged" (129.23-25, 130.1-2).
In saying this, Baker appeared to disregard the fact that Diana could not possibly have known the crash was about to occur. Why would she particularly mention it at that stage when she was on holiday, happy and in love, and she had already discussed her fears with Mohamed Al Fayed earlier during that summer.
Early on 1 April, during his summing up of evidence given by Diana's butler Paul Burrell (14-16 January 2008), Baker recounted what Burrell alleges he was told by Her Majesty the Queen in December 1997: "Be careful, Paul; no one has been as close to a member of my family as you have. There are powers at work in this country of which we have no knowledge. Do you understand?" (5.9-12)
The Coroner then went on to say: "Members of the jury, assuming something like those words were said, you may think it stretches one's imagination to breaking point to conclude that they have the remotest thing to do with a staged collision in a tunnel three and a half months before" (5.18-22).
Burrell had only recently lost his boss in a car crash, the circumstances of which raised many unanswered questions. Yet Baker was effectively making out that the jurors were fools if they saw any connection between the Paris crash and the Queen's comment. Given the context in which Burrell had met his former boss, the Queen, because of post-crash events, and given that the meeting was within a few months of the crash, it seems reasonably logical that the comment could have had some connection with the crash.
Later on the same day, 1 April, Baker summarised the evidence of David Laurent, who was driving through the tunnel ahead of the Mercedes immediately before the crash. In his statements that were read to the jury on the morning of 11 October 2007, Laurent related that he had to swerve to avoid a slow-moving car as he entered the Alma Tunnel. Baker stated that Laurent described this car as "a small light hatchback" (107.3-4). A closer look at David Laurent's evidence shows that he gave two descriptions of this car. In his first statement, given to the French police on 14 October 1997, he said: "It was a small light-coloured hatchback car" (23.17). His second statement, given to the French police in April 1998, has more detail: "It was an old model, a light coloured, white or beige, a Fiat Uno type car" (53.2-3). The Coroner changed "light coloured, white or beige" to "light", giving a completely different meaning to the description (107.4). Furthermore, he failed to mention "old model" and "Fiat Uno type car".
Laurent's evidence is important because it indicates that the Fiat Uno, which made contact with the Mercedes immediately before the main crash, was seen moving slowly beforehand. This could corroborate later evidence given by Souad Moufakkir (6 November, afternoon), who also claimed to have seen the Fiat Uno slowing down prior to the crash. Laurent's evidence of the Uno being an old model was corroborated by George Dauzonne (29 October, morning), who was a witness to the Fiat Uno as it left the tunnel after the crash.
Removal of Murder as a Possible Verdict
On the morning of 31 March, at the start of his summing up, Lord Justice Scott Baker announced to the jury that he was withdrawing murder from the possible verdicts available to them. He stated: "My direction in law to you is that it is not open to you to find that Diana and Dodi were unlawfully killed in a staged accident" (13.25, 14.1-2).
Baker went on to explain: "When a coroner leaves a verdict of unlawful killing, in this case on the basis of a staged accident, to a jury, he must identify to the jury the evidence on which they could be sure of such a conclusion. But in this case sufficient evidence simply does not exist" (14.11-15).
In what then may have seemed confusing to the jury, Baker continued: "This does not, however, mean that all the suggestions you have heard about the possibility of a staged crash are irrelevant.
Because there is some evidence, albeit limited and of doubtful quality, that the crash was staged, it will be necessary for you to consider it in the context of the five verdicts that are open to you" (14.18-24).
Baker appeared to be conceding that there was evidence of a staged crash, but not enough to enable him to allow the jury to be given the opportunity to decide that it was murder.
This inquest was conducted in the midst of a background of unanswered questions regarding the crash that occurred in circumstances which have led millions of people around the world to believe it is possible that Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed were murdered. The jury members faithfully sat there through the six months of evidence, believing they had been assigned the task of determining whether this was in fact the case.
It could be argued that, at the very last moment, the Coroner virtually pulled the rug out from underneath the inquest. The very purpose of the inquest was to establish whether Diana and Dodi were murdered.
The very purpose of having a jury make the decision was in order to remove the possibility of an Establishment cover-up. What happened is that at the very end of the inquest. Coroner Baker ruled that the jury should no longer be entrusted with the power to decide on whether a murder took place. In so doing, instead of quelling allegations of a cover-up, Baker added fuel to them.
The Following Vehicles
After this decision by the Coroner, the jury was left with five possible verdicts (31.24-25, 32.1-6):
1) unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles);
2) unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes);
3) unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes);
4) accidental death;
5) open verdict.
In giving these options, the Coroner also removed the possibility of the Mercedes's contact with the white Fiat Uno— which was travelling ahead of the Mercedes as it entered the tunnel—having an influence on the crash. During the inquest, clear forensic evidence was shown that proved the Mercedes was involved in a collision with this car. Because the Fiat Uno was in front of the Mercedes, it cannot be included in the term "following vehicles" in the possible verdict provided to the jury. Baker has failed to explain why he removed the Fiat Uno from suspicion as a possible cause of the crash.
As discussed earlier, the jury chose the third option: "unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes)".
The reason that the description is "following vehicles" is because these vehicles remain unidentified. It is therefore very surprising that in virtually every media report describing the jury verdict, the words "following vehicles" have been replaced by the word "paparazzi". There is actually no evidence which indicates that these vehicles were in fact driven by paparazzi.
Eyewitnesses near the Alma Tunnel described several motorbikes closely pursuing or surrounding the Mercedes as it entered the tunnel:
• Olivier Partouche, a chauffeur who was standing near his car across the road from the tunnel, witnessed a Mercedes "immediately followed by a number of motorcycles" (24
October, morning, 6.9-10).
• Francois Levistre, who was travelling ahead of the Mercedes, described seeing through his rear-vision mirror a "vehicle surrounded on either side by motorbikes" in his first statement made to French police on 1 September 1997, one day after the crash (Paget Report, p. 455; also see inquest transcript, 15 October, afternoon).
• Brian Anderson, who was travelling in a taxi that was overtaken by the speeding vehicles, described three motorbikes that "were in a cluster, like a swarm around the Mercedes" (17 October, afternoon, 98.24-25).
Thus the eyewitness evidence clearly shows that the "following vehicles" mentioned in the jury verdict are in fact several motorbikes that were seen very close to the Mercedes as it entered the Alma Tunnel.
On the afternoon of 2 October 2007, Scott Baker identified eight paparazzi who were near the Mercedes as it left Place de la Concorde. They were Benhamou, Guizard, Odekerken, Martinez, Arnal, Rat, Darmon and Chassery (95.10-11). It was also revealed that Benhamou rode a green Honda scooter; Guizard drove a grey Peugeot 205; Odekerken drove a Mitsubishi Pajero; Martinez and Arnal were in a black Fiat Uno; Rat and Darmon were on a blue Honda 650 motorcycle; and Chassery drove a black Peugeot 205 (94.3-10). This evidence shows that of the paparazzi pursuing the Mercedes, there was actually only one motorbike, a Honda 650. All the other pursuing paparazzi were either in cars or on a scooter.
On 7 November 2007, Paget accident investigator Anthony Read revealed to the inquest that French investigators had conducted tests on the performance of a Honda 650, comparing it with the Mercedes S280 (afternoon, 103). They found that at full acceleration over 1,400 metres, the Honda 650 was the equivalent of 17 per cent slower than the Mercedes. Darmon, who was driving the Honda, gave evidence to the inquest (29 October, afternoon) that he lost sight of the Mercedes after he turned right, onto the expressway, after leaving Place de la Concorde. With Rat his passenger, they were the first of the paparazzi to arrive at the crash scene.
After analysing the evidence, it becomes very clear that it is quite impossible for any of the motorbikes surrounding or closely pursuing the Mercedes as it entered the Alma Tunnel to have carried paparazzi. Instead, the motorbikes were unidentified— which is why they have been described in the jury's verdict simply as "the following vehicles".
It is clear, however, from early eyewitness evidence that camera flashes were seen on the expressway just before the Alma Tunnel:
• Bruno Bouaziz, a French police lieutenant, said in his 31 August 1997 statement, which was read out to the jury on the afternoon of 12 November 2007: "Witnesses told the first police to arrive at the scene that the Princess's car was travelling at high speed, chased by photographers on motorcycles. Others saw the Mercedes slowed down by a Ford Mondeo vehicle so that photographers riding motorcycles could take photographs" (118.18-23).
• Olivier Partouche said in a statement taken six hours after the crash: "...I think that I saw flashes before the vehicles disappeared into the underpass" (24 October, morning, 26.1-3).
• Clifford Gooroovadoo, who was standing near Partouche, said in his first statement, taken two hours after the crash, that he "saw a motorbike with two people on it and also saw that the pillion passenger of this motorbike was taking one photo after another in the direction of the vehicle that was making the noise [the Mercedes]" (12 March 2008, morning, 76.20-23).
• Benoit Boura (24 October, morning) was travelling eastbound (the opposite way to the Mercedes) towards the Alma Tunnel. He said in his second statement of 31 August 1997 that "before all this [the crash] happened, therefore before entering the tunnel, I saw flashes in the distance" (Paget Report, p. 454).
On the morning of 27 November 2007, Baker himself stated: "I am very interested in trying to find any...photographs showing the journey of the Mercedes before the collision" (48.12-15).
It is evident that if these photos of Diana and Dodi's final moments before the crash had been taken by paparazzi, then they would be worth millions of pounds and somehow they would have surfaced after the crash—whether in newspapers, TV or over the Internet. But no such photos have ever been published.
This raises the question: who took these photos through the untinted windows of the Mercedes S280 on its final trip? Were they men on motorbikes masquerading as paparazzi with the purpose of harming the occupants of the Mercedes, but hoping that blame would later be attributed to the paparazzi?
It is to the shame of both the French and British inquiries that, after five years of "thorough" investigation, none of these motorbikes has been identified.
There are also motorbikes—probably the same ones—that were seen fleeing the crash scene, and cars including the white Fiat Uno that were witnessed fleeing after the crash. The reality is that the police on both sides of the Channel have only ever officially identified one vehicle in this entire case, and that is the crashed Mercedes S280.
The question must be raised: if the riders, passengers and drivers of the vehicles that were clearly witnessed fleeing the crash scene have nothing to hide, why is it that not one of them has come forward to explain their actions?
Requirement of Jury Unanimity
On the morning of 31 March 2008, as Coroner Scott Baker commenced his lengthy summing up, he instructed the jury: "Whatever your verdict, whether unlawful killing, accident or open, it must be unanimous. There are circumstances in which a majority verdict can be accepted, but they have not arisen in this case and, if they do, I shall give you a separate direction about it" (15.5-10).
Later, on the morning of 2 April, just before he sent the jury out to deliberate, he reiterated: "With each verdict, whether unlawful killing, accident or open, it must be the verdict of all 11 of you" (51.22-23).
At 3.30 pm on 7 April, after the jury had been out for three-and-a-half days without reaching a unanimous verdict, the Coroner told them: "The position is this, that the time has now been reached when I am able to accept from you a verdict upon which at least nine of you are agreed" (full-day transcript, 3.15-18).
There is no correlation between Baker's earlier requirement that the verdict must be unanimous, and his later statement that some sort of mysterious time limit had been reached and the rules could be changed to a majority of nine being acceptable. The Coroner had already stated on 31 March that the "circumstances in which a majority verdict can be accepted have not arisen in this case". On 7 April, he made no attempt to explain in what way the circumstances had now changed to enable a majority verdict to be acceptable.
This evidence indicates that, in reality, the result in the case of the inquest into the deaths of Diana and Dodi should have been a hung jury.
Did Justice Prevail?
Did the inquest achieve justice for Diana, Princess of Wales, Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul?
The following restraints were placed on the jury:
• no access to original witness statements, despite the crash having occurred over 10 years before:
• a large number of crucial witnesses failing to give evidence and not being required to;
• removal by the Coroner of murder as a possible verdict open to the jury.
Was the inquest really thorough?
Were the jury members provided with the evidence that really would have enabled them to achieve a unanimous verdict?
Did the Coroner place trust in the ability of the jury to be able to decide on the evidence?
It seems almost unfair that the jury should have been expected to reach a verdict in the above circumstances. It is as though the jury members achieved a verdict with at least one hand tied behind their back.
It would also seem likely that the general public's perception, that the British and French governments have not been up front about the circumstances and events surrounding the Paris crash, would seem justified by the way in which this inquest was conducted.
To those who say "It's over ten years now; it's time to move on": does the fact that a crime or a gross injustice occurred a decade ago mean that it is of less importance and significance than if it happened yesterday?
It is this attitude of public complacency and wanting to "move on" by so many people that has helped enable one of the greatest crimes and, equally, one of the greatest cover-ups of our time to have beenperpetrated and successfully carried out.
Endnotes
1. To view and download transcripts and other published material from the "Coroner's Inquests into the Deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Mr Dodi Al Fayed", go tohttp://www.scottbakerinquests.gov.uk. Note that the page numbering in the transcripts is at the bottom of each page.
2. To view and download an English translation of the final report by the Public Prosecutor's Office in Paris, originally obtained by the London Sunday Times, go tohttp://www.geocities.com/wellesley/6226/report.htm?200613.
3. To view and download the Operation Paget inquiry report, go to http://www.met.police.uk/news/operation_paget_report.htm.
About the Author:
John Morgan is an investigative journalist and writer based in Brisbane, Australia. Since 2005, he has carried out extensive full-time research into the circumstances surrounding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. His book, Cover-up of a Royal Murder: Hundreds of Errors in the Paget Report (available from http://www.thedianaplot. com and http://www.allbookstores.com ), is reviewed in this edition of NEXUS.
John Morgan can be contacted by email at shining.bright@optusnet.com.au.
http://www.whale.to/c/diana_inquest2.html
Diana Inquest: Who Killed Princess Diana?
a book by John Morgan
2012 March
http://www.amazon.com http://www.amazon.co.uk
Product Description
This explosive, evidence-based book is the most shocking, revealing, yet factual work written on the 1997 Paris car crash that took the lives of Princess Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed. Diana Inquest: Who Killed Princess Diana? includes evidence showing the assassination of Princess Diana was carried out by the British intelligence agency, MI6, on orders from senior members of the British royal family.
Sensational new revelations include documentary and witness evidence which demonstrates that the top three MI6 officers in Paris were replaced by more senior officers in the days immediately prior to the Paris crash.
Analysis of testimony from MI6 officers reveals they lied repeatedly during their inquest cross-examinations.
There is strong evidence of MI6 involvement in two failed assassination plots against high-profile world leaders in the 18 month period leading up to the successful Diana assassination
This book also exposes Rosa Monckton – wife of former newspaper editor, Dominic Lawson – as an MI6 agent who spied on Princess Diana.
Who Killed Princess Diana? covers the role of the Queen and senior royals in the deaths. It reveals evidence of a special rescheduled meeting of the royal Way Ahead Group – chaired by the Queen – being held just 39 days before Princess Diana was assassinated. Analysis of the inquest testimony of the private secretaries of the Queen and Prince Philip shows they both lied about the nature and content of Way Ahead Group meetings.
This volume – the fifth in the Diana Inquest series – also includes evidence showing that British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had prior knowledge of the assassination of Princess Diana.
The book reveals how the inquest judge, Lord Justice Scott Baker, deliberately prevented his jury from being able to piece together the evidence that could have allowed them to understand the roles played by MI6 and the royal family in the deaths of Diana and Dodi
The Diana Inquest series of books is based on forensic analysis of the testimony heard during the 2007-08 inquest, and also on evidence from the British police investigation that was withheld from the inquest jury. A leading UK QC, Michael Mansfield, who served throughout the six months of the London inquest, has stated “I have no doubt that the volumes written by [John Morgan] will come to be regarded as the ‘Magnum Opus’ on the crash ... that resulted in the unlawful killing of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed and the cover-up that followed.” Dodi’s father, Mohamed Al Fayed has said: “I believe that John Morgan has done more to expose the facts of this case than the police in France and Britain.”
About the Author
John Morgan, who is based in Brisbane, Australia, is an investigative writer with a diploma in journalism. Since 2005 he has carried out extensive full-time research into the events surrounding the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed. After studying the Paget report when it was published in December 2006, he was shocked by the content of it. He realised that the £4 million report which took three years to produce was littered with inaccuracies and poorly drawn conclusions -- John viewed it as a huge injustice to the memory of Princess Diana. The 2007 book, Cover-up of a Royal Murder, was the result of his subsequent investigation into the Paget report. John went on to closely follow and analyse the proceedings and transcripts of the London inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed. The Diana Inquest series of books is the result of his thorough research and investigation into that process. John Morgan can be contacted at shining.bright@optusnet.com.au
http://www.whale.to/c/diana_inquest1.html
Diana Inquest: Part 4: The British Cover-Up by
a book by John Morgan
The explosive evidence in Diana Inquest: The British Cover-Up blows the lid on the events that took place in the 24 hours following the death of Princess Diana in 1997. Diana's body was subjected to two embalmings and two post-mortems - in both France and the UK - within that first 24 hour period. In disturbing new findings - based on documentary evidence withheld from the 2007-8 inquest jury - the book reveals that Princess Diana's UK post-mortem samples were switched prior to toxicology testing. This shocking action means that the testing was carried out on blood and other samples that did not come from Diana's body. The book is based on evidence heard at the inquest, but also draws heavily on documents from within the British police investigation - Operation Paget. These official documents were not made available to the jury at the London inquest.
In particular, this volume shows that the jury - who were expected to reach a verdict on the cause of the deaths - were prevented from seeing the UK post-mortem and toxicology reports for both Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed. Out of 23 documents connected to the post-mortem of Princess Diana, the inquest jury got to see just 2, and they heard evidence from only 3 of 14 key witnesses.
Another surprising revelation in this fourth volume of the Diana Inquest series is that Diana's pre-post-mortem embalming, conducted in the Paris hospital within hours of her death, was ordered by the royals in Balmoral. The evidence in The British Cover-Up also reveals that on 31 August 1997 the then royal coroner, John Burton, took illegal jurisdiction over Princess Diana's body. These volumes on the Diana Inquest are essential reading for anyone who wishes to understand the events surrounding the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed resulting from the car crash in the Alma Tunnel on 31 August 1997. A leading UK QC, Michael Mansfield, who served throughout the six months of the London inquest, stated in 2010: "I have read all of the books that John Morgan has produced.... I have no doubt that the volumes written by [him] will come to be regarded as the 'Magnum Opus' on the crash ... that resulted in the unlawful killing of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed and the cover-up that followed." Dodi's father, Mohamed Al Fayed has said: "I believe that John Morgan has done more to expose the facts of this case than the police in France and Britain."
http://www.whale.to/c/das_neue41.html
Das Neue, No. 41
Lady Diana was Killed by a Team of Specialists of the British MI-5
WIESBADEN, Oct. 9-- The cover story in issue No. 41, of the German illustrated weekly {Das Neue} hinted. The core of the story is an exclusive interview with "Glyn Jones", a former member of the elite military unit that observed Diana from 1985 to 1989, on orders from the MI-5.
After introducing the theme with a hint that Martine Monteil, the head of the Paris police investigation team, is looking into the case as an assassination case, and that the MI-5 is a suspect, Das Neue asks Jones about his 1985-1989 mission. He relates that he was with the "Royal Marines", then, and was operating upon directives coming from MI-5.
The job of his team "was not to spy on members of the Royal Family. Foreign agencies warned the MI-5 at that time, that there was a threat to Diana. That is why she was surveilled." "That implied: We would have had to kill her, if we were not able to prevent an abduction."
The main objective of the team was to protect the Royal House, the future King (Diana's son), and the Anglican Church. All of that was threatened by Diana's bad conduct, Jones said. When Das Neue asked, whether the "drunken" driver, Henri Paul, didn't play a role in the accident, Jones said: "Yes, in the end, it was a reason. But why did this accident occur, in the first place? Why is the French police not able to identify those two men, that stood on the bridge above the tunnel, who were firing shots on the car?" "Two shots were fired on the tires.
So far, this has not been made public. They are trying to cover it up." Jones said that traces of the shots would not necessarily be found, because "this depends on the angle at which the bullet hits--this can hardly be checked, if the tire is ripped into pieces.
This, at least, is how it is done in anti-terror measures in Northern Ireland, when any outside implication is to be covered up." Jones said that it is not French sloppiness which prevents a real investigation in Paris, but that it rather implies that "the French secret service is collaborating with the British secret service.
There are close contacts... [I]t would not be in the interest of the French government to let such things get out to the public." The interview was accompanied by a box, which explained how the sniper attack on Di's car could have occurred.
First of all, the British SAS is equipped with a special gun, the "Five-Seven" which is produced by the French firm, FN Herstal. This is an ultralight weapon, which works like a "heavy gun," however, because its ammunition can cut through steel and bullet-proof vests, from 200 meters away.
The special bullets, which have a weight of only 2 grams each, leave no visible tracks in the target.
Weapons expert "Bernard Sacrez" explained to Das Neue that "with this weapon, you can slice the tires of a car as if you used a razor blade. No tracks of the shot can be located, because the two-gram bullet disassembles completely, afterwards."
Al Fayed's security team included 8 former SAS agents, by the way, the Das Neue report said. Dodi's bodyguard Alexander Wingfield was one of them, and he switched shift with Trevor Rees-Jones (the body-guard that survived) that night. "Glyn Jones" said it looks like an orchestration, because the drivers also switched shifts that night.
http://www.public-interest.co.uk/diana/dimi5.htm
http://www.whale.to/b/james_andanson.html
James Andanson worked for MI6 British Intelligence as an informant
The development could support the theory that Andanson was murdered by the security services.
By Cyril Dixon
THE mystery over Princess Diana’s fatal car crash took another twist yesterday when startling new evidence emerged about the death of a key witness.
The Daily Express has uncovered dramatic new information which undermines the French police claim that photographer James Andanson doused himself and his black BMW with petrol and set himself alight.
Andanson was found dead in his burnt-out car three years after the smash which killed Diana, her lover Dodi Fayed and driver Henri Paul.
Andanson, suspected of causing the crash by driving a white Fiat Uno into their Mercedes, was said officially to have committed suicide.
But investigators have uncovered a receipt which shows that although Andanson, 54, did buy a substantial amount of fuel on the day he died, it was diesel, not petrol.
Unlike petrol, diesel is not highly inflammable at normal temperatures and would not have ignited if he had struck a match.
You would not be able to set light to diesel with a match.
He used his credit card to buy more than 100 litres of diesel on a visit to a hypermarket near Nant, southern France.
Sceptics would say it is far more likely that the experienced paparazzo bought it to fill up his car for the 400-mile journey back to his home in central France.
They would also think it unlikely for him to prepare his car for a long trip if he planned to kill himself just a few miles away.
The development could support the theory that Andanson was murdered by the security services.
Dodi’s father Mohamed Al Fayed believes he was on the intelligence payroll and that he was killed to stop him exposing a plot to assassinate his son and the Princess.
The Harrods owner’s belief is supported by the evidence of a new witness, a policeman, who said he saw what looked like a bullet hole in the dead photographer’s head.
The officer backs up claims by Christophe Pelat, the fireman who discovered the body, that Andanson had been shot in the head.
Two months ago, Pelat said: “I saw him at close range and I’m absolutely convinced that he had been shot in the head.”
Yesterday’s revelation came just days after the police officer who ran the initial inquiry into how Diana died in Paris’s Alma tunnel blamed the Fiat driver.
Jean Claude Mules said he had compelling evidence that the black Mercedes collided with the Fiat seconds before it ploughed into a pillar. He said his officers would have “had their killer” if they had succeeded in tracing the driver.
Andanson was found dead on May 4 2000 in woodland alongside a country road near Nant, in the Aveyron region of France.
He had apparently left his wife Elizabeth, 45, at their farmhouse in Lignieres, 170 miles south of Paris, and driven 400 miles south to Nant.
A police spokesman said at the time: “He took his own life by dousing himself and the car with petrol and then setting light to it.”
But Andanson’s credit card records show he went into a Géant hypermarket just a few miles away from where he was found dead.
He bought more than 100 litres of diesel and spent almost 600 francs.
Investigators are not certain what he did with the fuel. But his BMW 3 series’ saloon would hold only 60 litres and he may have filled up and transported the surplus in cans. Critically, experts say that it is inconceivable that Andanson would buy diesel to set himself alight.
Ray Holloway, of the Petrol Retailers Association, said: “With petrol it is the vapour that is the risk. It’s very different with diesel.
“Diesel is warmed and compressed to make it fire. You wouldn’t be able to set light to diesel with a match. It would just go out.
“The flashpoint for diesel, that is the temperature it would need to get to, is something like 63C.
“You would need to warm diesel up with something like a blow torch to have any hope of igniting it, and even then you wouldprobably have to be in a confined space.
“People often get burned when using petrol because they try setting light to the liquid. But what happens is the vapour ignites first.”
The riddle of Andanson’s death will be looked at by Lord Justice Scott Baker, the judge appointed to oversee Diana’s inquest. He has produced a list of 20 questions about the accident which most people assumed had been answered but which must now be re-examined.
Andanson, who worked for the Sipa agency, was famous for his celebrity portraits, including one of Greek shipping tycoon Aristotle Onassis on his death-bed.
But he is also rumoured to have been working for the security services. Former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson once alleged they use the paparazzi because they are good at tracking the whereabouts of high profile “targets”.
In the summer before the accident, when Diana and Dodi cruised the Mediterranean on his father’s yacht Jonikal, they were plagued by paparazzi. Andanson was one of the biggest players on that scene and was never far away from the couple.
Mr Al Fayed believes Diana, 36, and Dodi, 42, were murdered in a conspiracy driven by the Royal Family and carried out by the security services in August 1997.
He claims they had fallen in love after spending the summer together and planned to marry.
Mr Al Fayed claims the Royals objected to their romance because they did not want Prince William to have a stepfather who was non-white and a Muslim.
http://www.whale.to/b/diana_crash_witness.html
Diana crash witness: I saw a dozen 'shady figures' in tunnel
Last updated at 23:22pm on 30.09.06
Jacques Morel claims he saw 'shady figures' before Princess Diana's fatal car crash
A key eyewitness to the car crash that killed Princess Diana has broken his silence to tell how he saw a dozen people at the scene moments before her death.
Record producer Jacques Morel, 59, is convinced they expected to see her Mercedes brought to a halt by another car.
Detectives working on the inquiry into Diana's death, headed by former Scotland Yard chief Lord Stevens, considered his account so important that he was flown to London and interviewed for three days.
Mr Morel, who was driving home with his wife Moufida in Paris on the night of August 31, 1997, said: "As we entered the Alma tunnel I looked to my left and saw about a dozen shady figures on a tiny pavement by the side of the opposite carriageway.
"They were all standing in a long line. The sight was unforgettable.
"The pavement is less than 30cm (12in) wide and next to fast traffic. They would have been breathing in petrol fumes and it was very dirty down there. It was certainly not a sensible place to stand around."
If accurate, Mr Morel's recollections are significant because they suggest that the route Diana and Dodi Al Fayed were taking was known in advance.
Until now it has always been thought that chauffeur Henri Paul was following an unexpected route in order to shake off paparazzi photographers.
Mr Morel, who now lives in Tunisia, said: "There was an almighty bang and a great big flash of light. Immediately my wife and I realised there had been a crash.
"My first thought was that those inside the tunnel were connected with what had happened. This thought has never left me.
"We could see a car coming from the opposite direction had gone straight into a pillar. All of the other drivers stopped, so I did too.
"There was a symphony of car horns and then white smoke filled the tunnel. I got out of my car and rushed towards the crash scene.
"I was devastated when I saw the Princess in her white trousers in the back of the car. She was easily recognisable.
"She looked so serene and peaceful, but it was the end. It was one of the most heartbreaking scenes of my life. I will never forget seeing her face.
"Others were lying around Diana and I remember the driver looking as though he had his head in his hands. It was then that I also saw a white Fiat Uno being driven away."
The car was later reported to be registered to James Andanson, a paparazzi photographer who committed suicide in mysterious circumstances in 2000. However, the vehicle has never been found.
Mr Morel, who has written a book about his experiences, told British detectives Philip Easton and Mark Hodges that he believes Paul was in on the plot.
"I am certain he was paid to drive through the Alma tunnel. There was cash in Henri Paul's pocket when he was found dead,' said Mr Morel.
Blood tests revealed that Paul was three times over the French drink-drive limit when the crash took place. Traces of anti-depressant drugs were also found.
The inquiry headed by Lord Stevens, which has taken 1,500 witness statements, is expected to deliver its report by Christmas.
http://www.whale.to/b/jeweler_diana.html
Jeweler Was Told To Lie In Princess Diana Case
December 6, 2006 - Maira Oliveira - All Headline News Reporter
London, England (BANG) - A key witness in the inquiry into the death
of Britain's Princess Diana recently claimed police threatened him to
change his evidence.
Jeweler Alberto Repossi - who claims he sold Diana's lover Dodi Al Fayed an engagement ring the day before the couple were killed in a car crash
in Paris on August 31, 1997 - alleges he was put under pressure by investigators to retract the statement he gave to Lord Stevens, who is
leading the inquiry.
There is speculation that investigators did not want evidence that Diana and Dodi were to become engaged to be made public, as it would fuel
conspiracy theories championed by Dodi's father Mohammed Al Fayed that the princess was murdered as part of a secret plot to prevent her
from marrying a Muslim.
Repossi told Britain's Daily Express newspaper, "These are things which I am absolutely certain about. They warned me if anyone lied to Lord
Stevens - and anyone could include the prime minister or even the secret service - then he had the power to get people sent to prison.
He added, "They kept repeating the warnings of the risk to my reputation and the bad press coverage I would get. But despite all this, I was not
prepared to change what I'd said before because it was the truth."
Repossi's testimony - backed up by receipts and CCTV footage - reveals Dodi and Diana picked a $305,000 emerald and diamond ring from a
range of engagement bands called "Did-Moi Oui" which means "Tell Me Yes" at his Monte Carlo jewelry store in August 1997.
Dodi - the son of Harrods owner, Mohammad Al Fayed - asked for the ring to be sent to Repossi's Paris branch so he could collect it on August30.
Repossi said, "I strongly support any attempt to determine exactly what caused this terrible tragedy. Until now I thought I could play my part by co-operating fully with the inquiry. But my treatment during the interviews has convinced me that they are not interested in establishing
the truth."
He continued, "My real concern is that attempts were certainly made to get me to change what I knew to be the truth. I believe they were doing
this in order to support theories or conclusions they had already arrived at before they saw me. They only seemed interested in trying to show
me I was lying."
The investigation is expected to conclude that the crash was an accident due to driver Henri Paul being under the influence of alcohol and driving
over the speed limit.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7005768564
http://www.whale.to/b/diana3.html
Diana: The 18 missing witnesses in £4m inquiry
13/12/06 - By John Twomey UK Daily Express
EIGHTEEN key witnesses have been ignored by the £4million Lord Stevens inquiry into the death of Princess Diana.
Their evidence to French police had raised several questions about the fatal crash in Paris.
But detectives working on the three-year inquiry – which will publish its findings tomorrow – didn’t interview them to gather fresh testimony.
The revelations come after the Daily Express revealed disturbing allegations from a crucial witness in the Diana probe who claimed that British detectives tried to pressure him into changing parts of his evidence.
The claims by jeweller Alberto Repossi – who insists Diana and Dodi were engaged when they died in the crash – have been dismissed by the Operation Paget squad.
Lord Stevens’ inquiry was set up to finally discover the truth behind how Princess Diana’s Mercedes, driven by Henri Paul, came to crash in the Alma tunnel in Paris on August 31, 1997.
Dodi’s father Mohamed Al Fayed has spent the past nine years mounting a determined campaign for the truth, spending millions of pounds uncovering fundamental flaws in the original French inquiry.
He remains convinced that the pair were murdered in a plot organised by the British Establishment, including the intelligence services.
One of the many theories put forward is that the Princess’s car was struck by another vehicle as it entered the tunnel under the River Seine.
And yesterday it emerged that one family which gave detailed statements to French police – but not to their British counterparts – told how they saw two large cars heading at speed towards the Pont de L’Alma underpass in the shadow of the Eiffel Tower.
Moments later, the vehicles disappeared into the tunnel and the family heard the screeching of brakes, the “scrunching” of metal, a first sickening impact and a louder bang followed by the haunting sound of a jammed horn.
As the witnesses looked down into the underpass, they saw the wreckage of the Mercedes car which was carrying Diana and Dodi slewed across the carriageway. But there was no sign of the second car.
The family also told how a taxi, following at a normal distance, stopped at the tunnel entrance but no-one got out.
They also recalled seeing a mystery man running straight past them and into the tunnel. The family, which has declined to be named, was interviewed by Captain Eric Crosnier of the Paris crime squad shortly after the crash. The family says it has given no other interviews.
Lord Stevens will present his findings at a press conference to the world’s media tomorrow.
The former Metropolitan Police Commissioner is understood to have concluded that Diana and Dodi died because their chauffeur Henri Paul was drunk and driving too fast.
Paul was also killed and Dodi’s bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, was seriously injured but survived.
Harrods owner Mr Al Fayed suspects British intelligence officers were involved in “organising” the crash and covering up afterwards.
He fears the deaths were ordered because the Establishment could not bear the thought of the mother of a future king being pregnant with a Muslim’s child.
Last week, his lawyers forced the former senior judge in charge of the inquest to back down over plans to hold preliminary hearings in private. Lady Butler-Sloss said she was persuaded to reverse her decision because of “strong public interest in the case”.
But Mr Al Fayed’s victory has only fuelled suspicions that a cover-up is being attempted.
Statements made by the French family have been backed up by another witness, Clifford Gooroovado, 41.
He said: “The Mercedes car was driving behind another car. The car in front of the Mercedes was probably running at normal speed. The consequence was that the Mercedes probably accelerated so hard in order to pull out and overtake this car.”
Grigori Rassinier, who was also near the underpass, said in a statement: “There were a number of cars in the tunnel and it was certainly possible that there was one or more other cars travelling ahead of the Mercedes at the time of the crash.”
Mr Rassinier said he had been contacted by the Operation Paget squad last year and offered to travel to London to give a statement. But he claims he never heard from them again.
Last week, the Daily Express revealed how Monte Carlo-based jeweller Mr Repossi alleged he was put under pressure to change his story during lengthy interviews with officers from Lord Stevens’ squad.
The jeweller claims – backed up by receipts and CCTV footage from his Monaco showroom – that Diana and Dodi picked out a £230,000 emerald and diamond band from a variety of engagement rings in a prestigious range called Dis-Moi Oui – Tell Me Yes.
Dodi later asked for the ring to be sent to the Repossi store at the Place Vendome in Paris, which the jeweller opened especially so he could visit on August 30 – the day before the crash.
The fabulous engagement ring was later left at Dodi’s Paris apartment where he had planned to present it to the princess. Detectives from Lord Stevens’ team interviewed Mr Repossi three times and his wife once.
In the final meeting in July this year, officers told him that the jewellery was not an engagement ring. Mr Repossi said: “They warned me that if anyone lied to Lord Stevens then he had the power to get people sent to prison,” he said.
“They kept repeating the warnings of the risk to my reputation and the bad press coverage I would get. But despite all this, I was not prepared to change what I’d said before because it was the truth.”
The inquiry team vehemently denies any attempt to put pressure on any witness to tell anything other than the truth.
Sources close to Lord Stevens’ investigation yesterday suggested that the 18 witnesses may not have been spoken to because their original statements were perfectly adequate and there was no need to interview them again.
http://express.lineone.net/news_detail.html?sku=874
http://www.whale.to/b/deathcrash_paul.html
Death-crash Paul "drank Diet Coke."
04/09/06
http://express.lineone.net/news_detail.html?sku=376
A KEY new witness has come forward to confirm that the chauffeur who drove Princess Diana to her death "drank nothing but Diet Coke and the odd beer".
The Daily Express can reveal that 41-year-old Henri Paul, pictured, had started going out with a 25-year-old French-Moroccan girlfriend three weeks before the tragedy.
She has told police: "He was by no means an alcoholic but a decent man who solely enjoyed a social drink like everyone else."
The revelation follows a decision by French legal authorities to reinvestigate the circumstances surrounding Diana's death after new doubts emerged over blood tests carried out on Paul.
An original French inquiry concluded that he was high on a lethal cocktail of drink and prescription drugs when he drove a Mercedes into the wall of a Paris underpass, killing himself, Diana, and her boyfriend Dodi Fayed.
Now, nine years after the crash, it appears all but certain that they got it terribly wrong. It has always been thought that Paul had no girlfriend since he split up with single mother Laurence Pujol, 32, just before the crash. This led to the French portraying Paul as a depressed bachelor who turned to strong spirits to control his mood swings.
But he was actually at the start of a new relationship with a pretty Moroccan student from Casablanca. The young woman, for whom the French have requested anonymity, had a key to Paul's flat, regularly slept there and had arranged to see him on the day before his death.
She was with him constantly as he visited bars and restaurants around Paris. Rather than order strong spirits � as some claim �he chose nothing but beer and soft drinks.
A French detective said: "She told us Paul had hardly drunk any alcohol and we see no reason to disbelieve her."
The woman enjoyed a first date with Paul in The Borgogne, a Paris bar, in early August 1997. Both drank Coke, although Paul also had a single Pelforth beer.
The woman did not have any transport home so slept at Paul's flat, close to the Ritz Hotel, where he was deputy head of security. In a statement to police, the woman revealed that on a later date they again went to The Borgogne.
She said: "I drank tea and a Devil Mint cocktail and he had a beer or two." She again slept at Paul's flat but, because it was early in their relationship, there were no sexual relations. She told police: "I also want to tell you that he acted like a very kind man."
Paris criminal brigade commander Jean-Paul Copetti has handed the woman's statements to British detectives working on Operation Paget, the £4million inquiry into Diana's death.
The new evidence strengthens the view that Paul's inebriated state became a convenient cover story to explain away far more sinister goings-on.
Although French police devoted 20 officers to Paul's last hours, they found no explanation as to how he allegedly built up 173 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood � three times the legal limit.
The conspiracy theorists, led by Dodi's father, Harrods boss Mohamed Al Fayed, believe Diana and his son were murdered by British security services because they were expecting a Muslim baby � something which was not acceptable to the Royal Family.
http://www.whale.to/b/author_backs_diana_conspiracy.html
“Diana was beautiful, in a fresh-faced, English, outdoors-girl kind of way. She used her big blue eyes to their fullest advantage, melting the hearts of men and women through an expression of complete vulnerability. Diana’s eyes, like those of Marilyn Monroe, contained an appeal directed not to any individual but to the world at large. Please don’t hurt me, they seemed to say. She often looked as if she were on the verge of tears, in the manner of folk images of the Virgin Mary.”
“ …the Merovingian kings, from their founder Merovee to Clovis (who converted to Christianity in 496) were ‘pagan kings of the cult of Diana’.”
-Clive Prince, The Templar Revelation
“The cinquefoil (from the french, five-part) is a five petalled rose found in Christian symbolism of the Middle Ages. The five-petalled rose is often found affixed to the tops of Gothic arches, the vesica pisces-shaped doorways and windows thought to represent the womb of Mary. Some historians have speculated that the rose in Gothic architecture is a secret symbol of the feminine principle, one of a multitude of hermetic symbols found in these churches.The symbol itself dates back to Roman times, where it was called the ‘Rose of Venus.’ The rose, with its characteristic five petalled shape
mimicked the pentagrammatic path traced by the planet Venus in the night sky. This, combined with the flower’s natural beauty, made it an obvious symbol of the Goddess of love.”
The yoni and phallus were worshipped by nearly all ancient peoples as appropriate symbols of God’s creative power. The Garden of Eden, the Ark, the Gate of the Temple, the Veil of the Mysteries, the vesica piscis or oval nimbus, and the Holy Grail are important yonic symbols; the pyramid, the obelisk, the cone, the candle, the tower, the Celtic monolith, the spire, the campanile, the Maypole, and the Sacred Spear are symbolic of the phallus.
-Manly P. Hall
The Vesica Piscis, two interlinked circles, is also known as “the Yoni”. The name “yoni” refers to the middle portion of the interlocking circles, is derived from the Sanskrit meaning, “divine passage”. That the yoni is the feminine, the yoni should be viewed such that the divine passage becomes a correlation to sex, or male/female union. It is this correlation, and its relation to rebirth and regeneration that remains a basic truth at the very core of Occult structural foundations.
What more feminine symbol is there than the image of the vessel, the sacred womb of the mother? In patriarchal times, the Grail legends speak to the deepest parts of our souls in an archetypal quest for the feminine aspects of divinity.
http://www.wiolawapress.com/diana.htm
http://www.news-alliance.com/there_was_a_conspiracy_against_princess_diana.html#ld
2009] Princess Diana’s Death and Memorial: The Occult Meaning What is the purpose of elevating Diana to the level of goddess through mystic symbolism? Numerous theories state that one of Diana’s sons will eventually become the much prophesied Antichrist. Are we making Diana the Virgin Mary of the Antichrist? Is the assassination of Diana, the “Moon Goddess” the response to JFK, the “Sun God” ‘s death? Was she part of a blood ritual due to the royal status of her family’s genealogy? Is the Queen of England actually a reptilian creature that can shape-shift into a 6 foot tall lizard? You can google any of these theories and you’ll find more essays than you can read. I have no proof about any of them so I won’t give a definite answer. One thing is for sure, symbols do not lie. Diana has been surrounded with the world’s most powerful people, and these people have deep knowledge of the occult. Initiates are fully aware of the fact that symbolism is the only true language of humanity and it can only be understood by those who are worthy. Diana’s memorials are PACKED with blatant symbolism, all referring to the same concept of female divinity. The symbols presented in this report weren’t destined to the average population, who still think that Diana died in a car accident. These esoteric codes serve the purpose of the elite, who carry out its rituals according to the secret knowledge it possesses.
http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/princess-dianas-death-and-memorial-the-occult-meaning/
Princess Diana’s Death and Memorial: The Occult Meaning
Apr 13th, 2009 | Category: Vigilant Reports
http://www.whale.to/b/hallett_b2.html
HOW TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD A Right Royal Con
a book by Greg Hallett.
The media is a Counter-Intelligence organisation. The media backs every war. The role of the media and embedded historians is to surround the truth with a bodyguard of lies.
Extracts
Most of the British Royal family are illegitimate, including Queen Victoria, Prince consort Albert, King Edward VII and his son Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill was first cousin with Adolf Hitler’s father and uncle to Anthony Blunt, King Edward VIII and King George VI. Adolf Hitler’s grandfather ran the Rothschild Bank, the Bank of England, and was the first Jewish MP in British Parliament.
Prince Albert was also the son of a stable boy. Close to bankruptcy, the British Royal family were saved by another stable boy, John Brown, who went on to marry Queen Victoria after Albert ‘died’.
The British Royal family are a subset of the Rothschild family and the Rothschilds control all the wars and finances of the British monarchy. The British Royal family declare war as soon as the Rothschilds have completed their preparations. This makes for huge profits.
Many royals died of syphilis and many others died from the treatment of syphilis. When a British royal didn’t like his wife, he simply ordered her murder – on their coronation night. This was repeated again 166 years later with the murder of Princess Diana as covered up by Lord Stevens.
http://www.whale.to/b/mutwa.html
[Interview] Great Zulu Shaman and Elder CREDO MUTWA On Alien Abduction & Reptilians
A Rare, Astonishing Conversation
9/30/99 by Rick Martin
To order The SPECTRUM call (877) 280-2866.
www.spectrumnews10.com
It has often been said that the Native Elders of any given tribe hold the keys to knowledge. This statement has never been more clearly confirmed than in the recent interview I had the great privilege to conduct with Zulu “Sanusi” (Shaman) Credo Mutwa, now nearing eighty years of age.
Through the efforts and assistance of David Icke, I was able to establish contact with Dr. Johan Joubert, who graciously coordinated with Credo Mutwa, thus allowing the interview to take place by telephone, literally half-way around the world in South Africa. We at The SPECTRUM would like to convey our deepest appreciation to both David Icke and to Dr. Joubert for their selfless efforts at getting this man’s Truth out to the world.
I first heard about Credo Mutwa five years ago, only at that time it didn’t seem possible to speak with him directly by telephone, as he lives in a somewhat remote area with no phone. When I heard from David Icke that he had spent time with Credo Mutwa and that he would be willing to speak with The SPECTRUM, well, that’s all it took. Through the wonder of the international telephone lines, on August 13 we had what turned out to be a 4-hour session! And no, we are not about to pare it down to “sound bite” size. The words he has spoken will appear completely and in full context, as is our usual policy-a matter of respect for the speaker as well as simply being good, honest journalism!
Credo Mutwa is a man whom David Icke describes as: “The most amazing and knowledgeable man it has been my privilege and honor to call a friend, a genius.” After speaking with Credo Mutwa, I couldn’t agree more.
I would like to comment that Credo Mutwa, while not a man of formal education, was kind enough and conscientious enough to spell all of the Zulu or African words, proper names, etc. for this article. Those of you who may be African scholars will find this level of accuracy more advantageous to your research than will the average reader, however such care taken by Credo is yet another facet of his honesty and precision.
If you feel that you have read some material lately that stretches your thinking and challenges some belief systems, this interview will take you one step beyond. As always, Truth is stranger than fiction. As well, Truth-or pieces of Truth revealed to any one of us-are part of a larger mosaic, and thus it is up to each of us to arrive at our own conclusions concerning the Truth that others have to share with us.
We are honored to have this opportunity to present Credo Mutwa’s experiences and knowledge with you. It is a most rare and much appreciated opportunity.
The astonishing information presented by Credo Mutwa is certainly thought provoking and far-reaching in both implications and scope. Once you read this information you will more readily understand why there have been attempts to silence him. Similarly, you will more deeply appreciate Credo’s courage for coming forth and speaking truth, no matter the consequences to self.
So, without further introductory commentary, let the interview begin.
Martin: First of all, let me say it is an honor and a privilege to speak with you, and I would like to thank and acknowledge David Icke and Dr. Joubert, without whose help we would not be having this conversation today.
Our readers are aware of the existence of the shape-shifting reptilian extraterrestrials, and what I would like to discuss with you concerns the specifics of their presence, their leadership, their agenda, and their methods of operation at this time.
So, the first question I would like to ask you is: Can you confirm that shape-shifting reptilian extraterrestrials do, in fact, exist on our planet at this time? And if they do, if you can confirm this, will you please be specific about them. Where do they come from?
Credo Mutwa: Sir, can your newspaper send people to Africa?
Martin: I’m sorry, can you repeat that?
Credo Mutwa: Can your newspaper kindly send somebody to Africa in the near future?
Martin: We are financially not able to do that at this time, but that may change in the future.
Credo Mutwa: Because there are some things that I would, please, like your newspaper to check-out, independent of me. You have heard of the country called Rwanda, in Central Africa?
Martin: Yes.
Credo Mutwa: The people of Rwanda, the Hutu people, as well as the Watusi people, state, and they are not the only people in Africa who state this, that their very oldest ancestors were a race of beings whom they called the Imanujela, which means “the Lords who have come”. And some tribes in West Africa, such as a Bambara people, also say the same thing. They say that they came from the sky, many, many generations ago, a race of highly advanced and fearsome creatures which looked like men, and they call them Zishwezi. The word Zishwezi means the dival or the glidal-creatures that can glide down from the sky or glide through water.
Everybody, sir, has heard about the Dogon people in Western Africa who all say that they were given culture by the normal beings, but they are not-the Dogon people are but ONE of many, many peoples in Africa who claim that their tribe or their king were first founded by the supernatural race of creatures that came from the sky.
Are you still with me, sir?
Martin: Oh yes, very much so. Please continue.
Credo Mutwa: Sir, I can go on and on, but let me bring you to my people, the Zulu people of South Africa.
Martin: Please.
Credo Mutwa: The Zulu people, who are famous as a warrior people, the people to whom King Shaka Zulu, of the last century, belonged. When you ask a South African White anthropologist what the name of Zulu means, he will say it means “the sky” (laughter), and therefore the Zulu call themselves “people of the sky”. That, sir, is non-sense. In the Zulu language, our name for the sky, the blue sky, is sibakabaka. Our name for inter-planetary space, however, is izulu and the weduzulu, which means “inter-planetary space, the dark sky that you see with stars in it every night”, also has to do with traveling, sir. The Zulu word for traveling at random, like a nomad or a gypsy, is izula.
Now, you can see that the Zulu people in South Africa were aware of the fact that you can travel through space-not through the sky like a bird-but you can travel through space, and the Zulus claim that many, many thousands of years ago there arrived, out of the skies, a race of people who were like lizards, people who could change shape at will. And people who married their daughters to a walking (extraterrestrial), and produced a power race of Kings and tribal Chiefs, there are hundreds of fairy-tales, sir, in which a lizard female assumes the identity of a human princess and poses as her, and gets married to a Zulu Prince.
Every school child in South Africa, sir, knows about the story of a princess called Khombecansini. Khombecansini was to have married a handsome Prince called Kakaka, a name which means “the enlightened one”. Now, one day while Khombecansini was gathering firewood in the bush, she met a creature called an Imbulu. And this Imbulu was a lizard which has the body and the limbs of a human being, but a long tail. And this lizard spoke to Princess Khombecansini, “Oh, how beautiful you are, girl, I wish I could be like you. I wish I could look like you. Can I come close to you?” said the Imbulu lizard woman to the princess.
And the princess said, “Yes, you can.”
And as the lizard, which was a taller one, came close to the girl, she spat into the girl’s eyes and she began to change. That is, the lizard suddenly changed into a human shape and this lizard began to look more and more and more and more like the girl, with the exception of her long, pointed tail. And then, with her sudden burst of violence, the lizard woman sealed the princess and removed all her bangles and her beads and her wedding skirt off her, and she put them on. Thus, the lizard became the princess.
Now there were two identical women in the bush, the shape-shifted lizard woman and the original woman. And the lizard woman said to the original woman, “Now you are my slave. Now you are going to accompany me to the marriage. I will be you and you will be my slave, come-on!” She took a stick and started beating up the poor princess. And then she went, accompanied by other girls who were bride’s maids, according to Zulu custom, and she arrived at Prince Kakaka’s village. But, before they reached the village she had to do something about her tail, that is, the shape-shifting woman had, somehow, to hide the tail. So, she forced the princess to weave a net out of fiber and she tucked the tail in and she tied it tight to herself. She now looked like a Zulu woman with attractive, very big buttocks, when seen from outside.
And then, when she arrived and she became the wife of the prince, a strange thing started happening in the village. All of the milk started disappearing because each night the shape-shifting princess, the false princess, used to release her tail, which used to suck in all of the sour milk through a hole at the tip of the tail. And the mother-in-law said, “What is this? Why is the milk disappearing?” Then, she said, “No, I see, there is an Imbulu amongst us.”
The mother-in-law, who was a clever old lady, said, “A hole must be dug in the front of the village and it must be filled with milk.” And this was done. And then, all of the girls who had come with the false princess were told to jump over this hole. One after the other one, they jumped. And when the shape-shifter was forced, at spear-point, to jump as well, as she jumped her long tail burst out of the net under her skirt and started slurping the milk through the hole, and the warriors killed the shape-shifter. And thus, the real Princess Khombecansini became the wife of the king-of King Kakaka.
Now, sir, this story has got many versions in it. Throughout South Africa, amongst many tribes, you’ll find stories of these amazing creatures who are capable of changing from reptile to human being, and from reptile to any other animal of their choice. And these creatures, sir, do really exist. No matter where you go throughout Southern, Eastern, Western, and Central Africa, you’ll find that the description of these creatures is the same. Even amongst tribes which never, throughout their long history, had contact with each other at all.
So, there ARE such creatures. Where they come from, I will never claim to know, sir. But they are associated with certain stars in the sky, and one of these stars is a large group of stars which is part of the Milky Way, which our people call Ingiyab, which means “The Great Serpent”. And there is a red star, a redish star, near the tip of this huge rim of stars which our people call IsoneNkanyamba.
Now, this star called IsoneNkanyamba, I managed to find its English name. It is the star called Alpha Centauri, in English. Now, this, sir, is something that is worth investigating. Why is it that well over 500 tribes in parts of Africa which I’ve visited in the last 40 or 50 years or so, all of them describe similar creatures?
It is said that these creatures feed on us human beings; that they, at one time, challenged God Himself to war, because they wanted full control of the universe. And God fought a terrible battle against them and He defeated them, injured them, and forced them to hide in cities underground.
They hide in deep cavities underground, because they are always feeling cold. In these cavities, we are told, there are huge fires which are kept going by slaves, human, zombie-like slaves. And, it is further said that these Zuswazi, these Imbulu, or whatever you choose to call them, are not capable of eating solid food. They either eat human blood, or they eat that power, the energy that is generated when human beings, on the surface of the Earth, are fighting and killing each other in large numbers.
I met people who have fled from the early Masaki in Rwanda, from years ago, and these people were horrified by what was happening in their country. They said that the slaughter of the Hutus by the Watusi, and the Watusi by the Hutus, is actually feeding the Imanujela, monsters. Because the Imanujela like to inhale the energy that is generated by masses of people being terrified or being killed by other people.
Are you still with me, sir?
Martin: Yes, I’m completely with you.
Credo Mutwa: Now, let me point out an interesting thing, sir. If you study the languages of all African nations, you find within the languages of our people words which are similar to Oriental, Middle-Eastern, and even Native American words. And the word Imanujela means “the Lord who came”. A word that anyone can discover in Rwanda, amongst the Rwandan Hutu and Watusi people, is very similar to the Herbrew word Immanuel, which means “the Lord is with us”. Imanujela, “the ones who came, the Lords who are here”.
Our people believe, sir, that we, the people of this Earth, are not masters of our own lives, really, although we are made to think that we are. Our people say, that is, Black people of all tribes, all of the initiated ones, all of the shamans everywhere in Africa, when they get to trust you and share their deepest secrets with you, they say that [with] the Imanujela, there is Imbulu. And there is another name by which these creatures are known. This name is Chitauli. Now, the word Chitauli means “the dictators, the ones who tell us the law”. In other words, “they who tell us, secretly, what we are to do”. Now, it is said that these Chitauli did a number of things to us when they came to this planet.
Please forgive me, but I must share this story with you. It is one of the strangest stories that you find everywhere in Africa in shamanic secret societies and other places where the remnant of our ancient knowledge and wisdom are still preserved. It is that, originally, the Earth was covered by a very thick blanket of fog or mist. That people could not actually see the Sun in the sky, except as a nimble of light. And they also saw the Moon at night as a gentle claw of light in the sky, because there was this heavy mist. And the rain was always falling in a steady drizzle. There was no thunder, however. There were no storms.
The world was thickly covered with great forests, great jungles, and people lived in peace on Earth at that time. People were happy and it is said, at that time, we human beings did not have the power of speech. We only made funny sounds like happy monkeys and baboons, but we did not have speech as we now have it. And in those centuries, people spoke to each other through their mind.
A man could call his wife thinking about her, thinking about the shape of her face, the smell of her body, and the feel of hair as a woman. That a hunter would go out into the bush and call out for animals to come, and the animals would select one of their number which was old and tired, and this animal would offer itself to the hunter so that he may kill it quickly and take it as meat to his cave.
There was no violence against animals. There was no violence against Nature by human beings at that time. Man used to ask for food from Nature. He used to come to a tree and think about fruit, and the tree would allow some of its fruit to fall to the ground, and man would take it.
And then it is said, however, that when the Chitauli came to Earth, they arrived in terrible vessels which flew through the air, vessels which were shaped like great bowls and which made a terrible noise and a terrible fire in the sky. And the Chitauli told human beings, whom they gathered together by force with whips of lightning, that they were great gods from the sky and that from now on they would receive a number of great gifts from the god. These so-called gods, who were like human beings, but very tall, with a long tail, and with terrible burning eyes, some of them had two eyes-yellow, bright eyes-some had three eyes, the red, round eye being in the center of their forehead. These creatures then took away the great powers that human beings had: the power of speaking through the mind only, the power of moving objects with their mind only, the power of seeing into the future and into their past, and the power to travel, spiritually, to different worlds.
All of these great powers the Chitauli took away from human beings and they gave human beings a new power, now, the power of speech. But, human beings found, to their horror, that the power of speech divided human beings, instead of uniting them, because the Chitauli cunningly created different languages, and they caused a great quarrel between people. Also, the Chitauli did something which has never been done before: they gave human beings people to rule over them, and they said, “These are your kings, these are your chiefs. They have our blood in them. They are our children, and you must listen to these people because they will speak on our behalf. If you don’t, we are going punish you very terribly.”
Before the coming of the Chitauli, before the coming of the Imbulu creatures, human beings were spiritually one. But when the Chitauli came, human beings became divided, both spiritually as well as by language.
And then, human beings were given strange new feelings by the Chitauli. Human beings started to feel unsafe, and so they started making villages with very strong fences of wood around them. Human beings started becoming country makers. In other words, they started creating tribes and tribe lands, which had borders, which they defended against any possible enemy. Human beings became ambitious and greedy and they wanted to acquire wealth in the form of cattle, and sea shells.
And, another thing the Chitauli forced human beings to do, they forced human beings to mine into the Earth. The Chitauli activated human women and made them to discover minerals and metals of certain types. Women discovered copper; women discovered gold; women discovered silver. And, eventually, they were guided by the Chitauli to alloy these metals and to create new metals which had never existed in Nature before, metals such as bronze and brass and others.
Now, the Chitauli, further, removed the sacred rain-bringing mist from the sky and for the first time since creation, human beings looked up and saw stars, and the Chitauli told human beings that they have been wrong in believing that God dwelt under the Earth. “From now on,” the Chitauli told people of this Earth, “the people of Earth must believe that God is in Heaven and they must do things here on Earth which would please this God who is in Heaven.”
You see, originally, human beings had believed that God was underground, that she was a very great mother who dwelt under the Earth because they saw all the green things growing from under the Earth-the grass came from below ground, the trees grew from below ground, and the people had believed, therefore, that the dead people who died go underground. But when the Chitauli turned humans’ eyes towards the sky, people started believing, now, that God is in the sky and that those who die from this Earth don’t go underground, but go up into the sky.
And to this day, sir, throughout Africa wherever you go as an investigator, you will find this amazing-these two amazing ideas which conflict with each other.
Many African tribes believe in what is called Midzimu or Badimo. Now, the word Midzimu or Badimo means “them who are in the sky”. But, in Zulu-land, amongst my people, you find this amazing schism going hand-in-hand. There are Zulus who believe that the dead ones are the Abapansi, which means “the ones who are below, who are under the Earth”. Then there is another idea which says Abapezulu. The word Abapezulu means “those who are above”, and the word Abapansi, which is the oldest name for the spirits of the dead, means “they who are under the Earth”.
So, even today, sir, all over Africa amongst hundreds of tribes, you find this strange double-belief that the dead go into the sky, and side-by-side with the belief that the dead die and go under the Earth. This belief that the dead die and go under the Earth is said to date to the days when our people believed that God was a woman, the great Cosmic Mother. And, it is contrasted by the Abapezulu belief that God is a man who dwells in the sky.
Now, sir, another thing that the Chitauli told our people, it is said, is that we human beings are here on Earth to change the Earth and to make it suitable for “God” to come down one day and dwell in it. And it is said that they who work to change this Earth and make it safe for the serpent god, the Chitauli, to come and dwell in it, will be rewarded with great power and with great wealth.
Sir, as I have watched over many years of study, over many years of initiation of the mysteries of African shamanism, wisdom, and knowledge, I have found myself wondering why we human beings are actually destroying the Earth on which we live. We are doing something which is only done by one other species of animal, namely, the African elephant, which utterly destroys every tree in the place in which it dwells.
We human beings are doing exactly this. And wherever you go in Africa, where once there were great ancient civilizations, you find desert. For example, there is the Kalahari desert in South Africa, and under the sands of that desert, I have found the ruins of ancient cities, which means that human beings turned this stretch of land, which was once green and fertile, into a desert. And, in days when I was with explorers and safari people in the Sahara regions of Africa, I also found evidence of unbelievably ancient human habitation in places where there is nothing now but angry rock and whispering sand.
In other words, the Sahara Desert was once a fertile country and was turned into a desert by human beings. Why? I must ask myself, again and again, why are human beings being driven by insecurity, greed, and lust of power to turn the Earth into a desert in which, ultimately, no human being would ever be able to live? Why?
Although we are all aware of the terrible dangers that this will bring about, why are we cutting huge areas of jungle in Africa? Why are we on Earth carrying out the instructions which the Chitauli programmed into us? Although my mind refuses to accept this, the answer is a terrible yes, yes, yes.
Amongst the many people of wisdom who honor me with their friendship, is a man of great knowledge who lives in Israel, Dr. Sitchin. [Editor’s note: This reference is to Dr. Zecharia Sitchin, author of many provocative books about the interaction of extraterrestrial peoples with Earth humans in very ancient times.] According to the ancient books which were written by the people of Sumeria, out of clay, gods came out of the sky and forced human beings to work for them, to mine gold for them. This story is confirmed by African legends throughout Africa, that gods came out of the sky and made us into their slaves, and they made us into slaves in such a way that we would never realize that we are slaves.
One other thing that our people say is that the Chitauli prey upon us like vultures. They raise some of us, they fill some of us with great anger and great ambition, and they make these people they’ve raised into great warriors who make terrible war. But, in the end, the Chitauli do not allow these great leaders, these great war chiefs and kings, to die peacefully. The warrior chief is used to make as much war as possible, to kill as many of his people, and those he calls enemies, as possible, and then, in the end, the warrior chief dies a terrible death, with his blood being spilled by others.
And this phenomenon I have seen in my people’s history, again and again and again. Our great King Shaka Zulu, he fought over 200 great wars during the reign of some 30-something years. And then, he was slaughtered and he died a violent death. He died a broken man who, because of the death of his mother, had no longer the power to win any more battles.
And, before Shaka Zulu, there was another king who trained Shaka to become the great king that he was. That king’s name was Dingiswayo. Dingiswayo had fought great wars trying to unite the Zulu people into one great tribe. He had seen the White people of the Cape and he thought that, by uniting his people into one huge nation, he would be able to repel the threat to his people which the White people posed. But, what happened was, after winning many battles of uniting many tribes, King Dingiswayo suddenly became striken by an eye disease which made him almost blind. And he hid this secret that he could no longer see. But, that terrible secret was discovered by a woman, a queen of another tribe, called Ntombazi. Ntombazi took a battle ax and beheaded Dingiswayo with one blow, after she had lured him into her hut and given him food and beer to drink.
There is also a similar phenomenon with great White leaders: Napoleon, in Europe, who died a miserable death on his lonely island in the Atlantic Ocean; Hitler, also in Europe, who died a terrible death by putting the gun in the mouth and killing himself, we are told; Attila the Hun, who was killed by a woman, and many other great leaders who came to a sticky end after giving as much death and misery to as many people as they could.
King Shaka was stabbed to death by his half-brother, who used on him the same type of spear that he had designed to kill people as quickly as possible. And, Julius Caesar also met a similar fate after he, like our Shaka Zulu, had conquered many nations.
Always the warrior hero dies a death that he, really, should not die. King Arthur, in England, was killed by his own son, Mordred after a long and courageous reign. I could go on and on and on.
Now, all these things, if you bring them together, they show that whether people laugh at this or not, whether people scoff at this or not, there is a certain power that is guiding we human beings toward the dark river of self-destruction. And the sooner many of us become aware of this, the better, perhaps, we might be able to deal with it.
Martin: Do you believe that these beings are around the world equally, or are they primarily focused in Africa?
Credo Mutwa: Sir, I believe that these creatures are everywhere on Earth, and with respect, sir, although I hate talking about myself so much, I am a person who has traveled to many parts of the world. I have been to your country, the United States, sir. I have been to Australia. I have been to Japan, amongst other countries.
And no matter where I have gone, sir, I have found people telling me about creatures like this. For example, in 1997, I visited Australia, sir, and I traveled a lot to try and find the Black people of Australia, the Aborigine. And when I did find them, they told me a number of things that astonished me very, very much. The same things that I’d found in Japan, I found in Taiwan. Everywhere where there are still shaman and traditional healers, you find these amazing stories.
Now, let me tell you, sir, what I found in Australia alone. This, that the Australian Aborigine people, who call themselves Coorie, which means “our people”: The Coorie people of Australia believe in a great creating god called Byamie, sir. A Coorie shaman, in fact, several of them, drew me pictures of this Byamie, and one of them showed me a rock painting representing this strange creator god who came out of the stars. And when they placed their drawing in front of me, what they showed was a Chitauli. I recognized it from my African initiation. It had a large head. It had large eyes, which were stressed by the artist. It had no mouth, and it had long arms and incredibly long legs. Sir, this was a typical depiction of a Chitauli which I knew from my own people in Africa.
I asked myself “Why?” Here I am in a country many thousands of miles away from Africa, and here I am seeing a being known as the Biamai or Bimi, who is a creature with which I, the African, am familiar.
Amongst the Native American people, sir, I found, for example, amongst certain tribes in America, tribes such as the Hopi people, and those people who stay in those buildings called a pueblo, I found that these people-they have got what are called Katchina creatures, where people wear masks and disguise themselves as certain creatures. And some of these Katchinas are very, very tall, with a huge round head.
Exactly as we have in Africa, I found similar creatures in America. In Africa we call these creatures Egwugwu, or, we call them by another name, called Chinyawu. The Katchina of the Native American people, and the Chinyawu of our people, are identical beings. Now, why should this be? When were American Native people and Africans in contact? When? This is one of the greatest mysteries of all time, sir. It is one of many things that I found throughout the world which left me utterly amazed.
There ARE such creatures, and the sooner skeptics amongst us face up to this fact, the better it shall be. Why is human-kind not progressing? Why are we running around in a great circle of self-destruction and mutual-destruction?
People are basically good; I believe this. People don’t want to start wars. People don’t want to destroy the world in which they stay, but there are creatures, or there is power that is driving we human beings toward self-annihilation. And the sooner we recognize this, the better.
Just now, I live in Africa. Here are my people. Here is my home. But I see Africa being destroyed in wars that make no sense whatsoever to me as an African. I look at India which, like Africa, suffered the scourge of colonialism by the French, the English, and other European powers. But India, through her independence as a country, has achieved the things which we, Africa, have failed to achieve. Why?
India has exploded the atomic bomb and is today one of the feared nations of this world. India has launched satellites into orbit. India, although she has the same problems as Africa has-a burgeoning population, religion as well as tribal strife-although India has got an incredibly poor section of her population, as well as an incredibly rich one, she has achieved things that Africa has failed to achieve.
Now, I ask myself “Why? Why?” Because India was established by people from Africa, and I don’t think, sir, as the Black races about this. This is a fact that, thousands of years ago, people from Africa laid the foundation of the greatest civilization of India, as well as other countries in Southeast Asia. There is overwhelming archeological evidence of this. But, why is Africa drowning in war, in disease, and in hunger? Why?
Many times, sir, I sit in my hut and I cry when I see diseases like AIDS destroying us; when I see senseless wars destroying those countries in Africa which had thrived for thousands of years.
Say, Ethiopia is a country that has been free for thousands of years. Ethiopia was once the school of all of Africa. Nigeria was once a great country with a long tradition of self-government-long, long before the White man came to Africa. But today, all of these countries and many others are being destroyed.
Today, sir, there are parts of Africa which have been totally depopulated by war and by the disease called AIDS, a disease which shows every sign of being a man-made disease. I ask myself, “Who or what is destroying Africa, and why?”
Because there are tribes in those villages I lived in, who assisted my search for knowledge, before the Second World War and after. But today these tribes no longer exist anymore. They are gone, dispersed, totally exterminated in senseless wars that gain the Black people nothing.
I am in South Africa now. Here I was born, and here I was to die. But I see my country falling apart like a rotting mango. South Africa was once a powerful country. She had a powerful army. She had huge industries, which were producing everything from locomotives to little radios. But today my country has become a drug-sodden, crime-ridden piece of rubbish. Why? A country doesn’t get destroyed almost overnight, unless there are definite forces which are determined to obliterate it.
I recently saw, sir, the destruction of another country inside South Africa. The country is Lesotho. This country, Lesotho, is inhabited by some of the oldest and the wisest tribes in South Africa. Amongst them is a tribe called the Bakwama. The Bakwama people are so ancient that they actually describe to you a mysterious land of huge pointed mountains, a mysterious land ruled by a great god, who had the head of a human being and the body of the lion. [One immediately thinks of the Sphinx in Egypt.
The Bakwama call this country Ntswama-tfatfi. This land that they name Ntswama-tfatfi means “the land of the Sun-hawk”. The hawk is the bird of prey in Heaven-you know? Now, these Bakwama people did, in South Africa, know about the land of Egypt where they say their ancestors came from. And they call this mysterious land of the gods, “the land of the Sun-hawk, or the Sun-eagle”, which is exactly how the Egyptians portrayed their country, sir. They portrayed it as “the land of Hor”, the god Horus in Greece.
Now, when Princess Diana died, in 1997, I was one of the first Black people to suspect that Princess Diana had been murdered, and I will tell you why this thing happened, sir. Because, about a year or 8 months before Diana died, there died a king in Lesotho, King Moshoeshoe II. King Moshoeshoe II’s death was detail-for-detail identical to Princess Diana’s death.
Consider this please, all of you who might find my words incredible: Princess Diana died in a tunnel, but the king of Lesotho died in a ravine. He had gone far away to investigate a problem in his cattle ranch. It was found that he was overdue, and when the people went to search for him, they heard from various boys who were looking after the cattle in the Basotho-land mountains, that the boys had heard what sounded like a rifle shot, and when the men went to look where the rifle shot had sounded, they found the king’s car off the road and deep in the ravine. They went down their and they found that the king of Lesotho was in his car. He was strapped in a safety belt, but he had a terrible injury at the back of his head. And they found that the king’s driver was dead at the steering wheel. But, the two men who were the king’s bodyguards, who were riding in the king’s vehicle in the seat directly behind the king, had escaped without a scratch. One of the men entered the car and pulled out the dying king. The king apologized to them for messing-up their hands with his blood, which was a tradition, that a dying king must thank the people who are trying to get him out of where he is. And he must apologize to them for putting them into trouble, because anyone who handles the sacred blood of the king is in spiritual trouble of some kind after that.
Then, when the king’s car was brought out of the ravine, it was found that there was a hole, like a bullet hole, in one of the tires of the car. And that car’s tire was mysteriously removed, afterwards, when the king’s car was stored not in a safe place, but in a yard outside where anybody could get at it. And, when an autopsy was conducted on the body of the driver of the king’s car, it was found that the man had been so drunk as to not have been able to drive the car at all. And third, the man who had driven the king’s car and who died at the wheel had not been the man who usually drives the king’s car.
Now, sir, do you see this mystery now? The death of the Lesotho king matched that of Princess Diana, which was to follow it. In many other amazing details than I have detailed now, and so the nation of Lesotho was reduced to a retch after the king’s death, when rioting took place as a result of a general election which provisional party members prospected and controlled.
Today Lesotho is an economically moribund nation. And Lesotho is a country which was the place of a strange experiment-an experiment which consisted of the building of a huge dam, whose purpose was to supply South Africa, and not Lesotho, with large quantities of water. And we have recently heard ugly rumors emanating from that country, that somebody was bribed to facilitate the building of this huge dam where the water of a small nation is being used to supply, to supplement the water supplies of a highly industrialized nation.
There are many strange things, sir, which have taken place in South Africa, and are taking place, as well as in other parts of Africa, which make no sense to me as an African. There are wars which take place in Africa, where after an African country has gained its independence from the colonial power, then a force of rebels pick up weapons against that country’s government, but instead of the rebels fighting the government to the bitter end, what happens again and again is that the rebel forces split into various groups which end up fighting not only the government in power, but also each other. And the result is that, in several African countries, the country is so destroyed that, no matter which party wins, the people lose. The United Nations are caused to be called in, in order to create some semblance of peace. In other words, Africans have now started fighting wars which bring about not victory, but the destruction of themselves, as well as their people.
I would like to draw your attention, sir, to the senseless tide which is still raging in the Sudan, as well as other parts of Africa. I would like to draw your attention, sir, to the longest and most terrible civil war which is destroying the southern parts of the Sudan. I would like to draw your attention, and that of your readers, sir, to the terrible war which is destroying Angola. And one part of the world, to the East of Southern Africa, has been so raped by many years of war that there are now places where you don’t even hear a bird-thing. All living forms of life have been wiped-out in that place. Now, why?
And then, I have found that these countries that are being destroyed by senseless wars which are totally out of character for us Africans, and I speak as an African, are those countries which, had they been left alone, could have supplied the whole of Africa with food, with water, and with valuable minerals. I am told, sir, that under the surface of Angola, under the plains of Angola, are deposits of coal which are without equal in this world. I am further told that in parts of Angola there are deposits of oil which are second only to those reserves of oil which are in the Middle East.
The Sudan is a country which I visited several times during, and even after, the Second World War. In the Sudan there was so much food that you received free food from the villagers, as you traveled through the Sudan. Today, southern Sudan is a starvation-torn, battle of rage hellhole where children die of diarrhea in the bush while the vultures and buzzards wait on the branches of trees to feast. Africa is being systematically and deliberately destroyed by a power of such relentlessness that it is continuing the destruction even now.
But, this power is getting desperate.
Martin: Excuse me. Did you say there was coal in Angola or gold?
Credo Mutwa: Coal, sir, coal. There are diamonds in Angola, sir. And I have learned from reliable people that there is more oil under Angola, in certain places, than there is in certain parts of the Middle East.
Is this what Africa is being destroyed for? Is this what our nations are being slaughtered for-for coal under the surface, for diamonds? If so, who is this intelligence that is behind this? Are people less valuable than minerals? Are people less valuable than oil?
Because, sir, genocide, worse than anything that Hitler ever committed upon the Jewish people, is taking place in Africa NOW, and the people of America don’t seem to care a damn. Why? We are the best friends that the United States has got. We are the best people. We buy American products. Our children want to look like American children. Our kids wear jeans, sir, and they even speak with American accents, because you American people are our role model. Why are you allowing us to be slaughtered? Why? Why?
Not only are we being killed by war, sir, we are being killed by drugs. There were no drugs in South Africa during the days of the apartheid government. Now, under our democratic government, our country has become one drug-sodden cess pit. Why?
Today, sir, and I speak as a traditional shaman, one of my purposes is to try and help people with a drug problem. Sir, I can help a young African who is abusing marijuana or hashish. I can help a young African who is dependent upon Dakwa. But, sir, I am useless, my skills are rubbish and I fail again-and so do many like me-to help young Black people who are addicted to a new type of drug which is called “crack”. It is a hard-looking drug. It’s like hardened chocolate when you see it, and this thing is so addictive that no shaman can help a young victim of this drug.
I am asking the people of the United States of America, I am asking my Black brothers and my Black sisters over there, why are you allowing the country which is your mother to be exterminated?
I don’t care what skeptics say, sir. Please forgive me when I really get hot under the collar. I don’t care what skeptics say, but there IS a force destroying Africa and I am not buying the nonsense that it is the bankers of the IMF and other big banks. You don’t kill the goose that gives you the golden egg, so why would the bankers want to destroy Africa? There is another force behind these people, a terrible, alien force, which does things behind the scenes which-and the sooner we recognize this, the better-sir, it is very common for human beings who are in trouble to blame forces other than those inside themselves.
But, I have studied the situation in Africa since the end of the Second World War, and before, and I have evidence that points to an alien force at work in Africa.
What, who is wiping out Africa’s oldest tribes?
Please, sir, let me tell you a thing that cuts my soul. May I please?
Martin: Please, continue.
Credo Mutwa: Please, I’m sorry to talk so much. Please forgive me. I belong to the Zulu nation, a nation of warriors, a nation of wise people. My people, sir, have never been studied by White anthropologists thoroughly, but the Zulu people knew things that, if I were to share with your readers, they would be amazed.
Let me show you this. The Zulu people KNEW, amongst many things, that it is the Earth which moves around the Sun, and not the other way around. They said, to explain this thing to the initiated, that the Earth is a feminine creature and the Sun is a male creature, and, therefore, the Earth is the mobile one who dances around the Sun-the beautiful princess who dances around the fiery king who is the Sun. Our people knew that the Earth was a sphere. Our people knew about germs and their function. When the White man came to Africa, where did this incredible knowledge come from? I do not know.
The people of America and the people of Europe say that it was Albert Einstein who came out with the idea that time and space are one and the same thing. My answer to that is, “No!”
My people, the Zulus, knew that space and time was one thing. In the language of the Zulu, one of the names for space is umkati. And the Zulu name for time is isikati. Now, our people knew that space and time were one and the same thing, hundreds of years before Einstein’s birth.
And furthermore, our people believed, like the Dogon people, that there are 24 planets in our part of space which are inhabited by intelligent creatures of various states. And, this knowledge has never been recorded in any book, and I and my aunt are the only surviving high sanusi [shaman] in South Africa who are the keepers of this knowledge. My aunt is still alive. She is about 90-something years old, and I am now close to dead, suffering from diabetes-a terrible killer of African people nowadays.
And, what I am trying to tell you is that, although my people had this tremendous knowledge, which has never been written down in any book, the Zulu people today, a huge percentage of them, are victims of HIV or outright AIDS. And it has been calculated, sir, in the next 50 years, fully three-fourths of the Zulu people in Natal are going to die. And I am the keeper of sacred objects which I inherited from my grandfather. I am, from my mother’s side, a direct descendant of the last true Zulu king, Dingame. And, my duty should be to protect my people from anything that threatens their existence.
Look, please, sir. Anyone who studies humanity with love, with understanding, and with care, recognizes the fact that there is a shining God which is struggling to be born within each and every one of us. We are trying to fight back, although many of us are not yet aware of this. We are developing an attitude of wanting to protect our planet, no matter who or what we are.
There are chiefs in Africa who fine you very heavily if they see you destroying a tree unnecessarily. This thing was common in the past, but it disappeared with the coming of the White people; but now it has come back again.
Man is becoming, is struggling to become a more advanced, more caring being, and the aliens are not going to take this lying down. They are going to cause us to kill each other, again. And I am worried about what is going to happen.
Sir, I can show you many strange things that African people did to protect themselves against the Grey aliens. The things that our people did were not the result of superstition. They were the result of terrible personal experience.
One day I hope to share with you, sir, the story of how I got “taken”, we say. We believe, sir, that the Mantindane (“the tormentor”), the Greys, are really servants of the Chitauli. And that they, contrary to what White people think-White people think a wrong thing, sir, many-that the Mantindane are experimenting with us. They are NOT. I repeat, they are not.
Anyone who has been through the hells of these beings will tell you that there is nothing experimental in what they do. There is a cold, cold, cold-blooded resolve, and they are not doing what they do to us for themselves, they are doing what they do to us for greater creatures than they are. Please, sir, can you give me a little time to share with you, briefly, what happened to me?
Martin: Oh yes, absolutely, please. We have all the time you need.
Credo Mutwa: Sir, it was an ordinary day, like any other day. It was a beautiful day in the eastern mountains of Zimbabwe, which are called Inyangani. These are mountains to the East of Zimbabwe.
Now, I had been instructed by my teacher to go and find a special herb which we were going to use in the healing of a certain initiate who was badly ill. And my teacher, a woman called Mrs. Moyo, was Ndebele, from Zimbabwe, once known as Rhodesia.
I was looking for this herb, and I was not thinking about anything, and I had no belief whatsoever in these creatures. I had never encountered them before, and although we African people believe in many things, I was mighty skeptical, even about certain entities that we believed in at that time, because I had never encountered anything like that before.
And all of a sudden, sir, I noticed that the temperature around me had dropped, although it was a very hot African day. I suddenly noticed that it was now cold and there was, what appeared to be, a bright blue mist swirling all around me, getting between me and the eastern landscape. I remember wondering, stupidly, what this thing meant, because I had just begun to dig one of the herbs I had found.
Suddenly, I found myself in a very strange place, a place that looked like a tunnel lined with metal. I had worked in mines before, and where I found myself appeared to be a mine tunnel which was lined with silver-greyish metal.
I was lying on what appeared to be a very heavy and very large working bench or a working table, sir. But yet, I was not chained to the table. I was just lying there and my trousers were missing, and so were the heavy boots that I always wore when I was out in the bush. And all of a sudden, in this strange, tunnel-like room, I saw what appeared to be dull, heady-looking, grey, dull-like creatures which were moving toward me.
There were lights in this place, but not lights as we know them. They seemed to be patches of glowing stuff. And there was something above the far entrance which looked like writing, that writing against the silver-grey surface, and these creatures were coming at me but I was hypnotized, just as if the witchcraft had been put upon my head.
But I watched the creatures as they were coming towards me. I didn’t know what they were. I was frightened, but I couldn’t move my arms or my legs. I just lay there like a goat on a sacrificial altar. And when the creatures came towards me, I felt fear inside me. They were short creatures, about the size of African Pigmy. They have very large heads, very thin arms, and very thin legs.
I noticed, sir, because I am an artist, a painter, that these creatures were built all wrong from an artist’s point of view. Their limbs were too long for their body, and their necks were very thin, and their heads were almost as large as full-grown watermelons. They had strange eyes, which looked like goggles of some kind. They had no noses, as we have, only small holes on either side of the raised area between their eyes. Their mouth had no lips, only thin cuts as if made by a razor.
And while I was looking at these creatures, sir, in amazed fascination, I felt something close to my head, about my head. And when I looked up, there was another creature, a slightly bigger one than the other, and it was standing above my head and was looking down at me.
I looked up into its eyes and I was totally hypnotized, and you know, I was spellbound. I looked into the thing’s eyes and I noticed that the creature wanted me to keep looking into his eyes. I looked and saw that, through these covers over their eyes, I could see the creature’s real eyes behind this black, goggle-like cover. It’s eyes were round, with straight pupils, like those of a cat. And the thing was not moving it’s head. It was breathing; I could see that. I could see little nostrils moving, closing and shutting, but sir, if anybody says to me that I smelled like that creature, really, I would konk him one on the face.
Martin: (Laughter)
Credo Mutwa: The creature smelled like nobody’s business. It had a strange smell, a throat-tightening, chemical smell, which smelled like rotten eggs, and also like hot copper [sulfur], a very strong smell.
And the creature saw me looking at it, and it looked down at me and, all of a sudden, I felt a terrible, awful pain on my left thigh, as if a sword had been driven into my left thigh. I screamed in pain, horrible, calling out for my mother, and the creature placed it’s hand over my mouth. You know, sir, it was like-if you want to know how that felt, please sir, take the leg of a chicken, a live chicken, and place it against your lips. That was how the creature’s hand felt upon my mouth.
It had thin, long fingers, which had more joints than my human fingers have. And the thumb was in the wrong place. Each one of the fingers ended in a black claw, almost like certain African birds. The thing was telling me to be quiet. And how long the pain went on, sir, I don’t know. I screamed and I screamed and I screamed, again.
And then, all of a sudden, something was pulled out of my flesh, and I looked down and saw my thigh covered with blood, and I saw that one of the creatures-there were four of them, other than the one standing over my head-they wore tight fitting overalls, which were silvery-grey in color, and their flesh resembled the flesh of certain types of fish that we find in the sea off South Africa. And the creature standing above my head appeared to be a female. It was somehow different than the others. It was taller, bigger, although it didn’t have breasts like a woman, it appeared to be feminine. And the others appeared to be afraid of it, I don’t know how I can describe this.
And then, while this terrible thing was going on, another of the creatures came up to me-it walked sideways, in a slightly jerking way, as if it was drunk-it walked up along the table, to my right side, and it stood next to the one standing above my head. And before I knew what was happening, this creature stuck something that was like a small, silver, ball-point pen with a cable at one end, it pushed this thing, coldly, into my right nostril.
Sir, the pain was out of this world. Blood splattered all over. I choked and tried to scream, but the blood got into my throat. It was a nightmare. Then, it pulled the thing out and I tried to fight and sit up.
The pain was terrible, but the other thing above my head placed it’s hand upon my forehead and kept me down with very little force. I was choking and trying to spit out the blood, and then I managed to turn my head to the right to spit out the blood, which I did, and then what the creatures did to me, sir, I don’t know.
All I do know is that the pain went away, and in place of the pain, strange visions flooded my head, visions of cities, some of which I recognized from my travels-but, cities which were half-destroyed, the buildings having their tops blown away, with windows like empty eye-sockets in a human skull. I saw these visions again and again. All the buildings that I saw were half-drowned in a reddish, muddish water.
It was as if there had been a flood and the buildings were sticking up out of this great flood, partly destroyed by a disaster of some kind, and it was a terrible sight.
And then, before I knew it, one of the creatures, the one standing next to my feet, drove something into my organ of manhood, but here there was no pain, just a violent irritation, as if I was making love to something or someone.
And then, when the creature withdrew the thing, which was like a small, black tube which it had forced into my organ of manhood, I did something which produced a strange result, and I did not do it intentionally. I think it was-my bladder opened, and I urinated straight into the chest of the creature which had pulled the thing out of my organ.
And if I had shot the creature, it would never have reacted as it did. It jerked away and nearly fell, and then it recovered and staggered away like a drunken insect, and left the room. I don’t know whether my urine did it; I don’t know. But that is what happened.
Then, after a while, the other creatures went away, leaving me with a dull pain in my nostril, with blood on my thigh, and the table wet with urine. And the thing standing above my head had not moved. It just stood there with it’s right hand touching it’s left shoulder, in a strangely beautiful and feminine way. It stood there looking at me. There was no expression in its face. I never saw any of the creatures talk or make any sound of any kind. All I do know is that they appeared to be mute.
And then, out of somewhere there arrived two other creatures, one of which was made entirely out of metal. Even in my worst nightmares, I still see this creature. It was tall. It was big. And the area in which we were was too small for it. It walked with a slight stoop, moving forward, and it was definitely not a living thing. It was a metal creature, a robot of some kind. And it came and it stood near my feet, its whole body clumsily bent, looking down at me. There was no mouth. There was no nose. There were just two bright eyes, which seemed to change color, and seemed to move somehow, like the crackling of an electrical device.
And then, behind this huge, bent creature, came a creature which surprised me. It was very, very, very, very swollen, sir, in appearance. It had pink skin. It had a blondish, very human body. It had very bright, blue, slanting eyes. It had hair which looked like nylon fiber of some kind. It had high cheek-bones and an almost human mouth, with full lips and a small, pointed chin. The creature, sir, was definitely a female but like an artist and a painter, which I am, and also a sculptor, I noticed that the creature was totally out of proportion. It was wrong.
First, its breasts were thin and pointed, and set too high upon its chest, not where a normal woman’s breasts would be. Its body was powerful, almost fat, but its legs were too short and its arms were too short in proportion to the rest of its body. And it came towards me, looked down at me, and before I knew what it was doing, somehow it mated with me. It was a horrible experience, sir, even worse than what had been done to me before. But even now, the trauma of that day had affected my life even now, exactly 40 years later.
And after that, when the creatures had gone, leaving only the one creature which had been standing about my head, the creature standing about my head shook me by the hair, it gripped me by the head and forced me to stand off the table and to get off the table. I did that, and such was the state that I was in, that I fell onto my knees and hands, onto the floor.
And I noticed that that floor was strange. It had moving patterns in it, which kept on changing and shifting-purple, red, and greenish patterns, on a metal-grey background. And the creature pulled me by the hair, again, forcing me to stand up, and it pushed me roughly and made me follow it.
Sir, it would take too long for me to describe what I saw in that strange place, as the creature pushed me, roughly, from room to room. Even now my mind can’t grasp what it was that I saw. Amongst many things that I saw were huge cylindrical objects, made of what appeared to be glass of some kind. And in these object, cylinders, which reached from the roof to the floor of the place we were going through, was what appeared to be a sort-of a greyish-pink liquid. And in this liquid I saw small editions of the alien creatures floating round and round, like disgusting little frogs, inside this liquid.
I couldn’t understand what it was that I was being shown. But then, in the last room I was led through, I saw people, and other strange creatures, which, even now, my mind can’t make head or sense out of, lying on the table.
And I passed a White man, a real White man, who smelled like a human being, was smelling of sweat, urine, excrement, and fear. This White man was lying on a table like the one I had been lying on, and I looked into his eyes and he looked into mine as I went by.
And then I found myself out in the bush. I found that my trousers were missing. There was a terrible pain in my left thigh. There was a pain in my penis which was starting to swell, and when I tried to pass water, the pain was excruciating. I took off my shirt and I used it as a loin-cloth and I walked through the bush.
I first met a group of young Rhodesian Black people who guided me to my teacher’s village. And when I arrived outside that village, I smelled so horribly that every dog in the village came yapping and snarling to tear me to pieces. And it was only my teacher and her other students and the villagers who saved me on that day. My teacher and the villagers were not at all surprised by what I had to tell them. They accepted it, sir. They said to me that what had happened to me had happened to many other people before, and that I was lucky to return alive, because many people have disappeared in that part of the land, never to be seen again-White people, Black people, and so on.
Sir, I’m cutting a very long story short. In the year following, 1960, I was delivering parcels in the city of Johannesburg. You see, I was working in a curio shop, when a White man shouted at me to stop.
I assumed that the White man was a secret policeman who wanted to look into my identity documents. And when I tried to produce the documents, he told me, angrily, that he didn’t want to see my stinking documents.
Sir, he asked me this question: “Listen, where the hell have I seen you before? Who are you?”
I said, “I am nobody, sir; I am just a working man.”
He said, “Don’t bullshit me, man; who the hell are you? Where did I see you before?”
And then I looked at him. I recognized him-his long, straggly, golden-brown hair, his ridiculous mustache and beard. I remembered him-his blue eyes blood-shot and naked-terror, shining upon his eyes, and his skin as pale as that of a goat.
I said, “Meneer”, which is the African’s way. “Meneer-I saw you in Rhodesia in a certain place underground.” And if I had hit that White man with my fist, he wouldn’t have reacted the way he did, sir. He turned away and walked with a terrible expression, and he disappeared on the other side of the street.
Now, roughly, this is what happened to me, sir, but it is not a unique experience at all.
Since that time I met many, many, many people who have had the identical experience that I said, and most of them were traditional Black men and women who can neither read nor write. They were coming to me to seek my help as a shaman, but I was, myself, looking for somebody wiser than I to tell me what had happened to me, exactly. Because, sir, when I get caught by the Mantindane, you become so traumatized, your life becomes so changed, you become so embarrassed and ashamed of yourself, you develop a self-hatred which you cannot understand, and there are subtle changes in your life which make no sense to you.
One: You develop a strange love for humankind. You want to shake everybody by the shoulders and say, “Hey, wake-up people; we are not alone. I know we are not alone!”
And, you develop a feeling that your life is no longer your own; and furthermore, you become compelled with a strange edge to move from place to place, to travel. You become worried about the future; you become worried about people.
And another thing, sir, which I hoped one day you would send people to me to see for their own self: you develop knowledge which doesn’t belong to you. You develop an understanding of space, an understanding of time and creation which makes no sense to you as a human being-it is a state, after your terrible torture, after substances have been removed from you, some kind of exchange takes place where you suddenly know things that the Mantindane would know, which ordinary human beings do not know.
But, sir, I know that this sharing of God often happens even when-for example, at one time, in 1966, in South Africa, sir, I was arrested and rather savagely interrogated by the security police. It was that time when every Black intellectual, no matter who he or she was, had a visit from these really nasty guys, who put you to torture, sometimes, who used to put electrical devices on you, and ask you questions, and so on.
Sometimes, when these “human beings” were torturing you, you often used to sense what they were thinking. Somehow, when you are being tortured by human beings, not by Mantindane only, there is a transference of thought. For example, when a particularly nasty secret policeman was coming to beat you, you KNEW what he was thinking, even before he burst into the room in which you were held. You knew that he was coming, and you knew exactly what he was thinking and what he intended to do to you.
So, this is why I say the strange things that flood my mind. And what flooded my mind on that day were visions from the mind of the Mantindane.
Since that time-I am a man of only very limited education-I found it hard to speak, let alone to write English. I take long to say things which people of better English would say in few words. But, my hands are capable of making things which nobody ever taught me.
I make engines, rocket engines that actually work. I make guns, of any type I wish, and all people who know me will tell you this and, Mr. David Icke, sir, might show you pictures of what I’ve done around my new home. I have made large robots out of scrap iron, and some of these robots are going to work. I don’t know where I acquired this knowledge from. And since that terrible day, the visions I have seen since I was a child, and the ordinary impressions which I have as a shaman, have grown much more intense.
I don’t know why, and I want to know the reason why. But I can tell you, sir, that these creatures, which people wrongly call aliens, are not aliens at all.
Over many years of looking into this thing, trying to understand it, I can tell you this: that the Mantindane, and the other kinds of alien beings that our people know about, are sexually compatible with human beings. The Mantindane are capable of impregnating African women.
And I have come across many cases of this during the last 30 years or so. For example, according to our culture, abortion is regarded as worse than murder. And if a tribal woman from a rural area in South Africa is found to be pregnant by some unknown person, and then her pregnancy disappears, that, sir, relative to that woman, accuses her of having committed abortion, and yet she denies this, of course.
And because of the fight that results between her and her relatives, the husband’s relatives, then she challenges these people who are accusing her to take her to a sangoma; that is a person like myself. The sangoma will sometimes examine the woman and, if the sangoma finds that the woman had been pregnant, and had somehow had her fetus removed-a thing which, when it is done by the Mantindane, results in specific injuries to the woman which anyone with experience can recognize-then, the sangoma knows that the woman is telling the truth.
Also, the smell which clings to people who have been through the hands of the Mantindane, that meticulous man which is unforgetable, always clings to all women who have been impregnated by the Mantindane, no matter how much perfume or powder they try to use.
So, that is why many such cases land on the doorstep of my life. Sangomas bring such people to me in large numbers, because they think I am the best one to help in such problems.
So, in the last 40 years or so, I have received many women who have actually been impregnated by the Mantindane and their pregnancies mysteriously terminated, leaving the woman feeling defiled, feeling guilty, and rejected by her family. It becomes my duty to convince the family of the woman’s innocence, to try and heal the terrible spiritual and mental-as well as physical-trauma that the woman has undergone, and to otherwise help her and her members of the family, and forget what happened.
No, sir; if these aliens are from a far away planet, why are they able to impregnate women? And why did that strange creature, which was naked, with red pubic hair, which climbed over me on that working table, why did it have an organ which, though slightly different from that of a normal woman, was still a recognizable female organ?
The creature’s organ was in the wrong place. It was slightly more in the front, where that of normal woman is between the legs. But it was recognizable, and it looked like a female organ. It had hair like a woman’s organ.
So, sir, I believe that these so-called aliens don’t come from far away at all. I believe that they are here with us, and I believe that they need substances from us, just as some of us human beings use certain things from wild animals, such as monkey glands, for certain selfish purposes of our own.
I believe, sir, that we should study this dangerous phenomenon very, very, clearly and with objective minds.
Far too many people fall into the temptation of looking upon these “aliens” as supernatural creatures. They are just solid creatures, sir. They are like us; and, furthermore, I’m going to make a statement here which will come as a surprise: the Grey aliens, sir, are edible. Surprised?
Martin: Please continue.
Credo Mutwa: I said, sir, the Grey aliens are edible.
Martin: Yes, I heard that and I’m anxious to....
Credo Mutwa: Their flesh is protein, just as animal flesh on Earth is, but, anyone who ingests Grey alien flesh comes very, very close to death. I nearly did.
You see, in Lesotho there is a mountain called Laribe; it is called the Crying Stone mountain. On several occasions, in the last 50 years or so, alien craft have crashed against this mountain.
And one last incident was reported in the newspapers not so long ago. An African who believes that these creatures are gods, when they find the corpse of a dead Grey alien, they take it, put it in a bag, and drag it into the bush, where they dismember it and ritually eat it. But some of them die as a result of ingesting that thing.
About a year before I had the experience from the Inyangani Mountains, I had been given, by a friend of mine in Lesotho, flesh from what he called a sky god. I was skeptical.
He gave me a small lump of grey, rather dry stuff, which he said was the flesh. And he and I and his wife ritually ate this thing, one night. After we had eaten this thing, sir, on the following day, exactly, our bodies erupted into a rash which was like nothing I had experienced in my life before.
Our bodies were so full of the rash and urticaria, it was as if we had small pox. We itched, the itching was horrible, especially under the arm-pits and between the legs, and the buttocks. Our tongues began to swell. We could not breathe. And for a number of days, my friend, his wife and I were totally helpless, secretly attended by initiates who were studying under my friend, who was a shaman.
I came very close to death. There was bleeding from nearly every orifice in our body. We passed blood, much blood when we went to the toilet. We could barely walk, barely breathe. And after about 4 or 5 days, the rash subsided, then the pealing of the skin took its place now. Our skins began to peal, in scales like that of a snake shedding it’s skin.
Sir, it was one of the most terrible experiences I had undergone. In fact, when I began to feel better, I think that my being abducted by the Mantindane was the direct result of my having ingested flesh from one of these creatures. I had not believed that what my friend was giving me was flesh from a creature. I assumed it was some kind of root or herb or whatever. But, afterwards, I recalled the taste of the thing. It had a coppery taste, and had the same type of smell that I was to encounter in 1959.
And, after the rash went down-while I was still peeling and we were smeared from head to foot with coconut oil by the initiates, every day-a strange change came over us, sir, which I am asking all people of knowledge who would read this in your country to try and explain to me. We went crazy, sir, utterly crazy.
We started laughing like real loony tunes. It was ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha, day after day-for the slightest things we started laughing our heads off, for hours, until you were nearly exhausted.
And then the laughing went away; and then a strange thing happened, a thing which my friend said was the goal which those who ate the flesh of a Mantindane wanted to achieve.
It was as if we had ingested a strange substance, a drug, a drug like no other on this Earth. Suddenly, our feelings were heightened.
When you drank water, it was as if you had drunk a wine of some kind. Water became as delicious as a man-made drink. Food began to taste amazingly. Every feeling was heightened, and it’s indescribable-it was as if I was one with the very heart of the universe. I cannot describe it any other way.
And this feeling of amazing intensity of feeling lasted for over 2 months. When I listened to music, it was as if there was music behind the music, behind the music. When I painted pictures-which is what I do for a living-and when I was holding a particular color on the tip of my brush, it was as if there were other colors in that color. It was an indescribable thing, sir. Even now I cannot describe it. But let me now, sir, go to something else.
The Mantindane are not the only alien beings that we Africans have seen and know about, and have got stories to tell about.
Many, many, many centuries ago, before the first White-man came to Africa, we African people encountered a race of alien beings which looked exactly like the European White-man who were going to invade Africa in our future.
These alien creatures are tall. Some of them are rather well built, like athletes, and they have slightly slanting blue eyes and high cheek-bones. And they have got golden hair, and they look exactly like the Europeans of today, with one exception: their fingers are beautifully made, long and like those of musicians and artists.
Now, these creatures came to Africa out of the sky, in craft which looked like the boomerang of the Australian people. Now, when one of these craft comes down to land, it creates a whirlwind of dust, which makes a very large sound indeed, like that of a tornado. In the language of some African tribes, a whirlwind is zungar-uzungo.
Now, our people gave several names to these White-skinned aliens. They called them Wazungu, a word which loosely means “god” but literally means “people of the dust-devil or the whirlwind”.
And, our people were familiar with these Wazungu from the start. They saw them, and they saw that some-in fact, many-of these Wazungu carry what appears to be a sphere made of crystal or glass, a sphere which they always playfully bounce like a ball in their hands. And when a force of warriors tries to capture a Wazungu, the Wazungu throws this ball into the air, catches it in his hands, and then disappears.
But, some Wazungu were captured by Africans in the past and forcibly kept prisoner in the villages of chiefs, and in the caves of shamans. The person who had captured the Muzungu, as he is called in singular, had to make sure that he kept the glass-globe well-hidden from the Wazungu. So long as he kept the globe hostage, the Muzungu could not escape.
And when Africans saw the real Europeans, the White men from Europe, they transferred to them the name Wazungu. Before we met the people from Europe, we Africans, we had met White-skinned Wazungu, and we transferred the name Wazungu to the real Europeans, from the aliens.
Now, in the Zulu language, we call a White man Umlungu. Now, the word Umlungu means exactly the same as Wazungu, “a god or a creature which creates a big whirlwind underground”.
In Zaire, called now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, White people are called Watende or Walende. This, again, means “a god or a White creature”. And, the word Watende not only is used to refer to the pink-skinned alien, but is also used to refer to the field Chitauli. In Zaire, when shamans talk fearfully about the lords who control the Earth, they refer to them not as Chitauli, but they refer to them euphemistically as Watende-wa-muinda-that is, “the White creature which carries a light” because at night the Chitauli’s forehead eyes glow like red lights in the dense bush. They glow like the rear lights of an automobile in the dense bush. So, a Watende-wa-muinda “the White creature of the light”, that is what the Chitauli are called in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
There are over 24 other alien creatures, sir, that we Africans know about, but I will tell you briefly, now, about only two.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sir, in the country called Zimbabwe, where I had my encounter in 1959, there is also another creature. This is the most amazing creature, and I saw it once, and so did several other people, some Black and some White, who were with me. This creature is a huge creature, and shaped exactly like a gorilla, but it is unlike a gorilla, which often walks on its feet, as well as on its knuckles. The creature I'm talking about, sir, stands about 8 feet or 9 feet high, and is built exactly like a gorilla, but its body is very powerful. Its shoulders are very wide, it's neck is very thick. It is covered with thick, rough fur, like no other wild animal in Africa.
It is a humanoid creature, with thighs and legs and feet, as well as arms and hands which look exactly like those of a human being, only covered with a heavy mat of dark-brown fur. This creature, sir, is known as Ogo by the people of Zimbabwe. And schools of people have seen this creature, hundreds over the many generations. Some of these creatures have been seen right here in South Africa, in isolated bushy and mountainous places. And these Ogo are, detail for detail, exactly like what the Native American people of the Northwestern United States call a Sasquatch or Bigfoot.
In fact, I say it is the same creature and we have it right here in southern Africa. It is also exactly the same creature, but with a totally different skin color, as the one that is seen by the people of Nepal on the slopes of the Himalaya mountains, the creature that is called a Yeti.
Now, then, the last creature, sir, a creature which is so well known in South Africa, and elsewhere in Africa, that if you mention its name, people smile. It is called a Tokoloshe. Every African knows what aTokoloshe is. Some call it Tikoloshe.
It looks like a very nasty looking teddy-bear in appearance, in that it's head is like that of a teddy-bear, but it has got a thick, sharp, bony ridge on top of its head. The ridge goes from above its forehead to the back of its head, and with this ridge it can knock down an ox by butting it with its head.
This creature causes the Black people in certain places to raise their beds on bricks, one brick laid on top of the other one, about 3 feet above the ground. And you find this all over South Africa. ThisTokoloshe likes to play with children, and has been seen hundreds of times by school children, in various parts of South Africa, even in recent times.
Sometimes it will terrorize children by scratching them as they sleep, leaving long, parallel scratches on a child's back and upon a child's thighs, scratches that become infected and itch terribly.
About two years ago, a creature like this terrorized a whole school of children in Soweto, near Johannesburg. And the school children called it pinky-pinky. Now, this creature is not only known in South Africa amongst Black people, it is also known, sir, amongst Polynesian people of Hawaii, and other islands in the Pacific. These people lift their huts, their grass houses, on stilts, to the height exactly that Africans lift their bed. When you ask a Polynesian, 'Why do you built your huts like this?' The Polynesian will say, 'We want to protect ourselves from Tiki.'
Now, this is interesting, sir-that a creature exactly like the one seen in South Africa is also seen on some Pacific islands, and the name by which it is known in the Pacific, Tiki, is very close to the African wordTikiloshe, or Tokoloshe.
One day I hope to share more of this information with your readers, but my appeal, again, is this: Please investigate! Please, let us investigate! Let us stop being too skeptical. Excessive skepticism is just as dangerous and as evil as gullibility.
Nobody can tell me that aliens don't exist. Let someone tell me, what is the meaning of this hole in my side? Let someone tell me, why is it that after I had been mated to that strange creature, in that strange place, my organ of manhood swelled horribly, and for many years after that I couldn't make love to an ordinary woman, properly. Why? If that was a figment of my imagination, how can a figment of one's imagination leave you with scars and cracks on your male organ, some of which have not healed to this date? Let such people answer me that question.
We must investigate, sir, because there is every sign that the alien creatures sharing this planet with us are getting desperate. Why? Because, you see, there is a great fight shaping up, and anyone who thinks deeply about such things can see this fight coming.
What am I talking about? Sir, until 30 or 40 years ago, very few people cared about the environment. Very few people were concerned about the destruction of the rain forests in Africa and elsewhere. Very few people were concerned when White hunters, who, at that time were regarded as heroes, massacred Africa's animals in the thousands. Very few people were concerned when the great nations of the world, such as the United States, Russia, Britain, and France, openly tested nuclear weapons in many parts of the world.
Today there are people who would spit at a big-game hunter if he showed himself in a hotel and announced what he was. Today a big-game hunter is no longer looked upon as a hero, but rather as a murderer. Today there are men and women, Black and White, who are prepared to risk their lives to save trees, to save animals, and to stop the insanity of testing nuclear weapons.
Sir, what does this tell you? It tells you that, after many thousands of years of being dominated by alien creatures, human beings are starting to fight back. Human beings are starting to care about the world in which they live and in which they find themselves. But, the aliens, the Chitauli, the Mantindane-call them what you will-are not going to take that lying down. They are going to punish us, as they did centuries before.
The aliens once destroyed a nation whose name has come down to us Africans as the nation of Amariri. It is said that the kings of Amariri, this fabulous country which we believed lay beyond the setting of the Sun, were refusing to do what the Chitauli were telling them to do.
The kings, at that time, were refusing to sacrifice their children to the Chitauli. They were refusing to make war on fellow human-beings, in order to sustain the Chitauli, with their god's image.
It is said that the Chitauli brought down a fire from Heaven. They took fire from the Sun itself and they used it to burn that great civilization away. They caused earthquakes and tidal waves and destroyed the great civilization of the Red people of the long green hair, who are said to have been the first people ever to be created on this Earth. It is said that the Chitauli allowed only a few surviving people to escape the destruction of Amariri, and that they are prepared to do this again in the very near future.
I'm worried about what is going to happen in other countries in the world. All these earthquakes, which have caused the destruction of human life in the Middle East and in parts of Africa and India, why does my heart feel frightened when I read about all this? These earthquakes are happening with unnatural regularity now, in Egypt, in Armenia, and one of these earthquakes was so powerful, it went right through the planet Earth and caused a very sacred rock in Namibia, a rock known as the Finger of God, which has been standing for tens of thousands of years, to collapse in a heap of rubble. And when that rock collapsed, I received many worried letters from sangomas who believed that because this rock had fallen, then the end of the world was very, very near.
Is there a question, please?
Martin: I read your poem, your pledge. In your pledge you mention the name Jabulon. Can you explain who that is?
Credo Mutwa: Jabulon, sir, is a very strange god. He is supposed to be the leader of the Chitauli. He is a god, to my great surprise, which I find certain groups of White people, especially, worshipping. We have known about Jabulon for many, many centuries, we Black people. But I am surprised that there are White people who worship this god, and these people, amongst them are people whom many have blamed for all the things that have happened on this Earth, namely, the Freemason people. We believe that Jabulon is the leader of the Chitauli. He is the Old One. And one of his names, in the African language, sir, is Umbaba-Samahongo-'the lord king, the great father of the terrible eyes'-because we believe that Jabulon has got one eye which, if he opens it, you die if he looks at you.
It is said, sir, the Umbaba ran away from an eastern land during a power struggle with one of his sons, and he took refuge in Central Africa, where he hides in a cave, deep underground. And it is an amazing thing, sir-it is said that under the Mountains of the Moon in Zaire is this great city of copper, of many thousands of shining buildings. There dwells the god Umbaba or Jabulon. And this god is waiting for the day when the surface of the Earth will be cleared of human beings so that he, and his children, the Chitauli, can come out and enjoy the heat of the Sun.
And, one day, sir, I had a very unexpected visit while I was living in Soweto, near Johannesburg. I was visited by priests from Tibet.
One of these priests, I'm sure you have met him or you know of him. His name is Akyong Rinpochce. He is one of the leading Tibetan priests in England who was exiled with the Dalai Lama, and he visited me one day while I was in my medicinal village in Soweto. And one of the things that Akyong Rinpochce asked me was, 'Do I know of a secret city which is somewhere in Africa, a city made of copper?'
I said, 'But, Akyong, you are describing the city of Umbaba, the city of the unseen god, the god who hides underground. How do you know about this?' And Akyong Rinpochce, who is a very serious investigator of strange phenomena, told me that at one time the great Lama left Tibet with a group of followers and came to Africa searching for this city. And the Lama, and his followers, were never seen again. They never returned back to Tibet.
Now, sir, we have got stories in central and southern Africa about little Yellow men who came to Africa looking for the city of Umbaba, the city from which you cannot return alive. What is amazing, sir-I don't know whether this falls within the orbit of your newspaper, but-there are very, very disturbing stories which I have followed-up here in South Africa, stories which make no sense to me.
(Break for a few minutes.)
Credo Mutwa: Hello.
Martin: Yes, Credo. May I just say that I am very appreciative of your taking this time to talk with me, and I realize it's difficult.
Credo Mutwa: I appreciate the honor that you are doing me, much more than you realize. And I know how White people often treat anyone who talks on the subject that I am talking about, as weird.
Sir, I really shouldn't be exposing myself to public ridicule, as I am, but, our people ARE DYING! Not only do we have problems with drugs in southern Africa, not only do we have problems with crime in my country, which is getting a thousand times more vicious than it ever was before, not only do we have problems with AIDS, sir, but we also have got weird problems which often come our way-problems which, when you study them together, show you that something unearthly is going on in southern Africa. Can I share this thing with you, sir?
Martin: Yes, please.
Credo Mutwa: Sir, according to my culture it is very rude for one man simply to talk to another man without giving that other man the chance to talk back to him. So, out of respect of your paper and of you, I would like to ask you, in your country, the United States, do you have strange stories about underground structures which are built-because we are having similar stories in South Africa, and with us they are having very strange results, indeed.
Martin: Yes, there are many stories of underground-we call them underground bases, actually, and, in fact, in the newspaper I was associated with earlier, we published an entire edition on exposing the locations of those underground bases. Not only that....
Credo Mutwa: There is exactly the same thing here in South Africa, and there has been for a number of years. I was able to confirm one to my own satisfaction, but I have failed to confirm others. You see, sir, a man like me, who walks two worlds-the African mystical world, as well as the modern, down-to-Earth world-must be careful of what he says. But, about 5 years ago, I was living in the little town of Masikeng, a very historical town which was the site of a famous siege by the Boors, in the war of 1899-1902.
It was in this town, sir, that the Scout movement, the Boy Scout movement, was founded by Captain Powell. I'm sure you've heard about him. But, while I was living in Masinkeng, a number of people came to me, ordinary tribesmen and women, sir, some of them totally illiterate. These people complained to me that their relatives had mysteriously disappeared. They wanted me to divine where their relatives have gone to. And, I asked these people, all of whom did not know each other, where did your relatives disappear?
These people had told me an incredible story, and it was this: Not far from Masikeng there is a famous place which I'm sure you have heard about, a place which we call the Las Vegas of South Africa. This is the famous casino/hotel complex called Sun City.
Martin: Yes.
Credo Mutwa: I was told that under Sun City strange mining operations were in progress, deep underground, and that many of the Africans who worked in those mines disappeared and never returned home again, although their paychecks kept on being sent to their family. The men never returned home, as ordinary miners do.
Now, I looked into this phenomenon, sir, and, like a fool, I refused to believe it. And then more stories came my way, because when an African is in deep trouble, he or she always looks for a sangoma to find the reason behind the trouble.
Sir, the other story was this, and this one I found to be a shocking truth-that there was construction across the border from South Africa, in the land known as Botswana. There, the Americans were working with African labor, who had been sworn to secrecy. The Americans were building there a secret airport which can take modern jet fighters. Now, I couldn't believe this. Again, I was told that many had mysteriously disappeared there-ordinary tribesmen, sir, not even educated Black people; ordinary workers have gone missing. And when their relatives try to find out where they had gone, they are met with stone-cold silence.
Now, I wanted to have a look at this thing, and one thing that made me act was that a strange story swept through South Africa, that a South African jet aircraft, a jet fighter, had shot down a flying saucer. And the jet fighter had been scrambled from this secret base.
Now, sir, I decided to investigate because my credibility as a shaman and as a sangoma was at stake. I went to Botswana. It was very easy. You can still cross through the wire and get into that country. The borders are not as heavily sealed in certain places as many people would think.
I went there with some friends and I found that there was such a base in Botswana, not underground, but on the surface. It is an aircraft base, but Black people are afraid of even being seen near there because it is said that you will disappear if you get too close to the place, and the man who took us there didn't want to come near that place. I studied it from far away, and it does exist, and the man said if we got any nearer to the place, we would disappear. Which is a very odd thing, sir, because there are many military bases all over South Africa, and in Botswana, but this particular one fills the local people with deep terror. Why this would be so, I'm still struggling to find out, even now, because there are too many strange things going on in my country, and they are affecting the lives of many of our people very badly indeed.
Now, there is another thing, sir: It is that one of the things that the Chitauli like to do in their underground caves, where many fires are always kept ablaze, we are told, is that when a Chitauli gets sick and starts to lose a large area of skin on his body, it is said that there is a disease that the Chitauli suffer from which causes them to lose large areas of their skin, leaving only raw flesh.
When the Chitauli gets sick this way, a young girl, a virgin, is usually kidnapped by the servant of the Chitauli and is brought to the underground place. There the girl is bound, hand and foot, and wrapped in a golden blanket, and is forced to lie next to the Chitauli, the sick Chitauli, week after week, being well fed and well cared for, but kept bound hand and foot, and only released at certain times to relieve herself. It is said that after the sick Chitauli shows signs of getting better, then the human girl is manipulated into trying to escape. She is given a chance to escape, a chance which is really not a chance. Then, when the girl escapes, she runs, but she is pursued over a long distance underground by flying creatures which are made of metal, and she is recaptured when she reaches the height of fear and exhaustion.
Then she is laid on an altar, usually a rough rock, flat on top. Then, she is cruelly sacrificed, sir, and her blood is drunk by the sick Chitauli, which then recovers. But, the girl must not be sacrificed until she is very, very, very frightened, because if she is not frightened, it is said that her blood will not save the sick Chitauli. It must be the blood of a very frightened human being, indeed.
Now, this habit of chasing a victim was also practiced by ordinary African cannibals, sir. In Zulu-land, in the last century, there were cannibals who used to eat people, and their descendants, even today, will tell you, if they trust you, that the flesh of the human being who has been frightened and made to run over a great distance, while trying to escape, tastes far better than the flesh of someone who was simply killed.
Now, sir, some time ago here in South Africa-and it is still an ongoing process-5 White girls disappeared. They were school-girls, sir. These school-girls were, every one of them, a highly talented child-either a child who showed signs of developing spiritual power, or a child who was a leader of her class in one particular thought or subject of learning. Five such children disappeared in South Africa. It was a very big story in the newspaper and, at one time, White people came to me and persuaded me to try and trace these children.
And one day a White man brought to me a rubber toy belonging to a White child who had disappeared. And I took the rubber toy in my hands and I noticed that the creature's eyes appeared to move. It was as if the rubber toy, a toy dinosaur, was about to burst into tears. I felt very bad, as if I could stand up and run away. And then I told this White man, 'Listen to me: The child who held this toy is dead. What are you trying to do to me? This child is dead. I feel it.'
And the White man, who was a television producer, took the toy, the school books, and the jersey, and he went away. And, sure enough, the White school child was found dead, buried in a shallow grave next to a road.
Now, other people came to me asking for my help in finding their missing children. Are they dead? Are they alive? Before I could do anything, sir-at that time I still had a telephone in my home-my telephone started ringing and people with very angry voices, White people voices, shouted at me and told me to stop helping those people. They told me that if I don't stop, acid would be thrown into my wife's face, and that my children would be murdered, one after the other.
And, sure enough, sure enough, my youngest son was brutally stabbed, almost to death, one day, by mysterious people whom his friends later told me had been White-skinned people. And so, I stopped, sir.
I am told, reliably, that over 1,000 children disappear in South Africa, almost every month. And they disappear, never to be seen again. Many people, especially in the newspaper field, think that this is the result of child prostitution rackets. But I do not think so. The children-if you check the history of many of these children, they were not ordinary street children, sir. They are school children who stand out in their class, because of certain subjects at which they are good, or, who stand out in their class because of thoughts which they are good at.
Not only that, sir, but ordinary women have disappeared this way, in Masikeng, also, at more or less the same time that the 5 White children disappeared. In Masikeng, two Black school teachers, female school teachers, disappeared in their car and were never seen again. But I don't want to burden you, sir, with this terrible story.
But let me tell you one last thing: After the disappearance of the 5 White school children, the police arrested a priest, a reverend of the White Reform Church, Reverend Van Rooyen. It was said that it was Van Rooyen who was responsible for the disappearance of these poor White school kids. And, he had been assisted by his girlfriend, who hand-picked these children. Before Van Rooyen could appear in court, a very strange thing happened. He and his girlfriend were shot in their little vehicle, a little 4x4 truck. And, after they had been shot, the truck managed to come to a stop-a thing that a moving truck never does-and I was told, afterwards, by a White woman who knew Van Rooyen, that Van Rooyen and his woman had not committed this crime as the police had said to the newspapers.
They had actually been murdered. Why? Because Van Rooyen was found with a gunshot wound in his right temple, and yet, all of the people who knew him knew that he had been a left-handed man. So, who murdered Van Rooyen and his woman? It is one of the biggest and the ugliest mysteries in South Africa to date.
There is more, much more along these lines, but I won't waste your time with it.
Martin: When we were talking about the Greys, you talked about the Chitauli. You had described them, the reptilians-now correct me if I'm wrong-were you describing them as tall, thin, large-headed, large-eyed beings?
Credo Mutwa: Yes, sir. They are tall. They walk with a-you see, the Grey aliens walk with a jerking motion, sir, as if there is something wrong with their legs. But, the Chitauli walk very gracefully, like trees gently swaying in the wind.
They are tall. They have large heads. Some of them have got horns all around their heads. Now, let me express amazement, there exists-that in one of the films that recently appeared in South Africa, a Star Wars film, the latest one, shows a character EXACTLY like a Chitauli, exactly! It's got horns all around it's head. These are the warrior Chitauli.
The royal Chitauli have got no horns around their head, but have got a darker ridge reaching from above their forehead to their back. They are very graceful creatures, we are told, sir, but they have got-their little finger is a claw which is a very sharp, straight claw, which they use to punch into human noses, in order to drink human brains in one of their rituals.
Martin: Now, are they fair skinned?
Credo Mutwa: They are not pink skinned. They are white-skinned, like paper, almost like certain types of cardboard. Their skin is like that, it is the skin, definitely, of scaly, reptile-like creatures. Their foreheads are very large, bulging, and they look highly, highly intelligent.
Martin: Now, it's been said-I've heard that these beings are very controlling and they thrive on 'divide and conquer'.
Credo Mutwa: Yes, they do, sir. They set human being against human being. I could give you many amusing examples, using some African language, how the Chitauli are said to have divided human beings. They like-do you know who they like, sir? They like religious fanatics.
Martin: (Laughter)
Credo Mutwa: Ones who are burdened by too much religion are very popular with the Chitauli.
Martin: Well, now, I can't help but wonder if the Chitauli are prevalent in the United States because of the large number of underground bases. In the United States, alone, the numbers of missing children are so astronomically high that the White-slave trade does not answer those questions.
Credo Mutwa: Yes, sir, I agree. But, I'm sorry, sir, I feel that it is in Africa that something very funny is designed to happen. Let me tell you what happened to me, recently, sir. We still have a little time. I won't be long, one minute or less.
Martin: No, no-that's fine.
Credo Mutwa: When I started talking to Mr. David Icke, and it was (when) Mr. Icke started speaking about me in Cape Town, I received a visit from 3 White people who pretended to be from South America. These people told me that something is going to happen on the 9th of this month, on 9-9-99. They said that this was going to happen in Lake Titicaca, a place which I once visited about 2 years ago.
Martin: A very special place.
Credo Mutwa: Yes, sir. And then, these people told me, when we were speaking-these people, sir, speaking through an interpreter-told me that Africa is the country where something is going to happen soon which will decide the fate of all humankind.
And then, we parted on very friendly words, sir, but these people had left me a letter which I did not open until a few hours after they had left. And in this letter was written that I should not attend David Icke's talk, and that a strange person called Alia Czar was watching me. I don't know who Alia Czar is.
And they said to me-these people had said to me when we met-that they were under a great lord called Melchizedek. And, after I'd read this threatening letter, which threatened that if I talked, my wife, who is sick of cancer in hospital, is going to die if I talked. Then, I began to wonder. Who were these people?
Then, because I've been to South America before, I found that the Spanish language with which they were speaking was different from the language, the Spanish which is spoken in South America. These people were using Spanish from Spain, and not the slightly weakened Spanish from South America.
Even now, sir, that threat is still hanging over my head and, may I point out, sir, a strange thing which whoever you will send to me one day will see for themself: my wife is sick of cancer in the hospital, which is the largest hospital in South Africa, sir. And in one of the x-rays taken of my wife's womb, a strange metal device was seen-of a kind which has puzzled doctors. I spoke to my wife. I asked her, 'Who put this object, which the x-rays have seen, in her womb.'
My wife said nobody had ever touched her, and nobody had ever inserted anything into her. But this artifact, sir, which is clearly marked in the x-ray, and is clearly indicated with an arrow, is first seen in one x-ray plate, disappears for the next 2 plates, and is seen on the 4th plate again. I've been wondering very, very much about this.
No matter what we may think, sir, there are strange things going on in this world and they require an agent, investigation, and explanation. What is this strange device, which the doctors cannot identify, doing inside the uterus of a 65-year-old woman? My wife is suffering, and I can lose her at any time now, because I can't even get her out of hospital. Who put this device in her uterus, and why? I will never know the answer, not in this world.
Martin: I'm very sorry to hear about your wife having cancer. I just lost my mother last year to cancer and I know that is a very painful struggle.
Credo Mutwa: Yes, sir, it is.
Martin: So, I am very sorry that you are going through that.
Credo Mutwa: Through the training as a Zulu step-son warrior, we have got something like the Japanese Samuri which we call the Kaway, which is a Sun warrior. When a Sun warrior, who is trained like I am, undergoes a terrible experience, he must channel the pain caused by that experience into cold, battle anger, in order to overcome the grief he feels.
And, at this moment, sir, I am aggrieved about what is happening in my country; about what's happening to my people; about what's happening to my wife, who is also my half-sister. You see, ours is what was called a sacred marriage between a man, a sanusi, a shaman, and his half-sister. And, the wife I'm about to lose is my half-sister. Our father is one man, although our mothers were different.
You know, sir, I feel a cold rage that Africa is being destroyed. I feel, sir, a cold rage that my people are being destroyed by forces which, when you study them, you find are totally alien. And, here, let me share with you, sir, one last thing, please, which will make your readers understand why I am feeling what I am feeling now.
As you know, sir, there is AIDS going like a silent fire through South Africa. And, last year, I found, to my horror, that one of my six children, my 21-year-old daughter, is HIV positive. Sir, I feel a cold rage in my heart that we are allowing an alien disease that came from we know not where, a disease which anyone, with any thought, realizes was manufactured somewhere in order to destroy large swaths of humankind.
When I look into my daughter's eyes, sir, I feel a chill. I've got two daughters, grown-up, young women, and she is the last. The other one is short and dumpy, and a loving-a lovely African girl with a big backside and big breasts. But this girl, who is dying of this disease, is slender, dark-skinned like my mother, and she is very beautiful, even by European standards-and I cannot look into my child's eyes and see what I read there: a resignation, a why? Why?
If AIDS was a natural disease, sir, I would accept it, because man must live side-by-side with illness in this world. But a child, you spend years educating and bringing-up, suddenly being snuffed-out before your eyes, by a disease made by evil people, I want to tear somebody's eyes out for what I've seen happening. I'm sorry, sir.
Martin: I understand.
Credo Mutwa: We must look into this thing. Is there one last question you would like to ask?
Martin: Yes. I would like to go back to the copper city for a moment. It would seem that this Jabulon would be the equivalent of what, in the West, we call Satan. Would you say that?
Credo Mutwa: I think so, yes, sir. He is the chief of the Chitauli. And, like Satan, he lives in a house underground where great fires are always lighted, to keep him warm. Because, we are told, that after the great war they fought with God, they became cold in their blood and they cannot stand freezing weather, which is why they require human blood, and also they require fire always to be kept working where they are.
Martin: Well it's been said, in the recent video tape that David Icke has put out, that the shape-shifting reptilians, in order to maintain their facade, their cover, their human-like appearance, they must drink human blood. And there is something about the blond gene, apparently. Now, I don't know what...
Credo Mutwa: Yes. Mr. David Icke shared that a little with me, sir. He told me that, repeatedly, golden-haired people get sacrificed by the Chitauli , and then I told him, in my turn, what I know from Africa.
You see, sir, not all Africans have got black hair. There are Africans who are regarded as very holy, as very sacred. These are Africans who are born with natural red hair. These Africans are believed to be very spiritually powerful. Now, in Africa, such people, albeamers or red-headed Africans, were the most victims of sacrifice, especially when they were just entering maturity-whether they were males or females.
Martin: Now, when you were able to see the eyes beneath the Grey alien's exterior, would you say that those were reptilian beings underneath that cover?
Credo Mutwa: Yes, sir, exactly. I will tell you why. There is a snake here in South Africa which is called a Mamba.
Martin: Yes, very deadly.
Credo Mutwa: It is one of the most poisonous snakes that you can find. It has got eyes EXACTLY like those of a Chitauli and of a Mantindane. And so has a Python, sir. A crocodile's eyes are very ET-looking, and they don't look as hypnotic and as piercing as those of a Mamba or a Python. If you can image, sir, the eye of a Python, magnified about 10 times, then you have got exactly what a Chitauli'seyes look like.
Martin: Well, it is said, and I believe this to be true, that there is a-for lack of a better way of putting it-there is a war between Light and Dark, Good and Evil, on this planet.
Credo Mutwa: Yes. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes.
Martin: And there certainly is a God in His Universe, a God of Light and Justness.
Credo Mutwa: Yes, sir.
Martin: How does your culture, how do you view the intervention of God through His Hosts, through His Representatives? In all things there must be a balance, and that includes on planet Earth-as above, so below. How do you see-for many readers, they can read about this all, and it sounds very frightening and very, almost, hopeless-and yet, there certainly is hope. So, I would like to end this interview on a message of hope.
Credo Mutwa: Yes. Please, sir, there IS hope! Look, first of all, there IS a God above us. And this God is more real than most of us believe. God is not a figment of someone's imagination. God is not something dreamt-up by old men and old women in prehistoric times. God exists, sir. But standing between us and God are creatures who claim to be gods. And these creatures we must get rid of in order to get closer to God.
Sir, I have lived a long and very strange life, and I can tell you that there is a God, and He is intervening. However, we see God's intervening as slow, but wait: Who would have thought that less than 30 years ago, not one person cared about the environment. Who put this sudden Godliness within all of us?
Today, sir, people everywhere in the world are standing up and fighting for the rights of women and for the rights of children. Who has put these ideas into our minds? Not the Chitauli, not any demonic entity, it is God acting in the shadow and making us strong and able to resist these ugly creatures.
You see, sir, God seems to work slowly in our eyes, because God lives in a time-sphere totally different from our own. God is there. God is working. And it is God, sir, who, for the first time in our existence, is making us aware of these things, making us aware that on this world we are not alone, and that we must be soul-ly and solely responsible for our actions, and we must neutralize these alien beings who for years have led us around in circles.
Human beings have never known any real progress, sir, because there have been forces that have been stopping us from reaching our rightful position in the universe, and I mean the Chitauli, I mean theMantindane, I mean the Midzimu. We must stop regarding these creatures as super-human creatures. They are just parasites who need us more than we need them. And only a fool will ever deny the fact that we are not the only intelligent species of being that this planet has produced.
All over Africa there is overwhelming evidence that once there were gigantic human beings who walked this planet, in the days of the dinosaur. There are footprints in granite, each one 6 foot long by 3 ' wide, footprints of mature human beings, sir, which date back thousands of years, millions of years. Where did these giants go to? Who knows; the dinosaurs may have produced an intelligent race, a race which deceives us into thinking that it comes from the stars, when in fact it is part of this planet on which we live.
There is hope, and the hope is very bright. A Christ-child is being born in all of us, but like all deaths, the death of the Light-child (the death of the old-self prior to transformation into 'Christness') is going to be attended by great danger, as the enemy is going to be driven into desperation. The enemy will make mistakes and we will conquer him in God's sacred name. That is what I believe, sir, and that is what I'm going to hold-on believing until my last breath.
Martin: And that is a perfect place to end this-on that thought, on that note.
Now, let me just say, just for you, since 1974, I have seen many, many spaceships, close-up (though not inside nor by abduction). I have experienced-in the mountains of southern Oregon-I have come across Bigfoot footprints...
Credo Mutwa: Ah-hah!
Martin: ...by a river where I was camping. I have heard the Bigfoot in the mountains at night. I have heard their cries...
Credo Mutwa: Ya-ya! You see?
Martin: ...from one mountain to another. These are things I have experienced. I KNOW these things are real!
Credo Mutwa: Yes, sir. Then, I speak to a fellow warrior, and I say, 'We shall overcome', as the American Marines used to sing during the Second World War.
Martin: Yes, and during the Vietnam War.
Credo Mutwa: We will overcome, we will overcome, but skeptics must stop laughing, and fools must stop calling these aliens, god. There is only ONE God, and He or She or It is the One who created us, and not some impostor who came from somewhere else to hide behind us and to drink our children's blood. Amen, sir.
Martin: Yes, absolutely right. Credo, please know that I deeply appreciate what you have done and the courage of just speaking frankly. It's past time to hold onto these things, and it�s time to just speak The Truth. And for those who don't believe or even consider possibilities, well, it's just too bad.
Credo Mutwa: Exactly, and also to confront people with the fact that there is no reason to fear anything. If we go from a perspective of making information available that should be available to every single person on this blooming planet, why the hell are they trying to threaten you to keep quiet? If it's so ridiculous, let it be. Stop assassinating and ridiculing and destroying people by churning-up fear. This is the perspective I come from, and I'm sure David, as well, and obviously you, as well, do too. I don't have fear anymore.
It's time that we speak out and that we acquire a consciousness-a global, common consciousness-and get this thing to the front. Thank you, so much, I really appreciate it.
Martin: Absolutely right. Thank you.
[Editor's note: Rick Martin may be reached directly at the email address rickm@tminet.com or by writing to: Rick Martin c/o The SPECTRUM Newspaper, 9101 West Sahara Ave., PMB 158, Las Vegas, NV 89117
We know that Diana was a rebel, someone with an axe to grind against the oligarchs of the New World Order (NWO) establishment. This, coupled with her ability to take any issue and put it under public scrutiny - such as the landmines situation - we feel was primarily, but not the only motive behind her murder. For example, just consider what a voice of dissent she would have been against global events that transpired in the years after 1997. The war on terror in the Middle East would be top of her list I am sure.
We hope that with this archive we have put together something special and of use for the visitor. Moreover, we hope that in learning about the death of Lady Diana, you will learn more about the NWO establishment and the dark Military Industrial Complex system that needed her 'out of the picture'.
**********************************************
This popular archive is has been static since December 2006 so no futher updates will be added, however...
Please check out dianaassassination.com which often features more up-to date reportage of the Diana assassination and cover-up.
Webmaster - June 2012
MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORTS: -
MORE MAINSTREAM MEDIA COVERAGE FROM THE UK DAILY EXPRESS : -
(n.b. As the Daily Express does not carry online archives of all of its news stories (for non-subscribers) we have only been able to link to relevant stories from other outlets that have given the related coverage)
OTHER RELATED STORIES: -
FURTHER IMPORTANT RESEARCH: -
|
WAS MI6 INVOLVED IN A SERIES OF MURDERS THAT LEAD TO JEREMY BAMBER JAILED FOR LIFE Giovanni Di Stefano
WAS MI6 INVOLVED IN A SERIES OF MURDERS THAT LEAD TO JEREMY BAMBER JAILED FOR LIFE Giovanni Di Stefano
Sixty years ago a Hillman saloon pulled off the N96 near the village of Lurs, about 75 miles from Aix. It was a stifling Provençal afternoon and the car's occupants, the distinguished British scientist Sir Jack Drummond, his wife Ann, and their 10-year-old daughter Elizabeth, decided to camp out for the night by the banks of the river Durance.
Within hours they became the centre of one of France's most troubling criminal puzzles, variously shot and clubbed to death. The tragic demise of the Drummonds is a murder mystery that has fired the public imagination for half a century.
It was not just the victims' renown and the consequent fuss across the Channel: Sir Jack, a 61-year-old former professor of biochemistry at London University, had been knighted for his exceptional work in nutrition during the Second World War and was a senior researcher at the Boots laboratory in Nottingham.
Nor was it the unlikely and altogether too handy perpetrator fingered by the police and convicted 18 months later: Gaston Dominici, a 75-year-old peasant farmer whose smallholding was the nearest property to the scene of the crime, was a pillar of the local community.
No, it was the many key questions that remained unanswered. What was Dominici's motive? Where did the murder weapon, a battered US army Rock-Ola carbine, come from? What of the unidentified men seen on the road? And was Sir Jack, as Fleet Street soon began claiming, rather more than just an eminent scientist?
After more than a dozen books and thousands of newspaper articles on ‘l'affaire Dominici,’ startling new evidence neglected during the original investigation has been discovered. This evidence now opens up some intriguing new lines of inquiry.
"I don't think Gaston was the author of the triple murder of Lurs," said one police officer that was on the case many years ago. "I think the family was a pawn among others, caught up unwittingly on the chess board of a secret battle fought between east and west over each bloc's leading scientists. Jack Drummond, we are almost certain, was a spy."
It is this belief that led Giovanni Di Stefano then lawyer for convicted murderer Jeremy Bamber into advancing the theory that Bamber was innocent of the murder of his adopted parents, his sister and two children. “They were murdered as part of a spy ring,” Di Stefano told the press.
Challenged on the truthfulness of Bamber at his trial, the British Government allowed Bamber to take a detailed lie detector test in prison. Bamber passed and the British Media had a field day.
Bamber was asked the following questions at Full Sutton Prison in an interview carried out by a polygraph specialist that was approved by the Home Office:
The following questions were put to Mr Bamber with the following replies:
The spy ring murder proclaimed by Di Stefano in 2005 was sensational news. The story made most of the tabloid press and caused a serious problem at MI6 headquarters.
“Mass killer Jeremy Bamber is to claim that his father was killed by a mystery Mr X as he launches his third appeal.
Four of Nevill Bamber's, intelligence services colleagues have been murdered in amazingly similar circumstances over the past 53 years.
Each served with Nevill during the Second World War - and each case is STILL unsolved.
Bamber, 44, has always denied gunning down five members of his family at their farmhouse in Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex, to claim a £500,000 inheritance.
The bizarre new claims have been made by a former SAS officer and could be the icing on the cake for Bamber's appeal case.
The murders being linked are:
* Scientist Sir Jack Drummond, murdered with his wife and 10-year-old daughter on a camping holiday in France 1952. It has since been claimed that he was a spy.
* Sir Jack Drummond's secretary Miss June Marshall, murdered in Dieppe, France, In 1956.
* Sir Oliver Duncan was murdered in Rome, in 1964.
* Major Michael Lasseter was murdered in Cannes, France, in 1973.
* Professor John Cartland, also known as a former secret agent, murdered on a camping holiday in Provence, France, in 1973.
The ex-SAS officer told Bamber's lawyer Giovanni Di Stefano that all five men worked shoulder-to-shoulder in the British intelligence service during and after the war.
Mr Di Stefano last night pressed the Ministry of Defence for an investigation.
But MoD officials and the police are likely to dismiss the claims as a "conspiracy theory".
It gives Bamber - who murdered five members of his family - new hope after he launched his third appeal with a picture exclusively revealed in The Sunday Mirror 10 months ago.
The picture - taken between 8.30am and 9am on the day of the murders in 1985 but not seen by the trial jury - shows blood pouring out of the wounds in his sister Sheila Caffell's neck.
His legal team - backed up by two medical experts - claim that the picture shows that Bamber could not have been the killer as he was outside with police at the time of the murders.
They yesterday received a medical report which confirmed that their client could not have been the murderer.
The report states that Sheila Caffell could not have died "more than two hours from the discovery of the corpse itself".
She was discovered at around 7.30am while Bamber was with police from around 3am.
Mr Di Stefano said the new claims about Nevill Bamber's colleagues must be investigated.
He said: "All of these men knew each other because of the common
denominator that they all worked for British intelligence during or after
the war.
"They all died in mysterious circumstances and do not have anybody brought to justice.
"It is far too coincidental that over a period of 30 years that all of
these people linked to each other were murdered mysteriously.
"I will be pressing the MoD to look into this as if there is a person or
organisation that has carried out all of these murders.
"It has to be looked into whether there was a campaign of murder against former British intelligence officers - including Nevill Bamber.
"If it is the case it clearly shows that Jeremy Bamber is innocent."
A police radio log - not shown to the jury - showed that officers were in contact with somebody in the house at 5.25am on the day of the murders.
Mr Di Stefano added: "This furthers the case that the murders were carried out by a third party and not Bamber or his sister Sheila.
"These people were all involved in the intelligence service and then systematically annihilated."
The murders of Sir Jack Drummond, his wife Lady Anne Drummond and their 10-year-old daughter Elizabeth at their campsite in northern Provence in August 1952 was one of the great cause’s celebres of the post- war years.
Gaston Dominici, a 77-year-old peasant farmer, was convicted of shooting the parents and bludgeoning the child to death, but was pardoned by President Charles de Gaulle in 1960.
A French journalist has claimed that the family were murdered by a Soviet hit squad but those allegations were rubbished.
After John Cartland was hacked to death in 1973 his son Jeremy was accused of the crime - despite being stabbed himself - but was never charged.
Shortly after the murder anonymous phone calls to media organisation claimed that Cartland's death was linked to a series of killings of Britons who worked in wartime intelligence.
They said that the alleged chain of murders started with the death of Sir Jack Drummond and his family followed by the murder of former counter intelligence officer Sir Oliver Duncan in Rome in 1964.
This was followed by the 'mysterious' death of Colonel Michael Lasseter in Cannes, France in 1973.
Another anonymous tip off claimed that the murder of Sir Jack's secretary in Dieppe in 1956 was also linked.
Psychopath Bamber was convicted of gunning down his adoptive parents Nevill and June Bamber, sister, Sheila Caffell and her twin sons Nicholas and Daniel, who were six.
Bamber was 25 when he was locked up for the murders.
At first police believed his schizophrenic sister Sheila, a model, nicknamed Bambi with a history of mental illness, killed her famil before turning the gun, a .22 semi-automatic rifle, on herself.
But they changed their minds when relatives discovered a silencer for the murder weapon, which officers had missed, with a spot of blood inside that was said to be Sheila's.
Detectives reached the conclusion she could not have killed herself and then put the silencer back in the cupboard where it was found.
Bamber lost an appeal against his conviction in 2002.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission is reviewing the new picture evidence and whether to grant a new appeal hearing.
Examine the facts that led to Gaston Dominici's conviction in one of the ‘soy ring murders.’ It was his son Gustave who alerted the local gendarmes, hailing a passing cyclist at 6am on August 5 to say he had found a body. Elizabeth Drummond was lying near the river, her skull stove in with a rifle butt.
Lady Drummond's body was found near the car, and Sir Jack's just across the road. Both had been shot from behind. The broken stock of the Rock-Ola was found floating in the Durance, and the barrel was found later on the riverbed.
At first Gustave told police that he had heard shots at about 1am and thought poachers were out. He had found Elizabeth's body at 5.30am. Gaston confirmed the story, adding that he had seen the Drummonds the night before while he was tending his goats.
Almost similar timing to the Bamber murders.
Gradually, however, the family's story began to reveal inconsistencies: a neighbour, Paul Maillet, told the police that Gustave had said he found Elizabeth alive. Then Gaston's nephew came forward to say he had seen Lady Drummond and Elizabeth call at the farm with a bucket, asking for water - when the Dominicis had sworn they had no direct contact with the Drummonds at any time.
Eventually Gustave and his elder brother Clovis broke down. They told the police that their father had admitted having "killed the English". Old Gaston confessed in his turn, only to withdraw his statement soon afterwards, saying he had admitted the crime "to protect my family". Gustave then also retracted.
None the less, in November 1954 Gaston was found guilty and sentenced to the guillotine. The evidence clearly did not satisfy two successive presidents of the Republic: in 1957 René Coty commuted his sentence to life imprisonment, and in 1960 Charles de Gaulle freed him.
"Gaston had no motive," said one lawyer observing the case. "His initial explanation that Sir Jack had caught him in a compromising situation with Lady Ann is laughable. But there is a lot more: the rifle clearly wasn't his, and he didn't know how to use it."
An examination of the case in detail shows the bizarre and unrelated arrest in Germany some time later of William Bartkowski, a sinister figure who confessed spontaneously to having been one of four contract hit men involved in the Drummond murders, which to date has never been explained. The post-mortems on Sir Jack and Lady Ann show different-sized entry wounds, indicating that two weapons had been used. And at least four local passers-by said in evidence that they saw strangers, meeting the description of neither the Drummonds nor the Dominicis, close to the car that night.
Similar circumstances in the Bamber case where maybe more than one firearm was used.
But the most interesting line appears to be Sir Jack's real purpose in visiting the area. Drummond had been to Lurs at least three times before, in 1947, 1948 and 1951. Six miles from the village is a chemicals factory that had begun producing advanced crop insecticides, widely feared during the cold war for their military potential. Was he on an espionage mission? His camera, certainly, was never found.
Between 1948 and 1952 a 25 year old Nevill Bamber also visited the same area on at least three occasions.
Even more intriguingly, Sir Jack had a lengthy meeting with a certain Father Lorenzi in Lurs two days before his death. The priest, who died in 1959, was a celebrated Second World War resistance hero. Why would an eminent British scientist seek out a former Maquisard? And what did Fr Lorenzi tell Paul Maillet, a fellow resistance fighter, and a close friend of Gustave Dominici's he was sure Dominici to be the true owner of the Rock-Ola rifle?
The Dominicis' strange behaviour indicates they knew a lot more about the crime than they ever let on. But they were not guilty of the murders. They plainly got caught up in something far bigger than themselves.
In February 1940, Drummond had been appointed chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Food, where he did more than perhaps any other single individual to ensure that island Britain survived the Nazi U-boat blockade without starving. In fact the health of the British nation, schoolchildren included, was not just maintained during the Second World War but improved. The American Public Health Association reported that "the rates of infantile, neonatal and maternal mortality and stillbirths all reached the lowest levels in the history of the country. The incidence of anemia and dental caries declined, the rate of growth of schoolchildren improved, progress was made in the control of tuberculosis, and the general state of nutrition of the population as a whole was up to or an improvement upon pre-war standards."
Indeed, the incidence of almost every diet-related illness was lower than it had ever been. Drummond was a genuine home-front hero.
The turning point in his career was the publication in 1939 of his only book, The Englishman's Food: A History of Five Centuries of English Diet. The title sounds dry, but the book is a highly readable blend of social history and biochemistry. It is even funny in places. The historical perspective illustrated quite how much and how often our eating habits had changed.
The eve-of-war timing of the publication of The Englishman's Food was crucial because the book demonstrated brilliantly that malnutrition was not just a social issue but also a pressing military one. Poor nutrition could directly affect the performance of troops in the field. By 1939, Britain was dependent on imports for almost two-thirds of its food supply, above all on wheat from the US and Canada. At the height of the U-boat campaign in 1940, Hitler's submarines destroyed 2.6m tons of merchant shipping.
At the new Ministry of Food, Drummond produced a plan for the distribution of food based on "sound nutritional principles". From the start he regarded rationing as the perfect opportunity to attack what he called "dietetic ignorance" and recognised early on that, if successful, he would be able not just to maintain but to improve the nation's health.
A plain but balanced diet, Drummond had discovered, was the nearest thing to the elixir of life.
The weekly ration
Bacon and ham: 4oz
Other meat: to the value of 1s 2d
Butter: 2oz
Cheese: 2oz
Margarine: 4oz
Cooking fat: 4oz
Milk: 3 pints + 1 packet dried skimmed milk per month
Sugar: 8oz
Preserves: 1lb every 2 months
Tea: 2oz
Eggs: 1 shell egg +1 packet dried egg per month
Sweets: 12oz
Meanwhile the Ministry of Agriculture was intent on persuading Britons to plant their own food. Under the patriotic banner slogan "Dig for Victory", self-sufficiency became the new Holy Grail. It was considered the duty of all householders to turn their back gardens into vegetable patches. Windsor Great Park was given over to wheat. Even Lord's cricket ground was not spared. Between 1939 and 1944, the arable land area in England and Wales increased by 63%. Wheat, barley and potato crops almost doubled, while the production of oats rose by two-thirds. And Drummond provided the science behind the spadework.
Because shipping space was at a premium, food imports also had to be drastically reorganised. At Drummond's instigation, priority was given to cheese, skimmed dried milk, tinned fish and meat, and pulses. The technical ability to preserve food in cans had been mastered in the mid-19th century, but it was not until the 1940s that the process really took off. The advantage from Drummond's point of view was that canned food retained its vitamins.
He paid special attention to society's "vulnerable groups", as they were designated for the first time. Children and expectant or nursing mothers headed the list, receiving rations of blackcurrant and rosehip syrup as an alternative source of vitamin C, before concentrated orange juice became available.
Today, vitamins are the centrepiece of the modern food industry's most controversial growth area: the sector known as nutraceuticals, or techno foods. Processed food staples such as margarine, cereals and orange juice are fortified with vitamins and other "scientific" ingredients associated with good health, and marketed to a credulous public. Pepsi Co, for example, which owns the juice brand Tropicana, sells an orange-juice product called Multivitamins; it costs five times more than ordinary orange juice. Unilever's Flora pro-active margarine, meanwhile, contains hydrogenated sterols, a plant compound that is supposed to lower cholesterol in the blood; it costs 11 times as much as regular margarine.
Those figures would have surprised Drummond. He always argued that the best source of vitamins was natural food, and that so long as an individual's diet was plentiful and well balanced, supplements or additives were unnecessary. Thanks largely to his efforts, by 1945 an entire generation of housewives knew the rudiments of how to prepare a meal at home. They also knew a lot about vitamins - what they were, why they were important, and which foods contained them. The tragedy is how much of that hard-won knowledge has been forgotten. It is both absurd and tragic that Tony Blair's government is trying to educate the public all over again with its proposed "traffic-light" labels on food packaging, a scheme intended to warn consumers about high levels of salt, sugar and fat.
One of the most troubling consequences of the agrochemical revolution was the nutritive difference between the intensively grown fruit and vegetables of today and their equivalents 60 years ago. According to the government's own data, between 1940 and 1991 the typical British potato "lost" 47% of its copper and 45% of its iron. Carrots lost 75% of their magnesium, and broccoli 75% of its calcium. The pattern was repeated for vitamins. A study in Canada showed that between 1951 and 1999, potatoes lost all of their vitamin A and 57% of their vitamin C, while today's consumers would have to eat as many as eight oranges to obtain the same amount of vitamin A their grandparents did from a single fruit.
Organic food still accounts for only 1.2% of the total British retail food market. In 2004, Britons spent £1.2bn a year on organic produce: about three-quarters of what we spent on bottled water. Despite all the warnings and an explosion of food scares, the vast majority of people carry on as before.
Some scientists blamed chemical changes in the west's diet for a dramatic increase in a range of maladies such as chronic fatigue syndrome, hormone-related imbalances, mental illness, even asthma and eczema in children. Some also blamed chemicals for the extraordinary decline in western male fertility in the last 20 years. In Denmark, a country particularly badly affected, 40% of men now have subnormal sperm counts.
In the 1940s the average westerner contained no man-made chemicals for the simple reason that those chemicals did not yet exist. In a recent survey conducted by the environmental organisation WWF, volunteers in 13 British cities had their blood tested for the presence of 77 man-made chemicals, including organ chlorine pesticides. Every one of the volunteers was found to be multiply contaminated.
The individual amounts of the chemicals the WWF tested for were mostly tiny and, by themselves, probably harmless. The snag, as Drummond himself pointed out more than half a century ago, was that no one was able to say what might happen to those chemicals once they accumulated and combined over time with others in the body - the "cocktail effect".
The new industrial era in agriculture began after the war. A National Agricultural Advisory Service was inaugurated in 1946. Some 1,400 technical officers were employed to roam the countryside, offering farmers free advice on how to translate the latest scientific advances into useful reality. Overall and certainly compared with the 1930s, there had never been a better time to be in farming. It was not until 1950 that Attlee's administration began to have misgivings about the agrochemical revolution it had done so much to encourage. A Ministry of Agriculture committee was convened in that year to examine whether the chemicals the public was increasingly exposed to might be bad for their health.
The evidence heard by the committee was conflicting and inconclusive. The human health effects even of DDT were still unknown. The final result was a terrible cop-out. The committee's main recommendation was the setting up of another committee whose task would be to "advise generally" on problems relating to consumer health. That committee - chaired by Sir Solly Zuckerman, a zoologist by training - in the end decided a voluntary arrangement with the industries concerned was a better option than statutory controls. With that decision, ultimate responsibility for assessing the human health risk of agrochemicals was left up to the manufacturers for the next 30 years. The voice of reason represented by the likes of Drummond might not have prevailed, even without his untimely murder in 1952. Much of the chemical experimentation of the period was sponsored by the military.
In the 1950s it would have been hard even for a willing government to regulate an industry that sometimes worked for agriculture, sometimes for the military, or (in the case of ICI) for both at once.
The food expert Professor Michael Crawford of London Metropolitan University headed the university's Institute of Brain Chemistry and Human Nutrition for the past 15 years. He was asked about chicken - in particular battery-reared chicken versus organic birds. He argued that modern food in general was not nearly as healthy as the public thought it was, a state of affairs he blamed squarely on the food manufacturers.
"Have you heard of a book called The Englishman's Food?" he said. "It's all in there ... there's no better account of how the manufacturers have manipulated people's eating habits over the years in the name of profit." And he added: "Imagine how different things might have been had Drummond lived."
"There's a suggestion in France that he was assassinated."
"Really? I don't know about that. But the timing of his death was certainly very ... shall we say, convenient for the food manufacturers."
"Are you saying that he was bumped off by big-business interests?"
The professor considered this, leaning back in his chair and scratching his throat. "You need to understand the context," he said. "The study of human nutrition was still getting off the ground in the 1950s. The establishment didn't like it - so it was suppressed." The nutrition movement in Britain was stillborn,” he said. To this day there is no dedicated faculty of human nutrition at any of Britain's major universities. Crawford had himself encountered the old prejudices. He had moved to London Metropolitan University when his original berth at UCL was lost to a funding cut.
So was Drummond's murder part of a dastardly campaign of corporate suppression, without which the course of nutritional history in Britain might have been entirely different?
According to the orthodox version of the killings, the reason for the Drummonds' presence in France in the first place was nothing more interesting than a relaxing family holiday. Drummond was an ardent Francophile who had visited the country many times before. His daughter's school had broken up for the summer holidays, so when Professor Guy Marrian, a biochemist colleague from his UCL days and one of his best friends, invited the Drummonds to stay at a rented villa at Villefranche-sur-Mer, near Nice, he readily accepted.
They set out from their home near Nottingham, in an olive-green Hillman estate on July 25. They caught a ferry from Dover to Dunkerque on July 27, and drove slowly down the eastern side of France, stopping off along the way. They spent the night in Digne in the foothills of the Alps on Friday August 1, 60 miles short of their final destination. Here Elizabeth spotted a poster advertising a charlottade, a type of bull-run, which was to take place there in three days' time. The family was expected chez Marrian the following day; Elizabeth made her doting father promise they would return to see the bull-run on Monday - which they did. The charlottade took place in the late afternoon. Several spectators later recalled seeing the family in the crowd. Afterwards they had an early supper at a local hotel, L'Ermitage.
They did not take the direct route back south to Villefranche, but instead headed west along the Durance valley in the direction of Marseilles. As darkness fell (or so the newsmen again speculated), they decided to stop and camp at the roadside, at La Grand'Terre, not far from the village of Lurs.
Much of what happened next is still hotly disputed. There were no witnesses other than the Dominicis, the peasant farmers living nearby, and their evidence was a tangled mass of contradictions, half-truths and downright lies.
At 1.10am, seven shots resounded across the valley. Gaston Dominici told the police he thought it was poachers shooting rabbits. It was not until dawn that the three dead bodies were discovered. The police investigation, led by Commissaire Edmond Sébeille of Marseilles, was a disaster from the start but it wasn't long before he had pieced together a version of what had happened.
The motive for the murders was probably not robbery. The interior of the Hillman was an indescribable mess, yet nothing obvious seemed to have been taken, notably a 5,000 franc banknote. The murder weapon was quickly recovered from a pool in the river where it had been tossed by the killer: a battered Rock-Ola US army carbine held together with wire. The Rock-Ola was a kind of firearm that abounded in the region, abandoned or traded for food by US infantrymen as their liberation of Europe rolled northwards in the summer of 1944. It seemed probable that the gun belonged to one or other of the Dominici famil
Travelling with his team of investigators from house to house, Sébeille was met with what he described as "a wall of silence". The investigation was eventually to drag on for 15 months, a delay for which the Commissaire was attacked by the press on both sides of the Channel.
Speculation soon began to fill the void. Big-business interests were involved. In an internal report of August 1952, a divisional superintendent called Harzig told his superiors that he believed the murders to be "an episode in the secret struggle between pharmaceutical corporations" - a suspicion prompted by Drummond's position at the time as a director of Boots. More popular at the time was the idea that Drummond was some kind of British government spy, and the murders a murky episode of the cold war.
The testimony of a traffic policeman named Emile Marquet threw fuel on the fire. Marquet was on duty in Digne on the evening of the murders. At about 8.15pm he observed a car with British number plates pull up outside L'Ermitage, the hotel where the Drummonds had been dining an hour before. The driver - "1.80m, svelte, about 30, in a T-shirt and white trousers" - asked Marquet if he had seen another English car passing that way. When Marquet affirmed that he had, the driver asked what direction it had taken. Then he went inside, leaving his companion, a "woman in black", standing by the car. A quarter of an hour later - the time taken, say, to place an international phone call - he emerged from the hotel at a run, jumped into the car with the woman in black, and sped off in the direction taken by the Drummonds an hour before. It looked as though the Drummonds were being followed. The couple were never identified or traced.
Under mounting pressure from the police, Gustave, one of the Dominici sons, at last appeared to crack - and blurted that it was not he but his father Gaston who was the killer. He was later to retract this startling confession, only to repeat it again. In any case, the old man was arrested and eventually convicted. Had Drummond's murder had no connection at all with agrochemicals?
His directorship at the Boots Pure Drug Company in Nottingham was the sticking point. The presumption was that the job was a cosy sinecure, a part-time position accepted in lieu of something worthy of his talents. That was not to be the case.
The mistake was to think of Boots as the kind of firm that it is today: a humdrum chain of high-street dispensaries where the nation buys its soap and toothbrushes. The company's 19th-century origins were in retailing, it was true, but in Drummond's time its whole direction and purpose were radically different. Here was the crunch: in the late 1940s, Boots was at the forefront of the race to develop agrochemicals, with a research department that in some respects rivaled ICI's. Research into new agricultural, horticultural and veterinary products was a pet interest of the chairman, Lord Trent, who had taken over from his father; the company founder Jesse Boot, in 1931.
The company's agricultural division was also greatly enlarged after the war. By 1952, when Drummond died, Boots was farming some 4,500 acres in England and Scotland purely for experimental purposes. That was not all. The directorship taken up by Drummond was the very much hands-on position of director of research; and he seemed to have thrown himself into his new job with the dedication for which he was famous.
New agrochemical products placed on the market as a direct result of the research department's work, the chairman proudly announced at the time, included Cornox, a "selective weed killer", and Turk-e-san, a drug for treating blackhead, a fatal liver disease in turkeys.
Turk-e-san was taken off the market many years ago. Cornox was based on a Boots-developed formula called 2, 4-DP, or dichlorprop: one of the chlorine-based phenoxy family of hormone weed killers that were chemically descended from ICI's wartime invention, MCPA. The formula, which became a world bestseller for Boots, is still listed by the Pesticides Action Network as a "bad actor" chemical. Its long-term human health effects are uncertain, but are thought to include peripheral damage to the human nervous system and possibly cancer.
That Drummond might have been responsible for the development of Cornox was confounding news. This was the man who advocated the exhaustive testing of new agrochemicals in a prestigious public lecture shortly before his death. It followed, furthermore, that Drummond could not possibly have been assassinated by big-business interests, because by 1952 he represented those interests.
Peter Campbell, the octogenarian Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry at UCL, where Drummond had worked before the war had not forgotten Drummond, whose move to Nottingham he described as "very curious". "Drummond cut himself off entirely. His choice of Boots was curious, too. Boots never did any decent research."
Drummond did not bother to keep a foot planted in his old camp. In 1946 he resigned his chair of Biochemistry, which he had held in absentia throughout the war, and turned his back on academia forever. "What if there was some other reason entirely for his going to Boots?"
Could Drummond have been a spy? A family camping holiday would make a classic cover. What if he really was on some kind of government mission in 1952, and then randomly murdered? The two things could be entirely unconnected.
There was much to suggest that the Drummond family's presence at La Grand'Terre on that hot August night was no coincidence. One troubling detail was the position of the Drummond car. Police photographs and sketches of the crime scene showed that the family parked parallel to and about one foot away from the N96, a busy trunk road even at night in those pre-motorway days. It was a curiously bad choice for a family of tourists looking for a peaceful night's sleep under the stars. The Drummonds had ample opportunity to select a better spot. There was plenty of space a little further from the road in the shelter of trees and undergrowth.
If, on the other hand, Drummond had parked with the intention of being seen from the road, the location was perfect. The car was parked exactly opposite one of the tombstone-shaped milestones that punctuate the borders of all routes nationals. This one, number 32, told drivers that they were at the exact midpoint between the two nearest small towns on the N96: Peyruis, 6km to the north, and La Brillanne, 6km to the south. Was this pure coincidence perhaps? But if Drummond had pre-arranged a meeting here, the milestone would certainly have been a useful location-finder for the other party.
There were other indications that Drummond had a secret side. It was well known he had undertaken at least two "special operations" during the war, the best known of which was his visit to the Nazi-occupied Netherlands in May 1945. In 1939, moreover, in another episode much glossed over in his obituaries, Drummond worked briefly at Porton Down, the government's secret biological-weapons research station in Wiltshire, infamous today for its past practice of experimenting on humans. Here he conducted experiments into the fitness for human consumption of food exposed to poison gas. The work did not make him a spy, but it did reinforce the impression that his association with the secret side of government was an established one.
So had Nevill Bamber and the others all been mysteriously murdered.
Drummond, the man, also seemed to match the profile of a spy to a degree. His provenance remains mysterious: no birth certificate for him exists in the Family Records Office. The public persona he finally settled on was the "people's scientist". He became the one and only "Sir Jack". He was loved and trusted by all who came into contact with him. Many people, including his close associate Magnus Pyke, noted his steady and uncomplicated sense of patriotism. Yet he amazed his colleagues by swapping academia for the world of commerce and industry in 1946.
He was a paradox.
So was Nevill Bamber.
The whodunit aspect of the murders had always engaged the French the most, but now the question of who pulled the trigger, or triggers, becomes entirely separate from the more interesting issue of what Drummond was doing at La Grand'Terre. One explanation was that he had an appointment with someone who had promised to pass on industrial secrets (with its inevitable corollary: that his contact double-crossed him and killed him instead). This theory was based on the presence of a chemical plant at Chateau-Arnoux-Saint-Auban, 12km up the river Durance from La Grand'Terre, and also on the assertion that Drummond's brief work at Porton Down in 1939 had continued during and after the war. The plant wasn't just any chemical factory, but an ex-military one that specialised in the production of chlorine: the feedstock for much of the pharmaceutical and agrochemical output of Boots.
The factory, still producing chlorine today, was converted to civilian use after 1918, but that did not make it less strategically important in 1952, when the cold war was running at full tilt and the potential applications of chlorine technology, military or civilian, were not yet fully explored.
The giant agrochemical concern Rhône-Poulenc had once controlled the chlorine plant at Château-Arnoux. Between 1947 and 1955, Rhône-Poulenc manufactured, among others, the American-invented, chlorine-based herbicides 2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T, the eventual constituents of Agent Orange. All these products were at the cutting edge of agrochemical development, and as such were bound to attract the interest of Whitehall's defence specialists. Some of Rhône-Poulenc's products, interestingly, were also closely chemically related to the chlorinated herbicides that Boots was developing at the time under Drummond's direction, including MCPP - which was first marketed by Boots in 1953, and so probably in the final stages of development in the year that Drummond was murdered.
Was intelligence-gathering the reason for Drummond's presence in the Basses-Alpes in 1952? Boots would doubtless have been interested in the goings-on at the chlorine plant, could it be that Drummond - altruistic, patriotic, a distinguished senior scientist - would involve himself in something as tawdry as a bid for commercial advantage.
If he truly was gathering intelligence, it seemed likelier he would have been doing so on behalf of his country.
In other words, he was working for MI6.
That was the probable explanation for Drummond's appointment to the board of Boots in 1946. MI6 has a long tradition of "placing" its operatives within British industry. Whatever his rendezvous had been for, it was evidently important enough for him to wait up half the night at the side of a road. If he was operating under cover of a family holiday, he either tragically underestimated the danger of the meeting he had planned, or else he and his family were the unlucky victims of violence unconnected with his work.
The Bamber murders were equally as brutal as the murders of the Drummond family which also included a child. All of those murdered had one thing in common: they all knew each other and had all worked for the intelligence services in one capacity or another.
All had connections with Porton Down and all had been given respectable and important jobs enabling them to integrate within the community.
In all of the murders only one man still pays the price: Jeremy Bamber. But with the British Government relying on polygraph tests to control the activities of those released from prison and for insurance, housing, social security benefits, how much longer can Bamber be kept in prison who has passed his lie detector test?
If the Government rely on lie detector tests to control the honesty and offending of those released from jail and have included such in their Criminal Justice Act then surely the time has come to consider the relevance of the polygraph for those who maintain their innocence?
The fact the series of murders have yet to receive a proper explanation or enquiry from the British Government makes the suspicion that Bamber has been used as a distraction more credible.
Giovanni Di Stefano
Web Forms