MI6PrincessDiannaMurder1


   Google owned advertising software Adsense seems to have effectively acted in a sensorship role on the www.inlnews.com website, 

    by refusing to approve  a Google Adsense Advertising Account  for the www.inlnews.com website, which has been well established over the last 15 years,
    as a well known and well used International News and Information Wesite, where all forms of interesting and sometimes contraversal news and information is provided and discussed,
    to anyone wanting to access such news and information of the www.inlnews.com website.

     www.inlnews.com has a worldwide internet user ranking of around 900,000 in China, out of in excess of 8 billion websites on the World Wide Web.
     www.inlnews.com has a worldwide internet user ranking of around 300,000 in the World Wide Web News and Media Category, out of in excess of 8 billion websites on the World Wide Web.
     www.inlnews.com has taken 15 years to establish these World Wide Web Ranking. 

     All the web searches made on the www.inlnews.com website are purely organic, and are not as a result of any paid advertising to Google or anyone else to obtain its worldwide global ranking. 

     The world wide global Internet Ranking of www.inlnews is purely organic web searches, because people around the world want to look at and read the news and information on the www.inlnews.com website.

     It is also noted that around seven years ago there were hundreds of www.inlnews.com web links on Google covering hundreds on different news and information subjects,

     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 

for hundreds of web Google Web Search Links on different subject matters, to try and recover its World Wide Global Rank..




                                                            INLNews.com  
                             Easy to Find...... Hard to Leave..see you there soon at your INLNews.com
                                                                                       International News Limited Domain Pricing Per Year
                                                                          .com* $9.99 | .net* $9.99 | .org* $9.99 | .info* $9.99 | .us* $9.99 | .biz* $9.99 | .ws* $9.75 | .name* $7.95
                                                                                                                 Save even more on multi-year registrations!
                                                       INLNews YahooMail HotMail GMail AOLMailUSA MAILYahooMail HotMailGMail AOLMail MyWayMail CNNWorld IsraelVideoNs
                                                 INLNsNYTimes WashNs 
AustStockEx WorldMedia JapanNs AusNs World VideoNs WorldFinance ChinaDaily IndiaNs USADaily BBC EuroNsABCAust 
                                                                                               WANs NZNews QldNs MelbAge AdelaideNs TasNews ABCTas DarwinNs 
USA MAIL






Your Daily Motivation from Inspiration Line Add Inspiring Daily Quotes to YOUR Website

Click Here For Your Up To Date World Live Sports Scores
INLNews  YahooMail  HotMail  GMail  AOLMail USA MAILMyWayMail 
 CNNWorld IsraelVideoNs INLNsNYTimes WashNs WorldMedia JapanNs AusNs World VideoNs WorldFinance ChinaDaily IndiaNs USADaily BBC EuroNsABCAust 
WANs NZNews QldNs MelbAge AdelaideNs 
TasNews ABCTas DarwinNsUSA MAIL


ABC News Video  FOX News Video  FOXBusiness Video  CNN Video  AP Video  BBC News Video  Reuters Video  AFP Video  CNET Video
CNBC Video  Australia 7 News Video   Rocky Mountain News Elections Video  CBC.ca Video  NPR Audio  
Kevin Sites in the Hot Zone Video
Richard Bangs Adventures Video  Charlie Rose Video   Expanded Books Video  Assignment Earth Video 
ROOFTOPCOMEDY.com Video 
Guinness World Records Video  weather.com Video  AccuWeather Video  You Witness News User Video

NPR Audio BY CATEGORY Top Stories  Politics  World  Business  Sports 
 
Technology  Health & Science  Arts  U.S. 

VIEW LOCAL VIDEO KVUE-TV Austin  WJZ 13 Baltimore  WBZ Boston 
 
WCNC Charlotte  CBS 2 Chicago

Video by Category
 
U.S. Business  World  Entertainment  Sports  Tech  Politics Science 
Health Environment Weather Opinion  Odd 

Video by Topic Campaign '08   Wall Street  Iraq  Gas Prices  Mideast Conflict 
 
Climate Change 

More INL News Video !Finance Sports


Video by Category
 
U.S. Business  World  Entertainment  Sports  Tech  Politics Science 
Health Environment Weather Opinion  Odd 

Video by Topic Campaign '08   Wall Street  Iraq  Gas Prices  Mideast Conflict 
 
Climate Change 

More INL News Video !Finance Sports











http://www.whale.to/c/das_neue41.html

MI5  Diana

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

[back] Diana murder

James Andanson worked for MI6 British Intelligence as an informant

Daily Express | Sep 3, 2007

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
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






DIANA

[Someone who was well  loved (see) gets a public (covert) execution (see), like Kennedy. Arizona Wilder mentions how she (Wilder) was impregnated yet still menstruated.  CCTV tapes unavailable, just like the ones outside the Murray building and the Pentagon (911).  Just one of the numerous red flags.]
[2012 Dec] WHAT WAS MI6 TEAM DOING IN PARIS THE NIGHT PRINCESS DIANA DIED?   RUSSIAN intelligence agents in France had become suspicious of the sudden arrival of three senior MI6 officers in Paris before Princess Diana’s death
[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)

 Interview with princess Diana's confidant Christine Fitzgerald
[2011 May] Unlawful Killing – the film the British won't get to see  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.
[2009 Feb] Diana: Can You See The Real Me?: The Greatest Spiritual Energy Extraction Scam of the 20th Century By Matthew Delooze  Marilyn was another Serpent Cult symbolic Goddess. Same Scam, different time and different location
DIANA WAS NOT THE TARGET  by Rayelan Allan
 
Lady Diana was Killed by a Team of Specialists of the British MI-5   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. ..... 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.

Media
[2007] 
James Andanson worked for MI6 British Intelligence as an informant
[2006] 
Diana crash witness: I saw a dozen 'shady figures' in tunnel 
[2006] Jeweler Was Told To Lie In Princess Diana Case 
[2006] Diana: The 18 missing witnesses in £4m inquiry 
[2006] Death-crash Paul "drank Diet Coke."

Author backs Diana conspiracy 


"..They are planning 'an accident' in my car so Charles can marry again...."... revealed note that will stun the world..... Daily Morror Newspaper.....

[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.
Quotes
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. A report from Andrew Hennessey on his observation of the tape he listened to produced by David Icke, The Arizona Wilder Video:
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.   HOW TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD  A Right Royal Con by Greg Hallett.
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.  [Interview] CREDO MUTWA On Alien Abduction & Reptilians
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.  [2007] James Andanson worked for MI6 British Intelligence as an informant
"One such 'unnamed' source - a former SAS sergeant - reveals that the 'accident' in which Diana died bore all the tell-tail signs of a known special forces assassination technique known as the 'Boston brakes'. Agreed, on first hearing, this sounds a bit James Bond - contrived. But bear with it. Because then you go on to read the testimony of former SAS officer and world famous explorer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, who confirms that the 'Boston brakes' is indeed a commonly employed assassination technique used by hired 'hit squads', and that it involves the use of a device which remotely controls the target-vehicle's steering and brakes. Fiennes goes on to say that this method has been used at least once in England, and in this regard describes in some detail the assassination of one Major Michael Marman, who was killed in a 'car crash' near Stonehenge in 1986. There's no doubt that the operation that killed Major Marman, as described by Fiennes, as well as by former Equerry to the Queen, Air Marshall Sir Peter Horsley, was chillingly identical to the series of events that killed Diana. Once again I have to say that the way the authors are able to continually corroborate their evidence in this way, throughout the book, is very impressive. " [Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence] Book review by Stephen Reid
But what is even more sensational is the suggestion that Diana had herself become part of the above-mentioned “counter-monarchy problem”. Following her ostracism from the Royal Family, the source claims, Diana was courted by supporters of the little-known Merovingian royal bloodline from which she herself descended, and which is today largely represented by Britain's forgotten Royal House of Stuart. As the authors discover, and despite media propaganda to the contrary, the Stuarts are still alive, well and politically active. And what's more, they still bear legitimate designs on the British Throne. 
    Anyway, the evidence strongly suggests that, in her not-so-private war with the Windsors, Diana became secretly involved in a “succession fight ... a fight over the structure of the future of the Monarchy”. It really is difficult to convey the full range of complexities here, given the space limitations. What I would say, though, is this: those still ignorant of the Stuarts' claim to the Throne; their ongoing struggle to be heard; and perhaps more to the point, Diana's own Stuart heritage, should read this book. At the very least it will cast the Princess in a new political light, one that reveals her as - potentially - a massive threat to the continued succession of the Windsors. And therefore as a prime target for 'removal'. [Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence] Book review by Stephen Reid
"Personally, following my own two year investigation, I am convinced that Diana Princess of Wales was murdered and equally confident that the evidence to prove it is in the files of the British Secret Intelligence Service and the CIA" - Noel Botham
"Anyone who looks at the facts of Diana's death, even stripped down to their bare essentials, cannot emerge without at least the suspicion that she was murdered.  More than eighty percent of British people believe that she was" - Noel Botham
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 PaulMI6 and the Princess of Wales by Richard John Charles Tomlinson

























14 years after her death, new evidence has emerged that Diana was murdered by MI6 ‘Boston brakes’…

Princess Diana Assassination: A People’s Inquiry

By Jon King
The ‘Boston Brakes’
Fourteen years after her death, new evidence has emerged that Princess Diana was murdered in an MI6-organized ‘Boston brakes’ operation.
Following the 2008 Royal Inquest debacle, which ruled out MI6 involvement in Diana’s death, new evidence has come to light which challenges the ‘official verdict’.
 In their book, “Princess Diana: The Evidence”:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Princess-Diana-Evidence-Jon-King/dp/1561718882/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1235477992&sr=11-1_, authors Jon King and John Beveridge present evidence that a highly sophisticated assassination technique was used to cause the princess’s vehicle to crash as it drove through the Alma tunnel, Paris, in the early hours of August 31st, 1997.
The ‘Boston brakes’, they reveal, is the most favoured assassination technique employed by the West’s intelligence services due to its deniability.
For many years following the princess’s death, the authors delved the smoke-and-mirrors underworld of political assassination, gleaning what information they could from well-placed intelligence contacts and former special and elite forces—mercenaries, royal bodyguards, and on ocassion, hired assassins.
Some of these crack military freelancers disclosed details of prior operations in which the ‘Boston brakes’ had been successfully used. Others, who fought in Angola, home of Diana’s landmines campaign, threw light on the secret oil and diamond wars still raging in central Africa, and in particular the dirty arms-for-oil deals carried out by MI6, French DGSE, the CIA and the Bush-Cheney oil syndicate.
The authors were told that by focusing the light of the world’s media on Angola the princess was in danger of exposing these deals, and was thus placing herself “in grave danger”.
For obvious reasons some of the sources quoted in the book remain anonymous. But many are named.

Princess Diana Assassination: A People’s Inquiry

The SAS And The Clinic
Speaking of the ‘Boston brakes’ operation which he believed killed Princess Diana, former SAS sergeant, Dave Cornish, exclusively revealed:
“From the minute the decoy car left the Ritz to the moment the tail car closed in … it was obvious what was going down. Anyone who knows what they’re talking about’ll tell you the same.”
And former Royal bodyguard, Mike Grey, added:
“The operation bore all the classic hallmarks of a security service assassination …. I have no doubts whatsoever, given my twenty years experience in various sections of the security industry, that Diana was assassinated. The security service hallmarks are plain to see.”
But it was former SAS officer and world-famous explorer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, who offered perhaps the most telling revelation of all.
The ‘Boston brakes’ method of assassination, Fiennes reveals, has been in use since at least the 1980s, and deploys a microchip transceiver which takes over the target vehicle’s steering and brakes at the critical moment.
The method, he says, was first deployed by the CIA in Boston, hence the name. But it has since been adopted by intelligence and security forces the world over, as well as by private security firms and their hit squads.
Fiennes also confirms that the death by ‘road traffic accident’ of SAS Major Michael Marman in England in 1986 was the result of a Boston brakes operation carried out by a private hit squad known as The Clinic.

Princess Diana Assassination: A People’s Inquiry

The Attempt To Assassinate Camilla
Further instances of the Boston brakes in action are also cited in the book, including the death by ‘road traffic accident’ of Diana’s former lover and bodyguard, Barry Mannakee, in 1987, and – staggeringly – the attempted assassination by ‘road traffic accident’ of Camilla Parker Bowles just two months prior to Diana’s own fatal crash.
The story of this never-before-disclosed incident is recounted in some detail in the book.
According to sources quoted by the authors, the attempt on Camilla Parker Bowles’s life was the result of a “constitutional crisis” engendered by Prince Charles’s desire to marry his long-term lover while Diana was still alive.
Indeed, according to Tony Wright, then parliamentary aide to the Lord Chancellor, the crisis was so severe it almost resulted in the disestablishment of the Church The Independent.
As the authors point out, such a move would have amounted to the biggest, most far-reaching constitutional reforms since Henry VIII. And we all know what happened to one or two of his wives…

Princess Diana Assassination: A People’s Inquiry

Seat Belt “Jammed In The Retracted Position”
Other revelations in the book include an interview with a well-known Harley Street specialist [named in the book] who became Diana’s nutritional guru.
Fearing she might have been pregnant, the authors reveal, Diana visited her nutritional guru for dietary advice prior to her final holiday with Dodi Fayed. Following her visit the specialist’s Harley Street clinic was broken into and his computer stolen.
And there are many other fresh concerns raised in this uncompromising cross-examination of the ‘accident theory’, in which the authors assume the roles of prosecuting counsels in what is in effect a ‘people’s inquiry’.
Not least among these concerns is the anomaly surrounding Diana’s seat-belt, which, the authors reveal, was found by the Operation Paget team to have been “jammed in the retracted position” and thus unusable—a fact, like so many others, brushed aside by the Royal Inquest.
Other challenges to the ‘accident theory’ include:
  • Grave concerns over the coroner’s decision to ignore crucial evidence regarding landmines;
  • The true identity of certain members of the paparazzi;
  • The Metropolitan Police cover-up of Diana’s recorded statements about perceived threats on her life;
  • Recorded communications between Diana, Prince Charles and Prince Philip;
  • Concerns about Diana’s illegal embalming, which the authors discover was carried out on the orders of a very high-ranking British ‘diplomat’ stationed at the British Embassy in Paris on the night of the crash [diplomat named in the book];
  • The ‘bullet hole’ found in paparazzo James Andanson’s head, discovered and reported by Police Chief Jean-Michel Lauzun at the scene of the MI6 agent’s mysterious ‘suicide’;
  • And Henri Paul’s spurious blood sample – on which the inquest’s verdict was ultimately based – which, the authors reveal, was never DNA-identified, was taken from a vial labelled ‘unknown male’ and contained a level of carbon monoxide so excessive six of the world’s most eminent forensic experts stated under oath that it could not possibly have belonged to Henri Paul.

Princess Diana Assassination: A People’s Inquiry

Also In ‘Princess Diana – The Evidence’
  • An unforgiving exposé on the “wholly flawed and contrived” Royal Inquest;
  • A comprehensive, 60,000-word critique of Lord Stevens’ Operation Paget investigation;
  • An extensive dossier on the mismanagement of the French Inquiry;
  • Plus compelling evidence of a plot to assassinate Diana dating back to November 1995.
Incredibly, “Princess Diana: The Evidence”:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Princess-Diana-Evidence-Jon-King/dp/1561718882/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1235477992&sr=11-1 also reveals foreknowledge of a prime-target assassination being planned by MI6 one week prior to Diana’s fatal crash.
The authors are calling for a ‘People’s Inquiry’ to be launched into the incident.
Little wonder this book is billed as ‘The Book the British Government Tried To Ban!’
● ● ●
  • See also: “William Suspects Conspiracy, Dodi Fayed’s Father Claims”:/news/william-suspects-conspiracy-dodi-fayeds-father-claims/
  • See also: “Diana Inquest – The Documents The Jury Never Saw”:/news/diana-inquest-the-documents-the-jury-never-saw/
  • See also: “Princess Diana Assassination – 14 Years Of Lies Spies And Cover-Ups”:/news/princess-diana-assassination-14-years-of-lies-spies-and-cover-ups//
  • See also: “Princess Diana And Jorg Haider Assassinated By ‘Boston Brakes’”:/news/princess-diana-and-jorg-haider-assassinated-by-boston-brakes/
  • See also: “Princess Diana Forum Topic”:http://forums.consciousape.com/index.php?showtopic=96
  • See also: “Princess Diana And MI6”:/news/new-evidence-diana-was-murdered-by-mi6/
  • See also: “Political Assassinations”:/discussion-topics/political-assassinations/
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
image sources: “Prison Planet”:http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2007/080107diana.jpg â€¢ “Royal Inquest Website”:www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk â€¢ “Cremation Of Care”:http://www.cremationofcare.com/images/diana/express040407.gif


Did former spy and whistleblower Richard Tomlinson retract evidence at Diana Inquest as part of MI6 deal…?

Princess Diana – Richard Tomlinson

Deal Done With MI6
In a dramatic turn of events, former MI6 spy and whistleblower, Richard Tomlinson, who spent more than a decade on the run from MI6, has finally been allowed back into Britain.
MI6 has dropped all charges against its former employee, unfrozen royalties from his whistleblowing book and apologized for its unfair treatment of him. The move comes as speculation mounts that Tomlinson has done a deal with MI6 over what he knows about the spy firm’s involvement in “Princess Diana’s death”:/discussion-topics/political-assassinations/.
In 1999 Richard Tomlinson signed an affidavit stating that MI6 had formulated a plan to assassinate former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic in a road traffic accident identical to the one which killed “Princess Diana”:/news/princess-diana-assassination-12th-anniversary-a-peoples-inquiry/ in August 1997.
He told the French Inquiry into Diana’s death that he believed MI6 was involved in the princess’s murder and that MI6 agents used a special forces-style ‘strobe gun’ to blind chauffeur Henri Paul moments before he crashed.
Tomlinson also blew the whistle on two ‘undeclared’ MI6 officers stationed in Paris on the night of the crash and disclosed that he had seen MI6 documents revealing Henri Paul as a part-time MI6 agent.
But in a stunning, last-minute U-turn at the Royal Inquest into Diana’s death last year, Tomlinson mysteriously retracted his claims and has more recently, during secret negotiations with MI6 officers in Spain, also agreed to keep shtum about his knowledge of MI6 operations and in particular about the death of Princess Diana.
In return, Tomlinson no longer faces the threat of prosecution and imprisonment.

Princess Diana – Richard Tomlinson

MI6 Agents
As well as identifying Henri Paul as a part-time MI6 agent, Tomlinson also disclosed other information to the French Inquiry.
Perhaps his most startling disclosure was that well-known French paparazzo, James Andanson, was also a paid informant of MI6. Andanson made his name taking some of the most famous tabloid photographs of British royals abroad, and was known to have followed Diana and Dodi Fayed to Monaco, St Tropez and Sardinia during the summer of 1997.
And despite official claims to the contrary, it has emerged that he also followed them to Paris on the night of the crash.
Indeed, Andanson boasted to friends that he was in the crash tunnel seconds after Diana’s fatal collision, and that he took ‘compromising’ photographs of the wreckage and immediate aftermath which he planned to publish in a book.
For the record, Andanson also owned a white Fiat Uno identical to the one involved the crash.
A statement from Richard Tomlinson’s 1999 affidavit reads:
“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.”
Richard Tomlinson, former MI6 Officer, 1999.
Whether the paparazzo alluded to by Tomlinson was indeed James Andanson has never been formerly established. Whether the white Fiat Uno involved in the crash belonged to James Andanson, ditto.
And neither do we know the precise nature of the photographs Andanson took in the crash tunnel in the immediate aftermath—prior to the arrival of the emergency services.
But what we do know is that, in May 2000, Andanson’s entire photographic archive was stolen by an ‘armed gang’ from his offices at the Sipa Press Agency in Paris. We also know this:
A few days prior to the armed break-in, the French police announced that James Andanson had been found dead in his burnt-out car, 400 miles from where he should have been.
His car was locked from the inside. The keys were never found. He was discovered with a bullet hole in his head. His death was officially ruled as ‘suicide’.

Princess Diana – Richard Tomlinson

Undeclared MI6 Officers In Paris
 In their groundbreaking book, “Princess Diana: The Evidence”:/news/new-evidence-diana-was-murdered-by-mi6/, authors Jon King and John Beveridge recently added fuel to the fire when they revealed evidence of an MI6 assassination technique known as the “Boston brakes”:/news/princess-diana-and-jorg-haider-assassinated-by-boston-brakes/, effectively an assassination technique made to look like a ‘road traffic accident’.
Like Tomlinson, the authors cited other instances where the “Boston brakes”:/news/princess-diana-assassination-12th-anniversary-a-peoples-inquiry/ technique had be employed.
They also cast further light on the deal agreed between Tomlinson and MI6. Speaking of the Operation Paget Report, which published the findings of the British investigation into Diana’s death, King and Beveridge stated:
“While Diana is presented in the report as a paranoid neurotic who spends most of her time glancing back over her shoulder for signs of a government hit man, or an MI6 ‘mechanic’ intent on fixing her brakes, Richard Tomlinson is quite incontestably cast as a liar. We struggle to imagine what he must have been threatened with (or promised in return for completely changing his story), but virtually every word he has ever written or uttered regarding MI6 involvement in Diana’s death can now be pretty much discounted.”
Later in the book, King and Beveridge go on to reveal the following:
“A British Embassy leak reported that, on the night itself, there were at least six MI6 agents in Paris—more than comprise the entire (official) number of MI6 agents in Moscow.
“To add to this, former MI6 Officer Richard Tomlinson has told us that, not only was there an unusually high number of MI6 personnel in Paris on the night in question, but that those personnel included MI6 Chief David Spedding’s personal secretary.
“And what is more—in a statement released on 12th May 1999—Tomlinson revealed that, on the night Diana died, two senior MI6 Officers were in Paris on an “undeclared” basis, and that their directive was to liaise with MI6 informant, Henri Paul.
“Mr Tomlinson stated: ‘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.’
“Further: ‘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.’”

Princess Diana – Richard Tomlinson

MI6 Spy’s Home Raided
And here’s the sting, again extracted from Princess Diana: The Evidence by Jon King and John Beveridge:
“In relation to these claims made by Richard Tomlinson, we should note an incident that occurred in July 2006…
…On July 3rd, 2006, the Daily Express carried the following front-page headline:
DIANAARREST DRAMA—Ex-MI6 Spy’s Home Is Raided.
The accompanying story proceeded to claim that the raid was “linked to the Princess Diana inquiry”, and revealed that the former MI6 spy in question was none other than Richard Tomlinson.
Evidently, the story revealed, agents from the French security service (DST), at the request of MI6, ransacked Tomlinson’s home in southern France and confiscated telephone and computer equipment, together with his personal organizer, personal papers and files (including his bank account details), and perhaps more to the point, both his passports, as well (Tomlinson bears duel British and New Zealand nationality).
This action was taken, we were told, because MI6 feared Tomlinson might be called to testify at the Royal Inquest in London, and as a result, information would be revealed implicating MI6 in Diana’s death.”
So there we have it. Whether these raids, together with Tomlinson’s ‘interviews’ with the Paget team, were behind the former spy’s decision to retract his testimony regarding Diana’s death, I’ll leave you to you own conclusions.
But it would certainly seem that Tomlinson’s decision not to pursue his claims against MI6 in relation to Diana’s death – to retract his entire sworn testimony – is the reason he is once again a free man.
One way or another, by threat or free will, Richard Tomlinson has done a deal with MI6 to keep quiet about the truth of Diana’s death. I know what that says to me.
● ● ●
  • See also: “William Suspects Conspiracy, Dodi Fayed’s Father Claims”:/news/william-suspects-conspiracy-dodi-fayeds-father-claims/
  • See also: “Princess Diana Assassination: 14 Years Of Lies Spies And Cover-Ups”:/news/princess-diana-assassination-14-years-of-lies-spies-and-cover-ups/
  • See also: “Princess Diana And Jorg Haider Assassinated By Boston Brakes”:/news/princess-diana-and-jorg-haider-assassinated-by-boston-brakes/
  • See also: “Princess Diana Assassination: A People’s Inquiry”:/news/princess-diana-assassination-a-peoples-inquiry/
  • See also: “Diana Inquest: The Documents The Jury Never Saw”:/news/diana-inquest-the-documents-the-jury-never-saw/
  • See also: “Princess Diana – Political Assassination”:/discussion-topics/political-assassinations/
  • See also: “Princess Diana Forum”:http://forums.consciousape.com/index.php?s=6aa09a1f35157e864864a8fa277d46a9&showforum=25_











Were Princess Diana and Jorg Haider victims of the ‘Boston brakes’?

Princess Diana And Jorg Haider Assassinated By Boston Brakes

By Jon King
Assassinated
When Austria’s far-right political leader, Jorg Haider, died in a car crash last October (2008), rumours that his death was no accident quickly emerged.
Within hours a semi-coherent theory was doing the rounds, suggesting Haider might have been assassinated by Mossad. His imminent appointment as Austria’s chancellor, the theory proposed, was unacceptable to Israel, who perceived Haider as a kind of latter-day Adolf Hitler.
Somewhat predictably, many were quick to jump on these rumours, but not everyone. Personally I was caught somewhere midstream.
While I harboured little ambition to involve myself in the argument publicly, I couldn’t help but notice that several stark similarities seemed to exist between Haider’s death and that of another, even more famous political icon, one I had come to know only too well: Princess Diana.
For the past eleven years I had been centrally involved in investigating Diana’s death, and had indeed written two books on the subject with my co-author John Beveridge—‘Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence’ (SPIBooks, New York, 2001 hardback), and the more recent and massively updated paperback, ‘Princess Diana: The Evidence’.
As a result of these endeavours I had naturally become familiar with every piece of evidence there is to be had regarding Diana’s death, even the minutest detail.
Which is why I was taken so aback when I stumbled on an article in the “London Times”:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article4938718.ece, detailing the death of Jorg Haider (see below).

Princess Diana And Jorg Haider Assassinated By Boston Brakes

Correlations
Before I proceed, I should perhaps explain that the reason I became involved in investigating Diana’s death in the first place was due to information I received a week prior to her fatal ‘accident’ in Paris. Not the place here to delve that information—for anyone interested it is all openly detailed in my book.
But the point is that part of the information I received concerned how the media would be primed to respond in the event of Diana’s death—how it is primed to respond in the event of any political assassination. This information turned out to be frighteningly accurate.
With that in mind, I refer you to the following media reports and the correlations they seem to bear, which quite frankly continue to haunt me.
In the days immediately following Princess Diana’s ‘accident’, media reports famously informed us that her car “crashed into a concrete pillar while overtaking another vehicle” (a white Fiat Uno).
We were also told that the “speedometer was stuck at 120 mph”, a claim later proven conclusively incorrect when Mercedes engineers revealed the speedometer was designed to revert to zero on impact.
In any event, check this paragraph taken from the “London Times”:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article4938718.ecearticle I mentioned above. It was penned just a few days after Haider’s death (my italics).
 â€œThe leader of Austria’s Far Right was driving alone in his black Volkswagen Phaeton on a little-travelled road in southern Austria and crashed into a concrete pillar while overtaking another vehicle. The speedometer of the wrecked sedan was stuck at 142kph (88mph), police said—more than twice the limit for that road.”
This paragraph could so easily have been lifted from reports detailing Diana’s death eleven years earlier. The wording is not only close, it is exact, word-for-word.
And here is something else to think about.

Princess Diana And Jorg Haider Assassinated By Boston Brakes

Drunk At The Wheel
On the news wires the following day I found a Reuters feed (later published in “The Guardian”:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/15/austria-thefarright and the “New York Times”:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/world/europe/16austria.html) claiming that Haider was more than “three times over the legal drink-drive limit” when he lost control of his car.
Not many of us would need reminding that this is precisely the lie they tried to hang on Henri Paul, the Ritz security officer and French intelligence agent who was driving the Mercedes in which Princess Diana was killed.
For the record, even though the French and British inquiries both concluded that Henri Paul was drunk at the wheel, the blood sample on which this verdict was based has to this day never been DNA-identified.
In other words, the authorities who reached this conclusion still cannot be certain that the blood tested belonged to Henri Paul, much less that he was ‘drunk at the wheel’, as claimed.
Given that the sample was found also to contain a level of carbon monoxide poisoning sufficient to incapacitate a mountain gorilla, it is even more likely that the blood tested belonged to someone other than Henri Paul.
The official claim that Haider’s blood contained ‘excessive levels of alcohol’, then, should be taken with some caution.
Indeed, one has to wonder if it was Haider’s blood at all.

Princess Diana and Jorg Haider Assassinated By Boston Brakes

No Skid Marks
There is one further correlation I stumbled on in the “Austrian Times”:http://www.austriantimes.at/index.php?id=9073 (October 13th, 2008). The article read:
“Experts say there appears to be no trace Haider tried to avoid the crash once he lost control of his car.”
The article also included a quote from Max Lang, Head Technician with the Austrian Automobile Association (ÖAMTC), who said:
“With crashes like this one there are usually traces of how the driver tried to avoid crashing by steering away from the point of impact to rectify their mistake. Nothing of that can be seen here.
“I don’t think you can explain the accident just with excessive speed.”
What is of note here is that no skid marks revealing any kind of braking or correctional manoeuvre were found at the crash scene, suggesting Haider just ploughed headlong into the ‘concrete pillar’ without trying to brake or make some other attempt to avoid the collision. Strange enough in itself.
But what is even more strange is this precise same ‘skid mark’ anomaly emerged in Diana’s crash investigation as well.
Mysteriously, no skid marks, either from the Mercedes or the Fiat Uno, were found at Diana’s crash scene, suggesting that Henri Paul also failed to brake or make any kind of correctional manoeuvre as he ploughed headlong into the concrete pillar.
This really is very strange. One can only assume from this that neither Henri Paul nor Jorg Haider were in control of their vehicles immediately prior to impact.
So who was?

Princess Diana And Jorg Haider Assassinated By Boston Brakes

The Boston Brakes
According to former SAS officer and world-famous explorer, Sir Ranulph Feinnes, it is not beyond reason that both Princess Diana’s Mercedes and Jorg Haider’s Volkswagen were remotely hijacked.
 In his book, The Feather Men, Feinnes recounts in some detail a highly sophisticated assassination technique which he says has been employed by the world’s intelligence agencies for decades.
A microchip transceiver, he explains, is fitted to the target vehicle’s on-board computer, allowing the vehicle to be controlled remotely.
He says this technique was first deployed by the CIA in Boston, hence its name: the ‘Boston brakes’.
Feinnes also recounts an instance of the ‘Boston brakes’ being successfully deployed in England in 1986, which resulted in the assassination of SAS Major, Michael Marman, and the near-death of a former equerry to the Queen, Sir Peter Horsley.
According to Sir Ranuplh Feinnes, the ‘Boston brakes’ is all fact, no fiction.
Certainly evidence John and I present in our new book “Princess Diana The Evidence”:/news/new-evidence-diana-was-murdered-by-mi6/ shows clearly enough that Diana was almost certainly the victim of the ‘Boston brakes’.
And given the startling correlations presented above, one has to wonder if Jorg Haider might also have suffered this same premeditated fate.
● ● ●
  • See also: “William Suspects Conspiracy, Dodi Fayed’s Father Claims”:/news/william-suspects-conspiracy-dodi-fayeds-father-claims/
  • See also: “Princess Diana Assassination: A People’s Inquiry”:/news/princess-diana-assassination-a-peoples-inquiry/
  • See also: “Princess Diana Assassination – 14 Years Of Lies, Spies And Cover-Ups”:/news/princess-diana-assassination-14-years-of-lies-spies-and-cover-ups//
  • See also: “New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6”:/news/new-evidence-diana-was-murdered-by-mi6/
  • See also: “Diana Inquest: The Documents The Jury Never Saw”:/news/diana-inquest-the-documents-the-jury-never-saw/
  • See also: “Political Assassinations”:/discussion-topics/political-assassinations/
  • See also: “Princess Diana Forum Topic”:http://forums.consciousape.com/index.php?showtopic=96
image source: main photo Princess Diana Inquest jorg haider phot by Dieter Zirnig at sugarmelon.com published under terms of Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0

comment


  1. Web Forms
Keith Allen

[2011 May] Unlawful Killing – the film the British won't get to see  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.
Questions: Keith Allen's film explores the series of delays that have never been properly explained



Unlawful Killing
a video/film by Keith Allen

[2011 May] Unlawful Killing – the film the British won't get to see  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.



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 2011
Calm 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 explained
Questions: Keith Allen's film explores the series of delays that have never been properly explained
Anyway, 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 death
Accusations: Keith Allen denies he is trying to make money out of a much-loved woman's death
One 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 Killing

Al-Fayed funded Diana movie alleges Prince Phillip is a 'Fred West-style psychopath' and labels Royal Family 'gangsters in tiaras'

14th May 2011
The Royal Family masterminded the car crash that caused Princess Diana’s death as a ‘warning’ to make her toe the line, a controversial new film premiered at Cannes yesterday claims.
The director, Keith Allen, said the House of Windsor had ‘got away with murder’ because no one had been held to account over the accident.
In the film, entitled Unlawful Killing, Prince Phillip is branded a 'Fred West-style psychopath' who 'orchestrated the murder' of Diana.
The Queen is dismissed as a 'gangster in a tiara'.
 Controversial: Keith Allen's new movie Unlawful Killing looks into Princess Diana's death and brands Prince Phillip a 'Fred West-style psychopath'
Controversial: Keith Allen's new movie Unlawful Killing looks into Princess Diana's death and brands Prince Phillip a 'Fred West-style psychopath'
Allen, who is trying to sell the film around the world, was bankrolled by  
Mohamed Al-Fayed, whose son Dodi also died in the car crash, to make the movie.
He invested £2.5 million to back the production after it was turned down by every broadcaster in the UK.
It will not be shown in UK cinemas because of strict laws on libel and contempt, but Allen believes the movie will make money in America.
'The crash was supposed to be a warning': Diana died in 1997
'The crash was supposed to be a warning': Diana died in 1997
Allen said: ‘I think Diana was in a position to rock a lot of boats. I think [the accident] was supposed to be a warning.
‘I believe there was a chance that she could have survived the accident. But I think the situation may have gone too far.'
In the film, the inquest in to her death is presented as a cover-up in which different arms of the British establishment - including the police, the Courts, and the Royal Family - as well as the French coroner and government had a hand.
Unlawful Killing opens with a details of a letter penned by Diana to her Butler, in which she claims that Prince Charles is planning to have her murdered in a car accident.
The production stated the 36-year-old could have been saved had she been taken to hospital quickly - and that the inquest failed to properly investigate why she wasn’t.
The film shows the graphic black and white close-up of Diana taken moments after the Mercedes carrying the couple crashed in a Paris underpass, for a few seconds.
The image, in which her blonde hair and features clearly visible, has never been publicly seen in this UK.
Allen said: ‘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.’
The film features Al-Fayed accusing the Royal Family of being racist.
Allen, who authors the documentary, suggests in it that the Establishment was unhappy with Diana’s relationship with Dodi, because he was a Muslim.
It also claims that her role in the anti-landmine campaign put her at risk from those in the arms industry, and those in power who had links to it.
'Gangsters in tiaras': The hugely controversial documentary makes some bold claims about the Royal Family's involvement in the accident
'Gangsters in tiaras': The hugely controversial documentary makes some outrageous claims about the Royal Family's involvement in the accident
Psychologist Oliver James is interviewed about his behaviour for the film - and despite having never treated the Duke of Edinburgh, he claims he displays classic ‘psychopath’ behaviour, likening him to a 'Fred West'.
In another bizarre sequence the House of Windsor is compared to the mafia, and Allen describes one picture of the Queen, Princess Margaret and Princess Anne all dressed in black as ‘gangsters in tiaras’.
The controversial premiere was met with ridicule from critics with many questioning how editorially independent the film could be when it was funded by Al-Fayed.
Writer Martyn Gregory, who penned Diana: The Last Days the last days, branded the the film ‘ludicrous’ and claimed that Allen had simply made a vehicle for Al-Fayed’s rants.
Crash: The wreck of the car in which Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed died in Paris
Crash: The wreck of the car in which Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed died in Paris
Critic Richard Friedman compared the ideas put forward in the film as like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory.
He said: ‘It is misleading not to let the audience know that Al-Fayed is funding this film.’
Unlawful Killing features interviews with Piers Morgan, Lauren Booth, and Tony Benn.
Allen enlisted the help of freelance journalist Richard Wiseman, who went undercover to monitor how the press covered the tribunal.
However the only insight he gained was that the BBC’s Royal Correspondent Nicholas Witchell fell asleep during some of it.
Publicity: Allen and writer Paul Sparks attended the photocall in Cannes yesterday, but Mohamed Al-Fayed was absent
Publicity: Allen and writer Paul Sparks attended the photocall in Cannes yesterday, but Mohamed Al-Fayed was absent
The comedian said that he made the film to highlight the failings in the way he believed the death of Diana was investigated.
News of his documentary had been met with disgust with many close to Diana.
Close friend Rosa Monckton said: ‘The fact people are trying to make money – which is all that they are doing now – out of her death is quite frankly ... words fail me.’
A spokesman for St James’s Palace declined to comment.
Al-Fayed did not turn up for the screening amid rumours he was upset about the inclusion of the controversial crash picture.
His spokesman said he was 'delighted with the film' but it is understood that the tycoon had lobbied for the image to be taken out.
In 2008, after a six-month inquest, a jury concluded Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed were unlawfully killed as a direct result of grossly negligent driving by drunk chauffeur Henri Paul, who also died in the crash.

[2011 May] Unlawful Killing – the film the British won't get to see  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.

Diana  [film] Unlawful Killing

Unlawful 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 why
7 May 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/07/unlawful-killing-film-you-wont-see
The 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.



















15 years after her death new evidence has emerged that Diana was murdered by MI6 ‘Boston brakes’…

New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6

By Richard Coleman
The ‘Boston Brakes’
Fifteen years after her death, new evidence has emerged that Princess Diana was murdered in an MI6-organized ‘Boston brakes’ operation.
Following the 2008 Royal Inquest debacle, which ruled out MI6 involvement in Diana’s death, new evidence has come to light which challenges the ‘official verdict’.
 In their book, Princess Diana: The Evidence , authors Jon King and John Beveridge present evidence that a highly sophisticated assassination technique was used to cause the princess’s vehicle to crash as it drove through the Alma tunnel, Paris, in the early hours of August 31st, 1997.
The ‘Boston brakes’, they reveal, is the most favoured assassination technique employed by the West’s intelligence services due to its deniability.
The authors were able to compile such a detailed and compelling case due to information gleaned from their well-placed intelligence and security contacts-mostly former special and elite forces members, mercenaries, royal bodyguards, and on occasion, hired assassins.
Some of these crack military contractors disclosed details of prior operations in which the ‘Boston brakes’ had been successfully used. Others, who fought in Angola, site of Diana’s landmines campaign, threw light on the secret oil and diamond wars still raging in central Africa, and in particular the dirty arms-for-oil deals carried out by MI6, FrenchDGSE, the CIA and the Bush-Cheney oil syndicate.
By focusing the light of the world’s media on Angola, the authors were told, the princess was in danger of exposing these deals, and was thus placing herself “in grave danger”. The fact that she was compiling a dossier containing the names of high-powered British politicians and businessmen involved in the deals, ditto.
It should be noted that, for obvious reasons, some of the sources quoted in the book remain anonymous. But many are named.

New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6

The SAS And The Clinic
Speaking of the ‘Boston brakes’ operation which he believed killed Princess Diana, former SAS sergeant, Dave Cornish, exclusively revealed:
“From the minute the decoy car left the Ritz to the moment the tail car closed in … it was obvious what was going down. Anyone who knows what they’re talking about’ll tell you the same.”
And former Royal bodyguard, Mike Grey, added:
“The operation bore all the classic hallmarks of a security service assassination …. I have no doubts whatsoever, given my twenty years experience in various sections of the security industry, that Diana was assassinated. The security service hallmarks are plain to see.”
But it was former SAS officer and world-famous explorer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, who offered perhaps the most telling revelation of all.
The ‘Boston brakes’ method of assassination, Fiennes reveals, has been in use since at least the 1980s, and deploys a microchip transceiver which takes over the target vehicle’s steering and brakes at the critical moment.
The method, he says, was first deployed by the CIA in Boston, hence the name. But it has since been adopted by intelligence and security forces the world over, as well as by private security firms and their hit squads.
Fiennes also confirms that the death by ‘road traffic accident’ of SAS Major Michael Marman in England in 1986 was the result of a Boston brakes operation carried out by a private hit squad known as The Clinic.

New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6

The Attempt To Assassinate Camilla
Further instances of the Boston brakes in action are also cited in the book, including the death by ‘road traffic accident’ of Diana’s former lover and bodyguard, Barry Mannakee, in 1987, and – staggeringly – the attempted assassination by ‘road traffic accident’ of Camilla Parker Bowles just two months prior to Diana’s own fatal crash.
The story of this never-before-disclosed incident is recounted in some detail in the book.
According to sources quoted by the authors, the attempt on Camilla Parker Bowles’s life was the result of a “constitutional crisis” engendered by Prince Charles’s desire to marry his long-term lover while Diana was still alive.
According to Tony Wright, then parliamentary aide to the Lord Chancellor, the crisis was so severe it almost resulted in the disestablishment of the Church (see The Independent).
As the authors point out, such a move would have amounted to the biggest, most far-reaching constitutional reforms since Henry VIII. And we all know what happened to his wives…

New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6

Seat Belt “Jammed In The Retracted Position”
Other revelations in the book include an interview with a well-known Harley Street specialist [named in the book] who became Diana’s nutritional guru.
Fearing she might have been pregnant, the authors reveal, Diana visited her nutritional guru for dietary advice prior to her final holiday with Dodi Fayed. Following her visit the specialist’s Harley Street clinic was broken into and his computer stolen.
And there are many other fresh concerns raised in this uncompromising cross-examination of the ‘accident theory’, in which the authors assume the roles of prosecuting counsels in what is effectively a ‘people’s inquiry’.
Not least among these concerns is the anomaly surrounding Diana’s seat-belt, which, the authors reveal, was found by the Operation Paget team to have been “jammed in the retracted position” and thus unusable – a fact, like so many others, brushed aside by the Royal Inquest.
Other challenges to the ‘accident theory’ include:
  • Grave concerns over the coroner’s decision to ignore crucial evidence regarding landmines;
  • The true identity of certain members of the paparazzi;
  • The Metropolitan Police cover-up of Diana’s recorded statements about perceived threats on her life;
  • Recorded communications between Diana, Prince Charles and Prince Philip;
  • Concerns about Diana’s illegal embalming, which the authors discover was carried out on the orders of a very high-ranking British ‘diplomat’ [named in the book] who was stationed at the British Embassy in Paris on the night of the crash;
  • The ‘bullet hole’ found in paparazzo James Andanson’s head, discovered and reported by Police Chief Jean-Michel Lauzun at the scene of the MI6 agent’s mysterious ‘suicide’;
  • And Henri Paul’s spurious blood sample – on which the inquest’s verdict was ultimately based – which, the authors reveal, was never DNA-identified, was taken from a vial labelled “unknown male” and contained a level of carbon monoxide so excessive six of the world’s most eminent forensic pathologists stated under oath that it could not possibly have belonged to Henri Paul.

New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6

Also In ‘Princess Diana – The Evidence’
  • An unforgiving expose on the “wholly flawed and contrived” Royal Inquest;
  • A comprehensive, 60,000-word critique of Lord Stevens’ Operation Paget investigation;
  • An extensive dossier on the mismanagement of the French Inquiry;
  • Plus compelling evidence of a plot to assassinate Diana dating back to November 1995.
Incredibly, Princess Diana: The Evidence also reveals foreknowledge of a prime-target assassination being planned by MI6 one week prior to Diana’s fatal crash.

For more on ‘The Book the British Government Tried To Ban!’ watch author Jon King’s interview here:



Princess Diana Evidence of Assassination: Jon King on Edge Media TV



princess_diana_july_22_2011















Top Met Police officers wanted for questioning over allegations that they withheld crucial evidence about the car crash which killed Princess Diana…

Princess Diana Police Face Arrest

By “Cyril Dixon, Padraic Flanagan and Mark Reynolds ● Express”:http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/260394
TWO of Britain’s leading former police officers are wanted for questioning over allegations that they withheld crucial evidence about the car crash which killed Princess Diana.
A French judge wants to ask ex-Yard chief Lord Condon and Sir David Veness why they failed to disclose the existence of a note in which she predicted her assassination.
They could face international arrest warrants as suspects should they refuse to attend interviews in Paris, sources close to the investigation indicated last night.
The note, taken by Diana’s lawyer Lord Mishcon, was handed to the officers a few months after the 1997 Paris tunnel crash which also claimed the lives of Diana’s boyfriend Dodi Fayed, son of tycoon Mohamed Al Fayed, and the pair’s chauffeur Henri Paul.
The highly-respected lawyer’s document records the line: “Efforts would be made if not to get rid of her (be it by some accident in her car, such as a pre-prepared brake failure or whatever)…at least to see that she was so injured or damaged as to be declared unbalanced.”
It was more than three years later before it emerged that the officers had locked the note in Lord Condon’s safe at Scotland Yard. When Lord Condon stood down as the Metropolitan Police Commissioner his successor as Met Commissioner, Lord Stevens, continued to keep its existence a secret.
Under French law, “removing or concealing” evidence, which could “facilitate the discovery of a crime”, is punishable by three to five years in jail or a fine.
Now Paris-based Judge Gerard Caddeo is locked in a protracted battle with British authorities over his demand for interviews with Lord Condon and Sir David, a former assistant commissioner.
The explosive development means that the issue of whether the fatal crash in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel in Paris was an accident or murder is likely to be once more the subject of a controversial court case.
“Read Full Article HERE…”:http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/260394
● ● ●

Watch Jon King’s interview on Princess Diana assassination…

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●














Royal Inquest website taken down and Diana Memorial Trust to close in 2014 – all part of the ongoing cover-up says John Morgan…

Princess Diana: Is Her Memory Being Airbrushed Out?

By John Morgan
Just weeks after what would have been Princess Diana’s 50th birthday, the Diana Memorial Fund announced that, after operating for only 14 years, it will be closing down in 2012.
Now, in a new development, the official website for the Scott Baker Inquest into her death has been effectively removed from public view.
A spokesman from the Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ) has stated that the Princess Diana inquest website has been closed down: “In line with UK government moves to decrease the number of .gov.uk websites and addresses, the Inquest site URL was not renewed this year.”
Although the spokesman went on to say that “the site will remain permanently available via the National Archives website”, there has been no automatic redirection set up to the new site. It is normal practice for a redirection to be placed when a website on the internet is shifted, but this has not occurred in the case of the Diana inquest website – despite repeated requests to officials at the RCJ.
When the RCJ was initially told about this, two weeks ago, a spokesman replied: “Thanks for pointing this out to us. We will arrange for a redirect to the National Archive url.”
After nothing happened, the RCJ was asked how long it would take for the problem to be remedied. We were then told by a spokesman from the Judicial Communications Office: “I will look into this again, however given the current government pressure to reduce websites and URLs I’m not certain we will be able to reinstate this URL link.”
No one has ever asked the RCJ to reinstate the website – all that is required is a simple redirection from the old website address.
Since then nothing has been done, even though just a click on a mouse at the RCJ would solve the problem.
It has also been discovered that a person searching on Google is unable to find the new Diana inquest website. Google was promptly notified. That was a fortnight ago, yet Google have ignored this problem and have done nothing to enable internet users to locate the buried Diana inquest.
It then turned out that a search on the National Archives (NA) website will also not reveal the existence of the Diana inquest. Instead the searcher is advised: “Access Conditions: Records Not Yet Transferred”.
The NA was asked about this and their spokesman replied: “We will … be updating our web archive search … in the coming weeks”.
Paul Sparks, the co-writer and co-producer of the controversial new film “Unlawful Killing”:http://www.consciousape.com/news/unlawful-killing-film-the-british-wont-get-to-see/ â€“ shown recently at both the Cannes and Galway festivals – said: “To allay suspicions of a cover-up, the British Establishment promised that the Diana inquest proceedings would remain available to the public in perpetuity, so that people could see they had nothing to hide. Yet now, after only three years … the inquest web site has disappeared into the recesses of the National Archives, where not even Google – or the National Archives’ own search engine – is able to locate it. Coincidence? Or yet another example of the ongoing non-attributable cover-up that the British Establishment has been engaged in for the past fourteen years?”
With recent books exposing the incredible level of cover-up by British authorities surrounding the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed, and the imminent worldwide – except UK – release of Unlawful Killing, the question is now being asked: Is this effort by the British Establishment to bury the Diana inquest website a continuation of that cover-up and an attempt to airbrush the memory of Princess Diana’s death out of the public record?
John Morgan
Author of the Diana Inquest series.
Relevant website addresses:
● ● ●

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.
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.
Diana crash witness: I saw a dozen 'shady figures' in tunnel
Last updated at 23:22pm on 30.09.06
 Jacques Morel
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.
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
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
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.

Author backs Diana conspiracy 

View BBC Video RealPlayer 

Noel Botham is a former Royal correspondent who believes the crash that 
killed Diana, Princess of Wales, was no accident. The author of "The 
Murder of Princess Diana" spoke about the details that aroused his suspicions. 

Noel Botham: 
'The two bodyguards swore that Henri Paul was not drunk when he got in 
the car to drive Diana and Dodi. They said their job would have been on 
the line......' 

The French police checked to see if he’d been drinking in the bars close to 
his home near the hotel. 

Nicholas Davies: 
'There was no single witness come forward to say that he was drinking, 
and we also - we also know that only three days before he had had a 
rigorous pilot’s medical examination and there was no suggestion in that 
that he was a drinker, or a drunkard. ' Henri Paul had been a pilot for 
over 20 years and had clocked up 600 hours of flying time. 

Henri Paul’s blood samples contained unusually high levels of carbon 
monoxide. 

Mohamed Al Fayed: 
‘If you have carbon monoxide of 24% in the blood, you can’t walk, for I 
am certain there is foul play, I am certain it’s not Henri Paul’s blood, and 
straight away…drunken driver…it’s just unbelievable.’ 

Conspiracy theorists now fixed on the idea that the driver’s blood samples 
had been switched. 

Noel Botham: 
‘I was told there were twenty-two people who died in Paris that night 
which were investigable deaths, for one reason or another. One of them 
was a man who drank half a bottle or more of Vodka - who sat in his car, 
tied, having tied a hosepipe from the exhaust to the inside of the car and 
killed himself - with carbon monoxide poisoning….That man's blood, 
according to my police spokesman has, who I got in the pathologist's lab, 
that man's blood is the blood that was substituted for Henri Paul's. ‘ 

Martine Monteil, the head of the French Judicial Police who investigated 
the crash, is outraged at the suggestion: ‘These stories of switched test 
tubes are nonsense. Henry Paul’s blood samples have never been switched’ 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/programmes/if/transcripts/how_diana_died.txt


Family of Diana Crash Driver Speak of Their Legal Battle 

Listen to Audio 

by Adrian Addison and Angus Stickler 

The parents of Henri Paul - the chauffeur blamed for the death of Princess Diana are taking action in the French Courts to try and clear his name. The French Authorities say he was drunk at the wheel. But in their first ever interview - the parents told have told the Today Programme - that they believe the blood sample taken at the time of the accident was not their son's. They are taking legal action to try and force the French authorities to release the blood for an independent DNA test. 

It's five years this month since the death of Princess Diana and for five years the parents of the chauffeur Henri Paul have maintained their silence. But, they revealed in an exclusive interview with BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, they speak about how they've been forced to resort to the courts to obtain the blood samples taken at the time of the crash. They strongly refute allegations that their son was a heavy drinker, and believe that the blood tested possibly came from one of dozens of bodies held at the Paris morgue that night. 

They say that levels of carbon monoxide found in the blood sample would incapacitate an adult - that their son would have been unable to walk let alone drive a car. They point to the fact that three days earlier their son passed a medical for his pilots licence. If he was an alcoholic, they say, he would have failed. So far the French Authorities have refused to release the blood. The parents say they will accept the result of an independent DNA test if it proves that the sample came from their son. 

This is what they said: 

How did you hear about your son's death? 

Jean Paul: A telephone call at four in the morning. 

Giselle Paul: From one of his colleagues who worked at the Ritz and who was worried that we would be surprised, that we would learn on the radio that there had been an accident. We found out he was dead but they didn't tell us who he was with. We didn't know he was with Dodi and Diana. 

What went through your mind? 

Giselle Paul: I thought straight away that we would have a lot more problems than if he had been, say, with one of his friends , given that he was with Diana. We understood that. 

And there have been problems haven't there. The finger of blame points directly to your son. Do you accept this? 

Giselle Paul: No. Not at all. We want to know the truth. We're certain that our son wasn't drunk. We don't accept it. For us, he was a good man, a good son. People say parents are often biased and that can be true but everyone who knew him, who lived with him said the same. 

It's alleged he was a heavy drinker, that he was drunk the night of the accident. You're saying he wasn't. How can you prove that? 

Jean Paul: Because we knew him since he was born. 

Giselle Paul: Exactly. And, when you think about it, it would have been obvious if he was drunk. Dodi had another driver. He had his personal driver. Would have used a man who was drunk and who wasn't a professional driver? And also, there was a bodyguard there. you would have thought a bodyguard wouldn't let a drunk driver take them when there were other people around. 

But there were two separate blood tests. Both of those showed a high alcohol count. 

Jean Paul: We're not experts in pathology. 

Giselle Paul: We're not experts. But I suppose if there were two they would show the same thing. 

Jean Paul: There were 30 autopsies. 

Giselle Paul: On the same night, there were others. You can imagine how they might have been mixed up. There could have been a mistake. 

So you don't actually believe that this is your son's blood that they've tested? 

Giselle Paul: That could be the case. That could be one reason. It could be that. 

So what are you concerns about the investigation? 

Giselle Paul: Since the beginning we haven't made any progress. The only thing we want is our son's blood... to re-do the tests and see if what they say is right. But that's always been refused to us. Always. We've had no success. 

Surely this is your word against that of the authorities. How can you prove that your son wasn't drinking? 

Giselle Paul: We can't. We can't prove it. He's dead. It's easy to attack a dead man. They said his liver was in perfect condition. And we would have known, we would have seen if he'd been drinking. The 28th of August, he passed his medical exam for his pilot's licence. Everything was fine. And three days later he was labelled alcoholic. 

So you're saying it's ridiculous that he can be accused of being an alcoholic. But you also have concerns about the levels of carbon monoxide in his blood. 

Giselle Paul: Yes. Yes. As far as carbon monoxide is concerned... 

Jean Paul: It's inexplicable. 

Giselle Paul: They found 20% of carbon monoxide in his blood. We're not experts, obviously. But whenever we talk to people who know about this, they say it's impossible. He wouldn't have been able to stand with that level in his blood. 

So with this level of carbon monoxide in your son's blood you say that it's not his blood, that they've got the wrong blood. 

Giselle Paul: Yes, that's right. They could easily have made a mistake with 30 autopsies done on the same day...It's possible they made a mistake. 

So, what does this suggest to you? Do you think it was pure incompetence or something more sinister? 

Giselle Paul: We can't explain it. We know it can happen because everyone can make a mistake. 

Jean Paul: Incompetence maybe. Maybe ill will. Maybe both. But it must have been chaos that night, with 30 corpses on the table. 'I made a mistake'. No-one says that easily. Especially when important people are involved. 

Basically what you want to do though, if I understand correctly, is you just want to clear your son's name. 

Giselle Paul: Absolutely. That's the only thing. It's for his memory. No-one has the right to smear someone's name like that- and for what? We don't know why. We don't understand why anyone would want to say that my son was alcoholic. 

Jean Paul: Who profits from that? 

Giselle Paul: Who profits? Not me, not my son. And my son shouldn't leave the world like that - that image of him created by people when he wasn't anything like that. 

And is that the thrust of the legal action that you're taking? That you want his blood to do a DNA test on him. 

Giselle Paul: Yes, it's always been for that. It's always been to find that out. We're not pursuing anyone in particular. We're not accusing anyone of anything because we don't know. But it's always been about that, about getting his blood... 

What reason have the French government given to you for refusing to give you his blood. 

Giselle Paul: They don't give explanations. They don't say why. For us, it's as if we didn't exist. 

Jean Paul: It feels like we're completely shut out. A wall. 

Giselle Paul: We feel like.. if the President's dog was killed in an accident people would have cared more. 

Taking this legal action must be an expensive business. How much is it actually costing? 

Giselle Paul: It's not costing us anything because he had friends who look after us, fortunately. If not we couldn't have done anything. We haven't got the means. The state gives me a little over 600 euros a month. you do the maths! 

Has Mr Al Fayed had anything to do..had a part to play in your action? 

Giselle Paul: No. Not at all. 

This is a difficult question. But do you not feel in any way, shape or form that five years on it would be better for all the relatives, yourselves, Princes William and Harry just to let the matter rest? 

Giselle Paul: Only on condition that everyone else stops.... 

Jean Paul: Historically, the impression left is that our son was Princess Diana's assassin. It's false. 

Giselle Paul: Every day, people lose their children on the roads. But people don't smear their name, as they have with our son. Given that Diana was involved as well, people will always say she was killed by her drunk driver. That's what we don't want. We want to change that. That's why we're carrying on. 

If you get the blood and you get a DNA test and it turns out that it is your son's blood, what then? 

Giselle Paul: Then we couldn't do any more. It would be too late. But they should have listened to us right from the beginning when we asked. It's too late. They've deliberately let the matter drag on. 

Do you feel that you can properly grieve your son's death with all this going on? 

Giselle Paul: How can we grieve and get over it? No. When we're..when it's just us. We can't. It's not possible. No. 

Jean Paul: People seem to think you can close the door and that's it, you bounce back. But it's not like that. It eats us up, all the time. All our life...But I'm always hoping we'll make progress on the case. 

Giselle Paul: And we're forced to return to it all the time. It's why I've tried to not to talk about it too much. It's too difficult, we have to go back to the same place. 

Jean Paul: I sleep very badly. I've been an insomniac since it happened. And when I have nightmares I look for my son, my sons, all night. I try to get over it but there's always a part of me... 

Giselle Paul: I never saw my son come back..you know..in a state... or anything. Never. If I had I would say. But it never happened. Never... 
 


HOW DID DIANA PAPARAZZO DIE? 

By GREG SWIFT in Millau 
Daily Express June 9, 2000 

THE SHADY dealings and secret meetings that led to top paparazzi cameraman James Andanson being linked with Princess Diana's death may ultimately have caused his own. Andanson's barely-identifiable remains were found in his burned-out car in a French woodland last month. 

Initially, police believed that he had committed suicide; but now there is growing speculation that he may have been murdered. His widow Elizabeth, 45, was yesterday at their luxurious farmhouse in central France, still stunned by his death but unable to believe that he had killed himself. 

Meanwhile, confidential police forensic reports - seen by the Daily Express - about Andanson's possible role in the Diana tragedy potentially place him squarely at the centre of events. 

They indicate that paintwork and plastics from a white Fiat Uno owned by Andanson, 54, match exactly evidence recovered from Diana's Mercedes which had clipped a Uno before crashing in a Paris tunnel in August 1997. 

Those findings, coupled with question marks about an alibi Andanson gave to prove he was not in Paris on the night Diana died, have led to fears that his death may be connected to the Paris crash. For Elizabeth, the mystery surrounding his death has only added to the agonies she has suffered since losing her husband of more than 20 years. 

Reminders of him are everywhere in their home, built 10 years ago with the profits made from years of chasing stars and royals across Europe. 

On the edge of Lignieres village, the house called Le Manoir de la Bergerie has a Union flag fluttering in the garden, a symbol, his wife said, of Andanson's great affection for Britain. 

Mrs Andanson said she could not begin to understand the circumstances of his death and still waited for the police to provide some answers. 

The elegant, attractive widow said: "James came home on May 4 from a job in Paris and left almost at once for another job. That was not unusual and in all the years of our marriage I had got used to him dashing in and out without saying where he had been or where he was going. There were periods when we hardly saw each other. 

"I had assumed he was going back to Paris but the next day a gendarme came to see me and told me a body had been found inside a car in Nant, in southern France, and they thought it was James. 

"I was too shocked. My reaction was one of utter disbelief. There had been nothing unusual about James before he had left. Everything had been normal and now this awful news. 

"The next day the police came round once more and told me that they had identified the body in the car as being my husband's, from DNA results. The judge investigating the case in Millau has told me that she excludes no explanation for the tragedy but I have heard nothing for some time now. I am not sure what happened or why. My husband had been stressed for a while before he died but I put that down to the normal stresses of being a journalist. Did he have any enemies? There were none that I knew of but then, in his line of work, anything was possible." 

Andanson was well-known on the paparazzi circuit, which operates around the Mediterranean during the summer. Starting at St Tropez in southern France, it spreads round the coast to northern Italy, a haven for celebrities from May to August. 

While Andanson would photograph any celebrity, he had made a speciality of travelling around Europe snapping royals, in particular the British Royal Family, while working for the Sigma and lately the Sypa photographic agencies in France. 

It is rumoured that he once made GBP 100,000 from a picture of Prince Charles kissing royal nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke while they were skiing with his sons in Klosters. 

Andanson was at the head of the paparazzi chasing Diana around the Mediterranean in the weeks before she died, but his wife insisted that he was doing no more than he would have done in any summer. 

"James travelled to St Tropez every summer, it was part of his routine," she said. "He would always be photographing on that circuit and I would often travel down to see him and stay with him there. 

"He was not hounding Diana during that period - he spent two months in that area every year. 

"But I didn't keep a track of his movements as he was always rushing in and out. When he was at home, he was at home. When he was off on a job, he was on a job. Police have given me no hard evidence and until they do, I will have no firm opinion. There is no point in my trying to guess if it was suicide or murder." 

It will now be the task of Alain Durand, the public prosecutor at the High Court of Millau, to run an investigation that will seek to establish the true cause of his death. 

The location of Andanson's death is suspicious in itself. Instead of driving the 190 miles north to Paris, Andanson's car travelled in the opposite direction, ending up almost 400 miles south of his home, on the Larzac plateau near Montpellier. Taking a narrow, unmarked road, his car was driven to a tiny hamlet called Les Lassiques Basses where it turned off on to a dusty, pot-holed farm track. 

Two miles later, and surrounded by empty countryside, his car turned off the track and bounced almost a mile uphill across a cow field before crashing through dense forest to a clearing that few locals knew existed. 

Yesterday a trail of melted metal led to the huge patch of scorched earth and trees that marks the spot where Andanson's body was found. 

Farmer Julian Christian, 37, who owns the land, was one of the first at the scene after the alarm had been raised by a nearby army base, whose sentries spotted smoke on the horizon. The isolation of the location meant that by the time anyone arrived, the fire had gone out. Mr Christian said: "I came into this clearing and the car was badly melted. The glass had shattered, you could still feel the heat and the driver's body, well, it was hardly there." 

Police and justice officials are still refusing to commit themselves to an opinion on Andanson's death. A court official said: "We are considering the evidence before making up our minds." 

Mrs Andanson would not be drawn on making a connection between her husband's death and the crash which killed Diana. She said: "When our Fiat Uno was impounded by the police I was very worried about what might happen but James stayed calm. Eventually, the police said they were satisfied that the car was not the one that was supposed to have been involved in the crash." 

BUT ACCORDING to the reports seen by the Daily Express - and which eventually ruled out Andanson's car being the one involved in the Diana tragedy - there are distinct matches between his car and the samples salvaged from Diana's crashed Mercedes. 

A report says: "The comparative analysis of the infra-red spectra characterising the vehicle's original paint, reference Bianco 210, and the trace on the rear view mirror of the Mercedes shows that their absorption bands are identical." It goes on: "The comparative analysis between the infra-red spectra characterising the black polymer taken from the vehicle's fender, and the trace taken from the door of the Mercedes, shows that their absorption bands are identical." 

Question marks have also been raised about the alibi used by Andanson to prove that he was not in Paris on the night of the crash. Andanson told detectives that he had been at home until 3.45am on August 31, when he travelled to Orly airport and caught a flight to Corsica. 

His son James, now 20 - his daughter Kimberley is 12 - told police he thought his father was grape harvesting in Bordeaux and had phoned home that morning at about 4.30am. 

By contrast, Elizabeth Andanson gave a statement saying that she had been at home with her husband and he had left at 4am. 

Yesterday, she explained the inconsistencies by saying: "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." 

The doubts surrounding James Andanson's death have alerted Mohamed Al Fayed, whose son Dodi was killed in the Paris crash with Diana. 

Yesterday, the Harrods boss's head of security John Macnamara said: "Mr Al Fayed has never accepted that this was a simple traffic accident. 

"He believes that his son and the Princess of Wales were murdered and he is quite sure that the truth will emerge in the fullness of time. 

"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. 

"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." 

Copyright 2000 EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS 

http://web.archive.org/web/20051218141759/http://www.alfayed.com/details.asp?aid=57


Diana Inquest: Who Killed Princess Diana?
a book by John Morgan
2012 March

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





The Murder of Princess Diana
a book by Noel Botham



Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence
a book by Jon King & John Beveridge

The staggering new evidence contained in this book offers the most compelling argument yet that British and US Intelligence acted jointly to assassinate Princess Diana. Endorsed by HRH Prince Michael of Albany, plus many highly placed intelligence and government sources, this book reveals the frightening truth behind the death of the world's most adored princess.
� How British and US Intelligence monitored Diana's every move; and how, following her divorce from Prince Charles, MI5 chiefs resolved to 'remove' her in order to avert the biggest constitutional crisis in Britain since Henry VIII;
� Why MI5 chiefs were reluctant to assassinate Diana in Britain; thus why MI6 and the CIA resolved to kill her "on foreign soil"; and how Britain's BBC announced that Diana had been killed 'in a road traffic accident' before the crash in Paris occurred;
� How the secret services of both East and West favour the 'road traffic accident' as a deniable means of assassination; how this same method of assassination has been successful in previous 'deniable ops'; and thus why Diana died in a 'road traffic accident';
� How chauffeur Henri Paul worked for MI6; how his blood sample - which underpins the 'drink-drive accident' theory - was switched; and how all CCTV cameras at the crash scene were mysteriously switched off;
� How two secret letters written by Diana just before her death implicate the British Crown in "nefarious activities in Africa", specifically Angola; and how Diana threatened to expose the Crown's vested interests in Angola by pursuing her 'landmines campaign' in that country;
� How secret 'landmines' talks held at the White House precipitated the involvement of the CIA; and how these same talks engendered Bill Clinton's 'sex-at-work' problems and almost cost him the Presidency;
� Why Diana's love affair with Dodi Fayed simply could not be tolerated - why, according to a high-ranking British Foreign Office source, it was "the final nail in her coffin";
� How Diana's unique and hitherto unknown ancestry, together with her unprecedented popularity, almost toppled Britain's Monarchy; how the Royal Family finally ordered an MI6 action against Diana; indeed, how the British Royal Establishment conspired to have Diana assassinated.


Princess Diana’s Death and Memorial: The Occult Meaning

Apr 13th, 2009 | Category: Vigilant Reports

Why did Elton John dub Lady Di “England’s Rose”? Was it because she was beautiful or because the rose has a deep occult meaning? This article explores the numerous occult symbols used in the memorials to Diana’s memory. To occultists, Diana wasn’t simply a princess, she represents the Sacred Feminine.
diana_with_survivors2
Lady Diana was often considered by the media as the “People’s Princess”. Loving, caring and beautiful, she possessed all the attributes to become a subject of idolatry. And so she became. Images of her taking care of poor children in Africa or speaking against landmines have struck the imagination of the whole world. Time Magazine said about her:
“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.”
Similarly to the Virgin Mary, Diana had (and still has) legions of followers, worshipping her giving nature and her maternal energy. In other words, she seems to fulfil the almost inherent need in human beings to worship a female goddess, giver of life and filled with compassion. The media has been a key actor in the creation of this icon by documenting every detail of her fairytale wedding, her troubled marriage, her humanitarian activities and, finally, her untimely death. Was Diana picked and groomed to become a sort of a “modern day Goddess” to ultimately be sacrificed, in accordance with ancient pagan practices? This might sound preposterous to the average National Inquirer reader, but not to the connoisseur of the occult practices of the world elite. Furthermore, numerous clues and symbols have been placed by this group to subtly commemorate the occult nature of Lady Di’s death. We will not go into details concerning her assassination, there are tons of sites and books discussing it. We will rather focus on the symbols that have surrounded the events of her death and memorial, which are the signature of the occult elite. These are visible to everybody yet only recognizable by those who have “eyes to see and ears to hear”.
Diana has been elevated to the level of Goddess in order to become the object of ritual sacrifice. This practice has been carefully planed by a secret group of illuminated people, often referred to as the “Illuminati”.  It comprises world leaders such as the British Monarchy and they are known to be DEEPLY versed into dark occult rituals.  If you have difficulty believing this, remember that the Nazis were in full force less than 60 years ago, displaying everywhere the esoteric symbol of the swastika, organizing massive occult rituals and bringing back pagan Germanic imagery .

The Goddess Diana

In Roman mythology, Diana was the goddess of nature, childbirth, hunting and the protector of the weak. She is the equivalent of the Greek goddess Artemis and she represents the Sacred Feminine, the female aspect of deity. Princess Diana bore the same attributes by being a protector of the environment, taking care of the weak in her missions in third world countries and by giving birth to the future heirs of England’s throne. Oak tree groves were especially sacred to the Goddess Diana. In Roman times, Diana’s groves and sanctuaries were always in the wild, outside of the boundaries of the city. Such hidden temples were found all across Europe. To further the resemblance with the Goddess bearing her name, Lady Diana was buried in a grove in her home town (more on this later). The Goddess Diana is often depicted with deers and doves.
artemis2
The female principle is often represented by the moon, where the Moon goddess is opposite to the Sun god . The feminine energy is also commonly associated with the planet Venus, represented in symbolism by a five petal flower – the rose. The goddess figure appears unmistakably in all religions, even in Christianity as the Virgin Mary. These symbols representing the female deity exist since prehistoric times and were preserved and diffused through pagan mysteries and through mystic Judeo-Christian teachings. Today’s students of the occult easily recognize and interpret those symbols. We will later explain how they have been used to associate Lady Di with the concept of the sacred feminine.
 

Pont d’Alma Tunnel, the Sacrificial Site

As you might know, Princess Diana died in a limousine “accident” inside the Pont d’Alma tunnel, in Paris. Her vehicle was supposedly chased by paparazzi who caused the world-class chauffeur to lose control due to his inebriated state after consuming alcohol.   We can argue for days about the theories concerning these events, but this is not the purpose of this article. The truth lies in the symbols placed on purpose for the initiates to recognize. One of them is the actual site where Diana lost her life, the Pont D’Alma Tunnel.
The city of Paris was built by the Merovingians, a medieval dynasty which ruled France for numerous generations. Before converting to Christianity, the Merovingian religion was a mysterious brand of paganism.
“ …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 Pont D’Alma Tunnel was a sacred site dedicated to the Moon Goddess Diana, where they used to practice ritual sacrifices. During those ceremonies, it was of an utmost importance that the sacrificed victim died inside the underground temple. The assassination of Diana was a reenactment of this ancient pagan tradition. Shortly after Diana was killed, Rayelan Allan (a researcher of esoteric history since the early 1970′s, who was also married to Gunther Russbacher, a deep cover CIA/ONI operative) 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. The book states that in pre-Christian times, the Pont d’Alma area had been the site of a pagan temple of the goddess Diana and a direct gateway to heaven. Mindful of this safety net, the place was chosen by the Merovingian kings (AD500-751) to fight their duels, with the loser going directly to paradise.  ”Pont” means “bridge” and “Alma” means “soul” and for Merovingians, the site was a bridge across the “river of souls”. So, Pont de L’Alma, the site of the accident which killed Princess Diana, means “Bridge of the Soul.”

The Memorial Torch of Pont d’Alma

ditorch
If you know a little about occult symbolism, a torch mounted on a black pentagram might make your radar go off. The torch is the ultimate symbol of the illuminated (people that have acquired the secret knowledge of the occult order). This torch is an exact replica of the one being held by the Statue of Liberty and was placed there in 1989 as a gift. So this wasn’t placed as a tribute to Princess Diana but it has become, over time, the unofficial memorial. The torch has reached this status because of its location, which is right on top of the Pont d’Alma Tunnel. After Di’s death, several memorial notes and flowers were placed, encouraging the general population to adopt this occult landmark as a memorial. Some even say that this torch was placed on purpose as an indicator of the location of this planned assassination. Whatever the case be, the symbol of the torch or the eternal flame has been used in other high profile killings, i.e. the JFK tombstone.
jfk_grave1

Lady Di Memorials and Rose Symbolism

Located in London, England, the park dedicated to Princess Diana contains an oval shaped fountain and a sanctuary. The most significant symbol can however be found on the ground:
407626786_97d0eaeaa9
We see here Diana represented by a five petal flower (rose) , the classic occult symbol to represent female energy. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about it:
“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 five-petal flower, the rose, the five-pointed star, the moon and Venus can all represent the female principle when we study occult symbolism. The huge rose window of Notre-Dame de Chartres in Paris represents the Virgin Mary (Notre-Dame means “Our Lady”). The symbol of the planet Venus (♀) is also used to represent the female sex . The moon is also associated with the female principle because it absorbs light from the sun (receptacle) and it has an effect on the tides of water (humidity=femininity). Those associations have existed since the beginnings of time and take their roots in ancient paganism.
There is a blatant effort to associate Princess Diana with the symbols of female deity through the symbols used to commemorate her life. The rose is used to represent Diana in numerous instances:
Memorial coin from Royal Mint:
gb5pound1999
Memorial Garden in Paris
princess_diana_memorial_garden
February 14, 2001 — PARIS, France (CNN) — A garden dedicated to the memory of Britain’s Princess Diana has been officially opened in Paris. French officials say the flower beds — France’s official memorial to the Princess — will eventually bloom, providing a place for children to learn about flowers, plants, vegetables and respect for the environment. But critics have scoffed at the project, laid out in a school courtyard, dubbing it “1,000 square metres of leeks.” “Through this place I wanted to pay tribute to a woman whose generous heart showed her deep fondness for nature and human relations, particularly with children,” Paris mayor Jean Tiberi said as he opened the garden on Wednesday.
Diana — the former wife of Britain’s heir to the throne, Prince Charles — died in Paris in August 1997. She was in a car which crashed at high speed while being pursued by photographers. Her companion, Dodi Fayed, and their driver, Henri Paul, were also killed. But Diana’s name is the only one featured on a plaque outside the memorial garden, in the central Marais district of Paris. One local councillor complained that the princess deserved a grander honour than a “vegetable plot.” But British officials have enthusiastically endorsed the site. “There could be no better tribute to her memory than a garden where young children can play and learn about nature,” said Michael Jay, Britain’s ambassador to France.
Memorial Medallion
diana11diana2
So the association of Princess Diana’s memory with the rose, the occult symbol of female deity is used ad-nauseam. Maybe this is why Elton John has dubbed Lady Di “England’s rose”.  To regular-minded people, those associations are insignificant but to initiates of the occult, symbolism is EVERYTHING.

Diana’s Burial Site

The original plan was for Diana to be buried in the family vault at the local church in Great Brington but this was changed by her brother, Earl Spencer. He said he was concerned about public safety and security and wanted his sister to be buried where her grave could be looked after properly and visited in privacy by her sons. In actuality, Diana was buried in a grove to further her resemblance with the Goddess Diana.  The actual area for her burial is on an island in an ornamental lake known as The Oval within Althorp Park’s Pleasure Garden (is there any relation with the oval-shaped fountain in the Lady Di memorial Park?). An ancient arboretum stands nearby, which contains trees planted by Prince William and Prince Harry, other members of her family and the princess herself. Here are pictures of her burial site.
oval



diana1pa3108_468x702
Note the flaming torch on her tombstone. The burial site of Diana cements her association with the ancient Goddess Diana who was worshipped in recluse groves outside of urban areas.

Memorial at Harrod’s Store

This is the 1st memorial dedicated to the unfortunate couple, on display at Harrods – a huge department store located in London. The store also happens to be owned by Dodi’s father. The symbolism here is extremely esoteric and significant. It surely deserves an in-depth analysis.
800px-112407-harrods-diannadodimemorial2
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
First, we see pictures of Lady Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed in two interlocking circles. In occultism, the name for the two interlocking circles is “vesica piscis” and represents feminine energy. John Yarker  interprets this ancient symbol in his book “The Arcane Schools”:
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.
vulva
The pointed oval is a universal symbol of the Divine Feminine and in this context the vesica piscis is the vulva of the Goddess, surrounded by the crescents of the waxking and the waning moon. This is yet another powerful symbol to associate Princess Diana with the female goddess principle. The vesica piscis was used by ancient pagans to represent the goddess Venus and was found in churches.
Below the pictures we find a pyramid with a capstone flanked by two candles (pillars). Look closely inside the pyramid:
274823778kekxbe_fs
It contains the wine glass – still bearing lipstick traces – used by Lady Di on her last supper. The symbol of the empty vase within a pyramid is another powerful image representing the union of the masculine and feminine principles. The wine glass carries the same meaning as the Holy Grail: the sacred feminine.
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.
In more abstract symbolism, a triangle pointing upwards represents the phallus and masculinity while a triangle pointing downwards represents the vagina, the womb, the receptacle and femininity.  Therefore, in this memorial we have a feminine symbol within a phallic symbol. The Goddess Diana joining with the masculine  -  Dodi. This union is further represented by the engagement ring (given by Dodi the night before their death) placed underneath the wine glass.

Memorial Statue at Harrods

363px-112407-harrods-diannadodimemorial1
This bronze statue is very odd. If the official cause of death of Diana and Dodi is a car accident, why does it say “Innocent Victims”? What were they victims of? Drunk driving?  Or did we mean that they were innocent victims of a sick occult ritual? More probable. Notice under Dodi’s foot is a dead bird. What does it represent?
 

To Conclude

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.
This article has very summarily covered very deep and intricate symbols, each of which can be further studied. If you are unfamiliar with concepts discussed here, do yourself a favor and learn the language of the powerful.
 
Tags: 

 1596 298 141 15.1K 

Comments (147)

+9
cherokeehippe· 215 weeks ago
It explains why the ambulance stayed in the tunnel for a long time. I remembr watching it live and thinking...when are they going to hte hosptial? Why the delay. I now know why! They wanted her to die in the tunnel as part of the ritual.
+1
esther· 214 weeks ago
oh my God.....this might mean that the royal family is in some kinda occult thing, at least that's what's in my head...i think that's why this country is messed up. This is some crazy good info God bless u guys man..abundantly..:)
+3
Salma· 213 weeks ago
You did not explain the dead bird under Dodi's foot. I watched an interview with Al Fayed ( the father) saying he strongly believes his son and Diana were murdered by the royal family, and i think this is why it says (innocent victims). The bird on the other hand, i don't get. Can u please explain ?
1 reply · active 13 weeks ago
0
carl jhonson· 212 weeks ago
rik clay talked alot about diana and dodi before he died.(or suicided?) just thought i'd point that out. i remember my mom crying when this happened, which was weird because we are american.
+3
Cat Callahan· 206 weeks ago
FYI-George W. Bush is the grandson of Aliester Crowley-famous British satanist! His grandmother went through an occult Ipssimus ritual with 'the beast' in October and then took the ship home. Barbara was born the next June and as Dean Morton says "do the math!" Better yet-look at the pictures of them both! She is a dead-ringer for him! And just as evil!
+1
i was wondering, does this mean that Diana knew about her death all along? and Dodi also know?
+1
Nelson .A· 202 weeks ago
u have done well,I ran into this site,trying to no the meaning of Diana,after reading the Bible( Jeremiah 44 vs 17 to 22) Here the children of GOD,mostly the women offer sacriefies to to the queen of heaven,The queen of heaven means Diana"The Goddess".Read ur Bible well
+1
AgainstInfamy· 200 weeks ago
Vigilant Citizen,

Very interesting and provocative post. You forgot one important piece of evidence that very much helps your argument ... that would be composer John Tavener's "Song for Athene." Athene is an alternate spelling of Athena, the Greek goddess of which you speak, also known as Diana by the Romans. The song was commissioned by the BBC and performed at Princess Diana's funeral service. The song wasn't written specifically for Diana, it was in honor of a Greek woman named Athene, but it goes to show you what kind of occultic/pagan meaning the global elites saw in Princess Dian's life and death. Just through I would share that with you and your audience. You should look into it and possibly add it to this page.

The Wikipedia entry for what I'm talking about is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_for_Athene 

BTW, I just stumbled upon this website for great, unfiltered, REAL economic news that I encourage all your readers to visit: www.cbfe-econ.blogspot.com
1 reply · active 24 weeks ago
0
Bill Hicks is God· 198 weeks ago
In mythology, Diana was the Goddess of the Moon as well. Princess Diana also had the astrological sign Cancer, which is ruled by the moon. When combined with Alma meaning moon, that's some freaky coincidence...if indeed, that is what it is. I'm not so sure. When she died, the sun was in the astrological sign of Leo - ruled by the sun.
1 reply · active 1 week ago
0
Bill Hicks is God· 198 weeks ago
p.s. The sign Cancer is a feminine sign and Leo is masculine, btw.
1 reply · active 24 weeks ago
0
Lashanda· 198 weeks ago
Great article Vigilant!!

Speaking of symbols it might be of interest to find out about the emperor nero's antichrist symbol or a.k.a the "PEACE" symbol, the symbol looks like an upside down cross within a circle. The below link will show you the picture (its the first on the left)

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=Emperor+nero+... 

Most people assume this symbol means peace as it was used around the 1960's hippie era of peace and love. However this symbol represents the first persecutor of Christians and the killer of the Apostles Peter and Paul, by the emperor nero.
+1
When Diana, Emad (Dodi ~ or "Do Die") and Henri 'died', the Sun (or Apollo) was in the astrological house of VIRGO, not Leo.

Speaking through only one of her mediums, 'Diana' said that, in a past life, she was the grandmother of 'Jesus' ~ that would be the maternal grandmother, called by Roman Catholics, "Saint Anne"... actual name, 'Hannah'.

Incredibly, that being true, 'she' is then seen with her daughter Mary (Miryam) and grandson Jesus (Yehoshuah bin Yuself ~ Joshua the son of Joseph) in the world-famous "cartoon" (finished drawing) by the Great Master Da Vinci, that one numbered among those very, very many "possessions" owned by the Queen of England... identified by spirit guide Matthew [messagesfrommatthew suzy ward] as a major illuminatus, one unusual in that she is highly visible.

St Anne? Could then The Rose also have been Mary Magdalene? (whom Christ Jesus had intended to be a church leader) ~ entirely feasible.... in an anonymous channelled message, wrapped around a potted plant and laid on the ground amongst the hundreds of tributes at the gates of Kensington Palace in Kensington Gardens, London – on the first anniversary of her passing to spirit – 'Diana' said that she had been a Walk-in soul, and was previously Marilyn Monroe.

Spirit guides, by the way, have said that the rose was seeded on Earth from planet Venus.

Yes, DIANA endured a sacrificial death... but will YOU let hers be in vain? A long-time secret brotherhood were wont to say, "May the rose bloom on your cross"... to which I append (they won't mind) "May The Rose bloom in YOUR Heart" 

One of Diana's sons The Antichrist? ~ EXTREMELY improbable!
0
Seeker· 196 weeks ago
While it would be unfair to deem anyone the antichrist, I do find the power struggle over her children interesting. Also if you look at the changes prince Charles made to coat of arms, very weird. Another interesting fact Diana called the royal family "lizards" to her friends.
+1
Caveat Lector· 196 weeks ago
Princess Diana’s “accident” was not just an assassination, but a ritual sacrifice.

Even the place where Diana’s accident took place seems to have been especially chosen. The accident took place in a tunnel called Pont d'Alma. This is a huge coincidence under the circumstances. The place on which the Pont d’Alma is built is an ancient, pagan sacrificial site - sacred to the moon goddess (DIANA). In the pagan Roman religion before Christ, Diana was the triple goddess, the “Queen of Heaven”.

Additionally, since about the 6th century A.D., the Pont d’Alma has been associated with the Merovingian dynasty. Remember, those Merovingian kings were the ones supposedly possessing the blood of Jesus flowing through their veins. During this Merovingian period (c. 500 - 751 A.D.) if two kings had a dispute over property, it had to be settled by combat at Pont d’Alma. Legend says that anyone killed there goes to heaven to sit at God’s right hand, being able to look down and see all that happened on the earth, even their enemies. Thus, the person killed was actually the victor, because they became God’s eyes on earth and could manipulate humanity from heaven. Isn't it interesting that this is where Diana just happened to be killed? 

It is especially interesting in the light of the fact that Merovaeus, the founder of the Merovingian dynasty, was a devotee of the goddess Diana! 

Additionally, to create the rebirth of King Arthur in young Prince William Arthur Philip Louis Windsor (born Summer Solstice 1982) would require some extremely powerful magickal energy indeed; which could only be raised by the ritual murder of a “divine king” or a “royal” substitute. In the light of all this, it is entirely possible that Diana was sacrificed in substitute for Charles’ ritual murder. Also telling in this regard is that for the vicarious sacrifice to be effective, it would have to be done near - but before - the Harvest Home feast. August 31, the day of Diana’s accident does qualify.
0
Caveat Lector· 196 weeks ago
There are oddly “coincidental Masonic” elements to Diana' death as well.

Royal Arch Masonry is obsessed with bridge symbolism – Princess Diana was murdered under a covered bridge. In Paris, Diana died when the Mercedes she was in ploughed into the 13th pillar in a tunnel called Pont d’Alma on August 31 1997. Thirteen is very significant, both in Masonry and witchcraft. 

Above Pont d’Alma tunnel is a replica of the torch from the Statue of Liberty – a Masonic idol, sculpted by a French Freemason. That torch actually symbolizes the “light” of Lucifer. 

A final grisly Masonic “coincidence” which has been pointed out by more than one writer is what was done the course of supposedly trying to save Diana’s life (after the torturously slow ride to the hospital – it took all of forty minutes to travel 3.8 miles). To work on and massage her heart, her chest was cut open from collarbone to navel. This is the penalty of second degree in Masonry, to have your chest ripped open and your heart taken out. 

Remember that both Prince Charles and his mother, the Queen, are – by virtue of their leadership in the Order of the Garter – the highest ranking Masons in the world – even though neither is actually known to be a Mason. The Most Noble Order of the Garter is the most prestigious “chivalraic” order in the British Isles. The British monarch is – by virtue of his or her office – automatically the sovereign of the order. Queen Elizabeth was installed as a “lady” of the Order of the Garter on April 23, 1948 (her birthday) while still a princess. When she became queen, she became the sovereign of the Order. On July 26, 1958, Prince Charles became a knight of the Order. 

To this day, the Order of the Garter remains one of the most elite societies and appears to be at pinnacle of English-speaking Freemasonry, if not all Masonry. The Garter itself appears on the coat of arms of both the Queen and Prince Charles. This is why the strange “Masonic overtones” to Diana’s death are so significant. Many high-ranking Masons in government and the military of the United Kingdom might feel it was their duty to eliminate Diana; just as 110 years ago, high-ranking Masons in the royal court created the “Jack the Ripper” murders to cover up another troublesome woman.
+1
Truthisevident· 193 weeks ago
Who else noticed that August is also the month (according to wikipedia) in which sacrifices were offered to Diana? Same month princess D died. Rumors floating around that there was a member of the Rothschild family in the tunnel at that particular time to "complete the sacrifice" - Diana was held in the tunnel for about 1.5 hours after the crash! She wasn't rushed to hospital, who stays 1.5 hours in a crash site unless its in a remote valley where nobody can access them? But even then there is emergency airlift! Sheesh.
0
Guenevere· 192 weeks ago
Diana a walk-in soul who was Marilyn Monroe previously? Do the math. Diana was born on July 1, 1961. Monroe died August 5, 1962. So, Diana asumed Monroe's soul even before Monroe died? Rubbish.

Diana was a lost soul, subject to many traumas born of the generations-old occultism of the royals. Her bloodline was actually far more royal than Charles'. Many of the hard truths would shock you to death and will never be revealed by the occultists who live by them. And it is not farfetched that the Antichrist prophesied inScripture will hail from the House of Windsor. Actually, when you study prophecy and the House of Windsor, it seems less kooky of an idea. Go to www.prophecyhouse.com...this is where you can find THE absolute seminal work on the relationship of The House of Windsor and Charles to the coming world ruler. The information is shocking, well documented, and a must read. The Diana issue is addressed. It is not written in the oftimes sensationalist style of David Icke, but is true, well researched scholarship on the subject.
0
Guenevere· 192 weeks ago
Please note that the word 'this' was accidentally added by my poor typing to the 
www.prophecyhouse.com 
website and will cause problems accessing the page. Just use the above address with out the ...with added.
0
John Kenneth· 192 weeks ago
the address to find that book mentioned above is
www.prophecyhouse.com 

The book is called 'The Antichrist and A Cup of Tea' and is a real shocker in what it reveals about the royals and Charles' role in world destiny.
Мне понравился сайт. Много интересных и адекватных мнений. Благодарю автора
+2
Anders· 190 weeks ago
I think it should be noticed that the festival day of goddess Diana in Rome was August 13 - Princess Diana died on August 31; 31 is the mirror image of 13. The car crashed on the 13th pillar so we also have that number associated with her death.
0
reynold· 190 weeks ago
"In more abstract symbolism, a triangle pointing upwards represents the phallus and masculinity while a triangle pointing downwards represents the vagina, the womb" 

Does anyone else notices,that if you join BOTH TRIANGLES TOGETHER, they now take form of THE CENTER of the INTERLOCKING CIRCLES....the " YONI "?? 

i find it rather interesting....keep up the GREAT WORK Vigilant....
0
Angry O'Brien· 188 weeks ago
Caveat Lector: "Remember, those Merovingian kings were the ones supposedly possessing the blood of Jesus flowing through their veins."

Can you cite some sources for this, besides 'The Da Vinci Code.'

I should also note than any history of the Merovingian Dynasty is quite sketchy. It'd probably be impossible to confirm any of the speculations being put forth here in regards to that subject. 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merovingian_dynasty#...
0
Bystander· 188 weeks ago
Perhaps, all these signs and symbols used to Princess Diana's memorials have nothing to do with anything sinister. It is just as possible that her death was truly an accident, as it is that she were murdered, however the evidence which this article hinges upon can not be found anywhere but upon other sites which have the same copy and pasted information. Take this into consideration, because I have not be able to find any verification that the Pont D’Alma Tunnel was ever used for sacrifices.

Perhaps these really are memorials that simply are acknowledging Princess Diana's benevolence and similarities to the Goddess Diana. I agree that the symbolism is blatant, but shouldn't memorials be symbolic of how a person was revered in life?

And to answer your question, "Innocent victims of what?" I prefer to believe the theory that the Royal Family was trying to clear the way for Prince Charles to marry Camilla, and also spare the family the embarrassment of Diana marrying someone out of the family's race and having children with Dodi, as it was rumored Diana was pregnant at the time of her death.

0
+1
You are all paranoid.
+1
really· 186 weeks ago
^^^^^^^

spoken like an innocent BYSTANDER....you were going somewhere with the out of the family marriage...??

paranoid over what i can see with both of my eyes,

if your only looking with one, i guess you know what side your on.
0
Mr. Beck· 185 weeks ago
I do not understand why there seems to be a vilification of the old Pagan religions in Europe. What has Christianity done for mankind, nothing but cause war and conflict with the Jews and Muslims. Lets revert our ways back to the simple days.
http://www.wakeupproject.com/VList.asp?Series=1 
“I Warn You Against Him (the Dajjal Antichrist)

And There Was No Prophet But Warned His Nation Against Him…

But I Will Tell you Something of Which No Prophet Has Told His Nation Before Me… You Should Know That He is One Eyed” And Allah-God is Not One Eyed” as Quoted by: Prophet Mohammad (pbuh, peace be upon him)
0
spinner· 185 weeks ago
Great article. Just wanted to point out that the great cathedrals were built by the Knight's Templar & they were in dedication to Mary Magdalen NOT Blessed Virgin Mary. The Church attempted to & managed to cover-up that fact.
0
Angry O'Brien· 185 weeks ago
Can you religious folks keep your delusional bullshit out of the comments? If you ACTUALLY believe that God and/or Satan are genuinely real entities, you're out of your mind. Can you communicate with God? So can the homeless schizophrenic at the corner. Seriously, wake up. There is no God in Heaven - when you die, your consciousness expires, your mind stops, there is no more "you" - The TV turns off, for good. Accept that, and live, live how you'd like to, not how some ancient man-made scripture would dictate you do. When people speak of sheep, or "sheeple" - you guys are the perfect example.
0
Angry O'Brien· 185 weeks ago
Can we please keep the religious crap out of the comments and stick to discussing the articles? No one cares what God's plan is in the context of these events. God is rubbish, and so are all your ignorant comments. Perhaps you've heard of the term "sheeple" if you're familiar with sites similar to this one - well, it describes you religious folk perfectly. There is no God or Heaven. When you die, your consciousness expires, there is no more "you" - and there certainly is no goddamn fairyland in the sky to go and hang out in afterwards. The TV turns off, for good. No more no less. Accept that and live -- the way you'd like to -- not the way some ancient man-made (and thus prone to fallacy) scripture dictates you do.
+3
Kessbot· 183 weeks ago
@Angry; have you died before? You must have, since you know so much about the afterlife.

Anyway, I've also noticed that the phallus and yoni combined create the Masonic square and compass.
0
Kessbot· 183 weeks ago
Wow, also the star of David.
+1
i think the reason it says Innocent Victims on the Harrods memorial is cos Mohammed al fayed (Dodi's dad) has always, and still does belive they were murdered in a conspiracy by the Royal family (mohammed is the owner of harrods)
+1
truther· 182 weeks ago
But what has confused me for a long time is Mohammed Al Fayed's stance in all of this - his memorial to Dodi and Di is full of occult symbology yet he stands by his public proclamation that the Royal Family had a part to play in their deaths?! Is he trying to expose the truth or is he supposed to be the idiot loon figurehead for anyone who suspects anything other than the lies we are being fed?
0
Whitney· 182 weeks ago
Interesting. I'm surprised you haven't published anything regarding Michael Jackson's death. Or have you, and I just haven't found it?
+2
there is but only ONE GOD, the lord JESUSU CHRIST!! give ur lives to Him and be saved!!
+3
You said "The goddess figure appears unmistakably in all religions, even in Christianity as the Virgin Mary." CORRECTION: The goddess figure appears unmistakably in all religions, even CATHOLICISM (not true Biblical Christianity, which is following the Truth (Jesus, Jn 14:6) .......NOT A RELIGION! Religions are man's attempt to get to heaven on his own terms. Following the Truth who is Jesus Christ, the Word of God, is true Christianity. Huge difference! You also wrote "These symbols representing the female deity exist since prehistoric times and were preserved and diffused through pagan mysteries and through mystic Judeo-Christian teachings." "Mystic Judeo-Christian teachings" is GNOSTICISM, again NOT true Biblical Christianity. Please don't taint the precious name of the Lord Jesus Christ by lumping Him in the same category of man made religion which is all really Satan worship in disguise. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father (heaven) but by Me." John 14:6 That's a very narrow path. 

And last of all, a word to Angry O'Brien: "The fool hath said in his heart, 'there is no God." Psalm 14:1 You are in for a very rude awakening when you leave this present world, Angry.
1 reply · active 23 weeks ago
+2
LAURENT SORELL· 179 weeks ago
Is not this page a MEMORIAL? The way I read it, it is a place for the the most tender memories which we should only wisper. 

This one is the only shrine glorifying the love between a Christian and a Muslim, and as such, it is the only contemporary place dedicated to absolute peace and love.

Please, my Brothers and Sisters, understand that this is not the Hyde Park Speakers' Corner open for screaming all your frustrations and curses. 

You may think He is invented or real, but His commandment, that you love one another should be obeyed. At least during the few minutes of your stop in this place
+1
crystal9· 177 weeks ago
people.....!!!!!

i bet those who write stuff that is negative about God have actually looked around and not seen the marvelous creation He made-the wonderous acts that even science cannot explain.WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!!

the life you have is but given to you by God, and He can as well take it back from you once you despise Him.atleast read the Bible and see what he did to people who desipised Him and learn from that. dont be the fool who learns from His own mistakes.....
0
to all those atheists out there. the greatest trick that satan ever pulled of was to convince the world that he doesnt exist, once satan is removed from the equation then the concept of God and angels fall away without any resistance.
0
Ohh! This makes sense know, I was wondering why the old Queen of England wanted to meet Lady Gaga, obviously is cause she is working for them!
i didnt get the point
I heard she was killed becoz she wanted to reveal secrets
0
Very interesting. I think the author of this site knows what they are talking about. I think people who read these articles he or she writes should continue and do their own research.
0
ha-ha!· 175 weeks ago
religion is a sign of neurosis- Sigmund Freud. 'Angry O'Brien' I take my hat off to you. 

Ah yes.. the Christian fundamentalists... always turning everything into a debate about whether or not Fairies and Goblins exist! I'm so bloody glad i'm NOT american!
+1
Use Google Maps to view Althorpe and it's apparent that The Oval lake is an all-seeing eye: the grove Diana is buried in forms the pupil.
0
?????· 174 weeks ago
interesting topic, however one thing matters only

that no matter what symbols are visible, diana was an angel period.
You should check out one of Gaga's new songs called "Dance In The Dark"

at the bridge of the song she sings: "You will never fall apart Diana, you're still in our hearts, we'll never let you fall apart, together we'll dance in the dark¨"









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.
Princess Diana’s Death and Memorial: The Occult Meaning
Apr 13th, 2009 | Category: Vigilant Reports
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.
[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 its 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


HE DIANA ASSASSINATION
JUNE 2012 UPDATE: Please see the new website: -


Our dossier on the assassination of Princess Diana - whom was professionally and coldly murdered in Paris on the 31st August 1997.
As the evidence was covered up within minutes of the crash, it is difficult in our limited capacity to 'prove' anything definitive.
Our job with this archive is to simply do our best to put this into perspective and perhaps ask the right questions.
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'.
"She (Queen Elizabeth II) said that there are forces out there of which we have no knowledge. I think she meant there were people working in the country that -- listening to telephone conversations and watching people all the time. I'm sure they are. I'm sure they're watching this right now, just to make sure that I'm not saying anything I shouldn't be saying, because the world's a very dangerous place, isn't it? You don't think?" Paul Burrell (former butler of the Late Princess Diana) in a CNN interview with Larry King, 05th December 2002.
**********************************************
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: - 
'Handwriting expert says Diana murder prediction letter is NOT a forgery' - DIANA, Princess of Wales, predicted her own death in a car crash ten months before it happened, newly published correspondence showed yesterday. In a comment that is certain to fuel wild conspiracy theories, the Princess wrote that she was sure that an individual � thought to have been a serving police officer � was �planning� the accident. Diana wrote that she suspected that someone was plotting to sabotage the brakes of her car in order to �make the path clear� for the Prince of Wales to remarry.
Diana murder plot name in letter revealed to be Prince Charles - PRINCESS Diana believed Prince Charles wanted her killed in an accident when she was plagued by anxiety and feared for her safety. She told of her worries in her now infamous note which she handed to butler Paul Burrell as "insurance" on the day she wrote it in October 1996, 10 months before she died in a Paris car crash.
AL FAYEDS LATEST STRAW-MAN: New Fayed attack over Di - PRINCESS Diana was killed by a British secret agent posing as a photographer, Mohammed Fayed has sensationally claimed. The Harrods boss said in an amazing TV interview that security service MI6 engineered the car smash in Paris in which Diana and his son Dodi died � then covered it up.   (COMMENTARY: We must be cautious taking what Mohammed Al Fayed says, as he has seemingly been involved in previous attempts to publicly discredit the Diana assassination exposure.  'Everyone knows that Al Fayed is a fool... therefore what he says must be untrue!'... you can see how this works.

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)

Diana: Police Cannot Rule Out Murder
ADDENDUM TO ARTICLE


DIANA: WILL THEY KILL ME LIKE VERSACE? - SPEAKING FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE PRINCESS'S BODYGUARD TELLS SECRETS OF HER LAST DAYS PRINCESS - Diana was convinced she was about to be assassinated in the days before she died, according to a new witness.

OUR COMMENTARY: It matters not, the outcome of any tests as to whether she was pregnant.  The point is that she was taken out at the time that she was, because IT WAS BELIEVED that she was pregnant with Dodi's child. This is confirmed to have been the case. 
So it is contributing to a well known 'straw-man' argument to say: "...because some test says that she wasn't pregnant, this proves that she wasn't murdered for that reason". We need to be aware of this element.

PRINCESS DIANA'S DRIVER BLOOD TESTS 'FAKED' - Late British royal DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES' driver HENRI PAUL was not drunk when he was driving the car which crashed and killed the princess and her lover DODI AL FAYED, writes British newspaper the Daily Express. Sources close to the current British investigation into the tragedy believe tests results claiming Paul was drunk were faked, and experts claim the level of alcohol showing in the tests would have rendered Paul unable to stand. Blood samples taken from the chauffeur were thought to have been swapped with those of a suicide victim who was in the same mortuary. Paul's parents have issued a statement reading: "We think it is terrible that our son's blood may have been swapped. Perhaps the authorities thought we would just accept their reports at face value.
RELATED: Princess Diana's driver's blood test faked


Covered by the UK Daily Express - 06th June 2005
No online link just yet



  • Diana: Police Cannot Rule Out Murder
OUR COMMENTARY: It matters not, the outcome of any tests as to whether she was pregnant.  The point is that she was taken out at the time that she was, because IT WAS BELIEVED that she was pregnant with Dodi's child. This is confirmed to have been the case. 
So it is contributing to a well known 'straw-man' argument to say: "...because some test says that she wasn't pregnant, this proves that she wasn't murdered for that reason". We need to be aware of this element.
Covered by the UK Daily Express - 06th June 2005
No online link just yet
Covered by the UK Daily Express - 28th December 2005
No online link just yet
Covered by the UK Daily Express - 02nd January 2006
No online link just yet
STORY TO BE TAKEN WITH A PINCH OF SALT: Dodi 'real target' in Diana tragedy -PRINCESS Diana may have been led to her death at the hands of assassins who wanted to murder Dodi Fayed. The killers were believed to be mercenaries working for Arab arms dealers. They wanted her boyfriend Dodi to attend a meeting in a Paris office block. Diana had agreed to travel to the late-night rendezvous alongside Dodi. She would protect him against business enemies who might want to harm him. Instead, their saloon veered into an underpass pillar at high speed, killing them and their driver, Henri Paul. The well-sourced revelations have been described as being of �major interest� by those investigating the tragedy in August 1997. Until now nobody has been able to explain why the Mercedes the couple were travelling in took such a circuitous route from the Ritz Hotel to their presumed destination, Dodi�s apartment next to the Arc de Triomphe.
Spies cover up Diana 'murder' - THE Princess Diana inquiry is in danger of stalling after French spy chiefs blocked British detectives� attempts to establish the final hours of driver Henri Paul. The team led by former Metropolitan Police chief Lord Stevens has been trying to obtain the "agent handling" files on the chauffeur, who was working for several secret service agencies. The detectives are desperate to find out what Paul, deputy head of security at the Ritz in Paris, was doing between 7pm and 10pm on the night of the fatal car crash. The �4million inquiry, codenamed Operation Paget and launched in January 2004, has ground to a halt because of the reluctance of the French intelligence services to surrender all their documents on their contact, Paul. Well-placed sources say such blocking tactics cast serious doubt on the French police conclusion that the crash was a drink-driving accident � and strengthen fears of secret service involvement in a murder plot.  
New hitches in hunt for truth over Diana - FEAR of a cover-up over Princess Diana�s death deepened yesterday as it emerged that attempts to reach the truth have been delayed once again. The complexities of an increasingly difficult investigation mean that her full inquest will not now be heard until 2008, the Daily Express can reveal. So the public will have had to endure an agonising wait of more than 10 years for the truth to emerge � a decade marked by official attempts to cloak her mysterious death in secrecy.
Diana: Scandal of body mix-up - BUNGLING French officials mistook the body of Princess Diana�s lover for her driver in the hours after the fatal crash. The astonishing development, revealed for the first time by the Daily Express today, is one of a catalogue of blunders which plunged the inquiry into chaos from day one. Professor Dominique Lecomte � the pathologist who faces an investigation over the mix-up � registered driver Henri Paul with the number 2146. But this had already been assigned to Dodi Fayed�s body and Paul should have been given number 2147. The numbers were scribbled on bracelets attached to the right wrists of each corpse. Lawyers and medics fear blood samples which were said to prove that Paul was high on drink and drugs may in fact belong to someone not connected to the crash.
WHAT ARE YOUR BETS, HE SAID 'NO'?: Police ask Charles: Did you murder Diana? - PRINCE Charles was asked by police if he killed Princess Diana, a new secret dossier reveals. The question was posed by Lord Stevens, head of the probe into the Princess�s death. The explosive document is understood to contain extracts of a previously unpublished interview with Charles. His exact response is not known but the fact that the heir to the throne was even asked such a direct question sums up the complex nature of the inquiry.
DIANA: PHILIP HATES ME - PRINCESS Diana was haunted by fears she would be murdered, and told friends of her concerns about Prince Philip�s animosity to her. �He really hates me and would like to see me disappear,� she said. The Princess, who died in a Paris car crash in 1997, repeatedly made clear her belief that she would be the victim of an Establishment conspiracy. Her fashion designer friend Roberto Devorik explained that the Princess had spoken about how she would be killed in a fake accident.
DIANA DEATH: ANOTHER COVER-UP - CRUCIAL evidence which details what Princes Charles and Philip know about Princess Diana�s death will not be made public at her inquest. In a move likely to spark further accusations of a whitewash, the coroner, Baroness Butler-Sloss, yesterday ruled that she will retain tight control over the mass of documents from the �4million Operation Paget inquiry into the Princess�s death. While some information from the three-year investigation will be made available to the legal teams acting for Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed � whose son Dodi also died in the crash � Lady Butler-Sloss argued that other material would remain �personal and private�. She also implied that neither Charles nor Philip would have to give evidence at the hearing, ruling that it would be quite wrong to release any �personal or private� information to the public.

OTHER RELATED STORIES: -

FURTHER IMPORTANT RESEARCH: -
This excellent 250+ page book does one of the fairest and most sensible analysis of the 1997 Diana murder that I have seen.  Put into perspective, the author writes about the life, marriage, publicity and eventual murder of Diana.  
The author also looks at the strong evidence that the murder was caused by a high intensity flash beam from a motorcyclist traveling in the front of the Mercedes, causing the driver (and fall guy) Henri Paul to crash into the thirteenth pillar within the Pont D'Alma tunnel.  Similar to an un-used British Intel' assassination plot drafted for the murder of Slobodan Milosevic some years earlier.
"Personally, following my own two year investigation, I am convinced that Diana Princess of Wales was murdered and equally confident that the evidence to prove it is in the files of the British Secret Intelligence Service and the CIA" - Noel Botham
"Anyone who looks at the facts of Diana's death, even stripped down to their bare essentials, cannot emerge without at least the suspicion that she was murdered.  More than eighty percent of British people believe that she was" - Noel Botham
Available from most good bookshops in hardback and paperback formats.
Or Amazon in the UK by clickin






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:
 
  • ·     Did you shoot your family on August 7th 1985? – No
  • ·     Did you shoot five members of your family with an Anshutz rifle? No
  • ·     Were you present inside the house when they were shot with an Anshutz rifle? No
  • ·     Did you shoot your father Nevill? – No
  • ·     Did you shoot your mother June? – No
  • ·     Did you shoot your sister Sheila Caffell? – No
  • ·     Did you shoot your twin nephews Daniel and Nicholas? – No
  • ·     Did you climb out of a window of your parent’s home after shooting your family?  No
  • ·     Did you shoot your family in your father’s home? – No
  • ·     Did PC Bews radio in a report of seeing someone in an upstairs window around 4am on the morning of the shootings? – Yes
  • ·     Did you pay a professional hit man to shoot your family? – No


 
 
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







The Hallett Report
Hallett Report No. 6 Hallett Report No. 5Laws of Succession try to subvert the Legitimate 
Claim to the Throne
Hallett Report No. 4The True King of England versus the incumbent 
Royal Bâtards
Hallett Report No. 3The History of the Illegitimate British Monarchy
Hallett Report No. 2Clinton and the Illegitimate British Monarchy Hallett Report No. 1Mafia, Blackmail & The
New Zealand Government
Hallett Report No. 00
Newsletter Subscription

HALLETT REPORT No. 5

‘Laws of Succession to the Throne of the United Kingdom’

The proposed Laws of Succession are an attempt to subvert the Legitimate Claim to the Throne

The Real Deal with Dr Jim Fetzer, 30 December 2012.

In HALLETT REPORT No. 5 
Lord Chancellor Greg Hallett exposes the biggest secret: 
the Illegitimacy of the current British Monarchy. 
Their current attempt to change the Laws of Succession 
is an attempt by the Mafia to keep their stronghold 
on the Flat Lie Royal Monarchy. 

But there is a very Real and True Royal Family. 
Queen Victoria had a Legitimate Firstborn Son, 
and his descendants have the Legitimate and Superior 
Claim to the Throne of the United Kingdom. 

Watch the discussion in the Movie! 

High Quality - Low Quality - iPad/Mobile Phone
 
 

 
 
 
Hallett Report No 4 Logo Transcript from THE HALLETT REPORT NO. 5

Laws of Succession to the Throne of the United Kingdom

The proposed Laws of Succession are an attempt to subvert the Legitimate Claim to the Throne

Transcript from the Interview on the 30th of December 2012
Lord Chancellor Greg Hallett, Jim Fetzer PhD



Lord Chancellor Greg Hallett, 
H.E., His Excellency:


I am alerting all the 
Commonwealth Heads of Government
that there is a Legitimate claim to the Throne
and that there has been a Legitimate Claim 
to the Throne since the 6th of March 1997.
 

And the British Monarchy has 
Obfuscated this from Public Discussion
.

Dr. Jim Fetzer: This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Real Deal, with my guest today, one of the world’s greatest muckrakers, the author of some of the most controversial books of our time, now living in the UK to circumvent death attempts on him in New Zealand. It’s a great pleasure to have back on the show Greg Hallett. Mate, welcome back.
Lord Chancellor Greg Hallett: Thanks Jim. That’s great. This year 2012 was a very interesting year. I said that 2007 was a year of Cons, and the Cons have just increased and got larger and larger, until we have to look at what is the source of the Cons, and it appears that the source of the Cons is the Mafia, and that the Mafia has infiltrated all of the governments and all of the government departments. So what I have been doing is trying to correct this, and what I found is that the British Monarchy is fake – it is Flat Lie Royal – it is a Fraud – it is an Invention of Tradition. And the United Kingdom has not had a true Monarch since 1852. 
Buckingham Palace, The Palace, “Buck House” a.k.a. “The Firm” have given very strong indications, through their reactions, of a legitimate and superior Claim to The Throne of England. 
May 2010 I gave a talk and I had a few copies of The Hidden King of England done, just like 20 copies and that was in Scotland, and there was a reporter there from a newspaper from London who was based in Scotland. 
Then on the 2nd of July 2010, I delivered a copy of the book to Max Clifford & Associates in Soho in London. The idea was obviously to get it promoted and published. 
Max Clifford turned out to be a British Intelligence Agent who was covering as a PR Agent for newspapers, books, film, and he claims to have been the first one to promote the Beatles . . . and it appears that he got the book to Queen Elizabeth II and a plan developed to obscure the book.
The United Kingdom has not had 
a True Monarch since 1852.
So from July 2010 I would have had at least another 4 assassination attempts. There was a phone-hacking scandal running from about March 2010 in England, and Max Clifford on the 9th of March 2010 had been paid out 1 million pounds by Rupert Murdoch from The News of the World . . . and it appears that in England they have something like ‘The Queen’s Media Circus’ where the Queen has her Ringmasters where Rupert Murdoch and Max Clifford run scenarios where the newspaper people are actually the news and they create distractions.
The distraction that Rupert Murdoch and 
Max Clifford are running is that 
they don’t want the story to get out that 
Queen Elizabeth II is a fake and 
they want to keep her untarnished 
until she gives up the throne
.
So so far in this phone hacking scandal at least 50 people have been arrested, there’s at least another 100 police operations going on in related cases, and none of the true stories are coming out. And you know that the PR people and the Media Circus Ringmasters are running out of stories when they become the stories. 
So the distraction that Rupert Murdoch and Max Clifford are running is that they don’t want the story to get out that Queen Elizabeth II is a fake and they want to keep her untarnished until she gives up the throne.
Jim Fetzer: Giving up the throne to William presumably?
Greg Hallett: The Windsor Family giving up the throne entirely because they are a fake Royal Family. The Commonwealth Heads of Government had not been informed of the superior claim since the 6th of March 1997. So in making a claim to the Throne, we wrote a registered letter and sent it on the 24th of June 2010 to Prime Minister David Cameron. His office said that they maybe had it, and then they didn’t have it, and then I went and presented a copy of the letter with a covering letter to 10 Downing Street with them being forewarned on the 2nd of August 2010 and they refused to accept the letter. And then they advised me to post it from the Army and Navy Stores which is about 15 minutes’ walk away past Westminster and Big Ben. So we did that and we documented the whole thing. We have it on film; in fact if I do this:
c
Film
10 Downing Street Gate Guard: “If you have a letter to be delivered, then you have to go through, umm, the process of going to the sorting officeat the back of the Army and Navy Store. We won’t take it here.”
Greg Hallett: “The back of the Army and Navy Stores.”
10 Downing Street Gate Guard: “Victoria Street.”
Greg Hallett: “Victoria Street. So I can deliver it there and they’ll deliver it straight here?”
10 Downing Street Gate Guard: “They won’t necessarily deliver it straight here, but it will go into the system. If no letter is expected.”
Greg Hallett: “The letter is expected.”
10 Downing Street Gate Guard: “Well it’s not according to our records.”
Greg Hallett: “Okay, so the back of the Army and Navy Stores in Victoria Street.” 
10 Downing Street Gate Guard: “Cahbot Street around the back of the Army and Navy Store Victoria Street.” [Cahbot st does not exist, nor any other street sounding like that]
Greg Hallett: “Victoria Street. Thank You.”

Screen message
“On the 2nd of August 2010, 10 Downing Street refused to acknowledge our previous letter and refused to accept our current letter. Since then, others have been recorded hand-delivering un-announced letters to 10 Downing Street.” 
Jim Fetzer: Yes.
Greg Hallett: They knew what was coming. They knew the True Royal Family had a Claim to the Throne, so 10 Downing Street was refusing it. And here I am walking past Big Ben …
Film
Greg Hallett: “… and the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Center – but I can’t get a conference with her. Although I represent the True King of England, she doesn’t seem to want to talk to me. I wonder why.”
Greg Hallett: Here I am posting the letter …
Jim Fetzer: Looking quite dapper I might say
Film
Greg Hallett: “… to David Cameron Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street London SW1A 2AA with stamp. And here we have the covering letter. We posted it on the 24th of June [2010] and we have tried again to deliver it and it was refused at 10 Downing Street at quarter to 5 today 2nd of August [2010] and here is the original letter that we sent.So we are trying to arrange a meeting between the Exilarch King and Prime Minister David Cameron requesting that he notify Queen Elizabeth II that there is a legitimate challenge to the Throne. The time now is 5.30 pm on the 2nd of August 2010, Royal Mail, we are about 1½ km from 10 Downing Street.”
Greg Hallett: “And actually talking to 10 Downing Street security guards at around 11 pm that night. That’s all documented.”

Film
Richmond Terrace, between 10 Downing Street and the Thames River, 11pm 2 August 2010
Greg Hallett: “The truth is always stranger than fiction!
10 Downing Street Lead Security Guard: “What are you actually up to?”
Greg Hallett: “We are just doing a holiday movie. Just mucking around in a suit, nobody ever does it overseas. So we’ve got the fantasy going that the British Royal Family are the wrong Royal Family … “
10 Downing Street Lead Security Guard: “You are probably right actually!” 
Greg Hallett: “… and that’s the premise of the holiday movie.” 
10 Downing Street Lead Security Guard: “You are probably very right though!”
Greg Hallett: “Yes. Well what we’re suggesting is that Queen Victoria actually had a child when she was fourteen (14) …”
10 Downing Street Lead Security Guard: “Right.”
Greg Hallett: “… and she was married to Blind Prince George of Cumberland who became King George V of Hanover.”
10 Downing Street Lead Security Guard: “Right.”
Greg Hallett: “And the child was born in Carlisle Castle. And I’ve been approached by a gentleman in Portugal who claims to be the lineal descendant of Queen Victoria’s firstborn son.”
10 Downing Street Lead Security Guard: “Wow!”
Greg Hallett: “So he’s got about 30 Royal Marks to prove it. So we’re not sure if we’re making a fantasy or we’re actually beginning a new Royal Family. But if we’re beginning a new Family, are we treasonous or them, or is treason out of the question or do we negotiate? “So I presented a letter to Prime Minister David Cameron today asking for a meeting between the Exilarch and Queen Elizabeth II to see what we are going to do about the transfer of assets because Buckingham Palace is rightfully his …”
10 Downing Street Lead Security Guard: “You won’t get a lot from him. You might have to go to the Queen because she is actually Head of the State.”
Greg Hallett: “Well, David Cameron and the Exilarch are actually sixth cousins.”
10 Downing Street Lead Security Guard: “Oh right.”
Greg Hallett: “As well.”
10 Downing Street Lead Security Guard: “Oh right. Because the Police here, we’re not employed by the government.” 
Greg Hallett: “Are you City of London police as well?”
10 Downing Street Lead Security Guard: “No we are Metropolitan Police.”
Greg Hallett: “Right.”
10 Downing Street Lead Security Guard: “All the police though, their boss is the Queen.” 
Greg Hallett: “Yes.”
10 Downing Street Lead Security Guard: “We are employed by the State, but not by the Government. So whoever comes into the government is not our boss, the queen is our boss.”
Greg Hallett: “The Queen is your boss! Well, I’m trying to get a meeting with her.”
10 Downing Street Lead Security Guard: “That might be tough!”
Greg Hallett: “We have been trying since 1997. She’s aware of the situation and she’s aware of the Royal Marks …”
10 Downing Street Lead Security Guard: “Probably won’t happen then.”
Greg Hallett to camera: “You’re probably right”.
It’s undeniable that we delivered 
the letter to 10 Downing Street 
claiming as the Rightful 
Heir to the Throne of England.
Greg Hallett: It’s undeniable that we delivered the letter to 10 Downing Street claiming as the rightful Heir to the Throne of England.
The important thing is, they had it by 30th of June 2010 and very definitely by say the 5th of August 2010. So then they studied it and realized that it was a legitimate claim to the Throne by the end of the month, 1st of September.
The British Royal Family tends not to acknowledge challenges to the Throne and the way you see a Challenge to the Throne is by their Royal Reaction.
And the British Royal Family’s Royal reactions are through births, deaths and marriages.
So the first thing they did was to instruct Prince William to get engaged to the Commoner Kate, and there was even betting at Ladbrokes about their engagement from about the 16th of October 2010.
And then they finally engaged, and then they were married and that was all a distraction.
And then I had various assassination attempts, I had the book printed and they absolutely stuffed up the printing, the pages were backwards and…
The Hidden King of England
Queen Victoria’s firstborn
legitimate son Marcos Manoel
was exiled to Portugal.
Queen Victoria gave him 
a chest full of Royal Marks
so that he and his descendants
can prove their 
Legitimate
Claim to the Throne.

The Hidden King of England
Jim Fetzer: Really.
Greg Hallett: Yeah, absolutely out of order. I’ve got it here actually.
Jim Fetzer: Perhaps you should have it had published abroad?
Greg Hallett: Well obviously I would now, but counting in order: page 108, page 166, 165, 164, 163, 162, 161, 160 …
Jim Fetzer: Oh that’s terrible!
Greg Hallett: 159, 158, 157 …
Jim Fetzer: How ridicuous. Clearly deliberate! Publishers don’t make mistakes like that by accident!
Greg Hallett: I know. And then right down to, counting down backwards page 111 meets page 167. I’ve never seen that before. I’ve never seen that much sabotage. So I got another print run and then they printed the color pages black and white.
Jim Fetzer: Really!
Greg Hallett: Yeah, and then they chopped the head off the book.
Jim Fetzer: You’re kidding me!
Greg Hallett: No no no! Four sabotaged print runs, and then in another one the pages fell out – no glue, or not enough glue.
Jim Fetzer: This is completely outrageous!
Greg Hallett: And then the guy who did the printing sold the building he was working in, but noone even knew he owned the building. So it looks like he was given a building for the book sabotage. (He also printed the Monarchist League bi-monthly newsletter).
Jim Fetzer: That’s terrible, that’s absolutely terrible! I mean it’s not nearly unprofessional; it’s clearly deliberate sabotage, no doubt about it!
Greg Hallett: Yeah, you can make a mistake once …
Jim Fetzer: I published a lot of books and those things don’t happen, they just don’t happen, Period!
Greg Hallett: Publishers are very careful. So what’s happened basically is that the Royal Family has absolutely confirmed everything that I have been saying that they are illegitimate and this has resulted from me presenting the book to Max Clifford who was a British Intelligence Agent, to 10 Downing Street, obviously the Prime Minister is a British Intelligence Agent, and that getting to Queen Elizabeth II. Their Royal Reaction has been to change the Laws of Succession to the Throne of England which is the biggest law change in 324 years.
Jim Fetzer: Greg Hallett is explaining the illegitimacy of the current Royal Family in the UK. Greg, you were explaining how for the first time in 300 years there has been a change of the Laws of Succession to the Crown.
Our claim to the Throne is so strong 
that they are attempting to change the 
Laws of Succession to the 
Throne of England 
going back at least to 1688.
Greg Hallett: Yes. So our claim to the Throne is so strong that they are attempting to change the Laws of Succession to the Throne of England going back at least to 1688 and maybe beyond that because they realize that going by the current Laws of Succession to the Throne of England there are new Monarchs of England.
Jim Fetzer: Surely even if they change the law now, that wouldn’t affect the fact that her reign has been illegitimate. I mean – they can’t change history. They have had an illegitimate reign here for some time now. Surely if they were to change the law, they’re doing this as an ad hoc measure to try to defeat the legitimacy of your claim, but it seems to me very dubious.
Greg Hallett: It is extremely dubious and they’ve backdated the claim to 28 October 2011. (Backdating is a favorite trick of Peter Williams QC). Now I tell you how that came about: Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip were doing a Royal Tour of Australia 19th to 29th of October 2011; and in that on the 28th of October 2011 Queen Elizabeth opened CHOGM which is the Common Head of Governments Meeting. That was a 2 day meeting that went from 28th to the 30th of October 2011.
The first thing on the agenda was the change to the Succession Laws, which had to be agreed upon by the Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Commonwealth Nations and their various subsidiaries.
Film TEN NEWS
Reporter: “The Bad Ones.”
Elizabeth II: “Their importance has always been in precise relationship
to their relevance, always being attuned to the issue of the day, and
always looking to the future with a sense of vision and practical action
to match.”
Reporter: “In other words, in classic regal understatement, she’s saying,
if you want this to amount to anything, you’d better get on and actually
deliver something. She also went on, and really her final words before she
opened it to, argh, make a statement, which was quite ‘Curious George’.
Have a listen to it.”
(“Curious George” was Tesla’s name for ‘George H. W. Bush’ (14) and his real history thereafter…
[http://missiongalacticfreedom.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/the-real-george-h-w-bush/]

None of the Commonwealth 
Heads of Government, 
their Prime Ministers, 
were informed that there is 
a Legitimate and even 
a Superior Claim 
to the Throne of England.
Greg Hallett: And because the Queen was there, they all went “Yes!”. But none of the Commonwealth Heads of Government, their Prime Ministers, were informed that there is a legitimate and even a superior claim to the Throne of England.
Rather, Prime Minister David Cameron had gone around to all of the Heads of the Governments in the Commonwealth Nations and said to them: “We want to change the Laws of Succession to the Throne of England and we want to modernize them. And the way we are going to modernize them is we are going to allow older daughters to have precedence over younger sons and to allow Monarchs to marry Catholics.
And what they didn’t say was that only the children of the current Prince of Wales, Prince Charles, would be eligible for the Throne of England; and that negated our Superior Challenge to the Throne.
Queen Elizabeth II and The Black Prince

Returning home:
‘Queen’ Elizabeth was born
above the Coach & Horses pub 
in Mayfair
.

She is the daughter of 
Queen consort Elizabeth 
‘The Whipping Boy’
 and 
Winston Churchill.

Lord Louis Mountbatten got 
her parents to sell her 
at a young age into marriage 
with Prince Philip, because
he knew about the Illegitimacy
of the British Crown.

Prince Philip and ‘Queen’ Elizabeth
payed for the murder of 
Lord Louis Mountbatten
via their agent in New Zealand.
The payments were made
10 days before the murder.

Queen Elizabeth II and The Black Prince

‘Queen’ Elizabeth and Prince Philip 
are the notorious heroin traffickers 
behind the 
Mr. Asia Heroin 
Trafficking Syndicate.

Royal Drug Trafficking.

The Intelligence meetings 
and the Payoffs used to 
happen in Green Park - 
next to Buckingham Palace.
cThe public is ignorant 
because the books 
have been sabotaged, 
I’ve had several 
murder attempts 
and I have been 
financially raided, 
actually by the Nazis.
He was a lawyer and his client was Terry Clark who was the ‘on-the-streets’ head of the Mr. Asia Heroin Trafficking Ring, and he ended up living in Kensington, and he would have meetings in Green Park in the center of London. 
Now you’ve got Kensington Palace and you’ve got Buckingham Palace and joining those you’ve got Green Park, St. James’ Park, Hyde Park, Kensington Palace Park. 
They’re all joined, and the Intelligence meetings and the Payoffs used to generally happen in Green Park. 
Now Green Park was only a few hundred metres from where Terry Clark lived, and Terry Clark was Peter William’s client and Terry Clark’s girlfriend, Karen Soich, was Peter William’s junior lawyer. So it was a living position.
Peter William’s junior lawyer was the girlfriend of Terry Clark and they were living next to Buckingham Palace running the heroin trafficking.
Jim Fetzer: That’s really outrageous, Greg!
Greg Hallett: It’s incredible, isn’t it?
Jim Fetzer: And none of this could be done without the Queen’s awareness …
Greg Hallett: … or consent. Now I actually got all this information from a tip from a Security Intelligence Service agent who was actually the same person who had altered the files and he was an expert in photocopying or cyclostyling things so that you couldn’t really read the information. However you could still read it if you did things like hold it up to the light, you still got the impression of words and numbers. 
I managed to get these documents from the Auckland Law Society and then I laboriously typed them out and I found that by comparing two or three documents, which was actually to do with the striking off from the Law Society Eb Leary and Billy Boyd – George Williams Stuart Boyd, I managed to find out the payment schedules for the murders and this included the payment schedules for Lord Louis Mountbatten, on the 27th of August 1979 and also the payment schedule for Margaret Thatcher’s lover.
Historical Crime Solving 
Non Fiction


More information can be found in 
Lord Chancellor Greg Hallett's 
books and films.
 
Now he was murdered the 30th of March 1979 and the payment schedule started on the 28th of March 1979. The payments for these murders were done 10 days before the murders so that Margaret Thatcher’s lover’s murder, Airey Neave, his payment schedule was not on there.
And just a little side detail: That was done because the Judge Andrew Speight who was in charge of it, had been compromised by the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) because on a yacht moored off Kawau Island he had found his wife having sex with a guy on the boat next door, so he shot the man’s arm off. So that is how the judge was compromised, and that’s how the payment schedule for Airey Neave’s murders went missing from the file.
But there was the payment schedule for Lord Louis Mountbatten’s murder, and Peter Williams, who became Peter Williams QC, who was Prince Philip’s and Queen Elizabeth’s agent in New Zealand, he financed the murder out of the money in his safe. But the payments were made 10 days before the murders. Little break, and get back on topic.
Jim Fetzer: Its very difficult not to be on topic, no matter what you’re saying.
Greg Hallett: So what we’ve got is Peter Williams who has funded the murder of Lord Louis Mountbatten, and we can probably do an entire show on the payment schedule for the murders, and how it went down and who was involved.
Jim Fetzer: I think that would be a very good idea.
Greg Hallett: I take that as read that Peter Williams funded the assassination of Lord Louis Mountbatten from New Zealand involving Eb Leary and Kevin Ryan – Xena the Warrior Princess, her uncle – he was a lawyer in New Zealand, living within 3 miles of Peter Williams, and he was actually the leading fundraiser for the IRA in the Southern Hemisphere, so he actually did the payment to the IRA for the murder.
So Peter Williams QC, the leading heroin trafficker in New Zealand, murderer, the number of murders is actually kept at the Trotting [not Jockey] Club, actually he has done 150.
Greg Hallett: So going back to the change of the Laws of Succession to the Throne of England.
Jim Fetzer: Yes.
Greg Hallett: As Lord Chancellor to the True Royal Family, my role is actually to change the laws, when necessary.
Prince Charles has 4 children,
but they are either not his 
or they are illegitimate.
So because Queen Elizabeth II has not been acknowledging our claim to the throne and has reacted to it through the Laws of Succession, we’ve actually, in that way, she has seceded to us and acknowledged that we have a Superior and Justifiable Claim to the Throne of England.
Jim Fetzer: I think that’s right. It’s such a remarkable event to be revising the Laws of Succession that for them to undertake and under these circumstances is an extraordinary admission of consciousness of guilt.
Greg Hallett: It is, absolutely is, well put. It is an extraordinary admission of the consciousness of guilt, yes.
Prime Minister had gone round seeing all the Heads of Governments beforehand to arrange the votes on the first session on the 28th of October 2011. They all voted for the change of the Laws of Succession to the Throne of England, they thought it was being liberal to allow the Royals to marry Catholics and to allow the older daughter to take the Throne above a younger son – but really it was about changing the Laws of Succession to only be the children of Prince Charles the current Prince of Wales.
The Unalikes - 
Prince Philip is not the father
of Prince Harry and Prince William.

Queen Elizabeth II and The Black Prince
James Hewitt is the father of
Prince Harry.
Queen Elizabeth II and The Black Prince
Prince Charles is not the father of
Prince Williams.
Queen Elizabeth II and The Black Prince
King Juan Carlos from Spain
is the father of Prince William.

King Juan Carlos and 
Prince William married 
similar looking women.
Queen Elizabeth II and The Black Prince
Prince Charles is the father
of Simon Charles Day.


Queen Elizabeth II and The Black Prince
There is no legitimate bloodline
for the House of Windsor
.
And that brings us to the point where Prince Charles has four children, but none of them are his – they’re either not his, or they are illegitimate – and there are three (3) Prince of Wales.
Jim Fetzer: Greg, this is the perfect place for us to take our second break. This is Jim Fetzer, your host on the Real Deal with our special guest today, one of the world’s leading muckrakers, Greg Hallett. We are discussing the illegitimacy of the current reign of the Queen of England. We’ll be right back.
Jim Fetzer: We’re discussing the illegitimacy of the reign of the current Queen of England, Elizabeth II, Greg please do continue. We were talking about their family and so forth, their children, none of whom were by Prince Philip [or Prince Charles]. Please continue.
Greg Hallett: Yes. So Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth’s primary Heroin Traffickers and murderers, Peter Williams QC and Dame Margaret Bazley, are the same two people that are running the Working Group to organize how the change to the Law of Succession to the Throne of England will occur in all of the Commonwealth Countries.
So it is a Mafia Operation, and the first thing that the New Zealand Working Group on the Change of Laws of Succession to the Throne of England did was backdate any decision made to the 28th of October 2011.
So they’ve done their best to ignore our claim to the Throne which has been going since the 6th of March 1997 and delivered by letter on the 24th of June 2010, and the 2nd of August 2010, and a lot of subsequent radio interviews and some books. They’ve ignored that, and they’ve gone and used their heroin trafficking murdering and mass murdering Mafia to chair the group for the change of Laws of Succession to the Throne of England.
This is confirmation that Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip are running the Mafia and are the heads of the Mafia.
Jim Fetzer: How broadspread is this Mafia, Greg. You’re talking about an international criminal organization?
Greg Hallett: Yeah, we’re talking about Prime Ministers. The Prime Minister of New Zealand doing the heroin trafficking, Rob Muldoon, he was Prime Minister from 1975 to 1984; he was a heroin trafficker and a murderer, and New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jim Bolger was a heroin user. I’ve actually got a photo of him with Prince Charles.
Jim Fetzer: So this involves MI-5 and MI-6 no doubt?
Greg Hallett: Oh yeah! If you actually look at the whole diplomatic core with the power that they’re given – the power of immunity – they’re actually running the drug trafficking, they’re running the human trafficking through criminal organisations.
Like the person who does the hog roast for Queen Elizabeth II, in her private garden, is a guy called Nick Winter – he’s told me this himself – he claims that his father is a Mafia boss worth 50 million pounds. So you’ve got the Mafia doing the hog-roast for Queen Elizabeth II, amongst all the so-called dignitaries. You’ve got to wonder how close their relationship is, and it seems to be ‘From hand to plate’, that’s how close the Mafia is from the Monarchy. What they fail to recognize in saying that only the children of the current Prince of Wales, Prince Charles, could inherit the Throne – they didn’t acknowledge that there is three Prince of Wales.
There’s Prince Charles who is actually a Fake Prince of Wales; there’s Francisco Manoel who is the True Prince of Wales; and he’s even acknowledged by a lot of British Ambassadors as the True Prince of Wales; and then there is the Welsh Prince of Wales.
And then we have to look at Prince Charles’ children. Now it’s well known that Prince Harry is not Prince Charles’ son. Prince Harry is James Hewitt’s son. And what’s not so much acknowledged is that Prince William is not Prince Charles’ son either. Prince William is the son of King Juan Carlos of Spain and they both married incredibly similar looking women. Princess Diana used to go on private cruises with King Juan Carlos and that was how she got pregnant to him.
Jim Fetzer: That’s fascinating. I mean, Harry looks so much like Hewitt that it’s really not a stretch at all, and it’s very interesting about William.
Greg Hallett: There’s Prince Harry there, and there is James Hewitt – so there’s no denying that.
Jim Fetzer: Yes, yes, I think that most of the public is aware of this. 
Greg Hallett: Yes, and part of the changes of Laws of Succession to the Throne of England was to bypass Prince Harry because it’s so well known that he is illegitimate. Here’s King Juan Carlos here with his wife Queen Consort Sofía, and here is Prince William with Commoner Kate.
Jim Fetzer: Considerable similarity!
Greg Hallett: She’s a zero, she doesn’t count for anything, she absolutely does not add anything. She’s not a Royal. She’s just the first person chosen as a fiancée in a reactionary engagement dictated by the grandmother Queen Elizabeth II saying to Prince William: “You have to get married, you have to get engaged within the next month to cover up this claim to the Throne of England.
Okay, so here’s King Juan Carlos age 24 in 1962 with Queen Sofía, whom he married. So she’s got thin lips, similar cheek bones to Commoner Kate, cheek bones and thin lips. They are just very similar people. King Juan Carlos and Prince William married similar looking women.
So they’re biological father and son and they married similar looking women.
Jim Fetzer: Very interesting.
Greg Hallett: Prince Charles …
Jim Fetzer: … Charles and Camilla – talk about a Commoner, talk about someone who doesn’t add anything – Camilla is just a disgrace. 
Greg Hallett: Well, yes, here she is with a horse – horsey-looking woman.
And they had a child in 1965. It was conceived on Camilla’s 18th birthday when Charles was 16 and his name’s Simon Charles Day, so he’s illegitimate, and that’s him there. So he looks very similar …
Jim Fetzer: Who is the woman he is with, not that it’s of any consequence.
Greg Hallett: That’s his wife.
Jim Fetzer: I see.
Greg Hallett: And they’ve got five (5) children before marriage.
Jim Fetzer: Five (5) children before marriage!
Greg Hallett: Yes, six (6) children before marriage, and one of them died, so they’ve now got five (5) surviving children before marriage.
But you see the similarity between Prince Charles and Simon Charles Day. So Charles had this illegitimate child with Camilla, which they refused to acknowledge, and he had his ears pinned back so they didn’t stick out like Charles, he had his teeth ground down so they didn’t look like Camilla’s, and he had brown pigment injected in his eyes so he looked like he didn’t have blue eyes, he has brown eyes.
Jim Fetzer: Really!
Greg Hallett: Yes, and he said it was like sandpaper rubbed against his eyeballs. His wife is a similar type of woman to Camilla Parker Bowles.
Jim Fetzer: Yes she is. It’s an odd looking photograph because of the reflection in her eyes.
Greg Hallett: So what you’ve got is biological children marrying partners similar to their biological parent. Prince William marrying Commoner Kate – she’s got a very similar look to King Juan Carlos marrying Queen Consort Sofia – very similar look, similar cheek bones …
Jim Fetzer: So do you think there is a genetic predisposition to marry a person of certain looks and so forth?
Greg Hallett: Well, there appears to be, yeah. Commoner Kate and Queen Consort Sofía, they’ve got a dozen things in their faces, similar nose, similar lips, similar cheeks, similar eyebrows, it’s incredible! Prince William and King Juan Carlos have exactly the same ears. It’s just phenomenal how close their ears are! And ears is one of the ways that you tell who your true parentage is.
Prince Williams’ ears are absolutely nothing like Prince Charles, nothing at all. Prince Charles has absolute wing-nuts, you know, they’ve actually been drawn of wing-nuts.
Prince Charles also has an illegitimate child with a servant girl in Balmoral Castle.
Jim Fetzer: Lot of hanky-panky gone on.
Greg Hallett: … born in 1968.
Jim Fetzer: Don’t they believe in birth control?
Greg Hallett: They were forced into changing the Laws of Succession to try and bypass our Legitimate Claim to the Throne and in doing so they said: “Only the children of Prince Charles can succeed to the Throne of England”, Prince Charles, the current Prince of Wales.
Now, Prince Charles is not the father of Prince William – King Juan Carlos is. Prince Charles is not the father of Prince Harry – James Hewitt is. Prince Charles is the father of Simon Charles Day who is illegitimate and has 5 illegitimate children and he has, I think it’s a daughter, with the servant girl in Balmoral Castle who is illegitimate. That child would now be 44.

Prince Charles is not the father of Prince William – King Juan Carlos is. 
Prince Charles is not the father of Prince Harry – James Hewitt is. 
Prince Charles is the father of Simon Charles Day (now 46 years old).
Prince Charles is the father with a servant girl in Balmoral Castle (now 44 years).

Jim Fetzer: Do you have photographs of her?
Greg Hallett: No. I was informed of it by British SAS. That was probably about 2010 I think. So in changing the Laws of Succession to the Throne of England, the British Royal Family have actually completely done themselves out of a legitimate successor. So they’ve actually destroyed the House of Windsor. (Big Ben rings once)
Jim Fetzer: So there is no Legitimate Bloodline for the House of Windsor, is there?
Greg Hallett: No!

There is no Legitimate Bloodline for the House of Windsor

(Big Ben rings another eleven times making 12 bells of Big Ben at midnight 2 August 2010)
Jim Fetzer: Fascinating!
Diana, the mother, is also illegitimate.
Queen Elizabeth II and The Black Prince
The parents of Princess Diana are 
Hon. Frances and Sir James Goldsmith.
Queen Elizabeth II and The Black Prince
Diana’s younger brother, 
Charles Spencer, below Diana, 
looks like his father 8th Earl of Spencer, 
who’s over on the left
.
Queen Elizabeth II and The Black Prince
Diana with her half-sisters 
Alix and Jemima.


Queen Elizabeth II and The Black Prince 
Diana and her half-sisters in the news.
Greg Hallett: Yeah I know, it’s fascinating! On top of that, Diana is illegitimate! The mother!
Jim Fetzer: Really!
Greg Hallett: Yeah! Here’s Princess Diana here, and that’s her mother there. This is The Honorable Frances Burke-Roche who married the 8th Earl Spencer. Now she’s the mother of Princess Diana, but if you look at Diana’s younger brother, Charles Spencer, who is below Diana, he looks like his father, who’s over on the left.
Jim Fetzer: Oh yes, there is considerable resemblance, yes!
Greg Hallett: Absolutely stunning, but Charles Spencer the younger bother, and Diana look nothing alike at all! There’s just nothing there.
Jim Fetzer: Yeah isn’t that curious.
Greg Hallett: But then if you look at Diana and her mother, The Honorable Frances Burke-Roche, she was known to have very close relations and a long-standing affair with Sir James Goldsmith who’s up on the next page with a chop of meat in his hand. He was worth about £1.5 billion, so he was very wealthy. And that is his legitimate daughter Alix Goldsmith there, and his other legitimate daughter Jemima Goldsmith who became Jemima Khan, she married Imran Khan.
Now these three here are all half-sisters: Alix Goldsmith, Jemima Khan or Jemima Goldsmith, and Lady Diana.
If you take Diana’s mother and James Goldsmith and mix those faces, you’ve got Princess Diana.
Jim Fetzer: Fascinating!
Greg Hallett: And Sir James Goldsmith even has the same sort of flashing eyes, the same hands, the same gestures as Diana, the same mannerisms and the same charisma. It’s even been written up in the papers: “Were Diana and Jemima sisters?”
Jim Fetzer: Oh really, it has been written about in the papers?
Greg Hallett: “Speculation about Sir Jimmy Goldsmith’ romantic life was popular topic in the British media. For example in the press there were a number of claims that James Goldsmith was the father of family friend Lady Diana Spencer due to his friendship with Diana’s mother and later with Diana.”
Even if William and Harry were legitimate, which they aren’t, Diana, the mother, is also illegitimate.
So you’ve got this massive amount of ongoing illegitimacy through the Royal Family. In fact, the Royal Family has been completely illegitimate since 1840!
It puts us into a very interesting position where they’ve avoided the Claim, they’ve reacted to it through the Change of Laws of Succession, and they’ve reacted to it in such a way, that they’ve actually done themselves out of a legitimate claim to the Throne.
From 1840, Queen Victoria married Prince Consort Albert, which was a bigamous marriage, and he was a homosexual who wore a Prince Consort Albert which is a chain belt round his waist and through the foreskin of his penis, so it was always vertical and he couldn’t conceive. So all of their children, all of the official nine children of Queen Victoria were actually conceived bigamously and illegitimately.
 
Through the Laws of Succession
they’ve actually done themselves
out of a legitimate claim to the Throne.
Jim Fetzer: Tell me about that gadget again!
Greg Hallett: The gays call it a ‘Prince Albert’.
Jim Fetzer: A ‘Prince Albert’!
Greg Hallett: It’s named after Prince Consort Albert.
Jim Fetzer: And its aim is to prevent intercourse?
Greg Hallett: Yes.
Jim Fetzer: So it’s kind of like a male chastity belt!
Greg Hallett: Yes. Prince Consort Albert wore a male chastity belt. So he did not father any of Queen Victoria’s children.
Jim Fetzer: And the reason for that was because of Albert’s …
160 years of Illegitimate Monarchy:

How Lionel Nathan Rothschild
usurped the British Throne.



He exiled Queen Victoria’s
firstborn legitimate son
to Portugal.

Queen Victoria, who was already 
married to 
Prince George of Cumberland,
had to marry Prince Albert, who
had to wear a ‘Prince Albert’ - 
a male chastity belt - so he could not 
sire any of her children.
Then Lionel Nathan Rothschild
raped Queen Victoria and
produced nine (9) ‘official’ 
children.
Prince Albert was killed so it would
not be noted that ‘his children’ 
did not look l
ike him.
The Throne has been
usurped by Illegitimates
since Marcos Manoel, 
the Legitimate and Firstborn 
Son of Queen Victoria, 
was exiled to Portugal.
Greg Hallett: Well, he was a homosexual. But Lionel Nathan Rothschild (1808–79) fathered all of Queen Victoria’s 9 official children.
Jim Fetzer: So if there was a mixture with Albert, you’d have an odd lot, you’d have a child that wouldn’t look like the others, so you wanted a continuity of the male contribution to procreation.
Greg Hallett: Yes. So that was 1840, and then in 1850 cameras came in, so then the eldest child Vicky was then 10; and before she reached 21, Prince Consort Albert was murdered by ‘M.A.D.’ (Medically Assisted Death).
And they said it was Pneumonia, but actually what happened was, he had a cold, they put him in a bedroom, they left the window open, in winter, and refused to let him out of the bed. So he actually got Pneumonia and died. So that stopped Prince Consort Albert being photographed with the children that he didn’t look anything like.
And the real father Lionel Nathan Rothschild was known as “the king of kings” and he was funding the British Monarchy, most of the European
Monarchies, and many of the Asian monarchies.
Jim Fetzer: So he was the power behind the throne.
Greg Hallett: Absolutely! No question! Absolutely no question about that. It’s well recorded. It’s even the punch cartoons of the day called him ‘the king of kings’ and everyone else, all the other monarchs, were just puppets to him. So all of Queen Victoria’s official nine (9) children were illegitimate. And the eldest of those [Bertie, Prince of Wales children] was Prince Eddy (1864–1892-1933+) and he was an arsonist, and he set fire to two castles, and he was also the cause of the Jack the Ripper Murders.
Jim Fetzer: This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Real Deal, concluding my conversation with Greg Hallett who is a muckraker extraordinaire.
He’s been exposing the Illegitimacy of the Royal Family and we’re about to discuss the true source of the Jack the Ripper Murders. Please Greg, continue.
Greg Hallett: Prince Eddy was the cause of those murders. He married a Catholic woman in a Protestant Church, or a Protestant woman in a Catholic Church, but that was the cause of her being lobotomised and the Royal Family actually faking his death. They actually faked his death!
Jim Fetzer: Did he have some sort of medical training, Greg?
Greg Hallett: It was actually Queen Victoria’s doctor [Serjeant Surgeon] under the orders of King Edward VII [when he was still Bertie, Prince of Wales].
Jim Fetzer: Who what, accompanied him when he committed these crimes? Tell me more about this. Why were these women killed?
Greg Hallett: They were witnesses to the wedding.
Jim Fetzer: Oh, witnesses to the wedding, now I recollect, yes.
Greg Hallett: And there were proposals of extorting the Royal Family (1888), which was then a fake Royal Family.
Jim Fetzer: And the woman he married was lobotomised and kept in isolation.
So Queen Victoria was separated from her son for 16 years, just under 16 years, so you know she was in deep pain for being separated from her firstborn son.
Queen Victoria had 9 illegitimate children. The oldest son of those became King Edward VII and he was bigamously born, because the second marriage was bigamous, and he was illegitimate, and he was a Tuesday Warlord – he was born on a Tuesday. And he organized World War I and World War II and he also organized the assassination of the Portuguese Royal Family on the 1st of February 1908 – killed the King and his elder son and then he murdered his elder brother Marcos Manoel on the 1st of April 1910, so it’s regicide. And he also organized the abolition of the Portuguese Monarchy.
He actually stayed with the Portuguese Royal Family in 1903 in Pena Castle, and observed the relationships there between the Royal Family and Marcos Manoel and then went about and murdered them. He’s the most disgusting character. That was King Edward VII.
King Edward VII had Prince Eddy who was an arsonist – so they faked his death in 1892. And he actually survived at least until 1933, living in Glamis Castle in Scotland, and they used that for extortion, because the Queen Mother Elizabeth who was married to King George VI, she was from Glamis Castle and the idea was that Prince Eddy would have the world’s longest bed and breakfast – it went on for at least for 41 years in exchange for one of them marrying the Monarch, and that was the Queen Mother.
King Edward VII died 5 weeks after he murdered his older brother, Marcos Manoel, and then King George V came onto the throne, and he was the younger brother of Prince Eddy, who had apparently died, but was still alive, so that was a fake kingship.
King George V was a fake kingship and he married Marry of Teck who was actually a black woman with a lot of makeup on.
Jim Fetzer: Was she light skinned?
Greg Hallett: She was descendant from King George III, and King George III’s father-in-law was completely Black and Queen Consort Charlotte, his wife, was half-Black. So the children that were Black and they wore a lot of makeup to cover it up. They were called Mulatos. So the Royal Family were Mulatos for quite a while.
Jim Fetzer: It must have been a hell of a lot of make-up, Greg! So you could call this white face – these were not White men with a Black face, these were Black men in a White face!
Greg Hallett: Yeah well they had sickle-cell anaemia, so that kept the color down! That was King George V.
After that was King Edward VIII who was actually never crowned, he was bisexual, largely homosexual, and he was married to a Wallis Simpson who was ‘gender non-specific’. She had both male and female bits. So he abdicated.
Jim Fetzer: Was she a hermaphrodite? I mean she had both male and female sex organs?
Greg Hallett: Undescended testis. So then King Edward VIII abdicated. Then we had King George VI who was actually retarded. He was one IQ point above retarded, so he was 67 IQ. He’s the one with the speech impediment, and he really had knocked knees, and he’s supposedly the father of Queen Elizabeth II.
Jim Fetzer: Was he the subject of the film “The King’s Speech”?
Greg Hallett: Yes he was, but he wasn’t actually the biological father. Before he was king, King George VI and the Queen Mother, Elizabeth, had a child that was a son that was epileptic and left to die on the Gurney. So they decided to not have King George VI do the breeding, and that was giving to another, and that other person was an illegitimate son of King Edward VII called Winston Churchill.
Jim Fetzer: Called Winston Churchill of all names!
Greg Hallett: So Winston Churchill was the biological natural father of Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Margaret, and that was actually done by artificial insemination, not by conception. And then Queen Elizabeth was actually born above a pub. She was born above the Coach & Horses pub in Mayfair.
Jim Fetzer: I don’t think that appears in her official biography!
Greg Hallett: She was born above a pub and the first person to look over her was a 17 year old homosexual who became the world’s leading treasonous spy – Anthony Blunt. He was going coo coo. So that was her uncle. And King George VI went on to have a natural son born on Christmas 1927 which under current laws would have actually made him the King, and he lived in Rotorua in New Zealand.
It was actually King George VI’s doctor, Baron Arthur Espie Porritt, he was Lord then, Lord Arthur Espie Porritt – who introduced me to him. So I had a private audience with him when I was about 5¾.
Jim Fetzer: 5¾ years of age.
Greg Hallett: 5¾ years of age, King George VI’s doctor introduced me to a King of England.
Jim Fetzer: Fascinating!
Greg Hallett: Yeah. He lived in Lewis House or next to Lewis House in Tudor Manor House at the corner of Hinemoa and Hinemaru Streets. That was at the entrance to the Polynesian Pools, and the Polynesian Pools …
Jim Fetzer: Under what circumstances did he arrange to so introduce you?
Greg Hallett: My father selling insurance, but it was a bit like selling coals to Newcastle because MI-6 runs insurance so well, when you try to sell insurance to another illegitimate Royal. His name was George Fitz-Ratimer.
Jim Fetzer: Fitz-Ratimer.
Greg Hallett: George Fitz-Ratimer, yes.
Jim Fetzer: Great name.
Greg Hallett: Yes. He was the son King George VI and Guide Rangi. So he actually should have been the King of England because he was the only natural son of King George VI, whereas Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Margaret weren’t the children of King George VI.
Right, so Queen Elizabeth II is completely utterly and totally illegitimate.
Film
Queen Elizabeth II: “We are all visitors to this time, this place. 
We are just passing through – and then we return home.”
(Illegitimate Queen Elizabeth II – Flat Lie Royal – Invention of Tradition).
Greg Hallett: And then she has the son with Prince Philip, resulting in Prince Charles, who hangs out with the paedophile Jimmy Savile, and who has sexual relations with his Butler. And then has a child, an illegitimate child with Camilla Parker Bowles on her 18th birthday, when he’s 16; and then another illegitimate child with a maid when he’as 18; and didn’t sire Prince Harry and didn’t sire Prince William. So you’ve really got a situation where the Monarchy is just so utterly and totally illegitimate.
Jim Fetzer: It’s biologically dissipated.
Greg Hallett: They’re just multi-generationally illegitimate, and not the Monarch, not the Monarch, and Queen Elizabeth’s illegitimacy was absolutely certified when she was crowned. She was not sitting on the Stone of Scone, so her coronation is invalid.
The Commonwealth 
Heads of Government 
need to fully understand 
this story before they can 
vote legitimately:

Queen Victoria’s 
legitimate firstborn son
was taken from her and 
exiled.

She gave Royal Marks
to her only legitimate 
son Marcos Manoel
so that he and his 
descendants can
prove their Rightful
and Superior Claim
to the Throne of the 
United Kingdom.
So I’m alerting all the Commonwealth Heads of Government that there is a Legitimate Claim to the Throne and that there has been a Legitimate Claim to the Throne since the 6th of March 1997. And the British Monarchy has Obfuscated this from Public Discussion.
Jim Fetzer: I think it’s quite remarkable that they have clearly verified your claim, because in order to justify changing the Laws of Succession, they would not begin to undertake such an enterprise, which is so striking on its face, unless they recognize it was a Legitimate Bonafide Claim to the Crown that superseded that of Elizabeth.
Greg Hallett: So as Lord Chancellor to the True Royal Family of the United Kingdom, I’m stating to the Commonwealth Heads of Government that they need to contact me and that they need to fully understand this story before they can legitimately vote.
At the moment they have not been given the full story, they have been given obfuscation, they haven’t been given the facts at all, they haven’t been told that it’s really about ‘Only the children of Prince Charles, the current Prince of Wales, can inherit the throne’ when that’s absolutely an attempt to bypass all of our Knowledge, Claims and Evidence.
We’ll be presenting 30 or 40 Royal Marks given to us by Queen Victoria and by other Royal Families and by British Ambassadors which confirm the True Royal Family and that what the Commonwealth Heads of Government have voted on is Illegal, and it’s been run as a Mafia operation by Mafia people to continue a Mafia monarchy.
Whenever you’ve got an illegitimate Monarchy, it operates as a Mafia because anyone who has got the knowledge can compromise them.
That’s why the World is in the situation that it is, because we’ve had 160 years of False Monarchy. So people don’t even know what it’s like to be under a True King, who knows he is King, who has established that he is King, or Queen.
What we’ve had for the last 160 years is an entire manipulation to delay history for 200 years.
Jim Fetzer: Well, it’s really a stunning story, Greg. I can hardly believe it – the fact that they have been attempting to change the Laws of Succession however, seems to be about as stunning a form of confirmation as you can possibly have.
Greg Hallett: I was part of a radio interview on the 22nd of January 2012 on Camelot Radio. I didn’t say a lot because the main person was actually launching a book, so I just chimed in every now and then. But I did say that there would be a change of the Monarchy this year – and that’s happened first in an attempt to not make a change, but they are actually changing it, or trying to change it.
And second, in doing so, they’ve confirmed this story, and they’ve spent the last 15 years trying to deny this story, and they’ve finally come up with a solution that confirms the Legitimate Royal Family and have the Superior Claim to the Throne.

SUPERIOR CLAIM TO THE THRONE.

Jim Fetzer: Well Greg it is utterly fascinating. I’m very glad we’re going to continue this series of interviews. Would you like to give a summing up before we have to conclude this one?
Greg Hallett: So what I would like to talk about is the latest and greatest Royal Drug Deal.
Now Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth went on a Royal Tour of Australia on the 19th to 29th of October 2011, and Prince Philip wasn’t allowed to speak to anyone in Australia in order not to upset the applecart. Now during that time a drug formula was developed with massive products brought in.
It was developed in Australia. Prince Charles then came over, did a Royal Tour in the next year in Australia from the 5th to the 10th of November 2012, and then in New Zealand from the 10th to the 16th of November 2012. And in the month leading up to that, in October, the Hells Angels were given two (2) New Zealand SAS soldiers as protection and Hells Angels and another gang, the Headhunters, 10 to 12 guys from the Hells Angels and the Headhunters, with long rap sheets from their eyeballs to the floor, were sent over to Europe when they shouldn’t have been allowed to get into Europe.
Now the new Drug that is being developed in Australia is to usurp Methamphetamines and Heroin, and probably use part of the Afghan Heroin mountain. That drug, the products, and the agents for that drug came over from Australia to New Zealand as part of Prince Charles’ Royal Tour.
And at the same time that Prince Charles arrived or just a few weeks beforehand, the Governor-General of New Zealand, Sir Jerry Mateparae, cleaned up all the drugs off the street in New Zealand and created a dirth of drugs, so there’s no drugs. So there only now room in New Zealand for the New Royal Wonder Drug which is going to be exported from New Zealand with its fake, absolutely fake, ‘clean slate most honest country in the world to do business in’.
So the royal products for the drugs are coming in from Australia under the guise of the Royal Tour, coming into New Zealand, and they’ve been stored under the Auckland Architecture School. Now the Auckland Architecture School was built over old Army barracks and when the Architecture School started, they were called Brick Studio, Timber Studio and Metal Studio.
And under them is quite a large caven and that was dug up by Mainzeal in 2005, who were doing repairs to the Architecture School, to the building, and it’s also stored under the Arts Building.
And I spent 5 years, 1980–85, in that Architecture School Building getting a degree there.
Jim Fetzer: You did yourself.
The Illegitimates
have developed a new 
synthetic drug, which will be 
shipped by Owen G. Glenn. 
The drug is stored in the 
'Owen G. Glenn Building' - 
an Architecture School.
Greg Hallett: Yes, I did, yes.
Jim Fetzer: Tell me about the Wonder Drug.
Greg Hallett: It is a new drug. The raw products are coming from Australia.
It’s being manufactured in New Zealand. The raw products are currently being stored under the Architecture School building.
Jim Fetzer: So it’s not heroin, it’s not cocaine, it’s not something we know. It’s a new synthetic drug.
Greg Hallett: It’s a new synthetic drug, and it’s been manufactured in New Zealand with the Hells Angels getting two (2) SAS soldiers as protection to make sure that no one busts in and busts the drug deal. And those SAS Agents are supplied by the Governor-General, Sir Jerry Mateparae, who used to be the head of the SAS.
And the Governor-General is the primary Queen’s appointment. So we’ve actually got a Royal Drug Deal using the Governor-General and using New Zealand Government SAS agents, under the control of the Governor-General to protect the Hells Angels, to manufacture the drugs, and then it’s exported out of New Zealand on Owen G. Glenn’s shipping.
Owen G. Glenn is a great friend of Peter Williams QC, the heroin trafficker. Owen G. Glenn’s nickname is “The Mini-Me of Tax” because he worked in trafficking heroin in Monaco for Prince Rainier, and Prince Rainier’s nickname was “Tax”, because he used to tax the heroin.
Owen G. Glenn bought his silence by putting 7 million dollars towards the business school at the University of Auckland, and that is called “The Owen G. Glenn Building”.
Jim Fetzer: The Owen G. Glenn Building!
Greg Hallett: Yeah, and he’s a heroin trafficker and he uses his shipping line to do that. So he’s shipping the heroin, and because it’s coming from New Zealand, which is supposedly …
Jim Fetzer: You mean the new Wonder Drug!
Greg Hallett: Yeah. Customs doesn’t look hard at material that originates from New Zealand. They think it’s an honest country, but New Zealand is actually the country that trafficks the heroin. I’m not sure if it’s the most, but absolutely huge amounts.
They used to get the heroin from South America to New Zealand and then they would repackage it and then send it from New Zealand as a new product and it would not be discovered. So this new Wonder Drug is going to end up in Europe where there’s a dozen Hells Angels and Headhunters in Europe, and they haven’t come back yet, and they didn’t go with cover partners, and they’re setting up the bases for distribution for this new drug, and it is the New Royal Wonder Drug.
It’s actually run by Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip – washed through New Zealand.
Jim Fetzer: Greg, I can’t thank you for yet another exposé, your reasoning is simply astonishing, I think if all the world knew it, it would be dumbfounded. I just can’t thank you enough for being here and I am looking forward for our next interview, which I anticipate will be very soon.
This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Real Deal, thank you, my special guest Greg Hallett, a world class muckraker, for being here and all of you for listening.
Greg Hallett recorded 2 August 2010:
 

This is the time for great secrets to be revealed

Lord Chancellor of the Exilarch

The Commonwealth Heads of Government are required to contact 
Lord Chancellor of the Exilarch Bruno,
Lord Chancellor Greg Hallett
prior to any commitment to any Laws of Succession decision.

 
   
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
   
Jim Fetzer The Real Deal
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 World Of Truth.net
Greg Hallett Books DieWeltDerWahrheit.de GlobalRegional Spezial
Radio - Nachrichten - Deutschland Spezial - Aus Aller Welt - Experten - Filme - Bücherei - Themen - Bilderberg - Diverses - 
Buchladen
 - Tools - Contact - Disclaimer/Haftungsausschluss


Diana  [film] Unlawful Killing

Al-Fayed funded Diana movie alleges Prince Phillip
is a 'Fred West-style psychopath' and labels Royal Family 'gangsters in tiaras'

14th May 2011
The Royal Family masterminded the car crash that caused Princess Diana’s death as a ‘warning’ to make her toe the line, a controversial new film premiered at Cannes yesterday claims.
The director, Keith Allen, said the House of Windsor had ‘got away with murder’ because no one had been held to account over the accident.
In the film, entitled Unlawful Killing, Prince Phillip is branded a 'Fred West-style psychopath' who 'orchestrated the murder' of Diana.
The Queen is dismissed as a 'gangster in a tiara'.
 Controversial: Keith Allen's new movie Unlawful Killing looks into Princess Diana's death and brands Prince Phillip a 'Fred West-style psychopath'
Controversial: Keith Allen's new movie Unlawful Killing looks into Princess Diana's death and brands Prince Phillip a 'Fred West-style psychopath'
Allen, who is trying to sell the film around the world, was bankrolled by  
Mohamed Al-Fayed, whose son Dodi also died in the car crash, to make the movie.
He invested £2.5 million to back the production after it was turned down by every broadcaster in the UK.
It will not be shown in UK cinemas because of strict laws on libel and contempt, but Allen believes the movie will make money in America.
'The crash was supposed to be a warning': Diana died in 1997
'The crash was supposed to be a warning': Diana died in 1997
Allen said: ‘I think Diana was in a position to rock a lot of boats. I think [the accident] was supposed to be a warning.
‘I believe there was a chance that she could have survived the accident. But I think the situation may have gone too far.'
In the film, the inquest in to her death is presented as a cover-up in which different arms of the British establishment - including the police, the Courts, and the Royal Family - as well as the French coroner and government had a hand.
Unlawful Killing opens with a details of a letter penned by Diana to her Butler, in which she claims that Prince Charles is planning to have her murdered in a car accident.
The production stated the 36-year-old could have been saved had she been taken to hospital quickly - and that the inquest failed to properly investigate why she wasn’t.
The film shows the graphic black and white close-up of Diana taken moments after the Mercedes carrying the couple crashed in a Paris underpass, for a few seconds.
The image, in which her blonde hair and features clearly visible, has never been publicly seen in this UK.
Allen said: ‘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.’
The film features Al-Fayed accusing the Royal Family of being racist.
Allen, who authors the documentary, suggests in it that the Establishment was unhappy with Diana’s relationship with Dodi, because he was a Muslim.
It also claims that her role in the anti-landmine campaign put her at risk from those in the arms industry, and those in power who had links to it.
'Gangsters in tiaras': The hugely controversial documentary makes some bold claims about the Royal Family's involvement in the accident
'Gangsters in tiaras': The hugely controversial documentary makes some outrageous claims about the Royal Family's involvement in the accident
Psychologist Oliver James is interviewed about his behaviour for the film - and despite having never treated the Duke of Edinburgh, he claims he displays classic ‘psychopath’ behaviour, likening him to a 'Fred West'.
In another bizarre sequence the House of Windsor is compared to the mafia, and Allen describes one picture of the Queen, Princess Margaret and Princess Anne all dressed in black as ‘gangsters in tiaras’.
The controversial premiere was met with ridicule from critics with many questioning how editorially independent the film could be when it was funded by Al-Fayed.
Writer Martyn Gregory, who penned Diana: The Last Days the last days, branded the the film ‘ludicrous’ and claimed that Allen had simply made a vehicle for Al-Fayed’s rants.
Crash: The wreck of the car in which Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed died in Paris
Crash: The wreck of the car in which Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed died in Paris
Critic Richard Friedman compared the ideas put forward in the film as like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory.
He said: ‘It is misleading not to let the audience know that Al-Fayed is funding this film.’
Unlawful Killing features interviews with Piers Morgan, Lauren Booth, and Tony Benn.
Allen enlisted the help of freelance journalist Richard Wiseman, who went undercover to monitor how the press covered the tribunal.
However the only insight he gained was that the BBC’s Royal Correspondent Nicholas Witchell fell asleep during some of it.
Publicity: Allen and writer Paul Sparks attended the photocall in Cannes yesterday, but Mohamed Al-Fayed was absent
Publicity: Allen and writer Paul Sparks attended the photocall in Cannes yesterday, but Mohamed Al-Fayed was absent
The comedian said that he made the film to highlight the failings in the way he believed the death of Diana was investigated.
News of his documentary had been met with disgust with many close to Diana.
Close friend Rosa Monckton said: ‘The fact people are trying to make money – which is all that they are doing now – out of her death is quite frankly ... words fail me.’
A spokesman for St James’s Palace declined to comment.
Al-Fayed did not turn up for the screening amid rumours he was upset about the inclusion of the controversial crash picture.
His spokesman said he was 'delighted with the film' but it is understood that the tycoon had lobbied for the image to be taken out.
In 2008, after a six-month inquest, a jury concluded Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed were unlawfully killed as a direct result of grossly negligent driving by drunk chauffeur Henri Paul, who also died in the crash.



Diana

DIANA INQUEST SAMPLES SWITCHED

PRINCESS Diana’s post-mortem samples were switched with those from another woman, an explosive new book claims.
Adding weight to “cover-up” theories, it says samples were swapped prior to toxicological testing.
According to documents uncovered for the book, published this week, the toxicologist at London’s Charing Cross Hospital received the samples of another female and tested them in the belief that they were from Princess Diana.
In his latest volume in a series about the Diana inquest, author John Morgan believes he has discovered the truth of what occurred in the 24 hours following the deaths of the Princess and Dodi Al Fayed in a Paris car crash on August 31, 1997.
“There is a lot of evidence which points to the toxicology testing being carried out on samples that did not come from the body of Princess Diana,” he said last night, pointing out that the documents were, along with others, withheld from the inquest jury.
Mr Morgan said he had uncovered a litany of conflicting evidence, inconsistencies, mis-labelling of body samples, cover-ups, evidence and witnesses who were never called to give evidence at the ­inquest.
He is now calling for independent DNA tests to be carried out on the body samples. “The samples at Charing Cross Hospital have never been subjected to DNA testing. With so much conflicting evidence, how can we be sure?” he said.
“The evidence I have studied indicates that there are two lots of samples. One belongs to Diana, which is held by the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Paget, and the other lot are samples from another body and held by Charing Cross Hospital.
“Diana’s UK post-mortem samples were switched ahead of the toxicology testing.”
He added: “The jury were not given the post mortem and toxicology reports on Diana. If they had, they should have been able to work out that the toxicology testing was conducted on samples that weren’t Diana’s.
“For example, Diana’s body was embalmed in France, but there was no embalming fluid in the toxicology tested samples.”
He went on: “Diana had consumed alcohol that night in Dodi’s apartment and later at the Ritz Hotel.
It is recorded by the Hammersmith and Fulham mortuary manager that her stomach smelled strongly of alcohol, but there was no alcohol in the samples tested in London.”
Mr Morgan said that within 24 hours of her death, Diana’s body had been subjected to embalming in France and the UK, along with two post mortems.
“I am asking why?” said the Australian-based writer who lives in Brisbane and insisted that documentation shows interference from senior aides on behalf of the Queen.
“Having removed Princess Diana as a member of the Royal Family in 1996, suddenly, Diana became royal again. Only the Queen could have ordered this.
“The Queen took control of events from Balmoral, very early following Diana’s death,” Mr Morgan said, adding that he believed the UK coroner should not have taken possession of Diana’s body after it arrived back in England.
“By law, jurisdiction over the body should have gone to the coroner in Northamptonshire, which covers Diana’s family home, Althorp, where it was known Diana’s body would be buried.”
Another stark example of a switch Mr Morgan claims to have discovered was that there was no vitreous humour (eyeball gel) sample taken during the UK post-mortem, yet a sample was tested by the London toxicologist.
Also, sample labels received by the toxicologist, Susan Paterson, for both blood and liver tests, read differently to the descriptions in the post-mortem documentation. Mr Morgan has spent more than five years investigating the evidence relating to the 1997 Paris crash in the city’s Alma Tunnel.
His series of books is based on the testimony heard during the inquest and evidence in official documents from within the British police investigation that were withheld from the inquest jury.
Leading QC Michael Mansfield, who served throughout the six months of the London inquest, stated last year: “I have no doubt that the volumes written by him will come to be regarded as the Magnum Opus on the death crash.
Dodi’s father, Mohamed Al Fayed, has praised Mr Morgan’s work, calling it “heroic” and “impressive works of forensic enquiry and immensely helpful to the cause of truth.”
Mr Al Fayed said: “I believe that John Morgan has done more to expose the facts of this case than the police in France and Britain.”


Interview with princess Diana's confidant Christine Fitzgerald
from Icke's the Biggest Secret
While researching this book I was introduced to Christine Fitzgerald, a brilliant and gifted healer, who was a close friend and confidant of Diana for nine years. Because of Christine’s understanding of the esoteric, Diana was able to talk to her about matters she would not dare to share with anyone else for fear of being dubbed crazy. It is clear that Diana knew about the true nature of the royal family’s genetic history and the reptilian control. Her nicknames for the Windsors were “the lizards” and “the reptiles” and she used to say in all seriousness: “They’re not human”. There is a very good reason for Diana using this description of the Windsors. 

As her deprogramming continued, Arizona Wilder remembered clearly a ritual she attended at Clarence House, the Queen Mother’s home near to Buckingham Palace, in which Diana was shown who the Windsors really are. It took place in the first seven days of July 1981, just before Diana and Charles were married on the 29th.

This period is the last seven days of the cycle of the Oak Tree, according to esoteric law, and the ritual was called The Awakening of the Bride. This is a ritual for all females of the 13 bloodlines who are going to be in publicly high positions and marry reptilians to produce the new generation of rulers. Arizona says that the Queen Mother, the Queen, Prince Philip, Lady Fermoy, Diana’s father Earl Spencer, Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles were all present when Diana was brought into the room.

She was wearing a white gown and a drug had been administered by Lady Fermoy. Diana was told that she should consider her union with Prince Charles as only a means to produce heirs and nothing else. Camilla Parker-Bowles was his consort, not her. Arizona says that Prince Philip and the Queen Mother then shape-shifted into reptiles to show Diana who they really were. ‘Diana was terrified, but quiet’, she said. Diana was told that if she ever revealed the truth about them, she would be killed. (Remember the guy I mentioned who had a call from Diana in the March before she died asking for his advice on how to reveal information about the royals that would ‘shake the world’?)
[taped] from Christine Fitzgerald - Princess Diana's personal confidant - who then threatened to sue if the transcript of the tape - a tape made in front of witnesses. According to Christine Fitzgerald this is what Princess Diana told her.
“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 2011
Calm 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 explained
Questions: Keith Allen's film explores the series of delays that have never been properly explained
Anyway, 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 death
Accusations: Keith Allen denies he is trying to make money out of a much-loved woman's death
One 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 Killing

Unlawful 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 why
7 May 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/07/unlawful-killing-film-you-wont-see
The 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 Century
5 February, 2009
By Matthew Delooze
Well 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 there
From the song She’s Not There by the Zombies
For 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 Inquest
by John Morgan © 2008
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 an ongoing cover-up of what really happened in the Alma Tunnel on 31 August 1997?
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 Pregnant
by JIM KEITH (NITRONEWS)
Princess Diana Was Pregnant(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
Death of Diana: Jim Keith Was Not Alone(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 TARGET 
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 Opposition
A 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 Connection
In 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 Car
Early 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:
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 Fire
They 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.
Mar. 12, 2007
Many 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)
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 of
The 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 Wales
by Richard John Charles Tomlinson
Attached 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.
"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.



[Metropolitan Police 'inquiry' (whitewash) into Diana assassination.  Here is the copper, Lord Stevens, who covered up her murder.]
    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.   HOW TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD  A Right Royal Con by Greg Hallett.









Operation Paget/Lord Stevens


THE DEATH OF PRINCESS DIANA AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE BRITISH SECURITY SERVICES BY GIOVANNI DI STEFANO

 
 
 
At 00.23 a.m. August 31st 1997 the Mercedes driven by Henri Paul in which Princess Diana, Dodi Al Fayed and Trevor Rees-Jones were travelling crashed into a pillar in the Alma tunnel in the centre of Paris, killing Paul, Dodi and Diana and seriously injuring Rees Jones.
 
That much is for sure certain. But little else is.
 
Of all the articles, enquires, investigations, court cases in differing jurisdictions, statements, interrogation, no one has ever asked the most pertinent of questions.
What were the security arrangements that were put in place when Diana spent time with her children-Prince William an heir to the Throne of England- on the Al Fayed family estate in St. Tropez and elsewhere?
 
It is quite understandable that the Royal Family would care little about Diana herself but the children of Prince Charles of course would be a completely different attitude.
Is it at all plausible to presume that the Royal Family would be entirely reliant upon a family they and the British Government detested to secure the lives of Prince William and Prince Harry?
Would Special Branch, MI6 and MI5 necessarily feel at ease with the security in the hands of Mohamed Al Fayed whilst Prince William and Harry frolicked on the French Riviera knowing that since the fall of Communism the South of France and Monaco are controlled by the Russian mafia?
 
Just what would the Security Services do if Prince William or Prince Harry were kidnapped by ex-KGB agents looking for a king’s ransom?
The Royal Protection unit would surely have participated in a joint operation with the French Security Services at the very least in a discreet manner?
 
 
 
President Chirac would never have risked an incident, would he?
 
Would surveillance even of a discreet manner have necessarily continued when Prince William and Prince Harry were no longer with Diana?
Documents from MI6 show that on the 27th August 1997 whilst Diana was on board Al Fayed’s yacht the Jonikal the French Authorities did not permit any craft or helicopter to fly within its vicinity. The Italian Security Services SISDE was notified when the yacht moved to Sardinia and a similar arrangement was in place.
 
 
 
Diana however, was quite accustomed to being spied upon and controlled by ‘The Palace’ and not always because of her children. ‘The Palace’ wanted to know all about her, what she did, whom she met, and her movements and for these purposes MI5/MI6 ‘got the job.’
 
Long before the marriage of Prince Charles and Diana crumbling MI6 using the friendly services of various news media outlets ‘bugged’ her phone. MI6 also knew of her ‘more than amenable’ links with various journalists. Some of those journalists regularly reported back to MI6 contents of any interviews, snippets, gossip and ‘street intelligence’ who in turn reported back to Buckingham Palace.
 
In 1997 MI6 had ‘four A4 arch lever files’ intelligence on the Al Fayed family and David Spedding the Director General had booked an appointment directly with HM The Queen for 3rd September 1997 for the delivery of the files.
 
That appointment was not kept since events overtook the situation.
 
Sir David Roland Spedding died in mysterious circumstances aged 58 of what was reported to be ‘lung cancer.’ He was directly involved in spying operations in both Iraq and Serbia and had orchestrated a bright and breezy plan to assassinate Col. Gaddafi. He often quoted to his agents that “on instructions directly from Tony Blair” the SAS and MI6 agents planted in Serbia were instrumental in ‘neutralizing’ many on the ‘TB’s political hit list.’
 
 
 
Sir David Spedding
His death of lung cancer on the 3rd June 2001 two years after he ‘was retired’ was somewhat strange because he was not a known smoker - albeit a prolific talker.
But MI6 and the other related British Security Agencies were not the only ones interested in Princess Diana. The National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States also regularly ‘spied’ on Diana and occasionally shared the information with MI6.
 
The NSA shared 43 classified documents with MI6 consisting of 138 foolscap pages single spaced on ‘intercepted traffic’ between Diana and various people including, for example, the Brazilian Ambassador’s wife, Lucia Flecha de Lima.
 
In England, the Security Services are controlled directly by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. Robin Cook was certainly a fan of Diana, but Tony Blair ordered intrusive surveillance via the NSA in the hope that any intelligence found could be relayed to HM The Queen directly in his weekly meetings.
Robin Cook also died in mysterious circumstances.
 
The history of State assassinations is well known, but what is perhaps not so common is the policy adopted by MI6 with regard to murdering ‘approved targets’. In 1956, the then deputy director of MI6, George Young, broke the barrier when he openly advocated the murder of Colonel Nasser of Egypt simply because he had taken control of the Suez Canal and that, Young pleaded, hit British interests, so that as a consequence his murder was justified.
 
Britain and France invaded Egypt instead to the wrath of the United States of America, who immediately froze all British/French assets held in US banks and caused a run on the pound and the fall of the British Government.
 
In 1960, Foreign Office official Howard Smith argued in an official memo to Dick White, the then Director General of MI6, for the murder of Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba. The memo read “I see only two possible solutions to the {Lumumba} problem. The first is the simple one of ensuring {his} removal from the scene by killing him”.
A Foreign Office colleague replied: "There is much to be said for eliminating Lumumba. But unless Mobutu can get him arrested and executed promptly, he's likely to survive and continue to plague us all."
 
 
 
But the final word rested with Edward Heath, Lord Privy Seal, who wanted to pursue a political solution.
 
MI5/6 never name anyone in internal memos but simply accentuate the subject matter, the rest is easy for agents to decipher and understand.
Smith was later promoted to Head of MI5.
 
Before 1994, the law on the Security Services was somewhat vague, but the Conservative Government decided to do two things; recalling that it was MI5/6 that plotted the overthrow of Harold Wilson (with the instigation of Lord Mountbatten), and not wishing a similar fate, the government appointed Stella Rimington as the head of the Security Services, and passed the Intelligence Services Act. That made the Security Services accountable to Parliament and slightly more open.
 
One of the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act is to grant immunity to MI6 officers for offences/crimes committed outside Great Britain. In short, this gave MI6 agents a true ‘license to kill’.
 
Over the last twenty years the British Security Services, in line with many other equivalent secret service agencies, has experienced a true decline in operating standards. That has, on occasion, forced the British Government to “sub-contract” state-approved murders to other agencies, mostly the CIA and Mossad.
The assassination in Belgium of the British inventor of the Iraqi ‘supergun’, Gerald Bull, is but one case. There are many others.
 
 
 
In March 1990, Bull was killed outside his apartment by five shots to the back of his head. No-one heard the shots, and no-one was ever caught. Bull’s Project Babylon fell apart immediately. Bull was the engine for the whole project, and had most of it in his head. Three weeks after his murder, British customs agents seized the sections of the gun barrels, which were being made in Sheffield by a forging company, who thought they were petrochemical pipes. His company, SRC, closed its offices immediately, and the personnel scattered or returned to Canada. Iraq never did get their missiles to work well.
 
Was all his work for naught? Basically, yes. Few others have seriously pursued guns as a launch platform, although SDI has funded some gas gun work at Livermore as an anti-missile defence. Some small country might still be interested in them as a cheap way into space, but the world now has now a glut of conventional launchers. Russia is desperate to make some money for their rocket developments. A satellite in a gun launcher has severe limits on size and weight, and must be able to stand tremendous acceleration. Superguns would always have been a niche launch platform. Also, the prospect of assassination like Bull's does not encourage researchers.
 
Sir Colin McColl, the Director of MI6, contracted the task to Mossad, who willingly obliged. A few months after Bull was murdered, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, which led to the first Gulf War, and thus MI6 and Mossad justified their actions.
 
Upon his ‘retirement’, McColl became a Director of the Scottish American Investment Company, PLC, better known as SAINTS, which invests also in armament companies.
The Security Services in Britain of course call upon the SAS if, as, or when needed, and a unit of MI6 called the ‘Increment’, special forces dedicated only to the most top-secret of missions. They are not on the payroll of either MI5 or MI6, and are retired agents or ex-military intelligence with links to organised crime or mercenary organizations. They are friends of friends who have been specially trained. They work at everyday jobs but are people upon whom the MI6 can call at any time for ‘special operations’.
 
Colonel Bob Denard was one such person who on/off carried out operations for MI6 and the French Security Services. He died in 2007, taking many secrets to the grave with him. He did, however, leave notes which his sister, which are still in safe-keeping. For those that have read his meticulous scribes, whatever other secrets he took to the other world, a good few were also revealed.
 
Colonel Bob Denard 
 
In the Princess Diana situation, however, this was a completely separate issue. State assassinations in the past had always been targeted at enemies of the state, and they were obvious enemies. There was no personal vendetta. Most were foreigners, and male. The only exceptions were the supposed IRA ‘lady’ murdered in Gibraltar, and possibly also Hilda Murrell, a peace activist in the 1980s.
 
Princess Diana was certainly none other than a “right not so royal pain in the neck”, as described by Prince Philip, but killing the mother of the future King of England was another issue. Further, the family history of Diana is by far more ‘royal’ in every sense than that of the House of Windsor.
 
If the British Security Services were to kill Diana, they would, without a doubt, have required close and covert cooperation with the French - and MI6 has always been loathed at requesting assistance from the French security services.
 
Richard Tomlinson, ex-MI6 agent, has confirmed that during his tenure he carried out a few operations on French soil, but he never told the French.
 
The notion that the French secret service would co-operate in the murder of Diana was simply too far-fetched. If it was to be, it had to be a solo operation.
 
Saturday, 30th August 1997, was a beautiful warm day in Sardinia; yet Diana and Dodi's holiday had come to an end, and they wanted to go home. Diana wanted to go to London directly from Olbia Airport, and a provisional flight plan was filed but changed at the last minute. Since the direction for a private aircraft flying from Olbia to London necessarily overflies Paris it was decided in mid-air that plans would change. No real explanation has been forthcoming over this quite unusual change of plan, but a private plane allows by far more flexibility.
 
 
 
Perhaps they still wanted to enjoy one or two days in Paris together. Dodi's father had placed his private jet at their disposal and a short stop between destinations was, therefore, not a problem. Nor was it a problem for the Captain to amend the flight plan whilst in the air.
 
Diana was photographed at Olbia airport wearing beige, and there is film footage of Dodi, Diana and the bodyguards boarding the aircraft. That 57 second segment of jerky film was commissioned by the British Security Services as part of the generic surveillance on Diana.
 
 
 
 
At 15.30 the aircraft touched down at Le Bourget airport in Paris, where a few photographers met the couple. One of the photographers was a 29-year old Fabrice Chassery, whose commission it was to take a photograph of Diana and Dodi holding hands.
 
 
 
At the airport, by chance, Chassery also took photos of two French police officers who were waiting for the aircraft, albeit on very short notice, because the flight plan had been amended in the air. The French government had decreed that all VIPs announce themselves prior to landing in Paris, owing to the number of murders that were committed in the early 1990s.
 
 
 
It is interesting to note that subsequently the French Authorities denied they were placed on notice that Diana was landing, and they stated they were certainly not expecting her. A strange statement in light of four motorcycle outriders that escorted her car until the party crossed the Boulevard Peripherique, which is the Paris ring road.
One of those to meet Diana and Dodi at the airport was a 40-year old Henri Paul. He was short and balding, he wore glasses, and was the deputy head of security at the Paris Ritz Hotel owned by Dodi’s father.
 
 
 
Henri Paul drove the Range Rover that carried all the couple’s luggage to Villa Windsor, the grand house that had been the love nest and residence of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor after the abdication. Mohamed al Fayed owned the house in a strange deal brokered and approved by the then Mayor of Paris, Jacques Chirac. He gave Al Fayed a 50-year lease, providing Al Fayed restored the house to its former glory.
 
 
 
Al Fayed did just that and spent a considerable sum. In his attempt at pleasing the British government, Al Fayed wrote to Prince Charles offering him anything he wanted from the Villa. Charles took only a cushion with the words in German “Ich dien” (I serve), the motto of the Prince of Wales.
 
Dodi and Diana had less than ten hours to live.
 
Dodi and Diana spent 33 minutes at Villa Windsor before moving on to The Ritz Hotel. The Imperial Suite was reserved for them. Intercepts from the NSA showed that Diana made two calls, one of which was to a journalist she trusted, Richard Kay, telling him that she would be making a major announcement shortly.
 
The announcement may have been that Diana planned to marry Dodi, that she was expecting a baby, or that she simply wanted out of the UK. The mystery was made clear at the Inquest ten years later by Richard Kay.
 
At the Diana Inquest, Nicholas Hilliard, for the Coroner, asked Mr Kay if Diana had said "my destiny is to go abroad".
 
Mr Kay replied: "She did, Sir, it was a frequent topic."
 
Diana wanted to get away from the paparazzi and she also commented that the "British people must be sick of seeing me in the papers", the jury heard.
Harrods boss, Mohamed al Fayed, may also have been poised to help make her dreams of opening up a hospice network - to be called The Diana Hospices - become a reality.
Mr Kay told the central London inquest: "She told me that she was discussing with Mr al Fayed Snr the possibility of setting up some sort of worldwide hospice network, which she indicated he would be prepared to financially underwrite."
 
 
Diana may have been gearing up for a major change in her life when she, boyfriend Dodi Fayed, and chauffeur Henri Paul were killed in a Paris car crash, the jury heard.
 
Of the hospices project, Richard Horwell QC, for the Metropolitan Police, said: "It was going to be such an important development in her life that she was going to take on no more royal engagements after the end of 1997."
 
Mr Kay said: "That's what she told me." Mr Horwell continued: "And she was going to thereafter devote her life to the Diana Hospices?"
 
Mr Kay answered: "Things that she wanted to do rather than what other people wanted to do. It was to be a very major announcement."
 
Diana's high-profile support of anti-landmine campaigns, including a much-publicised trip to Angola, had boosted awareness of the issue internationally.
 
Her approach may have clashed with government policy and the new Labour government at the time may have moved towards signing up towards opposing the devices, the court heard.
 
Of Diana's on-going landmine work, Mr Kay said: "As I understand it, she wanted to visit south-east Asia and, having done that, she felt she would have been to the most significant landmine zones in the world, and she could have drawn a line under that aspect of her life."
 
Diana, who had dispensed with royal protection in 1993, had only made “the odd light-hearted remark” to suggest she feared for her safety, according to Mr Kay.
 
The fact she had ‘dispensed’ with royal protection was no certainty that she was not under surveillance, and Diana knew that only too well.
 
From the Imperial Suite of the Ritz Hotel Paris, the couple went to No.1 rue Arsene-Houssaye in the centre of Paris, where Dodi had a plush apartment with a huge sofa and state of the art marble bathroom.
 
 
 
There was of course the usual ‘trouble’ with photographers but nothing so serious, even though a security officer at the apartment jostled with a member of the press. It was all part of the usual scenes that followed Diana.
 
A note in the MI6 file records that Diana understood it was not a good idea to be ill-treating the media, and she “sent out a member of staff to apologise”.
 
 
 
Fabrice Chassery spoke to a person - now known to have been an MI6 operative - saying that this whole incident showed that Diana was “not hostile towards the press”.
At about 8pm Dodi and Diana went ‘shopping’ and entered the Repossi jewellery store, where a ring was ‘purchased’ for some £11,600 value and a receipt issued, dated August 30, 1997, with the words “bague fiancaille” – French for engagement ring.
 
 
 
Dodi had covertly slipped out of their imperial suite at the Ritz Hotel to visit the jeweller while Diana was having her hair done. Accompanied by bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, Dodi was driven in a Mercedes barely 100 yards to Repossi’s – in the Place Vendome, the same street as the hotel – at 5.40pm on August 30.
 
Claude Roulet, assistant to the Ritz President, Franz Klein, walked across and joined Dodi inside the jewellers.
 
Dodi, relaxed and casually dressed in a dark jacket, T-shirt and dark jeans, is seen on ‘security footage’ being greeted by Alberto Repossi, his wife Angela, their press officer Alice Valentine and three other assistants, who closed the shop for the visit.
 
Grainy black-and-white CCTV footage shows Dodi being ushered downstairs to the shop’s most prized display cabinets.
 
 
 
For ten minutes he is seen pointing at and inspecting several trays of jewellery although it is impossible to see what he goes for.
 
Then Mr Repossi enters the office where the store’s safe is kept and hands Dodi a brochure for the Dis-Moi Oui range before Dodi leaves the store at 5.50pm.
 
Minutes later, CCTV cameras in the Ritz follow Dodi bounding up the hotel stairwell – two steps at a time – and returning to the suite he shared with Diana, clutching the brochure.
At the same time, Mr Roulet is seen at the jewellery store apparently making notes on Dodi’s choices before returning to the hotel at 5.56pm.
 
Mr Roulet is then recorded on the Ritz CCTV going to Dodi and Diana’s three-room suite on the first floor where he spends four minutes before walking back to Repossi’s at 6.27pm.
 
There, Mr Roulet is shown clearly making a sign with his wrist to indicate a ring and a bracelet.
 
Mrs Repossi is also seen emerging from a back room with an item of jewellery which she put on her left hand.
 
Shortly afterward, Mr Roulet is seen picking up the same brochure and a bag, without handing over any money or credit cards to the jeweller. Twelve minutes later, he returns smiling, carrying a bag in his left hand. He writes a brief note at the cashier’s desk, a series of numbers – 115,000 – on the note was the undiscounted price in French francs for a “Dis-moi oui” ring. Mr Roulet then goes up to Diana and Dodi’s suite at 6.43pm.
 
After spending three minutes with Dodi in Room 101, Mr Roulet then comes back to the cashier, signs another form and the Repossi bag is stored in the Ritz strong-room.
 
All this and Diana knew nothing. The question of course is why go back to Repossi because, when they did, Diana did not enter. In fact they drove to the Champs-Elysees where tourists surrounded them when they tried to get out and since there was no special or any protection for them they remained in the car. They then went back to Dodi’s apartment.
So why did Dodi take Diana to the store?
 
One of the secrets that has been denied by the French and British Government but known to MI6 and contained in the ‘Diana file’ is that cocaine was found in the Mercedes Car that subsequently was to be the cause of death of a princess.
 
 
 
It is interesting to note that apart from the death of Princess Diana in 1997, the only other suspicious car crash - involving a Mercedes like the one driven by Henri Paul - was the fatal car crash that killed the veteran Czechoslovak politician, Alexander Dubcek, in 1992.
 
In 1999, Jaroslav Volf, the former head of Dubcek's Social Democratic Party (SDS), was quoted as saying that "too many questions remain unanswered". As Czechoslovakia broke up, Dubcek began to appear the most logical choice to become the first President of an independent Slovakia.
 
However, on 1st September 1992, Dubcek's chauffeur-driven Mercedes skidded off the Bratislava-Prague highway in heavy rain. Dubcek said later in hospital that he had sensed something was wrong and had lain down on the rear seat of the car well before the crash.
 
His driver suffered minor injuries, but for some unexplained reason, Dubcek was found lying 20 meters in front of the car - it was presumed that he had been catapulted out of the rear window as the car spun out of control. Like in the Diana crash, no attempt was made to preserve the forensic evidence - the Mercedes was destroyed following an "examination" by investigators.
 
 
 
There is no doubt from the files found at MI6 headquarters that the STB (State National Security), in a joint operation with the then KGB, eliminated Dubcek. The files on Dubcek confirm, for example, that “the driver of Dubcek’s BMW was a man called 'Jaroslav Reznik' who was a former driver of a man called Cimo, who at the orders of Meciar raided Tiso’s villa in Trencin and transported several members of the STB (State’s National Security).”
Reznik, at his interrogation, never mentioned a car pushing him off the road, nor that he had lost complete control of the vehicle. He simply stated that the road was wet and he just skidded.
 
 
Alexander Dubcek
What made the “accident” really suspicious was the fact that Dubcek’s briefcase went missing, containing documented evidence against the Soviet Communist Party. At the time Boris Yeltsin wanted to ban the Communist Party and for that he needed to prove that they had been involved in criminal activity. Dubcek was one of the witnesses to testify at the trial, although he wasn’t the only key witness.
 
 
 
The briefcase was recovered in a ‘favour operation’ mounted by MI6 and handed to Yeltsin, which led to close co-operation between Britain and Russia.
 
A witness who did testify, ex-Polish Premier Piotre Jarozewicz, was also found dead in unusual circumstances - shot and murdered along with his wife Alicja in their home in Anin near Warsaw. It's said that the fate of his first wife, along with his daughter, is also still unknown. The documented evidence he possessed has never been found. No trial ever took place.
 
 
Piotre Jarozewicz


Relations between Britain and Russia have never been as good as when Yeltsin was Premier. MI6 was almost an extension of the KGB, and vice-versa. During that period, many joint operations were carried out.
 
All that, however, would change when Diana and Dodi were killed.
 
MI6 are renowned for ‘State Sponsored Specialities’ (SSS as they are referred to) via ‘accidents’, the favoured method being a vehicular homicide.
In 1992, MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson confirmed that Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic was the subject of an SSS via a fake car accident whilst in Geneva.
David Shayler, another MI6 agent, said they failed in their attempt to kill Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi - but the car bomb they used killed scores of Libyan civilians. (Gaddafi, who survived at least three attempts made on his life by western intelligence services, was also the only leader of a country to openly speculate that MI6 had killed Diana).
 
 
 
Successive British governments have sought to keep from both the British Parliament and the British people any details of MI6 assassination attempts against foreign leaders, hence the hysteria of the then Blair government towards both Tomlinson and Shayler.
 
 
 
The Tomlinson revelations are very significant, as he has specifically claimed that MI6 planned to kill Slobodan Milosevic, then President of the Yugoslav Republic of Serbia, by: "Disorientating (his) chauffeur using a blinding strobe light as (his car) passed through one of Geneva's road tunnels"
Once that plan was revealed in 1992, MI6 had a complete rethink on its dealing with Serbia and the President. An MI6 agent infiltrated the highest level of commerce, organized crime, and politics ensuring loss of life was minimal but ‘Project Serbia’, an initiative between Germany and Britain, would be brought to a successful conclusion. The CIA tried to infiltrate agents during 1993-1995 but found a hard-core wall established by the MI6 agent, ensuring no other agency could interfere.
 



 
If it's true that MI6 planned to kill Milosevic in such a way, then it proves they certainly had the means and capability to organise the crash that killed Princess Diana. There have also been a number of suspicious deaths caused by car crashes of people working in the defence industry in Britain during the 1980s.
However, if it was foul play, then a number of people would have been involved:
  • A car was used to block the route of the Mercedes thus forcing it onto the road that leads to the tunnel at the Point d'Alma, as witnessed by Thierry H
  • At least one of the paparazzi on a fast motorbike chasing the Mercedes was working for MI6
  • At least two cars may have been involved in causing the crash (one may have carried personnel that used a strobe light to blind the driver Ms Brenda Wells;another may have used some kind of electronic interference device that seized up the cars electronics (potentially up to four people)
  • Witnesses saw a helicopter above just before the crash - was it monitoring events on the ground and relaying them back to a control centre (the British Embassy where up to six MI6 officers were stationed over that weekend);
  • Who was the motorcyclist who forced Ms Wells off the road? Who were the two people seen near the Mercedes seconds after the crash, and before the paparazzi and stunned onlookers reached the scene?

The witness known as Thierry H claimed he saw a car driven by paparazzi blocking Diana's Mercedes exit from a road which would have avoided the route through the Point d'Alma tunnel (although it is unclear how he knew that they were paparazzi). He had been driving in the right lane of the express road near the Alexander III Bridge, approximately 800 meters before the Alma tunnel. He says he was:
"Passed by a vehicle moving at a very high speed. I estimated its speed at about 75 mph to 80 mph. It was a powerful black car, I think a Mercedes... This car was clearly being pursued by several motorcycles, I would say four to six of them. Some were mounted by two riders. These motorcycles were tailing the vehicle and some tried to pull up alongside it."
 
 
 
In 1997 it was reported that the whereabouts of a British secretary from London driving in the tunnel at the time of Diana's crash were "shrouded in mystery". It was claimed that she had "disappeared" from her flat in Champigny sur Marne shortly after giving her statement to the French police after she and her husband had been told to go into hiding and not to speak about what she had seen. Londoner Brenda Wells, 40, had told police how she was forced off the road by a motorbike following Diana's Mercedes at high speed. She also saw a dark-coloured car - possibly Fiat Uno - and in her statement she claims:
'After a party with my friends, I was returning to my home. A motorbike with two men forced me off the road. It was following a big car. Afterwards in the tunnel there were very strong lights like flashes. After that, a black car arrived. The big car had come off the road. I stopped and five or six motorbikes arrived and started taking photographs.
They were crying 'It's Diana' Brenda's evidence calls into question initial claims that pursuing paparazzi were to blame. She makes the first mention of photographers after the accident when 'five or six' paparazzi arrived and took pictures. But last night, despite extensive inquiries in the Paris suburb of Champignay sur Marne where she told police she lived, Brenda could not be located."
 
During the 1990s, MI6 is alleged to have been involved in two attempts to kill leaders of foreign governments: President Milosevic of the Yugoslav Republic of Serbia in 1992, and Libya's leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, in 1996. Although it appears that the initial attempt to kill Milosevic was abandoned, during NATO's air campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 a second attempt was made to kill him and his family, when his house was hit by missiles from US bombers. Like Milosevic, Gaddafi was lucky - in 1986, US bombers flew from Britain to kill Gaddafi and his family - they failed, but 55 civilians in Tripoli, along with one of his daughter died in the attack.
 
 
 
In 1998, news broke with claims that MI6, had tried to assassinate Gaddafi in 1996. MI6 had deposited US $160,000 to an underground Islamic Fundamentalist Group in Libya to assassinate him. Libyan extremists planted a large bomb in February 1996, on a road along which the Libyan leader's motorcade was to travel. The bomb detonated under the wrong vehicle. Six bystanders, government officials and security personnel were killed. Gaddafi escaped unharmed.
 
The way MI6 planned to kill Milosevic in 1992 was the same way as Princess Diana died in 1997. NATO bombers made another attempt to kill him in 1999, when his residence was bombed, and in the same year, but the MI6 agent in Belgrade - having received information from NATO Headquarters in Belgium - forewarned Milosevic, saving his life.
 











Richard Tomlinson is a New Zealand-born MI6 officer. He was briefly jailed for violation of the Official Secrets Act and went into hiding in France, with the French flatly refusing to extradite him.
 
An MI6 officer colleague of Tomlinson brokered a deal after reporting to the Director General that “Tomlinson posed no further threat owing to his mental state,” allowing his return to England. In 2009 MI6 agreed to let him return to Britain, unfroze royalties from his book and dropped the threat of charges. MI6 also apologised for their unfair treatment of him. To date he poses no further threat, or revealed any further covert operations.
 
He lives the life of a recluse, but wanting for nothing.
 
In 1998, however, he wrote two letters to his lawyer, which told an important story relevant to the death of Diana.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Tomlinson served in MI6 from 1991 until April 1995 in Eastern Europe, Russia, the Middle East and Bosnia. He was sacked in 1995 when personnel manager Clayden claimed he "was not a team player, lacked judgment and was not committed to the service" (ST960331) which was contested by other officers, including his boss. In 1996 he tried to take MI6 to an employment tribunal; this was initially refused by the government but months later the ban was lifted (TM960724) by Foreign Secretary Rifkind.
 
By his account of events, Tomlinson did not act of his own volition in his subsequent actions against his former employers. He says, "I joined the service for reasons of patriotism. I desperately want my job back." His subsequent disclosures appear to be in retaliation for the shabby treatment he received on leaving SIS.
 
His reintegration and ‘neutered’ position makes his version of events vital to the death of Diana.
 
The history of MI6 is relevant in the death of Princess Diana. The leading recruiter for MI6 remains "Professor PRITCHARD of Gonville and Cauis College Cambridge. He identifies and recruits the most intellectual geniuses for MI6." He is a Life Fellow of Gonville and Caius College and an expert in the law. Co-author of Hale and Fleetwood on Admiralty Jurisdiction (1993) his ability to interpret and create law for the Government makes him invaluable.
 
 
In 1997 a number of MI6 agents were sent to Paris between 15th July and 3rd September 1997.
 
Richard David SPEARMAN -Chief of staff for Sir David SPEDDING- . He was given an assignment and moved to Paris two weeks prior to the death of Diana, Princess and her friend Dodi Al Fayed.
 
Nicholas John Andrew LANGMAN – principal assistant to Richard Spearman was moved to Paris and even stayed at the Ritz Hotel.
Richard Billing DEARLOVE – the incoming Head of MI6 in September 1999- was in Paris two weeks before the 31stAugust 1997 crash.
Sir David SPEDDING -Head of MI6 attended a function at the British Embassy on the 29th August 1997. He was not seen at MI6 Headquarters until 5th September 1997.
SAS Major Glynn Evans was spotted at a bar near the Ritz Hotel on the 30th August 1997.
John Ridde responsible for Eastern European ‘business’ was in Paris between 27thAugust and 2nd September 1997.
Andrew Whiteside MI6 agent in Hungary flew to Paris on 28th August 1997. 
John Venning and Mike ‘Mad Mike’ Thompson arrived in Paris on 29th August 1997.
A Sunday Times journalist who is now deceased and was operational in Belgrade between 1993-1999 working for MI6 was also in Paris between August 28th and 3rdSeptember 1997.
 
Diana and Dodi would not have had a clue about the MI6 activity. Dodi had booked a table at the Chez Benoit restaurant for 9.30 that evening.
 
 
 
Dodi and Diana were supposed to meet three other ‘guests’ but because of a telephone call Dodi received he changed his mind. NSA intercepts maintained by the now heavily sealed ‘Diana’ file at MI6 show that Dodi called Claude Roulet the assistant Director of The Ritz Hotel to find out or to “send someone” to see if photographers were at the Chez Benoit.
 
Roulet, according to the intercepts, reported back to Dodi that many media were there, Dodi cancelled the reservation.
Dodi and Diana returned to The Ritz and their entrance through the swing doors evidenced they were quite composed.
 
 
 


j w;;;ithin the Ritz Hotel.
 
 
 
According to a report by an MI6 officer, dining also at a table nearby, Diana ate sole and Dodi turbot. There was, of course no bill and nothing to sign.
 
 
 
Rees Jones, the bodyguard, watched them go upstairs to the Imperial Suite. Of course no-one knew whether or not they would stay in the suite or go out again. It was by now 11.00pm. It had been a full day.
 
To all intents and purposes the happy couple would have remained there until the morning, but then the unexpected happened.
 
 
 
Dodi took a phone call which would change the destiny of two families.
 
The Ritz Hotel in Paris was a forerunner for in-house security and CCTV was everywhere, including some of the suites. Camera C46 monitored who came in and out of the Imperial Suite. Just before Dodi received the fated telephone call at 10.59pm a maître wheeled in a bottle of champagne. The bodyguards were outside. One hour later Henri Paul conveyed a message to Dodi that changed his fate.
 
 
 
At 9.53pm Henri Paul returned to the hotel and CCTV monitors him parking the car. He enters the Ritz Hotel at 10.09pm through the front door.
 
 
 
Why Henri Paul came back has been the subject of some speculation. Did Dodi call him to come back or did he just come back of his own volition, knowing that his ‘boss’ may require his services?
 
Information gleaned from the MI6 files shows that at 9.23pm Dodi called Henri Paul to come back to the Ritz with some white powder that Dodi had become dependent upon.
Diana knew that Dodi used cocaine and, although it was offered to her, she refused. In the short time they were together Diana desperately tried to wean off Dodi from drugs and even threatened to talk to his father. Dodi was afraid of his father and promised Diana that he would not use drugs again. Breaking that promise would invariably be a factor in the cause of his death. He was excited about this evening and he was of the belief that Diana was ready for a full official relationship with him. That evening he needed cocaine and Henri Paul was the answer, as he had always been in the past.
 
According to intercepts from NSA, the only reason Dodi suggested moving from the comforts of the Ritz Hotel and the glorious Imperial Suite to his apartment was in order to see Henri Paul and take delivery of a few lines of cocaine.
 
The two normal drivers, Jean Francois Musa and Philippe Dourneau, would not be used to drive Dodi and Diana to the apartment because it was Henri Paul that carried the precious cargo Dodi craved for that evening.
 
At 11.56pm, Dodi called his father and told him he was moving from the Ritz to his apartment at the rue Arsene-Houssaye. He told his father he had a gift for Diana and champagne and did not feel comfortable in the Imperial Suite. “It’s not mine” the transcript records. Mohamed Al Fayed replies “It’s dangerous to move, just stay there.” Dodi replied “I think it over and talk to Diana.”
 
Dodi was a playboy and did not have such a good relationship with his father. He always felt his father had achieved so much more and there was an element of envy. The relationship was never easy but Mohamed always tried to compensate Dodi for the lack of family life by allowing his every wish. “Cheque book generosity,” Al Fayed often said.
Dodi had to convince both his father and Diana as to why they should leave the Ritz Hotel and move to an apartment nowhere near the glamour of the Imperial Suite.
 
Dodi could not take his father’s advice because Henri Paul was carrying the much needed cargo he needed for the evening.
 
The telephone call Dodi took was from Henri Paul and it was the call that would cost his life. It was the reason he looked and sounded worried. Paul had told Dodi that he was not able to bring more than a miniscule amount of cocaine because there was none available, but that he could find some “on the way” to the apartment. He had set up a meeting and it would take just a second. No one would know or realise anything. He would deal with this himself, he told Dodi.
 
The advantage Dodi held was that while Diana understood basic French she was hardly fluent. In 1992, the French President Mitterrand seconded his personal interpreter for her use at a private visit to Paris. Dodi was thus able to converse quietly to Henri Paul on the telephone without Diana being aware. The telephone call that Dodi received from Henri Paul was located in the marble bathroom.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Many who have looked in depth as to what happened that night have asked the same questions over and over again:- Why did Dodi use Henri Paul as a driver when his normal driver was available?
 
The answer is that, according to the MI6 file, Henri Paul was a person whom Dodi trusted and who could obtain cocaine and remain silent. In return he was well rewarded.
Henri Paul was, in fact, a part-time recruited MI6 agent. Frenchmen are quite willing to work for Russian, American or Chinese and other secret service agencies, but rarely do so for the British. Henri Paul was recruited in 1995, and his role was simply to place intrusive surveillance devices in the properties owned by Mohamed Al Fayed, which included the Ritz Hotel.
 
MI6 are always extremely interested in knowing all the latest gossip and details including extra-marital or same sex relationships of the rich and famous. MI6 of course came up trumps when Dodi and Diana started a relationship.
 
The Diana file at MI6 contains all sorts of idle gossip regarding the intimate details of their relationship, how much Dodi meant to Diana, whether they slept together all night and, more importantly, whether they had any thoughts about getting married.
 
Of course none of the above in 1997 was truly a matter for the state, but the orders to “continue and pursue” such came directly from the Head of State:- HM Queen Elizabeth.
One important factor in determining the events of August 1997 should be obvious. The fact so many high powered elements of MI6 were in Paris remains odd. Even spies take their holidays the same month as most to ensure they do not ‘give their profession away’.
 
The MI6 file on Henri Paul was relatively thin until the entries following July 1997. Prior to this, it contained only the room numbers and guests that were subject to being ‘bugged’ normally via a small device at the back of a television set in the room. How many people check the back of a TV in a hotel room?
 
But this night Henri Paul wanted Dodi out of the Imperial Suite just as much as Dodi sought cocaine to steady his nerves.
 
The money found in cash in Henri Paul’s pocket, not his wallet, amounted to approximately £1,400 - more than sufficient to acquire the much needed white powder Dodi craved.
But Henri Paul was not only working for MI6 but also for the Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure (DGSE), the MI6 counterpart. Each knew about the other. He also ‘freelanced’ on occasion if time permitted for the Directoire de la Securite du Territoire, the MI5 counterpart. All three parties were aware of the others.
 
 
 
Unlike MI6, the DGSE had zero interest in the particulars between Dodi and Diana. A request from MI6 in July 1997 to the DGSE for certain information failed to even attract a reply.
The file maintained by both MI6 and the DGSE should of course have been made available to the French Inquest and certainly the English Enquiry. The MI6 file contains all of Henri Paul’s contacts and shed some light on why so many MI6 officers were in Paris during the crucial days. The DGSE file would invariably hold similar information.
 
The French President, together with the Minister of the Interior, ensured three orders would be maintained sealing such under the strict French Presidential Security Directives:
  1. The Henri Paul file at the DGSE was not to be disclosed to the Investigating Magistrate

  2. The cocaine found in the wrecked Mercedes was hidden and the speed camera images were to disappear.

 
 
 
The last photographs show Diana's head turned to avoid what seems the ‘Dazzling White Light.’ Trevor Rees - Jones had lowered the sun visor, his right hand raised as though to avoid bright sunlight - the reflection in the spectacles of Henri Paul clearly shows a dazzling light. Henri's eyes look wide and stunned.
 
 
 
Who took the photo of the Mercedes S280 (licence plate 688 LTV 75) carrying Diana, Dodi, Henri Paul and Trevor Rees Jones? It was certainly not a speed-camera because the images are colour and clear.
Paul Henry was born on 3rd July 1956 in Lorient, Southern Brittany. His father had been in the army and then worked for the local council. He was a more than reliable a student and graduated in maths and science. He was also a talented classical pianist. In 1976 he did his National service at Rochfort airbase, where he worked in the security department. He left the army as a commissioned officer.
 
Though single, Paul had lived with Laurence Pujol and her daughter, Samantha, for four years, until they moved out of his apartment in 1992. Contact was kept until April 1995. About drink, she said of Paul: "Wine made him joyful, he'd get very happy and do gags to make people laugh. Sometimes he would make you think he was really drunk when he wasn't. He was a joker. He played around a lot, but never got incoherent on alcohol."
 
At the time of his death, Paul was in a relationship with a woman, with whom he dined regularly. No one had ever met her nor had he introduced her to anybody. Two days after his death, a different, unknown woman delivered keys of his apartment to his parents. The day following the visit by this unknown woman, police searched Paul's apartment and, amongst other possessions, found a supply of wine, beer and a dozen bottles of spirits. They also found a gay guide to Paris, but that aspect was also suppressed, although noted by MI6. He did, however, live above a gay club, so that may well explain the guide. His favourite drinking haunt was a lesbian bar, yet he was heterosexual.
 
Both women worked for Mossad to whom Henri Paul on occasion would pass the odd tit-bit of information, but nothing of true importance.
 
In 1985 he started employment at the Ritz Hotel as a security officer. He held a private pilot’s license from 27 June 1976, instruments rated, with 605 hours logged. As a pilot, he was well-regarded by George Bielek, a flying instructor: "He was a good man. Now, we never had problem with him and - he was a very serious and a quiet and er, he, he make you, his job very good in, in, in er, in flight. He was a good private pilot, serious, and er, he, he's looking for progressing each time." Those words are recorded in the MI6 file on Henri Paul.
 
Just two days before the accident he completed a rigorous medical to renew his flying license. The medical found no signs of alcoholism.
 
 
 
Henry Paul soon became deputy head of security at the Ritz but two years later was overlooked as head of security by another employee. The reason he did not get the job was because he did not possess the necessary qualification required by the French Authorities for rental cars. He had ample experience, was trusted by Dodi and his father, but lacked a piece of paper necessary for his qualification.
He was in the group of people that spent Saturday afternoon August 30th 1997 at Le Bourget, and he drove the Range Rover carrying the luggage to Villa Windsor. The head of security at Villa Windsor was (Rue) Ben Murrell and he started the whispers that Henry Paul had been drinking.
 
Murrell told Rees Jones that Henry Paul had a “very good lunch”. That may include a quarter litre of wine or half a litre of wine roughly two thirds of a bottle. But Henry Paul was back at the Ritz by 5pm and no one noticed anything odd about him. He went off duty at 7.00pm.
 
In France, if one dines alone for lunch, generally 250ml pichet of wine. If one assumes, for the sake of argument, Henry Paul had more, a 500ml pichetcontains 6.50 units of alcohol.
 
Surveillance of Henry Paul shows he also drank two anisettes which are between 20%/40% alcohol depending on the brand. Two shots would provide one to two units of alcohol. The Ritz bar receipts (copies) are in the MI6 file show that they were ‘small shots’ of anisette. That would mean Henri Paul had anywhere from 6.50 to 9.75 at worst units of alcohol at 3pm.
 
That would begin to metabolize immediately and once started one unit of alcohol would leave his bloodstream every hour. By midnight there would be only one unit of alcohol left in his body topped up by the anisettes.
 
This would produce by far less than the 1.74 mgs blood alcohol reading found in his body. Whisky was a favourite drink of Henri Paul. To produce the reading that supposedly was found at the time of death he would have had to drink eleven to twelve tumblers of whisky as well.
 
If Henry Paul started drinking at 7.00pm when he went off duty, expecting to remain free that evening, then the reading would make sense.
 
Henri Paul left the Ritz Hotel at 7pm and returned at 9.53pm. In 173 minutes Henri Paul could not truly have gone far. MI6 surveillance shows that shortly after 7pm he was seen at the ‘lesbian bar’ opposite his flat. Josie, the owner of the bar, was photographed waving to him.
 
He was also photographed in a nearby supermarket by MI6 officers, buying carrots, marmalade, lettuce, deodorant and water.
If anything is certain it is that Henri Paul was certainly not drunk.
 
At the time of his death Henri Paul had over 3 million French Francs equal to at the time some £300,000. He held 13 separate bank accounts
  • two accounts in a bank outside Paris, three accounts and a safety deposit box at BNP in the Place Vendome, three bank accounts at Barclays on the avenue de l'Opera, one current and 4 deposit accounts at the Caisse d'Epargne, near the Louvre. In the 8 months before the crash, 40,000 francs was paid into a Caisse d'Epargne account on five occasions, each time in cash.

The rumour was circulated that this money (and especially the 40,000 Francs) came from the security services of various countries.
 
 
 
It is correct that at the time of his death a notebook found on his person contained many numbers for people from the Directoire de la Securite du Territoire and even remarkably the telephone number of the French President himself.
 
 
 
The money that was regularly paid into his bank account did not come from MI6 or the French security services. It did not come from Mossad who were controlling him and had ‘planted’ a girlfriend to be close to him.
 
The money came from Dodi Al Fayed, because Henri Paul regularly acquired a quantity of cocaine for his boss and kept quiet about it.
 
Until late 1983 if a body was returned to England for burial, the Coroner had an unfettered discretion as to whether or not an Inquest should be held. The family of a nurse who fell to her death in Saudi Arabia would change all of that. The law clearly states that, if a British citizen dies abroad under mysterious circumstances, there has to be an Inquest. The Coroner no longer holds any discretion.
 
 
 
The bodies of Diana and Dodi arrived back on 31st August 1997. The Royal Coroner issued a statement four days later confirming that, in accordance with the law, there would be an Inquest, and said it would be held in the normal time frame.
 
Dodi Al Fayed lived in Surrey and the Surrey Coroner also said there would be an Inquest, and within the time frame.
 
The inquest was opened only to be adjourned, and not held until January 2004 - some seven years later. A number of excuses were made. The first was that Mohamed Al Fayed quite appropriately sought both inquests to be joined into a single inquest. He took the case to court and two years later lost. The second reason was that, since proceedings had been instituted in France, those had to be completed first.
 
The Coroners Act of 1988 does not insist that all other proceedings must be complete prior to an Inquest commencing. The Act says, in fact, that an inquest should be held “as soon as practical.” In 1997 both Coroners considered it ‘practical’ to hold an inquest quickly, but the MI6 files show that both Coroners were placed under pressure from HM Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip to delay as long as possible.
 
 
 
The only proceedings in France since 1999 were malpractice allegations regarding the autopsy of Henri Paul, and Al Fayed issued proceedings for invasion of privacy - a case he lost in 2003 - but those had nothing to do with the deaths of Dodi and Diana.
 
The real reasons were that HM Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip and Prince Charles were told that cocaine was found in the car. Prince Charles was told at once and he told his parents.
 
An Inquest could not legitimately avoid evidence which shows that at least “one passenger had taken cocaine” and had “some in their possession.” It could avoid asking why the speed camera had suddenly stopped working and worse images ‘supressed.’ It could not avoid asking why Dodi’s treasured mobile phone had disappeared and worse how that could have occurred.
 
Mohamed Al Fayed also had an interest in ensuring the cocaine found in the car should not be revealed. There had been considerable press on Dodi and his relationship over the years with controlled substances.
 
It is interesting to note also the autopsy report on Dodi has never been made public. His mobile phone has never resurfaced. It sits in a vault at Fort Monkton, at the eastern end of Stokes Bay, Gosport, Hampshire - an MI6 stronghold.
 
 
 
HM The Queen and Prince Philip, according to the MI6 file took the decision to “protect Prince William and Prince Harry”. Had Diana been involved with controlled substances during her lifetime there is no doubt that Prince Charles would have used that against her in the media war. Prince Philip never believed his son received fair press but he also could not understand why Charles would want to leave Diana for Camilla.
 
The advice given to the Royal Family was “not to try and tarnish the reputation of Princess Diana now she is not here to defend herself”.
 
The French Government and authorities, once they took the decision to suppress the finding of cocaine in the car and in the pocket of Henri Paul and suppressing the speed camera, removing Dodi’s mobile phone and handing it to an MI6 officer, could not afford to change the story.
 
Whilst Mohamed Al Fayed flew to Paris at once, and upon arrival was photographed by MI6 officers showing he was not wearing his seatbelt, Prince Charles did not.
At 11 o’clock he went to church in Craithie with the rest of the Royal Family. MI5 agents were there recording everything.
 
 
 
For six days the Royal Family remained in Scotland, almost causing a constitutional crisis. It was in fact Sir David Spedding, the Director General of MI6, who convinced HM to return to London.
 
The callousness of the Royal Family can be found in a memo from an MI6 officer in Paris watching the news, writing to David Spedding with the words “Are they for real? W & H attending services with their mother dead? Unreal.”
 
The Queen Mother had an idea of secretly moving Diana’s body in the middle of the night. Balmoral is not exempt from NSA intercepts of which ‘some’ are redirected to MI6. The transcripts in the MI6 file show that Charles was more than forceful, even shouting at one stage, that he would bring the body of Diana back with full honours and draped in the colours of the Prince of Wales.
 
At 1pm Paul Burrell arrived in Paris. He was under constant surveillance from no less than three secret service agencies.
Prince Charles arrived at 5pm together with Diana’s sisters. He was greeted by President Chirac.
 
 
 
Then Charles and Diana’s sisters went to see the body.
 
 
 
Charles asked to be alone with the body for a few minutes and he was obliged. When he came out, amongst the crowd was an MI6 officer who reported “It was obvious he (Charles) had been crying.”
 
He then went to meet the doctors to thank them for all they had done. It was then that the MI6 officer reported Charles said something quite strange.
Charles looked at Dr. Riou and Dr. Pavie and exclaimed “FELICITATIONS.”
 
 
 
Translated into English it means “congratulations”. The doctors looked surprised that he should utter such a phrase. A note in the MI6 file by a psychologist puts this phrase down to “stress breaking through the subconscious mind. Having cried, seeing his wife dead, he was not thinking but feeling, and those feelings were feelings of truth”.
 
The doctors, having failed to help Diana live, made his most secret wishes come true and he was now free to love the woman he had always loved. The note continues: “this is not to say Charles either wanted or planned the death of Diana, but that word shows he was torn between two feelings. He was in tears, her death was tragic but he had to say something, and out came the result.”
 
The decision taken by Spedding the Director General was to erase media coverage of the word Charles uttered.
 
Before Charles and his entourage left since security was ad hoc the British waited for the French to leave and the French for the British. Charles sat in the car for three minutes before a woman came out of the hospital with a carrier bag. Inside were the clothes Diana was wearing the night she died.
 
The MI6 report noted “clothes taken from B (Burrell) to be burnt.”
 
There has been much speculation about the Mercedes S280. One of the less known facts is that the car was stolen only in April that year outside the Taillevent restaurant in Paris.
 
The Etoile Limousine Company was the owner of the vehicle and was a subsidiary company of the Ritz Hotel. When the police recovered the car, its electronics and braking system had been ripped out. These individually have little value, but nonetheless the car company sent the vehicle for repair.
 
Of course, no-one wanting to sabotage the vehicle could be certain that Dodi and Diana would ever use it. One could tamper with the vehicle and the security services do indeed have a specialist department that covers auto, air and marine intrusive manipulation. One could easily have used the theft of the vehicle (which was not widely if at all reported) the installation of new electronics and braking system and set up new commands that would respond to remote control.
 
 
 
 
Only eight months previously a Royal Protection Officer had murdered his wife in similar circumstances. It was not reported until more than a year after the death of Diana.
MI6 technicians developed a ‘chip’ which starts to operate only when a pre-set command is sent on a particular frequency and then when the chip is activated the driver no longer has control.
 
There was no such chip ‘found’ upon the examination of the vehicle but it is interesting that the Investigative Judge ordered an extensive search and analysis. If it was found it was not noted.
 
Late on 30th August 1997, once Dodi had decided to leave the Ritz Hotel and move to his apartment and insisting on Henri Paul as driver and only one bodyguard, it was solely in order as a decoy for Diana so she would not be aware of his need for cocaine.
 
Whatever can be said about Diana she was more than a caring mother. Her relationship with Dr. Hasnat Khan had ended because MI6 had ‘briefed’ her about his ‘occasional use for recreational purposes of a controlled substance.’
 
 
 
Diana was mortified but did not want her children even remotely exposed to anyone that held any connection with drugs.
 
She was aware that Dodi had “in the past dabbled” but was certain he no longer took cocaine. At 11.30pm on the 30th August 1997 the Ritz Hotel asked Etoile Limousine to provide a second Mercedes that would act as a kind of decoy.
 
This car was delivered to the Ritz by a driver known as Frederic Lucard. After 11.30pm Henri Paul walked out of the Ritz Hotel five times to tell journalists and photographers to “get their cameras ready”.
 
 
But Henri Paul was not only there for that purpose. He had arranged to meet a person who would be amongst the crowd and supply him with a small quantity of cocaine in a small plastic pouch.
 
The plan was that whilst Henri Paul would ‘tease’ the media, Dodi and Diana would leave by the back entrance in the second Mercedes. The real reason was to take delivery of the cocaine and Dodi was becoming impatient. It was almost one hour before Henri Paul took delivery and the move from the Ritz could commence.
 
The Mercedes Dodi and Diana were going to use had tinted windows. The second car had clear windows. Originally the plan for delivery of the small quantity of cocaine had been that Henri Paul, with Dodi and Diana and one body-guard, would meet the person, thus the need for tinted windows so the dealer would not necessarily recognise Dodi or Diana. That changed when Henri Paul arranged for the dealer to ‘mix with the paparazzi’.
 
It was strange for the Ritz security that Dodi asked Henri Paul to drive when his driver was available, and for only one bodyguard. Dodi had originally wanted to take delivery of the cocaine and for that he needed someone he could trust. He certainly could trust Henri Paul who had been buying drugs for him for some time. Henri Paul would never have told Mohamed Al Fayed.
 
Trevor Rees Jones was a junior security officer. With the original plan he would not have raised any questions making a small detour. The more senior bodyguard, Kez Wingfield, would be driving the decoy car.
 
 
 
Diana is noted as not being nervous at all of the crowd of journalists. Two Australian ‘tourists,’ Chloe Papazahariakis and Vlad Borovac, filmed Diana with the crowd of journalists that seemed polite.
At 12.14am on 31st August 1997, surveillance notes Diana leaving at the back entrance of the Ritz Hotel.
 
 
 
At 12.18am Diana leaves through the back entrance with Henri Paul and Trevor Rees Jones.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Henri Paul disappears for about a minute and then returns to Dodi, whispers something which Diana believes to be the plan but which NSA intercepts record as “Je l’ai” meaning “I have it.”
 
At 12.19am video surveillance shows Henri Paul leading the couple and Trevor Rees Jones down rue Cambon at the back of the hotel, with the second Mercedes waiting.
Diana and Dodi got into the back of the car. They did not put on their safety belts, neither did Henri Paul. After a few seconds, Trevor Rees Jones did.
 
Rue Cambon is a narrow street with a traffic light about one hundred metres from the Ritz Hotel.
 
 
 
Another set of lights can be found at the bottom of the street. There the Mercedes is noted in the MI6 file as having “turned sharp right into rue de Rivoli.”
From there is it approximately 180 metres to the Place de la Concorde.
 
 
Mohammed Rehabouille, who saw the car, reported it was not going so fast and saw no motorbikes chasing the car. No trace of him has been found since Christmas 1997.
The shortest route to Dodi’s apartment was along the Champ-Elysees, but at the Place de la Concorde the car turned left instead of right. It then sped along the riverbank of the Seine and going “well away from MDAF {Mr Dodi Al Fayed} flat” according to the MI6 log.
 
A few moments after the Mercedes drove away, the Ritz cameras trained on rue Cambon showed the last few frames of a white Fiat Uno disappearing down the street.
At 12.23am Henry Paul reached the dip that curves right and leads to the Alma Tunnel. Why Henri Paul chose that route has remained a mystery but the answer, as always, is found within the NSA intercepts even of a travelling vehicle.
 
Dodi and Diana were simply having a good time. If one looks at the last photo taken obviously by a flash and a frontal flash one can see clearly the faces. The driver Henri Paul looks normal and in fact is smiling. Trevor Rees Jones is the only one that looks tense, maybe even a little afraid. Trevor Rees Jones is telling Henri Paul to slow down but, in the back of the car, Dodi and Diana are heard ‘laughing and joking’ and happy.
 
 
 
 
On his own initiative Henri Paul, realising that Dodi and Diana were having fun, took the longer route allowing them time to continue having fun.
 
The suggestion that Dodi and Diana were in a state of panic is simply not consistent with the NSA intercepts contained within the MI6 file.
 
The flash that is evident is not the flash from a photographer but from the speed-camera that mysteriously disappeared. The car was speeding and the flash activated. President Chirac was aware of this and did not want the death of Diana blamed on the French government, thus the immediate orders for the camera to “marcher” or “walk”.
 
The problems the French government faced were the distortion of the truth. The first comment to the media involved the speed-camera that was not working. Once they stated that, there was no turning back. On 15th September 1997, a man who was driving only 12 minutes previous down the Alma Tunnel received a speeding ticket in the post.
 
The police saw the photograph by midday 31st August 1997, but a decision was taken to deny the existence of such with the approval of MI6.
 
The traffic police found in the car a mobile phone and a small bag of cocaine in Diana’s handbag. Whilst Dodi had been playing around with her laughing and joking, he had placed the small bag in her bag hoping to retrieve it later. Intelligence sources showed that Diana often asked Dodi to empty his pockets in a joking way, but it was the manner upon which she could be sure he did not use drugs.
 
Once the passengers were identified, the DGSE were notified, who in turn called upon MI6. A decision was taken immediately by Sir David Spedding and the French President himself that this information was not to be leaked.
 
The fact Diana was inadvertently carrying a small quantity of cocaine could easily have been used by the Royal Family against her. To prove that she was an innocent bystander would require the NSA and GCHQ who regularly ‘spied’ on her to confirm certain intercepts.
 
 
 
HM The Queen was no supporter of Diana and disliked her by far more than Prince Philip. In the early hours of the morning MI6 top agents were hard at work, David Spedding particularly. The Queen’s insistence on not returning to London was based entirely upon the information that cocaine had been found in Diana’s bag. Whichever way one would look at the whole saga HM The Queen felt “she (Diana) would turn it to her favour.”
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Henri Paul was not drunk.
 
The car did not skid.
 
No bolt was fired at the vehicle.
 
The Mercedes bearing Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed, their driver and bodyguard crashed into a concrete pillar in the Alma tunnel. Henri Paul and Dodi were killed instantly. The bodyguard, sitting in the front right seat, suffered severe facial injuries and a broken wrist, but was saved largely thanks to his seat belt and airbag. Princess Diana, was not wearing a seat belt, also survived the initial crash but suffered major thoracic trauma, in addition to several superficial cuts on the forehand, arm and thigh and a dislocated shoulder. The first witnesses on the scene found her sitting on the floor with her legs on the backseat and her head wedged between the backs of the two front seats. Her eyes were open and she mumbled several indistinct phrases. The bodyguard later said he remembered hearing her call out Dodi Fayed’s name. Other heard her murmur “My God”.
Given the nature of the shock, a frontal crash into an immobile object at the speed of 100 km/hr or more, there was a strong probability of a deceleration injury resulting in possible internal lesions. Yet none of the medical personnel who initially treated her in the tunnel appear to have suspected internal haemorrhaging. Instead, they spent nearly an hour doing onsite treatment of a symptom - falling blood pressure - rather than treating its cause - an internal lesion.
 
 
 
The first doctor on the scene was a physician with the private medical service SOS Medicins. He happened to be driving through the tunnel in the eastbound lane within a minute of the accident. He stopped his car and went to attend to the passengers of the crashed Mercedes. He immediately observed that Fayed and a driver were dead. The front seat passenger was already being attended to by an off-duty fireman, who also happened to be on the scene. So he turned his attention to the blonde woman in the rear, whose identity was not immediately apparent to him. His first impression, as he later told an interviewer, was that the woman was not in a hopeless condition, and had a chance to survive. He admitted, however, that he did not know about her internal problems.
 
Without his equipment, there was little he could do except to place her head in a position that made it easier to breathe and to administer an oxygen mask. He also used portable telephone to call the emergency medical service, describe the location of the accident and the nature of the injuries. Other passers-by had also called for help within a minute of the crash.
 
The first unit of the Sapeurs-Pompiers, a military emergency service, arrived within seven minutes and began to administer treatment. At 12:40 a.m., 15 minutes after the accident, the first SAMU ambulance arrived with its on-board physician. In a deposition given later to French investigators, the physician said Diana was agitated, crying out, and did not seem to understand everything he said to reassure her. He added that she repeatedly moved her left arm and right leg. He immediately started an IV drip.
 
Though she was apparently conscious when the SAMU arrived, he reported that Diana suffered a cardiac arrest while he and his assistants where extracting her from the car. At that point, he said, he intubated the patient, put her on a respirator and performed an external chest massage to re-establish a cardiac rhythm. He then installed her in the SAMU ambulance, known as a “mobile hospital unit” because it is so well equipped, and proceeded to carry out the more detailed examination and treatment.
 
Clearly, Diana was in serious condition, and the fact that she suffered a cardiac arrest obliged doctors to take emergency measures on site. The question is: did they spent too long treating her on site and driving her to the hospital, given that she was haemorrhaging and could only be saved by operating to repair her internal injuries?
 
The SAMU team spent nearly an hour, until 1:30am treating Diana in the tunnel. Then the ambulance drove her at a snail’s pace to Piete-Salpetriere hospital, 6.15 kilometres away. At that time of night, it would normally take five or 10 minutes to drive along the riverfront expressway. But Diana’s driver, applying standard French emergency procedures, drove extremely slowly so as not to subject the fragile patient to shocks and bumps. As a result, it took them some 40 minutes to make the drive, and the ambulance stopped within a few hundred yards of the hospital to treat a sharp drop in blood pressure.
 
By the time Diana reached the emergency room, it was nearly 1 hour 45 minutes after the crash. According to the deposition of the duty doctor, who admitted her into the hospital, she arrived alive and with a cardiac rhythm. Though she had no serious external injuries, X-rays indicated internal haemorrhaging that was compressing her right lung and heart. Within ten minutes of her arrival, the patient again suffered a cardiac arrest, prompting the doctors to inject large doses of epinephrine directly into the heart, and to perform an emergency thoracotomy.
 
According to testimony of the chief surgeon on duty that night, the operation revealed that the source of the haemorrhaging was a single lesion, which he described as a partial rupture of the left pulmonary vein at the point of contact with the left atrium. The tear was sutured and the haemorrhaging was stopped. But despite nearly two hours of manual internal massage, and the application of electroshocks, it was impossible to re-establish a heartbeat. The patient was declared death at 4am.
 
At a press conference one hour later, the doctors read a five sentence communiqué that cited an important wound in the left pulmonary vein as the source of the internal bleeding that killed her. The communiqué made no specific mention of other lesions. Nor did the French coroner’s report, which listed the cause of death as internal haemorrhaging due to a major chest trauma and a phenomenon of deceleration which caused a rupture of the left pulmonary vein.
 
From subsequent medical testimony given to French investigators, it is clear that there were no other significant lesions. This flatly contradicts the assertion, made by the French Health Minister and other officials, that Diana suffered multiple internal injuries that left her no chance of survival. This self-serving claim is simply not supported by the facts.
 
All in all three people died that night. Only Trevor Rees Jones survived. The state always seeks to protect itself. In 1968, the Serbian driver/bodyguard of famous film actor Alain Delon was killed when he was going to ‘blow the whistle’ on sexual scandals involving show business personalities and the then President of the Republic, George Pompidou. Stevan Markovic was found dead on the outskirts of Paris. The Markovic Affair still haunts the French Government.
 
There are some similarities between the death of Diana and Princess Grace of Monaco. In September 1982 Grace Kelly was 52 years of age. She had gained a little weight but for the first time since High Society in 1956 that she made a film. She was hoping to convince her husband Prince Rainier of Monaco to allow her back on the big screen.
On 13th September 1982, whilst driving with her daughter Stephanie to Monaco from their home in Roc Agel on the French side of the border, Princess Grace ‘suffered a stroke,’ which caused her to drive her Rover P6 off the serpentine road down a mountainside. Grace was pulled alive from the wreckage, but had suffered serious injuries and was unconscious but died the following day at the Monaco Hospital. Stephanie suffered only minor bruising, although it later emerged that she had suffered a serious cervical fracture.
 
Reports say that Monaco Hospital (later renamed Centre Hospitalier Princesse Grace - Princess Grace Hospital Centre), where the injured survivors were taken, was not well equipped for these type injuries. Surgery was performed on Grace’s lungs to stop the internal bleeding. Her other injuries included multiple fractures of the collar bone, thigh, and ribs. A CAT scan supposedly revealed that shortly before the accident, Grace had suffered a stroke which rendered her unable to control the vehicle. This of course was strange because at the time there was no CAT scan machine at the Monaco Hospital. Fearing that the Princess may survive as a helpless invalid, the royal palace attempted a cover up of the extent of her injuries.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Grace Kelly made all the headlines and there was the usual speculation as to the cause of the accident. Some said Stephanie was driving and that there had been an argument because Stephanie was involved with yet another unsuitable man.
 
 
 
There are remarkable few photos of the wreckage but comparing both the vehicle which Princess Grace died and Princess Diana there are similarities.
 
What is known is that MI6 had planted a bug in the Rover P6. It was a favour for Prince Rainier who was deeply suspicious of his wife. Although MI6 had indeed planted a bug Rainier had ordered a “trusted person within his employ” to place a small device that could release a toxin when triggered from a distance. The toxin would produce blurred vision and loss of the motor’s control.
 
The official explanation given was that Princess Grace had a very sudden stroke but Princess Stephanie remembers only that her mother lost control suddenly.
 
The wreckage of the car landed on the property of a close friend of Prince Rainier. Since it was on French land it would be the French Government that had control of the accident scene.
 
 
 
An MI6 officer was in Monte Carlo at the time staying at the Metropole Hotel. He reported back to Colin Figures the then head of the Security Services that “The French ordered no-one to attend the site for at least two hours.” Dick Franks, Director General the outgoing Director of MI6 was also in Monte Carlo staying at the Metropole Hotel. He had retired and was enjoying what he thought was a break from it all. The MI6 agent asked Franks if they should take matters further but the Rugby School educated Franks told him to ‘let sleeping dogs die.’
 
 
 
The car that was photographed killing Princess Grace was not the Rover P60 she was driving. The message from Dick Franks to the MI6 agent in Monaco that day was clear.


At 10:30pm on 14th September 1982, Princess Grace was taken off her life-support equipment on the orders of Prince Rainier, effectively condemning her to death. In this matter silence was required and eternal silence for Princess Grace who for years had enjoyed numerous affairs with David Niven and Frank Sinatra.
 
 
 
Like Diana, all of Monaco was sad when Grace Kelly died, but relieved that a potential problem would not affect the country.
 
Henri Paul was not drunk that night. He lived above a gay bar and surveillance showed him to have “homosexual tendencies.” There is a suggestion contained in the MI6 file that he was ‘bisexual’, but this is not emphasized.
 
The mystery surrounding the death of Diana is similar to that of Princess Stephanie. The target was not Diana that evening. Princess Stephanie survived, Diana did not.
 
Henri Paul fell in love with a Mossad ‘agent’ although he certainly was not aware she was working for the Israeli killer agency. Many had seen him with a beautiful woman but, upon his death, it was another woman that handed the keys back to his apartment.
 
Melinda was a 38 year old transvestite working for Mossad. On 30th August 1997 at 7.00pm, when Henry Paul went off duty, he was seen at a supermarket and recorded by MI6 logs, and he went for a drink at a gay bar. The rest of the time he was under intrusive surveillance by MI6 and presumably also Mossad. He was with Melinda and they were seen flirting and kissing.
 
This was the moment that the order from Mossad came for Melinda to plant a tiny pin-like device on his clothes without him being aware. The video from the Ritz Hotel shows Henri Paul parking his car at 9.53pm but entering the Ritz Hotel at 10.08pm. For fifteen minutes his time is unaccounted for, save that MI6 had him under surveillance and he was in his car with Melinda. After Henri Paul entered the Ritz Hotel, the Mossad agent Melinda left the car park at 10.15pm, never to be seen again.
 
The pin like device Henri Paul had clasped on his clothes was carrying a bubble-head with a small amount of nerve agent VX. It is one of the deadliest chemical agents known. It was developed by MI6 scientists at Porton Down Chemical Weapons Research Centre.
 

 
 
It wreaks havoc with the way brain cells communicate by impairing the synapses. If brain cells do not work or communicate then one loses the ability to perceive and to act.
 
Once Henri Paul had been allocated to drive Dodi, the Mossad plan was simple. Melinda would hug Henri Paul and fix the pin with the VX on his clothes. He would not even be aware of it. That is what Melinda did and in the car at 9.55pm told him she would meet him later.
 
All Mossad had to do was to post men in various locations and at the right time trigger the device. The VX made Henri Paul lose control.
There are a number of reports of who saw what at the Alma Tunnel.
 
 
 
 

 
That night the target was not Princess Diana but Dodi Al Fayed.
 
MI6 did not murder Diana or Dodi directly. On 3rd September 1997 the MI6 Director General had scheduled a meeting with HM The Queen to deliver the files of intelligence on the Al Fayed family and Princess Diana.
 
The MI6 covert agent in Paris in 1997 was the same agent that had been in Monaco in 1982 dealing with the after-math of Princes Grace, and was more than experienced in covert surveillance. He was also the very same that was sent to Serbia to cover the botched-up assassination plan of Serbian President Milosevic. He was the most experienced operator in the field and knew all the players.
 
The mission between 27th August 1997 and 3rd September 1997 was to forewarn Princess Diana of the ‘regular and consistent drug use of Dodi Al Fayed’ and the ‘real risks of exposure of such a person to Prince William and Harry.’ Princess Diana was to be warned about the perils of mixing with such a person and told that on 3rd September 1997 the files containing information would be delivered to HM The Queen.
 
It would then be left to Diana to decide what to do, but since she had hastily abandoned Dr Hasnat Khan to whom she was by far more attached than Dodi on the pure mention of ‘occasional recreational drug use’, MI6 was sure Diana would return to London leaving Dodi and the Al Fayed family for ever.
 
The MI6 agent arrived in Paris on 27th August 1997 and checked into the Ritz Hotel. He had befriended Mohamed Al Fayed and had been married for a short period of time in 1989 to a ‘Diana look-alike’ who had previously dated Dodi. The agent was thus aware first hand that Dodi was a regular user of cocaine.
 
MI6 had their agent right on the scene to perform the delicate task of telling Princess Diana the truth about Dodi from first-hand experience. The agent was also known to Diana from a film screening that they had attended, but she was not aware he was a top MI6 agent. She would surely believe what he had to say and ditch Dodi Al Fayed.
 
But on 30thAugust 1997 the agent, somewhat unusually, asked to leave Paris for one day, returning on 1st September, because 31st August was his wife’s birthday and he wanted to be at home with her. Although he had seen Diana arrive at the Ritz and saw Dodi leave to the Repossi shop he never had an opportunity of approaching her. He decided that it would be best to deal with the approach on Monday, 1st September. The decision to leave Paris in the evening was made and approval granted.
 
Under normal circumstances no approval would be required since the MI6 agent was one of the top and had been with MI6 since 1972. The agent returned home just before midnight to celebrate his wife’s birthday, only to find that at 3.00am his telephone was ringing constantly.
 
It was the message that told the agent Diana was dead, together with Dodi and Henri Paul. Mossad had not meant to harm Diana, they cared nothing for Rees Jones or Henri Paul, but Diana was not a target.
 
The last words Melinda whispered to Henri Paul was “Drive slowly, drive carefully”. Henri Paul was not the target and may have survived had he applied his safety belt.
 
Dodi was targeted by Mossad simply because he was an Arab and they did not want him mixing with Princess Diana. It was a long-term vision that cost the life of a Princess. Mossad feared Dodi may marry Diana and, when William became King, would influence his attitude towards Israel.
 
In the three days between 27th August 1997 and 31st August 1997 Mossad accumulated 256 pages of intelligence on the movements of Dodi. It was an operation that had been planned for months.
 
It was not about business or drug use but safeguarding the future.
 
Throughout his life Emad El-Din Mohamed Abdel Moneim Fayed, better known as Dodi, never once gave an interview to the press.
 
\
 
MI6 continue the policy of intrusive surveillance and try to protect the integrity of the Royal Family. Prince William’s wife is guarded well by MI5/MI6 and the Royal Protection Officers. Intrusive photographs are ‘blocked’ by ‘requests’ to the media not to publish compromising snaps. Some, however, are taken by MI6 themselves for the file.



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 Inquest
by John Morgan © 2008
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?
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.


Princess Diana Was Pregnant
by JIM KEITH (NITRONEWS)
Princess Diana Was Pregnant(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
Death of Diana: Jim Keith Was Not Alone(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

WHAT WAS MI6 TEAM DOING IN PARIS THE NIGHT PRINCESS DIANA DIED?

 
Princess Diana's death is still shrouded in mystery
Princess Diana's death is still shrouded in mystery
Sunday December 30,2012

By Will Stewart

RUSSIAN intelligence agents in France had become suspicious of the sudden arrival of three senior MI6 officers in Paris before Princess Diana’s death, a new book claims.
Author Gennady Sokolov argues that she was killed in “a distinctly English murder” contracted out by the British spies.
In the book, to be published in ­Moscow next year, he will say the most likely scenario is that a microchip was planted in her car enabling its steering and brakes to be disabled on a signal from an operative who joined the chasing paparazzi.
He claims: “There will never be documents about it. Never. Those responsible must all have been liquidated. The traces have also gone. Some of the witnesses disappeared in the strangest manner.”
Sokolov, who has many contacts in the Russian secret services, said the MI6 officers had arrived and stayed incognito. “Normally when players of such rank are in the country the host intelligence services are aware about it. Here DST (French counter intelligence) had no idea.
“Our people were following them. After all, they were leading faces of British intelligence. Whatever people say about our guys from Yasenevo (headquarters of Russian foreign intelligence, the SVR) they know their rivals very well.”
Sokolov claimed he had met Russian operatives who were involved in seeking to establish the role of the senior British agents in France.
The presence of MI6 figures was known to the Scotland Yard inquiry into Diana’s death headed by former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens.
ì
There will never be documents about it. Never
î
Author Gennady Sokolov
An inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing, blaming the drunken driving of Ritz hotel security boss Henri Paul and pursuing paparazzi photographers for the fatal crash in the Alma tunnel in August, 1997.
The security services have always denied any involvement in the Princess’s death.
Sokolov’s claims echo some of the views of Mohamed Al Fayed, whose son Dodi, Diana’s lover, also died in the crash. The author’s dossier on the Princess’s death was passed to the former Harrods owner before the inquest, though he never had any contact with the tycoon, he said.
In an article in the Komsoloskaya Pravda newspaper, Sokolov said he had identified “at least three dozen absurdities” which point to foul play and a sophisticated cover-up.
“Diana became a real threat to the Windsors,” he said. “There was a strong rumour she was pregnant and I think that it was not a coincidence that her body was mummified an hour before it was sent to London. After that it would be impossible to identify if she was pregnant.”



Unlawful Killing

a video/film by Keith Allen

[2011 May] Unlawful Killing – the film the British won't get to see  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.


PRINCESS DIANA POLICE FACE ARREST

Princess Diana predicted that she would be killed
Friday July 22,2011 By Cyril Dixon, Padraic Flanagan and Mark Reynolds  http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/260394/Princess-Diana-police-face-arrest-
TWO of Britain’s leading former police officers are wanted for questioning over allegations that they withheld crucial evidence about the car crash which killed Princess Diana.

A French judge wants to ask ex-Yard chief Lord Condon and Sir David Veness why they failed to disclose the existence of a note in which she predicted her assassination.
They could face international arrest warrants as suspects should they refuse to attend interviews in Paris, sources close to the investigation indicated last night.
The note, taken by Diana’s lawyer Lord Mishcon, was handed to the officers a few months after the 1997 Paris tunnel crash which also claimed the lives of Diana’s boyfriend Dodi Fayed, son of tycoon Mohamed Al Fayed, and the pair’s chauffeur Henri Paul.
The highly-respected lawyer’s document records the line: “Efforts would be made if not to get rid of her (be it by some accident in her car, such as a pre-prepared brake failure or whatever)...at least to see that she was so injured or damaged as to be declared unbalanced.”
"Everyone assumed that with the end of the British inquest, the investigation into Diana and Dodi’s deaths was closed"

It was more than three years later before it emerged that the officers had locked the note in Lord Condon’s safe at Scotland Yard. When Lord Condon stood down as the Metropolitan Police Commissioner his successor as Met Commissioner, Lord Stevens, continued to keep its existence a secret.
Under French law, “removing or concealing” evidence, which could “facilitate the discovery of a crime”, is punishable by three to five years in jail or a fine.
Now Paris-based Judge Gerard Caddeo is locked in a protracted battle with British authorities over his demand for interviews with Lord Condon and Sir David, a former assistant commissioner.
The explosive development means that the issue of whether the fatal crash in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel in Paris was an accident or murder is likely to be once more the subject of a controversial court case.
A source close to the Paris inquiry said: “Everyone assumed that with the end of the British inquest, the investigation into Diana and Dodi’s deaths was closed.
“But this has blown it wide open again. Judge Caddeo is determined to get to the bottom of what happened with the Mishcon note.
“The French courts will not allow this matter to rest and it is understood that if Lord Condon and Sir David refuse to attend Paris for an interview then Judge Caddeo will not hesitate to issue international warrants of arrest.”
At his home in Kent yesterday, Lord Condon refused to comment in detail on the Diana letter.
“I have not been asked to go to Paris,” he said. “There was discussion of all these things at the inquest and if there is anything else, you will have to speak to the legal affairs department at Scotland Yard. This is not the time or place for this.”
A Yard spokesman said: “We are not prepared to comment – we would have to refer you to the French authorities.”
The Daily Express understands that Judge Caddeo has been engaged in lengthy exchanges with Sylvie Petit-Leclair, a judge attached jointly to the French Embassy in London and the Home Office who assists in cross-Channel legal issues.
He has also written to a Home Office official, whose name is known to this paper, demanding she assist his bid to interview the officers. The Daily Express also understands that he has twice sent the same Home Office official ‘International Letters Rogatory’ – formal requests from a court to a foreign court for judicial assistance – in which he names Lord Condon and Sir David as suspects.
He also names Lord Stevens as a person he wishes to question. Judge Caddeo’s papers summarise the crucial accusation – that Scotland Yard and the British Embassy in Paris concealed the note made by Lord Mishcon from the French authorities investigating the crash.
The note would have made it more likely that the French would have opened a murder inquiry.
He states that the note reported that the Princess had been “informed by sources worthy of her trust” that an attempt was being made to “eliminate her in an orchestrated automobile accident.” Diana died on August 31, 1997, after the Mercedes she and Dodi Fayed were travelling in crashed following a high-speed chase as they tried to evade photographers.
A French investigation concluded that the crash was caused by driver Henri Paul, acting security manager of the Paris Ritz, losing control of the car at high speed while intoxicated. But the investigating authorities were unaware British police had the late Lord Mishcon’s note.


Diana  [film] Unlawful Killing

Al-Fayed funded Diana movie alleges Prince Phillip is a 'Fred West-style psychopath' and labels Royal Family 'gangsters in tiaras'

14th May 2011
The Royal Family masterminded the car crash that caused Princess Diana’s death as a ‘warning’ to make her toe the line, a controversial new film premiered at Cannes yesterday claims.
The director, Keith Allen, said the House of Windsor had ‘got away with murder’ because no one had been held to account over the accident.
In the film, entitled Unlawful Killing, Prince Phillip is branded a 'Fred West-style psychopath' who 'orchestrated the murder' of Diana.
The Queen is dismissed as a 'gangster in a tiara'.
 Controversial: Keith Allen's new movie Unlawful Killing looks into Princess Diana's death and brands Prince Phillip a 'Fred West-style psychopath'
Controversial: Keith Allen's new movie Unlawful Killing looks into Princess Diana's death and brands Prince Phillip a 'Fred West-style psychopath'
Allen, who is trying to sell the film around the world, was bankrolled by  
Mohamed Al-Fayed, whose son Dodi also died in the car crash, to make the movie.
He invested £2.5 million to back the production after it was turned down by every broadcaster in the UK.
It will not be shown in UK cinemas because of strict laws on libel and contempt, but Allen believes the movie will make money in America.
'The crash was supposed to be a warning': Diana died in 1997
'The crash was supposed to be a warning': Diana died in 1997
Allen said: ‘I think Diana was in a position to rock a lot of boats. I think [the accident] was supposed to be a warning.
‘I believe there was a chance that she could have survived the accident. But I think the situation may have gone too far.'
In the film, the inquest in to her death is presented as a cover-up in which different arms of the British establishment - including the police, the Courts, and the Royal Family - as well as the French coroner and government had a hand.
Unlawful Killing opens with a details of a letter penned by Diana to her Butler, in which she claims that Prince Charles is planning to have her murdered in a car accident.
The production stated the 36-year-old could have been saved had she been taken to hospital quickly - and that the inquest failed to properly investigate why she wasn’t.
The film shows the graphic black and white close-up of Diana taken moments after the Mercedes carrying the couple crashed in a Paris underpass, for a few seconds.
The image, in which her blonde hair and features clearly visible, has never been publicly seen in this UK.
Allen said: ‘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.’
The film features Al-Fayed accusing the Royal Family of being racist.
Allen, who authors the documentary, suggests in it that the Establishment was unhappy with Diana’s relationship with Dodi, because he was a Muslim.
It also claims that her role in the anti-landmine campaign put her at risk from those in the arms industry, and those in power who had links to it.
'Gangsters in tiaras': The hugely controversial documentary makes some bold claims about the Royal Family's involvement in the accident
'Gangsters in tiaras': The hugely controversial documentary makes some outrageous claims about the Royal Family's involvement in the accident
Psychologist Oliver James is interviewed about his behaviour for the film - and despite having never treated the Duke of Edinburgh, he claims he displays classic ‘psychopath’ behaviour, likening him to a 'Fred West'.
In another bizarre sequence the House of Windsor is compared to the mafia, and Allen describes one picture of the Queen, Princess Margaret and Princess Anne all dressed in black as ‘gangsters in tiaras’.
The controversial premiere was met with ridicule from critics with many questioning how editorially independent the film could be when it was funded by Al-Fayed.
Writer Martyn Gregory, who penned Diana: The Last Days the last days, branded the the film ‘ludicrous’ and claimed that Allen had simply made a vehicle for Al-Fayed’s rants.
Crash: The wreck of the car in which Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed died in Paris
Crash: The wreck of the car in which Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed died in Paris
Critic Richard Friedman compared the ideas put forward in the film as like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory.
He said: ‘It is misleading not to let the audience know that Al-Fayed is funding this film.’
Unlawful Killing features interviews with Piers Morgan, Lauren Booth, and Tony Benn.
Allen enlisted the help of freelance journalist Richard Wiseman, who went undercover to monitor how the press covered the tribunal.
However the only insight he gained was that the BBC’s Royal Correspondent Nicholas Witchell fell asleep during some of it.
Publicity: Allen and writer Paul Sparks attended the photocall in Cannes yesterday, but Mohamed Al-Fayed was absent
Publicity: Allen and writer Paul Sparks attended the photocall in Cannes yesterday, but Mohamed Al-Fayed was absent
The comedian said that he made the film to highlight the failings in the way he believed the death of Diana was investigated.
News of his documentary had been met with disgust with many close to Diana.
Close friend Rosa Monckton said: ‘The fact people are trying to make money – which is all that they are doing now – out of her death is quite frankly ... words fail me.’
A spokesman for St James’s Palace declined to comment.
Al-Fayed did not turn up for the screening amid rumours he was upset about the inclusion of the controversial crash picture.
His spokesman said he was 'delighted with the film' but it is understood that the tycoon had lobbied for the image to be taken out.
In 2008, after a six-month inquest, a jury concluded Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed were unlawfully killed as a direct result of grossly negligent driving by drunk chauffeur Henri Paul, who also died in the crash.



Diana

DIANA INQUEST SAMPLES SWITCHED

PRINCESS Diana’s post-mortem samples were switched with those from another woman, an explosive new book claims.
Adding weight to “cover-up” theories, it says samples were swapped prior to toxicological testing.
According to documents uncovered for the book, published this week, the toxicologist at London’s Charing Cross Hospital received the samples of another female and tested them in the belief that they were from Princess Diana.
In his latest volume in a series about the Diana inquest, author John Morgan believes he has discovered the truth of what occurred in the 24 hours following the deaths of the Princess and Dodi Al Fayed in a Paris car crash on August 31, 1997.
“There is a lot of evidence which points to the toxicology testing being carried out on samples that did not come from the body of Princess Diana,” he said last night, pointing out that the documents were, along with others, withheld from the inquest jury.
Mr Morgan said he had uncovered a litany of conflicting evidence, inconsistencies, mis-labelling of body samples, cover-ups, evidence and witnesses who were never called to give evidence at the ­inquest.
He is now calling for independent DNA tests to be carried out on the body samples. “The samples at Charing Cross Hospital have never been subjected to DNA testing. With so much conflicting evidence, how can we be sure?” he said.
“The evidence I have studied indicates that there are two lots of samples. One belongs to Diana, which is held by the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Paget, and the other lot are samples from another body and held by Charing Cross Hospital.
“Diana’s UK post-mortem samples were switched ahead of the toxicology testing.”
He added: “The jury were not given the post mortem and toxicology reports on Diana. If they had, they should have been able to work out that the toxicology testing was conducted on samples that weren’t Diana’s.
“For example, Diana’s body was embalmed in France, but there was no embalming fluid in the toxicology tested samples.”
He went on: “Diana had consumed alcohol that night in Dodi’s apartment and later at the Ritz Hotel.
It is recorded by the Hammersmith and Fulham mortuary manager that her stomach smelled strongly of alcohol, but there was no alcohol in the samples tested in London.”
Mr Morgan said that within 24 hours of her death, Diana’s body had been subjected to embalming in France and the UK, along with two post mortems.
“I am asking why?” said the Australian-based writer who lives in Brisbane and insisted that documentation shows interference from senior aides on behalf of the Queen.
“Having removed Princess Diana as a member of the Royal Family in 1996, suddenly, Diana became royal again. Only the Queen could have ordered this.
“The Queen took control of events from Balmoral, very early following Diana’s death,” Mr Morgan said, adding that he believed the UK coroner should not have taken possession of Diana’s body after it arrived back in England.
“By law, jurisdiction over the body should have gone to the coroner in Northamptonshire, which covers Diana’s family home, Althorp, where it was known Diana’s body would be buried.”
Another stark example of a switch Mr Morgan claims to have discovered was that there was no vitreous humour (eyeball gel) sample taken during the UK post-mortem, yet a sample was tested by the London toxicologist.
Also, sample labels received by the toxicologist, Susan Paterson, for both blood and liver tests, read differently to the descriptions in the post-mortem documentation. Mr Morgan has spent more than five years investigating the evidence relating to the 1997 Paris crash in the city’s Alma Tunnel.
His series of books is based on the testimony heard during the inquest and evidence in official documents from within the British police investigation that were withheld from the inquest jury.
Leading QC Michael Mansfield, who served throughout the six months of the London inquest, stated last year: “I have no doubt that the volumes written by him will come to be regarded as the Magnum Opus on the death crash.
Dodi’s father, Mohamed Al Fayed, has praised Mr Morgan’s work, calling it “heroic” and “impressive works of forensic enquiry and immensely helpful to the cause of truth.”
Mr Al Fayed said: “I believe that John Morgan has done more to expose the facts of this case than the police in France and Britain.”


Interview with princess Diana's confidant Christine Fitzgerald
from Icke's the Biggest Secret
While researching this book I was introduced to Christine Fitzgerald, a brilliant and gifted healer, who was a close friend and confidant of Diana for nine years. Because of Christine’s understanding of the esoteric, Diana was able to talk to her about matters she would not dare to share with anyone else for fear of being dubbed crazy. It is clear that Diana knew about the true nature of the royal family’s genetic history and the reptilian control. Her nicknames for the Windsors were “the lizards” and “the reptiles” and she used to say in all seriousness: “They’re not human”. There is a very good reason for Diana using this description of the Windsors. 

As her deprogramming continued, Arizona Wilder remembered clearly a ritual she attended at Clarence House, the Queen Mother’s home near to Buckingham Palace, in which Diana was shown who the Windsors really are. It took place in the first seven days of July 1981, just before Diana and Charles were married on the 29th.

This period is the last seven days of the cycle of the Oak Tree, according to esoteric law, and the ritual was called The Awakening of the Bride. This is a ritual for all females of the 13 bloodlines who are going to be in publicly high positions and marry reptilians to produce the new generation of rulers. Arizona says that the Queen Mother, the Queen, Prince Philip, Lady Fermoy, Diana’s father Earl Spencer, Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles were all present when Diana was brought into the room.

She was wearing a white gown and a drug had been administered by Lady Fermoy. Diana was told that she should consider her union with Prince Charles as only a means to produce heirs and nothing else. Camilla Parker-Bowles was his consort, not her. Arizona says that Prince Philip and the Queen Mother then shape-shifted into reptiles to show Diana who they really were. ‘Diana was terrified, but quiet’, she said. Diana was told that if she ever revealed the truth about them, she would be killed. (Remember the guy I mentioned who had a call from Diana in the March before she died asking for his advice on how to reveal information about the royals that would ‘shake the world’?)
[taped] from Christine Fitzgerald - Princess Diana's personal confidant - who then threatened to sue if the transcript of the tape - a tape made in front of witnesses. According to Christine Fitzgerald this is what Princess Diana told her.
“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 2011
Calm 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 explained
Questions: Keith Allen's film explores the series of delays that have never been properly explained
Anyway, 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 death
Accusations: Keith Allen denies he is trying to make money out of a much-loved woman's death
One 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 Killing

Unlawful 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 why
7 May 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/07/unlawful-killing-film-you-wont-see
The 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 Century
5 February, 2009
By Matthew Delooze
Well 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 there
From the song She’s Not There by the Zombies
For 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.


 

DIANA WAS NOT THE TARGET 
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 Opposition
A 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 Connection
In 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 Car
Early 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:
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 Fire
They 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.
Mar. 12, 2007
Many 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)
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 of
The 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 Wales
by Richard John Charles Tomlinson
Attached 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













http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/diana-captain-beaujolais-alleged.html

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

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2012

DIANA, CAPTAIN BEAUJOLAIS, ALLEGED MISTRESS, DRUG TRAFFICKING

ANA, CAPTAIN BEAUJOLAIS, ALLEGED MISTRESS, DRUG TRAFFICKING



John Stevens headed the police inquiry into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales

John Stevens, who became Britain's top police officer, allegedly used to fly a "police aircraft up to Northumberland to see his mistress."

Tabloid 'hired private detectives to spy on former Met Police chief.


Diana and Rupert Murdoch

Reportedly, Rupert Murdoch's News of the World had Stevens spied upon by a private detective agency called Southern Investigations.

According to Derek Haslam, a former undercover police officer who infiltrated Southern Investigations for Scotland Yard, the agency wanted to use the sensitive information to "control" Lord Stevens. 

Tabloid 'hired private detectives to spy on former Met Police chief.

When John Stevens retired in early 2005, Tony Blair commended him for keeping the country safe from a terror attack. The London bombings took place in July 2005.

Haslam claims that during his nine years as a "mole" inside Southern Investigations, he told the police that the company was committing crimes - often on behalf of the News of the World. 

"I told my handlers that MPs, ministers and Home Secretaries were targets," he said.


Daniel Morgan

Southern Investigations is linked to one of London's most famous unsolved murders.

Southern Investigations's Jonathan Rees has been a suspect in the 1987 murder of his business partner Daniel Morgan.

Exclusive: News of the World hired detective firm linked with murder.


Jonathan Rees

Reportedly, Daniel Morgan was murdered "because he was about to expose a drugs conspiracy linked to police corruption." 

Police believe Morgan discovered that Jonathan Rees was using their company to launder money from drug trafficking. 

Reportedly, one of Southern Investigations' main clients was former News of the World executive editor Alex Marunchak.

Derek Haslam alleges that Marunchak paid Southern Investigations to get confidential information from corrupt serving officers on Tony Blair, Lord Mandelson, John Stevens and others.



Britain's former top policeman Lord Stevens is known as "Captain Beaujolais" 

Exposed: The Diana inquiry cop who was on £1,000 a day 

"Lord Carlile is the UK Government-appointed reviewer of anti-terrorism laws. A few months ago it was revealed that Carlile had abandoned his wife and taken up with Alison Levitt, a married colleague 15 years his junior. When Carlile confessed, he admitted to an earlier illicit relationship lasting 'several years'". -Mandrake 

"BRITAIN’S former anti-terror chief, Andy hayman, made and sent 400 calls and texts to a female member of the police watchdog investigating him.

"Reportedly, Hayman, a married father of two, was communicating with the woman while the Independent Police Complaints Commission was working on its report into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes in July 2005. 

"The report found Mr Hayman’s actions “led to inaccurate or misleading information being released” by the police regarding the Brazilian shot dead at Stockwell Tube station in south London by officers who wrongly thought he was a terrorist." - TERROR CHIEF QUITS OVER 400 SECRET TEXTS AND CALLS


  1. aangirfan: DIAL M FOR MURDOCH

    aangirfan.blogspot.com/2012/06/dial-m-for-murdoch.html
    7 Jun 2012 – According to The Guardian, top Murdoch journalist Alex Marunchak reportedly agreed to carry out 'surveillance' on behalf of Jonathan Rees ...
  2. aangirfan: MURDOCH, PHONE HACKING, MURDERS

    aangirfan.blogspot.com/2011/.../murdoch-phone-hacking-murders.ht...
    6 Jul 2011 – Police believe Morgan was murdered because he discovered his business partner Jonathan Rees was using their company to launder money ...
  3. aangirfan: PRIME MINISTER; MURDER; MURDOCH

    aangirfan.blogspot.com/2011/.../prime-minister-murder-murdoch.ht...
    12 Mar 2011 – Jonathan Rees, who has links to David Cameron. UK Prime Minister David Cameron hired Andy Coulson as his media adviser. Cameron knew ...

5 COMMENTS:

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

The Jesuits run things, not the Zionists: http://theunhivedmind.com/wordpress2/

The Jesuits have run things for hundreds of years. Look into it.

Anonymous said...

By the way, I'm a Christian.

But Jesuitism is not Christian, and never was.

Anonymous said...

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

Carol A. Valentine said...

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



Diana Murder: Coverup Turns Deadly
Diana murder

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

 Diana murder

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

Diana

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.


Whitewashes  Police

Lord John Stevens was Appointed by Gordon Brown


[Metropolitan Police 'inquiry' (whitewash) into Diana assassination.  Here is the copper, Lord Stevens, who covered up her murder.]
    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. 
  
HOW TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD  A Right Royal Con by Greg Hallett.



DIANA
[Someone who was well  loved (see) gets a public (covert) execution (see), like Kennedy. Arizona Wilder mentions how she (Wilder) was impregnated yet still menstruated.  CCTV tapes unavailable, just like the ones outside the Murray building and the Pentagon (911).  Just one of the numerous red flags.]
[2012 Dec] WHAT WAS MI6 TEAM DOING IN PARIS THE NIGHT PRINCESS DIANA DIED?   RUSSIAN intelligence agents in France had become suspicious of the sudden arrival of three senior MI6 officers in Paris before Princess Diana’s death
[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)
 Interview with princess Diana's confidant Christine Fitzgerald
[2011 May] Unlawful Killing – the film the British won't get to see  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.
[2009 Feb] Diana: Can You See The Real Me?: The Greatest Spiritual Energy Extraction Scam of the 20th Century By Matthew Delooze  Marilyn was another Serpent Cult symbolic Goddess. Same Scam, different time and different location
DIANA WAS NOT THE TARGET  by Rayelan Allan
 
Lady Diana was Killed by a Team of Specialists of the British MI-5   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. ..... 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.
[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.
Quotes
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. A report from Andrew Hennessey on his observation of the tape he listened to produced by David Icke, The Arizona Wilder Video:
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.   HOW TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD  A Right Royal Con by Greg Hallett.
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.  [Interview] CREDO MUTWA On Alien Abduction & Reptilians
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.  [2007] James Andanson worked for MI6 British Intelligence as an informant
"One such 'unnamed' source - a former SAS sergeant - reveals that the 'accident' in which Diana died bore all the tell-tail signs of a known special forces assassination technique known as the 'Boston brakes'. Agreed, on first hearing, this sounds a bit James Bond - contrived. But bear with it. Because then you go on to read the testimony of former SAS officer and world famous explorer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, who confirms that the 'Boston brakes' is indeed a commonly employed assassination technique used by hired 'hit squads', and that it involves the use of a device which remotely controls the target-vehicle's steering and brakes. Fiennes goes on to say that this method has been used at least once in England, and in this regard describes in some detail the assassination of one Major Michael Marman, who was killed in a 'car crash' near Stonehenge in 1986. There's no doubt that the operation that killed Major Marman, as described by Fiennes, as well as by former Equerry to the Queen, Air Marshall Sir Peter Horsley, was chillingly identical to the series of events that killed Diana. Once again I have to say that the way the authors are able to continually corroborate their evidence in this way, throughout the book, is very impressive. " [Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence] Book review by Stephen Reid
But what is even more sensational is the suggestion that Diana had herself become part of the above-mentioned “counter-monarchy problem”. Following her ostracism from the Royal Family, the source claims, Diana was courted by supporters of the little-known Merovingian royal bloodline from which she herself descended, and which is today largely represented by Britain's forgotten Royal House of Stuart. As the authors discover, and despite media propaganda to the contrary, the Stuarts are still alive, well and politically active. And what's more, they still bear legitimate designs on the British Throne. 
    Anyway, the evidence strongly suggests that, in her not-so-private war with the Windsors, Diana became secretly involved in a “succession fight ... a fight over the structure of the future of the Monarchy”. It really is difficult to convey the full range of complexities here, given the space limitations. What I would say, though, is this: those still ignorant of the Stuarts' claim to the Throne; their ongoing struggle to be heard; and perhaps more to the point, Diana's own Stuart heritage, should read this book. At the very least it will cast the Princess in a new political light, one that reveals her as - potentially - a massive threat to the continued succession of the Windsors. And therefore as a prime target for 'removal'. [Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence] Book review by Stephen Reid
"Personally, following my own two year investigation, I am convinced that Diana Princess of Wales was murdered and equally confident that the evidence to prove it is in the files of the British Secret Intelligence Service and the CIA" - Noel Botham
"Anyone who looks at the facts of Diana's death, even stripped down to their bare essentials, cannot emerge without at least the suspicion that she was murdered.  More than eighty percent of British people believe that she was" - Noel Botham
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 PaulMI6 and the Princess of Wales by Richard John Charles Tomlinson


http://www.whale.to/c/princess_diana6.html

Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence


Published on 19 Nov 2012
"We all knew Diana had been murdered, it is as simple as that"


A Message From British Film Director, CHRIS EVERARD:
 
Published on 19 Nov 2012
"We all knew Diana had been murdered, it is as simple as that"


A Message From British Film Director, CHRIS EVERARD:

Since 1997, I have been investigating the crash which killed Princess Diana, her companion, Dodi AlFayed, the driver, Henri Paul, and massively wounded ex-paratrooper Trevor Rees-Jones. LADY DIE represents nearly ten years of research by myself, DAVID ICKE and the co-authors of the book "Diana: The Hidden Evidence", JON KING and JOHN BEVERIDGE.

A Mercedes S280 of the exact model and year was purchased in order that tests could be made for this documentary. The film has a running time of nearly 4 hours and leaves no stone unturned.

The horrific history of the royal family is exposed, including the faked suicide/murder of Stephen Ward, Prince Philip's links with the Profumo scandal, Occult Cocktail Parties at the Cliveden Estate in the 1960s, the exorcism of Stephen Wards cottage, the double murder of two young princes in the Tower of London, the forced euthenasia of King George in 1936 - his killing was timed to coincide with the morning edition of The Times newspaper - and, of course, the film features a full investigation into the crash which killed Princess Diana.

I assembled a Scotland Yard-style incident board for the making of this documentary, which reveals hitherto unknown information about many of the characters involved in the plot to kill Diana.

The film explores the hand-written note which Diana gave to her butler - and another given for safe keeping to her lawyer - which explicitly said that a fake car crash, one which would result in death, was being planned by people working for Prince Charles.

DAVID ICKE bravely puts forward his research, based on confidantes of Princess Diana, which suggests that the crash in Paris was the beginning of a gruesome occult ritual with the time and place of the crash being chosen carefully to coincide with ancient Satanic Rites. Davids excellent book THE BIGGEST SECRET is also discussed in this film.

What exactly did the Queen mean when she warned Diana's butler PAUL BURREL, that there were "dark and mysterious forces" at work in Britain?

What was Henri Paul doing the hours immediately before he turned up for work on that fateful night?

Why was the SIPA press agency in Paris broken into following the death of a Paparazzi photographer?

Who were the senior MI6 and MI5 agents in the tunnel on the night of the crash?

Why was Klaus Werner deported after standing vigil outside Dianas apartment?

All these questions and much more are answered in this film, which was edited in a constantly moving vehicle and deposited at the DVD factories on the day that the British inquiry heard the father of Dodi AlFayed pronounce that his sons death was a case of Black & White MURDER.

The historical part of this film proves, using extensive photos, newspaper cuttings, film clips and testimonies, that the royal family have stabbed and slashed their way to power throughout the ages.

The producers have invoked FAIR USE guidelines in the making of this film. All proceeds will be used to offer subsidised courses in film making, which will be announced later this year.

Visit me on: //www.facebook.com/true.stories.12 for more True Stories

Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence


 
Published on 19 Nov 2012
"We all knew Diana had been murdered, it is as simple as that"


A Message From British Film Director, CHRIS EVERARD:

Since 1997, I have been investigating the crash which killed Princess Diana, her companion, Dodi AlFayed, the driver, Henri Paul, and massively wounded ex-paratrooper Trevor Rees-Jones. LADY DIE represents nearly ten years of research by myself, DAVID ICKE and the co-authors of the book "Diana: The Hidden Evidence", JON KING and JOHN BEVERIDGE.

A Mercedes S280 of the exact model and year was purchased in order that tests could be made for this documentary. The film has a running time of nearly 4 hours and leaves no stone unturned.

The horrific history of the royal family is exposed, including the faked suicide/murder of Stephen Ward, Prince Philip's links with the Profumo scandal, Occult Cocktail Parties at the Cliveden Estate in the 1960s, the exorcism of Stephen Wards cottage, the double murder of two young princes in the Tower of London, the forced euthenasia of King George in 1936 - his killing was timed to coincide with the morning edition of The Times newspaper - and, of course, the film features a full investigation into the crash which killed Princess Diana.

I assembled a Scotland Yard-style incident board for the making of this documentary, which reveals hitherto unknown information about many of the characters involved in the plot to kill Diana.

The film explores the hand-written note which Diana gave to her butler - and another given for safe keeping to her lawyer - which explicitly said that a fake car crash, one which would result in death, was being planned by people working for Prince Charles.

DAVID ICKE bravely puts forward his research, based on confidantes of Princess Diana, which suggests that the crash in Paris was the beginning of a gruesome occult ritual with the time and place of the crash being chosen carefully to coincide with ancient Satanic Rites. Davids excellent book THE BIGGEST SECRET is also discussed in this film.

What exactly did the Queen mean when she warned Diana's butler PAUL BURREL, that there were "dark and mysterious forces" at work in Britain?

What was Henri Paul doing the hours immediately before he turned up for work on that fateful night?

Why was the SIPA press agency in Paris broken into following the death of a Paparazzi photographer?

Who were the senior MI6 and MI5 agents in the tunnel on the night of the crash?

Why was Klaus Werner deported after standing vigil outside Dianas apartment?

All these questions and much more are answered in this film, which was edited in a constantly moving vehicle and deposited at the DVD factories on the day that the British inquiry heard the father of Dodi AlFayed pronounce that his sons death was a case of Black & White MURDER.

The historical part of this film proves, using extensive photos, newspaper cuttings, film clips and testimonies, that the royal family have stabbed and slashed their way to power throughout the ages.

The producers have invoked FAIR USE guidelines in the making of this film. All proceeds will be used to offer subsidised courses in film making, which will be announced later this year.


Visit me on: //www.facebook.com/true.stories.12 for more True Stories








  Jon King

Webhttp://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

Emailshining.bright@optusnet.com.au 
Websitehttp://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


http://www.amazon.co.uk

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."





[back] Diana murder

Diana Inquest: The Untold Story


 
The Untold Story reveals how judicial corruption led to a seriously flawed verdict at the inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed. It provides a thorough record of the key evidence that was heard by the inquest jury and details the 143 important witnesses who were not heard from during the inquest. The book reveals the critical relevance of the evidence from the original police statements that the jury were prevented from having access to. This untold story destroys the perception that the inquest achieved justice for the deceased occupants of the crashed Mercedes. It clearly outlines the methods employed by the royal coroner to continually manipulate the jury throughout the six months of the inquest. This is the gripping, true account of a judiciary hell-bent on ensuring that the jury would not be permitted to return a verdict of murder in the most significant and high profile inquest of our modern era.
 
 



[back] Diana murder
Cover-Up of a Royal Murder: Hundreds of Errors in the Paget Report
a book bJohn Morgan

``When you put all the evidence together, you can see that driver Henri Paul was framed,’’ --John Morgan
Cover-up of a Royal Murder is a thorough investigation of the British inquiry - the Paget report - into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed. It uses eye-witness, documentary and other evidence to prove that the conclusions drawn in the Paget report are fundamentally flawed -- yet it is the Paget report that is set to form the basis for the upcoming British inquest. This is the book that proves beyond reasonable doubt that Princess Diana was murdered and that there is a lot more to the Paris crash than the French and British investigations have revealed. "Cover-up" provides credibility to the lingering doubts of a large section of the British and international public -- doubts that remain even 10 years after the crash. This book lays down a huge challenge to those who believe the death of Diana Princess of Wales was just a tragic accident. Cover-up of a Royal Murder exposes one of the greatest cover-ups of our time.

Reviewed This Item

Apr. 20, 2008 By Helen Moseley
"Cover-up of a Royal Murder by John Morgan"
Cover-up of a Royal Murder is compelling reading – I couldn’t put it down. John Morgan should be absolutely commended for this most illuminating book and the meticulous attention to detail he has displayed with regard to his research and analysis. I began it feeling slightly sceptical because, while I have always wondered if it was more than an accident, lately I came to the conclusion that perhaps it was just a tragic accident after all. I could accept Mohamed Al-Fayed’s belief that it was murder but the fact that he implicated Prince Phillip has, I believe, diverted people’s thinking and led them to the belief that he was just a grievinging father. Unfortunately, this has also given the Court a point to focus on to the exclusion of all else. 

However I now firmly agree with what John Morgan has come up with and believe that she was in fact murdered by some group, possibly MI6 but maybe the French and Americans were implicated too. Who knows. I actually came to this conclusion very early in the book, especially regarding the unbelievable diabolical fiasco relating to Henri Paul’s autopsies and blood test results, and each succeeding chapter just reinforced this conclusion even more. Also it is extraordinarily inexplicable the length of time it took to get Princess Diana to hospital only a very short distance away and then not to the nearest one which VIPs used but one further away and with no doctor on duty when she first arrived. With the delay incurred, there was plenty of time to have arranged for someone to be waiting for her arrival. Explanations as to why she wasn’t moved to a decent hospital immediately, preferably by helicopter, are simply smokescreens. If Princess Diana had instead been some vagrant maybe this might have explained a few things but she was a VIP in every sense of the word and the shoddy treatment she received can only lead one to the view that it was a deliberate act which eventually achieved their aim – her death. Surely the French aren’t as incompetent as their inaction would lead us to believe!! 

The Paget Report was a total waste of money. Lord Stevens was either coerced to cover this matter up, or was totally incompetent. I’m sure it was the former. This could also apply to everyone else involved, especially those who did the autopsies etc. The whole matter is shocking and I just hope the powers that be won’t have achieved their aim in producing the seriously flawed Paget Report followed by the very biased Inquest, which ended with a predictable result - and that it won’t go away but many questions will continue to be openly asked. Hopefully the real truth will come out one day. It must be very hard on Princes William and Harry, and it obviously wouldn’t be in their healthy interests to press this matter, but I know without any doubt that if it was my mother, I would want the absolute truth. So it is up to the public to keep this matter to the forefront and not let it be buried so that the real facts will hopefully eventually come out and enable that much vaunted word, i.e.. closure, to occur. 

There is still very widespread interest in Princess Diana and this book should be widely available to as many people as possible, especially in the UK, the States and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I’m not sure why it is not. This matter must not close before we have the truth. Excellent work, John Morgan!!

Princess Diana: The Evidence [Paperback]

Jon King John Beveridge  



Diana
PRINCESS DIANA: THE EVIDENCE
by Jon King & John Beveridge
2009
‘ The Book The British Government Tried To Ban! ’
* THE CONSPIRACY

‘Princess Diana: The Evidence’ tells how the authors were forewarned of an imminent prime-target assassination just a week before Diana’s crash in Paris, and how they subsequently discovered that:

*French paparazzo and MI6 agent James Andanson, owner of a white Fiat Uno identical to the one involved in the crash, was planning to publish compromising photographs of the crash scene in a book when he was found dead in his burnt-out car 400 miles from where he should have been.

* Princess Diana was unable to wear her seatbelt because it was “jammed in the retracted position”, according to the official UK investigation.

* The Mercedes in which Diana died, the "only available car" on the night, was stolen at gunpoint prior to the crash; its EMS – the onboard computer-chip that controls the steering and brakes – was stolen and replaced.

* The 'Boston brakes' is a known method of assassination by ‘road traffic accident' developed by the CIA and adopted by the world’s intelligence services; it involves taking over the target vehicle’s steering and brakes by remotely controlling its on-board EMS.

* Other examples of assassination by ‘road traffic accident’ have occurred over the years, and are cited in the book.

* A parallel plot to assassinate Camilla Parker Bowles was foiled in June 1997, just weeks before Diana's 'accident', when Prince Charles's mistress survived her own near-fatal 'road traffic accident'.

* The CIA and NSA possess files revealing their complicity in the operation that killed Diana; these files also reveal that the British establishment was concerned that Diana might have been pregnant with Dodi Fayed's child.

* Diana was illegally embalmed in order to cover up her possible pregnancy and the order to embalm her was given by a very senior British diplomat named in the book.


Moreover, the authors discover...

* That all CCTV cameras lining the route from the Ritz Hotel to the crash tunnel were somehow inexplicably "turned inwards" on the night Diana died; thus no video footage of the journey or the crash exists.

* That it took nearly 2 hours to get Diana to a hospital 3.25 miles from the crash scene, and that the ambulance "stopped for a further ten minutes" outside the hospital gates, having driven past at least one fully equipped hospital en route.

That the crash tunnel was swept clean, disinfected and reopened within hours of the crash, destroying crucial forensic evidence.

* That chauffeur Henri Paul, officially blamed for Diana's death, was a part-time intelligence agent who met with his intelligence handlers hours before the crash.

* That the blood sample on which the official verdict was based was never DNA-identified, that the blood tested was stored in a phial labelled “unknown male”, and that carbon-monoxide tests concluded that the blood could not have belonged to Henri Paul.

* That two senior MI6 officers plus the Queen's Private Secretary were allegedly present in the British Embassy in Paris on the night of the crash, and that these officials ordered staff manning the communications room to leave.

* That French paparazzo, part-time MI6 agent and white Fiat Uno owner, James Andanson, who told friends he took compromising photographs in the crash tunnel and that he intended to publish them in a book, was found ‘burnt to death’ with a bullet hole in his head just weeks before his photographic archive was stolen at gunpoint by three armed raiders. The photographs would never be seen again.

* That Diana's butler, Paul Burrell, was ordered by one of Diana's closest friends to burn the princess's blood-stained clothes immediately they arrived back in London, destroying crucial forensic evidence.


Excerpts:

“Don’t meddle in things that you know nothing about because you know accidents can happen.”

Former British Armed Forces Minister and personal friend of Prince Charles, Nicholas Soames MP, from an alleged telephone conversation with Diana on her return from Angola, 1997, just weeks before her death.


* “This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous. My husband is planning an accident in my car, brake failure and serious head injury, in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry.”

Princess Diana, November 1995.


* “Prince Philip wants to see me dead.”

Princess Diana, November 1995 [Operation Paget Report, page 108].


* “I am a threat in their eyes. They only use me when they need me for official functions and then they drop me again in the darkness… they are not going to kill me by poisoning me or in a big plane where others will get hurt. They will either do it when I am on a small plane, in a car when I am driving or in a helicopter.”

Princess Diana, speaking to friend Roberto Devorik, August 1996.


* “Dear Simone, as you know, the brakes of my car have been tampered with. If something does happen to me it will be MI5 or MI6 who will have done it. Lots of love, Diana.”

Princess Diana, in a note to friend Simone Simmons, 1995.


* “Diana told me personally, during a holiday in the South of France, that the person who is spearheading these threats is Prince Philip … She told me it would happen either in a helicopter or a car.”

Mohamed Al Fayed, October, 2003.


* Princess Diana/Jorg Haider Deaths Correlations...


Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence

Book review by Stephen Reid
 
Was Princess Diana murdered? A huge number of Britons think that she was. Now a film, "The People's Movie" is being made about her assassination based on Jon King’s investigation “Diana: The Hidden Evidence” reviewed below. Ed

In its pre-launch promotional blurb, this book was billed as 'a serious literary inquiry' into 'the political and historical motives behind the death of Diana, Princess of Wales'. And in its own uncompromising way, that is precisely what it is. 

Incredibly, “Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence” claims foreknowledge of an MI6 plot to “eliminate one of the most prominent figures on the world stage ... within days from now”. According to the authors this information came from a “US Special Forces veteran and CIA contract agent” (with whom they had already forged a working relationship) one week prior to the crash in Paris. Even more incredibly, this claim is then corroborated by an MI5 source and a second source inside “British Military Intelligence.” 

Doubtful? Inconclusive? OK, but that is where any doubts regarding the authenticity of this book begin and end. The authors are quick to point out that their findings do not depend on this information. It is included, they say, purely to explain their reasons for investigating Diana's death in the first place. The full interview with the “US Special Forces veteran” is included in the book, and is very revealing indeed. 

But that is only the beginning. This book is the product of a 2-year investigation, and includes testimonies from many other highly respected sources - crash experts, security and intelligence experts, medical experts, constitutional and historical experts - all of whom offer threads of evidence which the authors string together into a very coherent and compelling case. And when, on occasion, evidence is gleaned from an 'unnamed' source, the authors are quick to substantiate that evidence with the testimony of at least one 'named' source. Often more than one. 

One such 'unnamed' source - a former SAS sergeant - reveals that the 'accident' in which Diana died bore all the tell-tail signs of a known special forces assassination technique known as the 'Boston brakes'. Agreed, on first hearing, this sounds a bit James Bond - contrived. But bear with it. Because then you go on to read the testimony of former SAS officer and world famous explorer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, who confirms that the 'Boston brakes' is indeed a commonly employed assassination technique used by hired 'hit squads', and that it involves the use of a device which remotely controls the target-vehicle's steering and brakes. Fiennes goes on to say that this method has been used at least once in England, and in this regard describes in some detail the assassination of one Major Michael Marman, who was killed in a 'car crash' near Stonehenge in 1986. There's no doubt that the operation that killed Major Marman, as described by Fiennes, as well as by former Equerry to the Queen, Air Marshall Sir Peter Horsley, was chillingly identical to the series of events that killed Diana. Once again I have to say that the way the authors are able to continually corroborate their evidence in this way, throughout the book, is very impressive. 

Another thing that impressed me about this book was its format. From the outset the authors make no bones about the fact that they believe Diana was murdered; hence they present their findings in the form of a courtroom trial - the authors assume the role of prosecuting counsels while the reader assumes the role of jury. 

In the dock, accused of 'conspiracy to murder', are MI6 and the CIA, together with the British Royal Establishment. And I have to say that the case brought against them is both disturbing and convincing. No wonder the authors were forced to go to America in order to get this book published! 

Exhibit number one in this 'literary trial' must surely be the two secret letters obtained by the authors - letters written by Diana only months before her death. Addressed to an investigative journalist in America and signed by Diana's personal secretary, the letters shed a new and somewhat sinister light on Diana's landmines campaign in Angola. They clearly show that the Princess was aware of the dangers she faced in defying the Establishment and pursuing her campaign. And that those dangers were far greater than any of us knew at the time. 

But perhaps the most intriguing contribution comes from a former Foreign Office historian, who claims that he worked for a department whose 'special remit' is to monitor the “counter-monarchy problem.” He told the authors that MI6 are in possession of genealogical records and historical documents that (a) date back centuries; (b) highlight the ongoing power struggle at the heart of the British Monarchy; and (c) challenge the legitimacy of the present Royal Family on the basis of their dubious pedigree. These records and documents are, therefore, being deliberately concealed from public view, the source asserts. Sensational stuff! 

But what is even more sensational is the suggestion that Diana had herself become part of the above-mentioned “counter-monarchy problem”. Following her ostracism from the Royal Family, the source claims, Diana was courted by supporters of the little-known Merovingian royal bloodline from which she herself descended, and which is today largely represented by Britain's forgotten Royal House of Stuart. As the authors discover, and despite media propaganda to the contrary, the Stuarts are still alive, well and politically active. And what's more, they still bear legitimate designs on the British Throne. 

Anyway, the evidence strongly suggests that, in her not-so-private war with the Windsors, Diana became secretly involved in a “succession fight ... a fight over the structure of the future of the Monarchy”. It really is difficult to convey the full range of complexities here, given the space limitations. What I would say, though, is this: those still ignorant of the Stuarts' claim to the Throne; their ongoing struggle to be heard; and perhaps more to the point, Diana's own Stuart heritage, should read this book. At the very least it will cast the Princess in a new political light, one that reveals her as - potentially - a massive threat to the continued succession of the Windsors. And therefore as a prime target for 'removal'. 

Throughout the book these claims, though no doubt offensive to some, are supported by a wealth of meticulously researched and hitherto 'hidden evidence' from which the book takes its name. Also included here is a wonderful insight into the history of the British Crown - how it has been bought, sold, bought again, and ultimately usurped. From the Plantagenets and the Tudors to the overthrow of the Stuarts and the coming of the House of Windsor, this book lays bare the ongoing bloodline struggle and more (plus, of course, the significance of that struggle in Diana's death). Suffice to say here that the 'bloodline' section of this book is worth the cover price all by itself! 

All in all, Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence is surely the most historically and politically important book of its time. It is certainly the most thought-provoking book I have read in years. Apart from anything else it includes a fascinating and thoroughly researched investigation into the secret histories of MI5, MI6 and the CIA; and an equally disturbing exposé on how British and American banks and corporations funded Hitler's rise to power - all backed up with official FBI and US government documents. In fact the section on The Bid To Unite Europe covers a multitude of corporate sins, from the Bank of England's investment in the House of Windsor (and vice versa) to the Crown's nefarious dealings in Angola (where Diana's landmines campaign was centred).
The fact that all of these themes are woven into a most coherent and compelling scenario; and the added fact that, staggeringly, they combine to present the most convincing case in favour of assassination, surely makes this book the most 'should-be-read' volume of our times (especially when you remember what this book is all about - the very real possibility that the Princess of Wales was murdered). 

If I were to be scrupulously honest I would say that, having read this book, I am now convinced that Diana's death was no accident. And that, as the authors conclude, if we care at all about the accountability of our intelligence and security services (and the Establishment czars who run them) then it is high time that a public inquiry was launched in Britain to discover precisely what happened on that tragic and fateful night in Paris. And perhaps more to the point - why it happened. 

A must read for all those who cared about Diana - and all those who care about the truth. 

[Note]: Prepare for a sting in the tail of this fascinating book, as the authors finally track down and gain an interview with HRH Prince Michael of Albany (who subsequently also agreed to write the book's Foreword). The interview was conducted only a short time before the book went to print, and proves the most credible and damning corroborative testimony that even the authors themselves could have hoped for. Prince Michael is a distant relative of Diana and the current Head of Britain's Royal House of Stewart (formerly Stuart). By his own admission he is the first senior Stuart heir since 1887 to officially raise the issue of the Stuarts' claim to the Throne. And as the authors discover, he has paid the price for doing so - his passport has been revoked, making him an effective prisoner in Britain; he has been repeatedly harassed by the authorities, by Special Branch and MI5; and he has been either ignored or debunked by the British media. In other words, Prince Michael is a man on the inside of royal politics - he knows first-hand how the British Royal Establishment deals with 'loose cannons' like Diana, and he is not afraid to speak his mind about it. 

Indeed, the Royal Family, MI6 and the British Royal Establishment will no doubt rue the day this book was ever written – gripping stuff! 

 
Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence by Jon King and John Beveridge is published by SPI Books New York and priced at £18.99. The book is also available from its British distributors Roundhouse Publishers tel: 01237 474474 
 
Last updated 15/02/2006

[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)

Princess Diana Evidence of Assassination: Jon King on Edge Media TV


Princess Diana Evidence of Assassination: Jon King on Edge Media TV
















Mohamed al-Fayed Believes Palace Plot Caused Princess Diana’s Death…

William Suspects Conspiracy, Dodi Fayed’s Father Claims

On the eve of the royal wedding, the father of the man killed in the car crash with the late Princess Diana is making new charges about a palace conspiracy he claims led to the death of his son Dodi.
Mohamed Al-Fayed, who has long claimed that a conspiracy within the royal family plotted the deaths of Princess Diana and his son, charged Thursday that Diana’s son William suspects a palace plot as well.
“I think William also believes in the conspiracy,” al-Fayed said in an exclusive interview with WCVB-TV’s Bianca de la Garza. “I have letters from William talking about his struggle with this.”
While al-Fayed, who rarely grants interviews, did not allow his interview to be videotaped, he did meet and talk with de la Garza at his London home.
Dodi Fayed was romantically involved with Diana, who had divorced Prince Charles. The couple died in a crash in Paris on Aug. 31, 1997, when the car in which they were riding spun out of control in the Pont de l’Alma underpass.
Al-Fayed believes that the driver of the car, Henri Paul, had plotted with the royal family to kill Diana and Dodi.
“Link To Video HERE…”:http://youtu.be/dO1YPr-gFkY
● ● ●
  • See also: “Princess Diana Assassination – 14 Years Of Lies, Spies And Cover-Ups”:/news/princess-diana-assassination-14-years-of-lies-spies-and-cover-ups//
  • See also: “Diana Inquest – The Documents The Jury Never Saw”:/news/diana-inquest-the-documents-the-jury-never-saw/
  • See also: “Princess Diana Assassination: A People’s Inquiry”:/news/princess-diana-assassination-a-peoples-inquiry/
  • See also: “Princess Diana Death Spy In Deal With MI6”:/news/princess-diana-death-spy-in-deal-with-mi6/
  • See also: “Princess Diana And Jorg Haider Assassinated By ‘Boston Brakes’”:/news/princess-diana-and-jorg-haider-assassinated-by-boston-brakes/
  • See also: “New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6”:/news/new-evidence-diana-was-murdered-by-mi6/
  • See also: “Political Assassinations”:/discussion-topics/political-assassinations/
  • See also: “Princess Diana Forum Topic”:http://forums.consciousape.com/index.php?showtopic=96
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

comments


  1. BLU

  2. H. Meier













New book reveals over 500 critical items of evidence withheld from Diana Inquest jury…

Diana Inquest: The Documents The Jury Never Saw

Key Documents Withheld from Diana Inquest Jury
A new book has revealed that over 500 critical items of evidence were withheld from the jury at the 2008 inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed.
Brisbane, Australia – In a development that strengthens the call for a new independent inquest into the 1997 deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed, a book published this week includes for the first time over 100 important documents that were concealed during the original 2007-8 inquest.
The book, entitled Diana Inquest: The Documents the Jury Never Saw, reveals evidence of a massive suppression of key documentation by the inquest judge, royal coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker. It shows how Scott Baker prevented hundreds of documents from being made available to his own inquest jury.
Edited by Australian investigative writer John Morgan, the 700 page volume reproduces over 100 of the most critical documents and lists a further 400 documents to which the jury should have had access to enable them to reach an informed verdict.
The evidence in this new book casts serious doubt on Scott Baker’s claim that his inquest examined the complex case in “the minutest detail”.
Diana Inquest: The Documents the Jury Never Saw reveals a judicial censorship of key evidence that was so substantial that Scott Baker’s inquest was more significant for the documents that weren’t shown, than for those that the jury actually saw.
Included in the book are the original official police statements of French experts Professor Dominique Lecomte and Dr Gilbert Pépin. Lecomte was the pathologist who conducted the controversial autopsy of Mercedes driver Henri Paul and Pépin was the toxicologist who carried out the testing on the autopsy samples.
Both of these crucial witnesses refused to appear at the London inquest.
Judge Baker was in possession of their statements but failed to have them read out or shown to the jury. Why?
These police statements, along with many other crucial documents, are made public for the first time in the new book.
At the time of the inquest, the general public expected the jury to reach an informed verdict, but no one could have possibly understood that Baker had withheld such a huge volume of critical evidence from his own jury.
Through this massive censorship, royal coroner Scott Baker was able to ensure that this inquest jury had no hope of reaching that informed verdict.
John Morgan, who has written a series of books on the Diana inquest, has called for a fresh independent inquest into the Paris car crash that took the lives of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed. He has stated that “there is a tidal wave of evidence exposing corruption in the conduct of initially the police investigations and now also in the London inquest itself”.
Morgan said that justice can only be achieved through an independent inquest held on French soil.
“The crash occurred in France and the witnesses are therefore French. An inquest that is capable of forcing the French witnesses to appear is the only way forward to establish the truth of what occurred on the weekend of 30-31 August 1997.”
Morgan said he believes that such an inquest should be conducted under the auspices of the International Court of Justice.
Diana Inquest: The Documents The Jury Never Saw is available at “Amazon Books”:http://www.amazon.com/Diana-Inquest-Documents-Jury-Never/dp/098074072X/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280779005&sr=8-9
● ● ●














14 years after her death, new evidence has emerged that Diana was murdered by MI6 ‘Boston brakes’…

Princess Diana Assassination: A People’s Inquiry

By Jon King
The ‘Boston Brakes’
Fourteen years after her death, new evidence has emerged that Princess Diana was murdered in an MI6-organized ‘Boston brakes’ operation.
Following the 2008 Royal Inquest debacle, which ruled out MI6 involvement in Diana’s death, new evidence has come to light which challenges the ‘official verdict’.
 In their book, “Princess Diana: The Evidence”:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Princess-Diana-Evidence-Jon-King/dp/1561718882/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1235477992&sr=11-1_, authors Jon King and John Beveridge present evidence that a highly sophisticated assassination technique was used to cause the princess’s vehicle to crash as it drove through the Alma tunnel, Paris, in the early hours of August 31st, 1997.
The ‘Boston brakes’, they reveal, is the most favoured assassination technique employed by the West’s intelligence services due to its deniability.
For many years following the princess’s death, the authors delved the smoke-and-mirrors underworld of political assassination, gleaning what information they could from well-placed intelligence contacts and former special and elite forces—mercenaries, royal bodyguards, and on ocassion, hired assassins.
Some of these crack military freelancers disclosed details of prior operations in which the ‘Boston brakes’ had been successfully used. Others, who fought in Angola, home of Diana’s landmines campaign, threw light on the secret oil and diamond wars still raging in central Africa, and in particular the dirty arms-for-oil deals carried out by MI6, French DGSE, the CIA and the Bush-Cheney oil syndicate.
The authors were told that by focusing the light of the world’s media on Angola the princess was in danger of exposing these deals, and was thus placing herself “in grave danger”.
For obvious reasons some of the sources quoted in the book remain anonymous. But many are named.

Princess Diana Assassination: A People’s Inquiry

The SAS And The Clinic
Speaking of the ‘Boston brakes’ operation which he believed killed Princess Diana, former SAS sergeant, Dave Cornish, exclusively revealed:
“From the minute the decoy car left the Ritz to the moment the tail car closed in … it was obvious what was going down. Anyone who knows what they’re talking about’ll tell you the same.”
And former Royal bodyguard, Mike Grey, added:
“The operation bore all the classic hallmarks of a security service assassination …. I have no doubts whatsoever, given my twenty years experience in various sections of the security industry, that Diana was assassinated. The security service hallmarks are plain to see.”
But it was former SAS officer and world-famous explorer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, who offered perhaps the most telling revelation of all.
The ‘Boston brakes’ method of assassination, Fiennes reveals, has been in use since at least the 1980s, and deploys a microchip transceiver which takes over the target vehicle’s steering and brakes at the critical moment.
The method, he says, was first deployed by the CIA in Boston, hence the name. But it has since been adopted by intelligence and security forces the world over, as well as by private security firms and their hit squads.
Fiennes also confirms that the death by ‘road traffic accident’ of SAS Major Michael Marman in England in 1986 was the result of a Boston brakes operation carried out by a private hit squad known as The Clinic.

Princess Diana Assassination: A People’s Inquiry

The Attempt To Assassinate Camilla
Further instances of the Boston brakes in action are also cited in the book, including the death by ‘road traffic accident’ of Diana’s former lover and bodyguard, Barry Mannakee, in 1987, and – staggeringly – the attempted assassination by ‘road traffic accident’ of Camilla Parker Bowles just two months prior to Diana’s own fatal crash.
The story of this never-before-disclosed incident is recounted in some detail in the book.
According to sources quoted by the authors, the attempt on Camilla Parker Bowles’s life was the result of a “constitutional crisis” engendered by Prince Charles’s desire to marry his long-term lover while Diana was still alive.
Indeed, according to Tony Wright, then parliamentary aide to the Lord Chancellor, the crisis was so severe it almost resulted in the disestablishment of the Church The Independent.
As the authors point out, such a move would have amounted to the biggest, most far-reaching constitutional reforms since Henry VIII. And we all know what happened to one or two of his wives…

Princess Diana Assassination: A People’s Inquiry

Seat Belt “Jammed In The Retracted Position”
Other revelations in the book include an interview with a well-known Harley Street specialist [named in the book] who became Diana’s nutritional guru.
Fearing she might have been pregnant, the authors reveal, Diana visited her nutritional guru for dietary advice prior to her final holiday with Dodi Fayed. Following her visit the specialist’s Harley Street clinic was broken into and his computer stolen.
And there are many other fresh concerns raised in this uncompromising cross-examination of the ‘accident theory’, in which the authors assume the roles of prosecuting counsels in what is in effect a ‘people’s inquiry’.
Not least among these concerns is the anomaly surrounding Diana’s seat-belt, which, the authors reveal, was found by the Operation Paget team to have been “jammed in the retracted position” and thus unusable—a fact, like so many others, brushed aside by the Royal Inquest.
Other challenges to the ‘accident theory’ include:
  • Grave concerns over the coroner’s decision to ignore crucial evidence regarding landmines;
  • The true identity of certain members of the paparazzi;
  • The Metropolitan Police cover-up of Diana’s recorded statements about perceived threats on her life;
  • Recorded communications between Diana, Prince Charles and Prince Philip;
  • Concerns about Diana’s illegal embalming, which the authors discover was carried out on the orders of a very high-ranking British ‘diplomat’ stationed at the British Embassy in Paris on the night of the crash [diplomat named in the book];
  • The ‘bullet hole’ found in paparazzo James Andanson’s head, discovered and reported by Police Chief Jean-Michel Lauzun at the scene of the MI6 agent’s mysterious ‘suicide’;
  • And Henri Paul’s spurious blood sample – on which the inquest’s verdict was ultimately based – which, the authors reveal, was never DNA-identified, was taken from a vial labelled ‘unknown male’ and contained a level of carbon monoxide so excessive six of the world’s most eminent forensic experts stated under oath that it could not possibly have belonged to Henri Paul.

Princess Diana Assassination: A People’s Inquiry

Also In ‘Princess Diana – The Evidence’
  • An unforgiving exposé on the “wholly flawed and contrived” Royal Inquest;
  • A comprehensive, 60,000-word critique of Lord Stevens’ Operation Paget investigation;
  • An extensive dossier on the mismanagement of the French Inquiry;
  • Plus compelling evidence of a plot to assassinate Diana dating back to November 1995.
Incredibly, “Princess Diana: The Evidence”:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Princess-Diana-Evidence-Jon-King/dp/1561718882/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1235477992&sr=11-1 also reveals foreknowledge of a prime-target assassination being planned by MI6 one week prior to Diana’s fatal crash.
The authors are calling for a ‘People’s Inquiry’ to be launched into the incident.
Little wonder this book is billed as ‘The Book the British Government Tried To Ban!’
● ● ●
  • See also: “William Suspects Conspiracy, Dodi Fayed’s Father Claims”:/news/william-suspects-conspiracy-dodi-fayeds-father-claims/
  • See also: “Diana Inquest – The Documents The Jury Never Saw”:/news/diana-inquest-the-documents-the-jury-never-saw/
  • See also: “Princess Diana Assassination – 14 Years Of Lies Spies And Cover-Ups”:/news/princess-diana-assassination-14-years-of-lies-spies-and-cover-ups//
  • See also: “Princess Diana And Jorg Haider Assassinated By ‘Boston Brakes’”:/news/princess-diana-and-jorg-haider-assassinated-by-boston-brakes/
  • See also: “Princess Diana Forum Topic”:http://forums.consciousape.com/index.php?showtopic=96
  • See also: “Princess Diana And MI6”:/news/new-evidence-diana-was-murdered-by-mi6/
  • See also: “Political Assassinations”:/discussion-topics/political-assassinations/
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
image sources: “Prison Planet”:http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2007/080107diana.jpg â€¢ “Royal Inquest Website”:www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk â€¢ “Cremation Of Care”:http://www.cremationofcare.com/images/diana/express040407.gif


Did former spy and whistleblower Richard Tomlinson retract evidence at Diana Inquest as part of MI6 deal…?

Princess Diana – Richard Tomlinson

Deal Done With MI6
In a dramatic turn of events, former MI6 spy and whistleblower, Richard Tomlinson, who spent more than a decade on the run from MI6, has finally been allowed back into Britain.
MI6 has dropped all charges against its former employee, unfrozen royalties from his whistleblowing book and apologized for its unfair treatment of him. The move comes as speculation mounts that Tomlinson has done a deal with MI6 over what he knows about the spy firm’s involvement in “Princess Diana’s death”:/discussion-topics/political-assassinations/.
In 1999 Richard Tomlinson signed an affidavit stating that MI6 had formulated a plan to assassinate former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic in a road traffic accident identical to the one which killed “Princess Diana”:/news/princess-diana-assassination-12th-anniversary-a-peoples-inquiry/ in August 1997.
He told the French Inquiry into Diana’s death that he believed MI6 was involved in the princess’s murder and that MI6 agents used a special forces-style ‘strobe gun’ to blind chauffeur Henri Paul moments before he crashed.
Tomlinson also blew the whistle on two ‘undeclared’ MI6 officers stationed in Paris on the night of the crash and disclosed that he had seen MI6 documents revealing Henri Paul as a part-time MI6 agent.
But in a stunning, last-minute U-turn at the Royal Inquest into Diana’s death last year, Tomlinson mysteriously retracted his claims and has more recently, during secret negotiations with MI6 officers in Spain, also agreed to keep shtum about his knowledge of MI6 operations and in particular about the death of Princess Diana.
In return, Tomlinson no longer faces the threat of prosecution and imprisonment.

Princess Diana – Richard Tomlinson

MI6 Agents
As well as identifying Henri Paul as a part-time MI6 agent, Tomlinson also disclosed other information to the French Inquiry.
Perhaps his most startling disclosure was that well-known French paparazzo, James Andanson, was also a paid informant of MI6. Andanson made his name taking some of the most famous tabloid photographs of British royals abroad, and was known to have followed Diana and Dodi Fayed to Monaco, St Tropez and Sardinia during the summer of 1997.
And despite official claims to the contrary, it has emerged that he also followed them to Paris on the night of the crash.
Indeed, Andanson boasted to friends that he was in the crash tunnel seconds after Diana’s fatal collision, and that he took ‘compromising’ photographs of the wreckage and immediate aftermath which he planned to publish in a book.
For the record, Andanson also owned a white Fiat Uno identical to the one involved the crash.
A statement from Richard Tomlinson’s 1999 affidavit reads:
“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.”
Richard Tomlinson, former MI6 Officer, 1999.
Whether the paparazzo alluded to by Tomlinson was indeed James Andanson has never been formerly established. Whether the white Fiat Uno involved in the crash belonged to James Andanson, ditto.
And neither do we know the precise nature of the photographs Andanson took in the crash tunnel in the immediate aftermath—prior to the arrival of the emergency services.
But what we do know is that, in May 2000, Andanson’s entire photographic archive was stolen by an ‘armed gang’ from his offices at the Sipa Press Agency in Paris. We also know this:
A few days prior to the armed break-in, the French police announced that James Andanson had been found dead in his burnt-out car, 400 miles from where he should have been.
His car was locked from the inside. The keys were never found. He was discovered with a bullet hole in his head. His death was officially ruled as ‘suicide’.

Princess Diana – Richard Tomlinson

Undeclared MI6 Officers In Paris
 In their groundbreaking book, “Princess Diana: The Evidence”:/news/new-evidence-diana-was-murdered-by-mi6/, authors Jon King and John Beveridge recently added fuel to the fire when they revealed evidence of an MI6 assassination technique known as the “Boston brakes”:/news/princess-diana-and-jorg-haider-assassinated-by-boston-brakes/, effectively an assassination technique made to look like a ‘road traffic accident’.
Like Tomlinson, the authors cited other instances where the “Boston brakes”:/news/princess-diana-assassination-12th-anniversary-a-peoples-inquiry/ technique had be employed.
They also cast further light on the deal agreed between Tomlinson and MI6. Speaking of the Operation Paget Report, which published the findings of the British investigation into Diana’s death, King and Beveridge stated:
“While Diana is presented in the report as a paranoid neurotic who spends most of her time glancing back over her shoulder for signs of a government hit man, or an MI6 ‘mechanic’ intent on fixing her brakes, Richard Tomlinson is quite incontestably cast as a liar. We struggle to imagine what he must have been threatened with (or promised in return for completely changing his story), but virtually every word he has ever written or uttered regarding MI6 involvement in Diana’s death can now be pretty much discounted.”
Later in the book, King and Beveridge go on to reveal the following:
“A British Embassy leak reported that, on the night itself, there were at least six MI6 agents in Paris—more than comprise the entire (official) number of MI6 agents in Moscow.
“To add to this, former MI6 Officer Richard Tomlinson has told us that, not only was there an unusually high number of MI6 personnel in Paris on the night in question, but that those personnel included MI6 Chief David Spedding’s personal secretary.
“And what is more—in a statement released on 12th May 1999—Tomlinson revealed that, on the night Diana died, two senior MI6 Officers were in Paris on an “undeclared” basis, and that their directive was to liaise with MI6 informant, Henri Paul.
“Mr Tomlinson stated: ‘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.’
“Further: ‘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.’”

Princess Diana – Richard Tomlinson

MI6 Spy’s Home Raided
And here’s the sting, again extracted from Princess Diana: The Evidence by Jon King and John Beveridge:
“In relation to these claims made by Richard Tomlinson, we should note an incident that occurred in July 2006…
…On July 3rd, 2006, the Daily Express carried the following front-page headline:
DIANAARREST DRAMA—Ex-MI6 Spy’s Home Is Raided.
The accompanying story proceeded to claim that the raid was “linked to the Princess Diana inquiry”, and revealed that the former MI6 spy in question was none other than Richard Tomlinson.
Evidently, the story revealed, agents from the French security service (DST), at the request of MI6, ransacked Tomlinson’s home in southern France and confiscated telephone and computer equipment, together with his personal organizer, personal papers and files (including his bank account details), and perhaps more to the point, both his passports, as well (Tomlinson bears duel British and New Zealand nationality).
This action was taken, we were told, because MI6 feared Tomlinson might be called to testify at the Royal Inquest in London, and as a result, information would be revealed implicating MI6 in Diana’s death.”
So there we have it. Whether these raids, together with Tomlinson’s ‘interviews’ with the Paget team, were behind the former spy’s decision to retract his testimony regarding Diana’s death, I’ll leave you to you own conclusions.
But it would certainly seem that Tomlinson’s decision not to pursue his claims against MI6 in relation to Diana’s death – to retract his entire sworn testimony – is the reason he is once again a free man.
One way or another, by threat or free will, Richard Tomlinson has done a deal with MI6 to keep quiet about the truth of Diana’s death. I know what that says to me.
● ● ●
  • See also: “William Suspects Conspiracy, Dodi Fayed’s Father Claims”:/news/william-suspects-conspiracy-dodi-fayeds-father-claims/
  • See also: “Princess Diana Assassination: 14 Years Of Lies Spies And Cover-Ups”:/news/princess-diana-assassination-14-years-of-lies-spies-and-cover-ups/
  • See also: “Princess Diana And Jorg Haider Assassinated By Boston Brakes”:/news/princess-diana-and-jorg-haider-assassinated-by-boston-brakes/
  • See also: “Princess Diana Assassination: A People’s Inquiry”:/news/princess-diana-assassination-a-peoples-inquiry/
  • See also: “Diana Inquest: The Documents The Jury Never Saw”:/news/diana-inquest-the-documents-the-jury-never-saw/
  • See also: “Princess Diana – Political Assassination”:/discussion-topics/political-assassinations/
  • See also: “Princess Diana Forum”:http://forums.consciousape.com/index.php?s=6aa09a1f35157e864864a8fa277d46a9&showforum=25_











Were Princess Diana and Jorg Haider victims of the ‘Boston brakes’?

Princess Diana And Jorg Haider Assassinated By Boston Brakes

By Jon King
Assassinated
When Austria’s far-right political leader, Jorg Haider, died in a car crash last October (2008), rumours that his death was no accident quickly emerged.
Within hours a semi-coherent theory was doing the rounds, suggesting Haider might have been assassinated by Mossad. His imminent appointment as Austria’s chancellor, the theory proposed, was unacceptable to Israel, who perceived Haider as a kind of latter-day Adolf Hitler.
Somewhat predictably, many were quick to jump on these rumours, but not everyone. Personally I was caught somewhere midstream.
While I harboured little ambition to involve myself in the argument publicly, I couldn’t help but notice that several stark similarities seemed to exist between Haider’s death and that of another, even more famous political icon, one I had come to know only too well: Princess Diana.
For the past eleven years I had been centrally involved in investigating Diana’s death, and had indeed written two books on the subject with my co-author John Beveridge—‘Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence’ (SPIBooks, New York, 2001 hardback), and the more recent and massively updated paperback, ‘Princess Diana: The Evidence’.
As a result of these endeavours I had naturally become familiar with every piece of evidence there is to be had regarding Diana’s death, even the minutest detail.
Which is why I was taken so aback when I stumbled on an article in the “London Times”:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article4938718.ece, detailing the death of Jorg Haider (see below).

Princess Diana And Jorg Haider Assassinated By Boston Brakes

Correlations
Before I proceed, I should perhaps explain that the reason I became involved in investigating Diana’s death in the first place was due to information I received a week prior to her fatal ‘accident’ in Paris. Not the place here to delve that information—for anyone interested it is all openly detailed in my book.
But the point is that part of the information I received concerned how the media would be primed to respond in the event of Diana’s death—how it is primed to respond in the event of any political assassination. This information turned out to be frighteningly accurate.
With that in mind, I refer you to the following media reports and the correlations they seem to bear, which quite frankly continue to haunt me.
In the days immediately following Princess Diana’s ‘accident’, media reports famously informed us that her car “crashed into a concrete pillar while overtaking another vehicle” (a white Fiat Uno).
We were also told that the “speedometer was stuck at 120 mph”, a claim later proven conclusively incorrect when Mercedes engineers revealed the speedometer was designed to revert to zero on impact.
In any event, check this paragraph taken from the “London Times”:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article4938718.ecearticle I mentioned above. It was penned just a few days after Haider’s death (my italics).
 â€œThe leader of Austria’s Far Right was driving alone in his black Volkswagen Phaeton on a little-travelled road in southern Austria and crashed into a concrete pillar while overtaking another vehicle. The speedometer of the wrecked sedan was stuck at 142kph (88mph), police said—more than twice the limit for that road.”
This paragraph could so easily have been lifted from reports detailing Diana’s death eleven years earlier. The wording is not only close, it is exact, word-for-word.
And here is something else to think about.

Princess Diana And Jorg Haider Assassinated By Boston Brakes

Drunk At The Wheel
On the news wires the following day I found a Reuters feed (later published in “The Guardian”:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/15/austria-thefarright and the “New York Times”:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/world/europe/16austria.html) claiming that Haider was more than “three times over the legal drink-drive limit” when he lost control of his car.
Not many of us would need reminding that this is precisely the lie they tried to hang on Henri Paul, the Ritz security officer and French intelligence agent who was driving the Mercedes in which Princess Diana was killed.
For the record, even though the French and British inquiries both concluded that Henri Paul was drunk at the wheel, the blood sample on which this verdict was based has to this day never been DNA-identified.
In other words, the authorities who reached this conclusion still cannot be certain that the blood tested belonged to Henri Paul, much less that he was ‘drunk at the wheel’, as claimed.
Given that the sample was found also to contain a level of carbon monoxide poisoning sufficient to incapacitate a mountain gorilla, it is even more likely that the blood tested belonged to someone other than Henri Paul.
The official claim that Haider’s blood contained ‘excessive levels of alcohol’, then, should be taken with some caution.
Indeed, one has to wonder if it was Haider’s blood at all.

Princess Diana and Jorg Haider Assassinated By Boston Brakes

No Skid Marks
There is one further correlation I stumbled on in the “Austrian Times”:http://www.austriantimes.at/index.php?id=9073 (October 13th, 2008). The article read:
“Experts say there appears to be no trace Haider tried to avoid the crash once he lost control of his car.”
The article also included a quote from Max Lang, Head Technician with the Austrian Automobile Association (ÖAMTC), who said:
“With crashes like this one there are usually traces of how the driver tried to avoid crashing by steering away from the point of impact to rectify their mistake. Nothing of that can be seen here.
“I don’t think you can explain the accident just with excessive speed.”
What is of note here is that no skid marks revealing any kind of braking or correctional manoeuvre were found at the crash scene, suggesting Haider just ploughed headlong into the ‘concrete pillar’ without trying to brake or make some other attempt to avoid the collision. Strange enough in itself.
But what is even more strange is this precise same ‘skid mark’ anomaly emerged in Diana’s crash investigation as well.
Mysteriously, no skid marks, either from the Mercedes or the Fiat Uno, were found at Diana’s crash scene, suggesting that Henri Paul also failed to brake or make any kind of correctional manoeuvre as he ploughed headlong into the concrete pillar.
This really is very strange. One can only assume from this that neither Henri Paul nor Jorg Haider were in control of their vehicles immediately prior to impact.
So who was?

Princess Diana And Jorg Haider Assassinated By Boston Brakes

The Boston Brakes
According to former SAS officer and world-famous explorer, Sir Ranulph Feinnes, it is not beyond reason that both Princess Diana’s Mercedes and Jorg Haider’s Volkswagen were remotely hijacked.
 In his book, The Feather Men, Feinnes recounts in some detail a highly sophisticated assassination technique which he says has been employed by the world’s intelligence agencies for decades.
A microchip transceiver, he explains, is fitted to the target vehicle’s on-board computer, allowing the vehicle to be controlled remotely.
He says this technique was first deployed by the CIA in Boston, hence its name: the ‘Boston brakes’.
Feinnes also recounts an instance of the ‘Boston brakes’ being successfully deployed in England in 1986, which resulted in the assassination of SAS Major, Michael Marman, and the near-death of a former equerry to the Queen, Sir Peter Horsley.
According to Sir Ranuplh Feinnes, the ‘Boston brakes’ is all fact, no fiction.
Certainly evidence John and I present in our new book “Princess Diana The Evidence”:/news/new-evidence-diana-was-murdered-by-mi6/ shows clearly enough that Diana was almost certainly the victim of the ‘Boston brakes’.
And given the startling correlations presented above, one has to wonder if Jorg Haider might also have suffered this same premeditated fate.
● ● ●
  • See also: “William Suspects Conspiracy, Dodi Fayed’s Father Claims”:/news/william-suspects-conspiracy-dodi-fayeds-father-claims/
  • See also: “Princess Diana Assassination: A People’s Inquiry”:/news/princess-diana-assassination-a-peoples-inquiry/
  • See also: “Princess Diana Assassination – 14 Years Of Lies, Spies And Cover-Ups”:/news/princess-diana-assassination-14-years-of-lies-spies-and-cover-ups//
  • See also: “New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6”:/news/new-evidence-diana-was-murdered-by-mi6/
  • See also: “Diana Inquest: The Documents The Jury Never Saw”:/news/diana-inquest-the-documents-the-jury-never-saw/
  • See also: “Political Assassinations”:/discussion-topics/political-assassinations/
  • See also: “Princess Diana Forum Topic”:http://forums.consciousape.com/index.php?showtopic=96
image source: main photo Princess Diana Inquest jorg haider phot by Dieter Zirnig at sugarmelon.com published under terms of Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0

comment


  1. Web Forms
Keith Allen

[2011 May] Unlawful Killing – the film the British won't get to see  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.
Questions: Keith Allen's film explores the series of delays that have never been properly explained



Unlawful Killing
a video/film by Keith Allen

[2011 May] Unlawful Killing – the film the British won't get to see  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.



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 2011
Calm 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 explained
Questions: Keith Allen's film explores the series of delays that have never been properly explained
Anyway, 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 death
Accusations: Keith Allen denies he is trying to make money out of a much-loved woman's death
One 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 Killing

Al-Fayed funded Diana movie alleges Prince Phillip is a 'Fred West-style psychopath' and labels Royal Family 'gangsters in tiaras'

14th May 2011
The Royal Family masterminded the car crash that caused Princess Diana’s death as a ‘warning’ to make her toe the line, a controversial new film premiered at Cannes yesterday claims.
The director, Keith Allen, said the House of Windsor had ‘got away with murder’ because no one had been held to account over the accident.
In the film, entitled Unlawful Killing, Prince Phillip is branded a 'Fred West-style psychopath' who 'orchestrated the murder' of Diana.
The Queen is dismissed as a 'gangster in a tiara'.
 Controversial: Keith Allen's new movie Unlawful Killing looks into Princess Diana's death and brands Prince Phillip a 'Fred West-style psychopath'
Controversial: Keith Allen's new movie Unlawful Killing looks into Princess Diana's death and brands Prince Phillip a 'Fred West-style psychopath'
Allen, who is trying to sell the film around the world, was bankrolled by  
Mohamed Al-Fayed, whose son Dodi also died in the car crash, to make the movie.
He invested £2.5 million to back the production after it was turned down by every broadcaster in the UK.
It will not be shown in UK cinemas because of strict laws on libel and contempt, but Allen believes the movie will make money in America.
'The crash was supposed to be a warning': Diana died in 1997
'The crash was supposed to be a warning': Diana died in 1997
Allen said: ‘I think Diana was in a position to rock a lot of boats. I think [the accident] was supposed to be a warning.
‘I believe there was a chance that she could have survived the accident. But I think the situation may have gone too far.'
In the film, the inquest in to her death is presented as a cover-up in which different arms of the British establishment - including the police, the Courts, and the Royal Family - as well as the French coroner and government had a hand.
Unlawful Killing opens with a details of a letter penned by Diana to her Butler, in which she claims that Prince Charles is planning to have her murdered in a car accident.
The production stated the 36-year-old could have been saved had she been taken to hospital quickly - and that the inquest failed to properly investigate why she wasn’t.
The film shows the graphic black and white close-up of Diana taken moments after the Mercedes carrying the couple crashed in a Paris underpass, for a few seconds.
The image, in which her blonde hair and features clearly visible, has never been publicly seen in this UK.
Allen said: ‘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.’
The film features Al-Fayed accusing the Royal Family of being racist.
Allen, who authors the documentary, suggests in it that the Establishment was unhappy with Diana’s relationship with Dodi, because he was a Muslim.
It also claims that her role in the anti-landmine campaign put her at risk from those in the arms industry, and those in power who had links to it.
'Gangsters in tiaras': The hugely controversial documentary makes some bold claims about the Royal Family's involvement in the accident
'Gangsters in tiaras': The hugely controversial documentary makes some outrageous claims about the Royal Family's involvement in the accident
Psychologist Oliver James is interviewed about his behaviour for the film - and despite having never treated the Duke of Edinburgh, he claims he displays classic ‘psychopath’ behaviour, likening him to a 'Fred West'.
In another bizarre sequence the House of Windsor is compared to the mafia, and Allen describes one picture of the Queen, Princess Margaret and Princess Anne all dressed in black as ‘gangsters in tiaras’.
The controversial premiere was met with ridicule from critics with many questioning how editorially independent the film could be when it was funded by Al-Fayed.
Writer Martyn Gregory, who penned Diana: The Last Days the last days, branded the the film ‘ludicrous’ and claimed that Allen had simply made a vehicle for Al-Fayed’s rants.
Crash: The wreck of the car in which Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed died in Paris
Crash: The wreck of the car in which Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed died in Paris
Critic Richard Friedman compared the ideas put forward in the film as like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory.
He said: ‘It is misleading not to let the audience know that Al-Fayed is funding this film.’
Unlawful Killing features interviews with Piers Morgan, Lauren Booth, and Tony Benn.
Allen enlisted the help of freelance journalist Richard Wiseman, who went undercover to monitor how the press covered the tribunal.
However the only insight he gained was that the BBC’s Royal Correspondent Nicholas Witchell fell asleep during some of it.
Publicity: Allen and writer Paul Sparks attended the photocall in Cannes yesterday, but Mohamed Al-Fayed was absent
Publicity: Allen and writer Paul Sparks attended the photocall in Cannes yesterday, but Mohamed Al-Fayed was absent
The comedian said that he made the film to highlight the failings in the way he believed the death of Diana was investigated.
News of his documentary had been met with disgust with many close to Diana.
Close friend Rosa Monckton said: ‘The fact people are trying to make money – which is all that they are doing now – out of her death is quite frankly ... words fail me.’
A spokesman for St James’s Palace declined to comment.
Al-Fayed did not turn up for the screening amid rumours he was upset about the inclusion of the controversial crash picture.
His spokesman said he was 'delighted with the film' but it is understood that the tycoon had lobbied for the image to be taken out.
In 2008, after a six-month inquest, a jury concluded Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed were unlawfully killed as a direct result of grossly negligent driving by drunk chauffeur Henri Paul, who also died in the crash.

[2011 May] Unlawful Killing – the film the British won't get to see  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.

Diana  [film] Unlawful Killing

Unlawful 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 why
7 May 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/07/unlawful-killing-film-you-wont-see
The 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.



















15 years after her death new evidence has emerged that Diana was murdered by MI6 ‘Boston brakes’…

New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6

By Richard Coleman
The ‘Boston Brakes’
Fifteen years after her death, new evidence has emerged that Princess Diana was murdered in an MI6-organized ‘Boston brakes’ operation.
Following the 2008 Royal Inquest debacle, which ruled out MI6 involvement in Diana’s death, new evidence has come to light which challenges the ‘official verdict’.
 In their book, Princess Diana: The Evidence , authors Jon King and John Beveridge present evidence that a highly sophisticated assassination technique was used to cause the princess’s vehicle to crash as it drove through the Alma tunnel, Paris, in the early hours of August 31st, 1997.
The ‘Boston brakes’, they reveal, is the most favoured assassination technique employed by the West’s intelligence services due to its deniability.
The authors were able to compile such a detailed and compelling case due to information gleaned from their well-placed intelligence and security contacts-mostly former special and elite forces members, mercenaries, royal bodyguards, and on occasion, hired assassins.
Some of these crack military contractors disclosed details of prior operations in which the ‘Boston brakes’ had been successfully used. Others, who fought in Angola, site of Diana’s landmines campaign, threw light on the secret oil and diamond wars still raging in central Africa, and in particular the dirty arms-for-oil deals carried out by MI6, FrenchDGSE, the CIA and the Bush-Cheney oil syndicate.
By focusing the light of the world’s media on Angola, the authors were told, the princess was in danger of exposing these deals, and was thus placing herself “in grave danger”. The fact that she was compiling a dossier containing the names of high-powered British politicians and businessmen involved in the deals, ditto.
It should be noted that, for obvious reasons, some of the sources quoted in the book remain anonymous. But many are named.

New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6

The SAS And The Clinic
Speaking of the ‘Boston brakes’ operation which he believed killed Princess Diana, former SAS sergeant, Dave Cornish, exclusively revealed:
“From the minute the decoy car left the Ritz to the moment the tail car closed in … it was obvious what was going down. Anyone who knows what they’re talking about’ll tell you the same.”
And former Royal bodyguard, Mike Grey, added:
“The operation bore all the classic hallmarks of a security service assassination …. I have no doubts whatsoever, given my twenty years experience in various sections of the security industry, that Diana was assassinated. The security service hallmarks are plain to see.”
But it was former SAS officer and world-famous explorer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, who offered perhaps the most telling revelation of all.
The ‘Boston brakes’ method of assassination, Fiennes reveals, has been in use since at least the 1980s, and deploys a microchip transceiver which takes over the target vehicle’s steering and brakes at the critical moment.
The method, he says, was first deployed by the CIA in Boston, hence the name. But it has since been adopted by intelligence and security forces the world over, as well as by private security firms and their hit squads.
Fiennes also confirms that the death by ‘road traffic accident’ of SAS Major Michael Marman in England in 1986 was the result of a Boston brakes operation carried out by a private hit squad known as The Clinic.

New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6

The Attempt To Assassinate Camilla
Further instances of the Boston brakes in action are also cited in the book, including the death by ‘road traffic accident’ of Diana’s former lover and bodyguard, Barry Mannakee, in 1987, and – staggeringly – the attempted assassination by ‘road traffic accident’ of Camilla Parker Bowles just two months prior to Diana’s own fatal crash.
The story of this never-before-disclosed incident is recounted in some detail in the book.
According to sources quoted by the authors, the attempt on Camilla Parker Bowles’s life was the result of a “constitutional crisis” engendered by Prince Charles’s desire to marry his long-term lover while Diana was still alive.
According to Tony Wright, then parliamentary aide to the Lord Chancellor, the crisis was so severe it almost resulted in the disestablishment of the Church (see The Independent).
As the authors point out, such a move would have amounted to the biggest, most far-reaching constitutional reforms since Henry VIII. And we all know what happened to his wives…

New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6

Seat Belt “Jammed In The Retracted Position”
Other revelations in the book include an interview with a well-known Harley Street specialist [named in the book] who became Diana’s nutritional guru.
Fearing she might have been pregnant, the authors reveal, Diana visited her nutritional guru for dietary advice prior to her final holiday with Dodi Fayed. Following her visit the specialist’s Harley Street clinic was broken into and his computer stolen.
And there are many other fresh concerns raised in this uncompromising cross-examination of the ‘accident theory’, in which the authors assume the roles of prosecuting counsels in what is effectively a ‘people’s inquiry’.
Not least among these concerns is the anomaly surrounding Diana’s seat-belt, which, the authors reveal, was found by the Operation Paget team to have been “jammed in the retracted position” and thus unusable – a fact, like so many others, brushed aside by the Royal Inquest.
Other challenges to the ‘accident theory’ include:
  • Grave concerns over the coroner’s decision to ignore crucial evidence regarding landmines;
  • The true identity of certain members of the paparazzi;
  • The Metropolitan Police cover-up of Diana’s recorded statements about perceived threats on her life;
  • Recorded communications between Diana, Prince Charles and Prince Philip;
  • Concerns about Diana’s illegal embalming, which the authors discover was carried out on the orders of a very high-ranking British ‘diplomat’ [named in the book] who was stationed at the British Embassy in Paris on the night of the crash;
  • The ‘bullet hole’ found in paparazzo James Andanson’s head, discovered and reported by Police Chief Jean-Michel Lauzun at the scene of the MI6 agent’s mysterious ‘suicide’;
  • And Henri Paul’s spurious blood sample – on which the inquest’s verdict was ultimately based – which, the authors reveal, was never DNA-identified, was taken from a vial labelled “unknown male” and contained a level of carbon monoxide so excessive six of the world’s most eminent forensic pathologists stated under oath that it could not possibly have belonged to Henri Paul.

New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6

Also In ‘Princess Diana – The Evidence’
  • An unforgiving expose on the “wholly flawed and contrived” Royal Inquest;
  • A comprehensive, 60,000-word critique of Lord Stevens’ Operation Paget investigation;
  • An extensive dossier on the mismanagement of the French Inquiry;
  • Plus compelling evidence of a plot to assassinate Diana dating back to November 1995.
Incredibly, Princess Diana: The Evidence also reveals foreknowledge of a prime-target assassination being planned by MI6 one week prior to Diana’s fatal crash.

For more on ‘The Book the British Government Tried To Ban!’ watch author Jon King’s interview here:



Princess Diana Evidence of Assassination: Jon King on Edge Media TV



princess_diana_july_22_2011















Top Met Police officers wanted for questioning over allegations that they withheld crucial evidence about the car crash which killed Princess Diana…

Princess Diana Police Face Arrest

By “Cyril Dixon, Padraic Flanagan and Mark Reynolds ● Express”:http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/260394
TWO of Britain’s leading former police officers are wanted for questioning over allegations that they withheld crucial evidence about the car crash which killed Princess Diana.
A French judge wants to ask ex-Yard chief Lord Condon and Sir David Veness why they failed to disclose the existence of a note in which she predicted her assassination.
They could face international arrest warrants as suspects should they refuse to attend interviews in Paris, sources close to the investigation indicated last night.
The note, taken by Diana’s lawyer Lord Mishcon, was handed to the officers a few months after the 1997 Paris tunnel crash which also claimed the lives of Diana’s boyfriend Dodi Fayed, son of tycoon Mohamed Al Fayed, and the pair’s chauffeur Henri Paul.
The highly-respected lawyer’s document records the line: “Efforts would be made if not to get rid of her (be it by some accident in her car, such as a pre-prepared brake failure or whatever)…at least to see that she was so injured or damaged as to be declared unbalanced.”
It was more than three years later before it emerged that the officers had locked the note in Lord Condon’s safe at Scotland Yard. When Lord Condon stood down as the Metropolitan Police Commissioner his successor as Met Commissioner, Lord Stevens, continued to keep its existence a secret.
Under French law, “removing or concealing” evidence, which could “facilitate the discovery of a crime”, is punishable by three to five years in jail or a fine.
Now Paris-based Judge Gerard Caddeo is locked in a protracted battle with British authorities over his demand for interviews with Lord Condon and Sir David, a former assistant commissioner.
The explosive development means that the issue of whether the fatal crash in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel in Paris was an accident or murder is likely to be once more the subject of a controversial court case.
“Read Full Article HERE…”:http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/260394
● ● ●

Watch Jon King’s interview on Princess Diana assassination…

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●














Royal Inquest website taken down and Diana Memorial Trust to close in 2014 – all part of the ongoing cover-up says John Morgan…

Princess Diana: Is Her Memory Being Airbrushed Out?

By John Morgan
Just weeks after what would have been Princess Diana’s 50th birthday, the Diana Memorial Fund announced that, after operating for only 14 years, it will be closing down in 2012.
Now, in a new development, the official website for the Scott Baker Inquest into her death has been effectively removed from public view.
A spokesman from the Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ) has stated that the Princess Diana inquest website has been closed down: “In line with UK government moves to decrease the number of .gov.uk websites and addresses, the Inquest site URL was not renewed this year.”
Although the spokesman went on to say that “the site will remain permanently available via the National Archives website”, there has been no automatic redirection set up to the new site. It is normal practice for a redirection to be placed when a website on the internet is shifted, but this has not occurred in the case of the Diana inquest website – despite repeated requests to officials at the RCJ.
When the RCJ was initially told about this, two weeks ago, a spokesman replied: “Thanks for pointing this out to us. We will arrange for a redirect to the National Archive url.”
After nothing happened, the RCJ was asked how long it would take for the problem to be remedied. We were then told by a spokesman from the Judicial Communications Office: “I will look into this again, however given the current government pressure to reduce websites and URLs I’m not certain we will be able to reinstate this URL link.”
No one has ever asked the RCJ to reinstate the website – all that is required is a simple redirection from the old website address.
Since then nothing has been done, even though just a click on a mouse at the RCJ would solve the problem.
It has also been discovered that a person searching on Google is unable to find the new Diana inquest website. Google was promptly notified. That was a fortnight ago, yet Google have ignored this problem and have done nothing to enable internet users to locate the buried Diana inquest.
It then turned out that a search on the National Archives (NA) website will also not reveal the existence of the Diana inquest. Instead the searcher is advised: “Access Conditions: Records Not Yet Transferred”.
The NA was asked about this and their spokesman replied: “We will … be updating our web archive search … in the coming weeks”.
Paul Sparks, the co-writer and co-producer of the controversial new film “Unlawful Killing”:http://www.consciousape.com/news/unlawful-killing-film-the-british-wont-get-to-see/ â€“ shown recently at both the Cannes and Galway festivals – said: “To allay suspicions of a cover-up, the British Establishment promised that the Diana inquest proceedings would remain available to the public in perpetuity, so that people could see they had nothing to hide. Yet now, after only three years … the inquest web site has disappeared into the recesses of the National Archives, where not even Google – or the National Archives’ own search engine – is able to locate it. Coincidence? Or yet another example of the ongoing non-attributable cover-up that the British Establishment has been engaged in for the past fourteen years?”
With recent books exposing the incredible level of cover-up by British authorities surrounding the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed, and the imminent worldwide – except UK – release of Unlawful Killing, the question is now being asked: Is this effort by the British Establishment to bury the Diana inquest website a continuation of that cover-up and an attempt to airbrush the memory of Princess Diana’s death out of the public record?
John Morgan
Author of the Diana Inquest series.
Relevant website addresses:
● ● ●





http://www.whale.to/c/das_neue41.html

MI5  Diana

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

[back] Diana murder

James Andanson worked for MI6 British Intelligence as an informant

Daily Express | Sep 3, 2007

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

  http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369144-details/Diana+crash+witness:+I+saw+a+dozen+'shady+figures'+in+tunnel/article.do

 Jacques Morel

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

[back] Diana murder

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

[back] Diana murder

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


Author backs Diana conspiracy 

View BBC Video RealPlayer 

Noel Botham is a former Royal correspondent who believes the crash that 
killed Diana, Princess of Wales, was no accident. The author of "The 
Murder of Princess Diana" spoke about the details that aroused his suspicions. 

Noel Botham: 
'The two bodyguards swore that Henri Paul was not drunk when he got in 
the car to drive Diana and Dodi. They said their job would have been on 
the line......' 

The French police checked to see if he’d been drinking in the bars close to 
his home near the hotel. 

Nicholas Davies: 
'There was no single witness come forward to say that he was drinking, 
and we also - we also know that only three days before he had had a 
rigorous pilot’s medical examination and there was no suggestion in that 
that he was a drinker, or a drunkard. ' Henri Paul had been a pilot for 
over 20 years and had clocked up 600 hours of flying time. 

Henri Paul’s blood samples contained unusually high levels of carbon 
monoxide. 

Mohamed Al Fayed: 
‘If you have carbon monoxide of 24% in the blood, you can’t walk, for I 
am certain there is foul play, I am certain it’s not Henri Paul’s blood, and 
straight away…drunken driver…it’s just unbelievable.’ 

Conspiracy theorists now fixed on the idea that the driver’s blood samples 
had been switched. 

Noel Botham: 
‘I was told there were twenty-two people who died in Paris that night 
which were investigable deaths, for one reason or another. One of them 
was a man who drank half a bottle or more of Vodka - who sat in his car, 
tied, having tied a hosepipe from the exhaust to the inside of the car and 
killed himself - with carbon monoxide poisoning….That man's blood, 
according to my police spokesman has, who I got in the pathologist's lab, 
that man's blood is the blood that was substituted for Henri Paul's. ‘ 

Martine Monteil, the head of the French Judicial Police who investigated 
the crash, is outraged at the suggestion: ‘These stories of switched test 
tubes are nonsense. Henry Paul’s blood samples have never been switched’ 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/programmes/if/transcripts/how_diana_died.txt


Family of Diana Crash Driver Speak of Their Legal Battle 

Listen to Audio 

by Adrian Addison and Angus Stickler 

The parents of Henri Paul - the chauffeur blamed for the death of Princess Diana are taking action in the French Courts to try and clear his name. The French Authorities say he was drunk at the wheel. But in their first ever interview - the parents told have told the Today Programme - that they believe the blood sample taken at the time of the accident was not their son's. They are taking legal action to try and force the French authorities to release the blood for an independent DNA test. 

It's five years this month since the death of Princess Diana and for five years the parents of the chauffeur Henri Paul have maintained their silence. But, they revealed in an exclusive interview with BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, they speak about how they've been forced to resort to the courts to obtain the blood samples taken at the time of the crash. They strongly refute allegations that their son was a heavy drinker, and believe that the blood tested possibly came from one of dozens of bodies held at the Paris morgue that night. 

They say that levels of carbon monoxide found in the blood sample would incapacitate an adult - that their son would have been unable to walk let alone drive a car. They point to the fact that three days earlier their son passed a medical for his pilots licence. If he was an alcoholic, they say, he would have failed. So far the French Authorities have refused to release the blood. The parents say they will accept the result of an independent DNA test if it proves that the sample came from their son. 

This is what they said: 

How did you hear about your son's death? 

Jean Paul: A telephone call at four in the morning. 

Giselle Paul: From one of his colleagues who worked at the Ritz and who was worried that we would be surprised, that we would learn on the radio that there had been an accident. We found out he was dead but they didn't tell us who he was with. We didn't know he was with Dodi and Diana. 

What went through your mind? 

Giselle Paul: I thought straight away that we would have a lot more problems than if he had been, say, with one of his friends , given that he was with Diana. We understood that. 

And there have been problems haven't there. The finger of blame points directly to your son. Do you accept this? 

Giselle Paul: No. Not at all. We want to know the truth. We're certain that our son wasn't drunk. We don't accept it. For us, he was a good man, a good son. People say parents are often biased and that can be true but everyone who knew him, who lived with him said the same. 

It's alleged he was a heavy drinker, that he was drunk the night of the accident. You're saying he wasn't. How can you prove that? 

Jean Paul: Because we knew him since he was born. 

Giselle Paul: Exactly. And, when you think about it, it would have been obvious if he was drunk. Dodi had another driver. He had his personal driver. Would have used a man who was drunk and who wasn't a professional driver? And also, there was a bodyguard there. you would have thought a bodyguard wouldn't let a drunk driver take them when there were other people around. 

But there were two separate blood tests. Both of those showed a high alcohol count. 

Jean Paul: We're not experts in pathology. 

Giselle Paul: We're not experts. But I suppose if there were two they would show the same thing. 

Jean Paul: There were 30 autopsies. 

Giselle Paul: On the same night, there were others. You can imagine how they might have been mixed up. There could have been a mistake. 

So you don't actually believe that this is your son's blood that they've tested? 

Giselle Paul: That could be the case. That could be one reason. It could be that. 

So what are you concerns about the investigation? 

Giselle Paul: Since the beginning we haven't made any progress. The only thing we want is our son's blood... to re-do the tests and see if what they say is right. But that's always been refused to us. Always. We've had no success. 

Surely this is your word against that of the authorities. How can you prove that your son wasn't drinking? 

Giselle Paul: We can't. We can't prove it. He's dead. It's easy to attack a dead man. They said his liver was in perfect condition. And we would have known, we would have seen if he'd been drinking. The 28th of August, he passed his medical exam for his pilot's licence. Everything was fine. And three days later he was labelled alcoholic. 

So you're saying it's ridiculous that he can be accused of being an alcoholic. But you also have concerns about the levels of carbon monoxide in his blood. 

Giselle Paul: Yes. Yes. As far as carbon monoxide is concerned... 

Jean Paul: It's inexplicable. 

Giselle Paul: They found 20% of carbon monoxide in his blood. We're not experts, obviously. But whenever we talk to people who know about this, they say it's impossible. He wouldn't have been able to stand with that level in his blood. 

So with this level of carbon monoxide in your son's blood you say that it's not his blood, that they've got the wrong blood. 

Giselle Paul: Yes, that's right. They could easily have made a mistake with 30 autopsies done on the same day...It's possible they made a mistake. 

So, what does this suggest to you? Do you think it was pure incompetence or something more sinister? 

Giselle Paul: We can't explain it. We know it can happen because everyone can make a mistake. 

Jean Paul: Incompetence maybe. Maybe ill will. Maybe both. But it must have been chaos that night, with 30 corpses on the table. 'I made a mistake'. No-one says that easily. Especially when important people are involved. 

Basically what you want to do though, if I understand correctly, is you just want to clear your son's name. 

Giselle Paul: Absolutely. That's the only thing. It's for his memory. No-one has the right to smear someone's name like that- and for what? We don't know why. We don't understand why anyone would want to say that my son was alcoholic. 

Jean Paul: Who profits from that? 

Giselle Paul: Who profits? Not me, not my son. And my son shouldn't leave the world like that - that image of him created by people when he wasn't anything like that. 

And is that the thrust of the legal action that you're taking? That you want his blood to do a DNA test on him. 

Giselle Paul: Yes, it's always been for that. It's always been to find that out. We're not pursuing anyone in particular. We're not accusing anyone of anything because we don't know. But it's always been about that, about getting his blood... 

What reason have the French government given to you for refusing to give you his blood. 

Giselle Paul: They don't give explanations. They don't say why. For us, it's as if we didn't exist. 

Jean Paul: It feels like we're completely shut out. A wall. 

Giselle Paul: We feel like.. if the President's dog was killed in an accident people would have cared more. 

Taking this legal action must be an expensive business. How much is it actually costing? 

Giselle Paul: It's not costing us anything because he had friends who look after us, fortunately. If not we couldn't have done anything. We haven't got the means. The state gives me a little over 600 euros a month. you do the maths! 

Has Mr Al Fayed had anything to do..had a part to play in your action? 

Giselle Paul: No. Not at all. 

This is a difficult question. But do you not feel in any way, shape or form that five years on it would be better for all the relatives, yourselves, Princes William and Harry just to let the matter rest? 

Giselle Paul: Only on condition that everyone else stops.... 

Jean Paul: Historically, the impression left is that our son was Princess Diana's assassin. It's false. 

Giselle Paul: Every day, people lose their children on the roads. But people don't smear their name, as they have with our son. Given that Diana was involved as well, people will always say she was killed by her drunk driver. That's what we don't want. We want to change that. That's why we're carrying on. 

If you get the blood and you get a DNA test and it turns out that it is your son's blood, what then? 

Giselle Paul: Then we couldn't do any more. It would be too late. But they should have listened to us right from the beginning when we asked. It's too late. They've deliberately let the matter drag on. 

Do you feel that you can properly grieve your son's death with all this going on? 

Giselle Paul: How can we grieve and get over it? No. When we're..when it's just us. We can't. It's not possible. No. 

Jean Paul: People seem to think you can close the door and that's it, you bounce back. But it's not like that. It eats us up, all the time. All our life...But I'm always hoping we'll make progress on the case. 

Giselle Paul: And we're forced to return to it all the time. It's why I've tried to not to talk about it too much. It's too difficult, we have to go back to the same place. 

Jean Paul: I sleep very badly. I've been an insomniac since it happened. And when I have nightmares I look for my son, my sons, all night. I try to get over it but there's always a part of me... 

Giselle Paul: I never saw my son come back..you know..in a state... or anything. Never. If I had I would say. But it never happened. Never... 
 


HOW DID DIANA PAPARAZZO DIE? 

By GREG SWIFT in Millau 
Daily Express June 9, 2000 

THE SHADY dealings and secret meetings that led to top paparazzi cameraman James Andanson being linked with Princess Diana's death may ultimately have caused his own. Andanson's barely-identifiable remains were found in his burned-out car in a French woodland last month. 

Initially, police believed that he had committed suicide; but now there is growing speculation that he may have been murdered. His widow Elizabeth, 45, was yesterday at their luxurious farmhouse in central France, still stunned by his death but unable to believe that he had killed himself. 

Meanwhile, confidential police forensic reports - seen by the Daily Express - about Andanson's possible role in the Diana tragedy potentially place him squarely at the centre of events. 

They indicate that paintwork and plastics from a white Fiat Uno owned by Andanson, 54, match exactly evidence recovered from Diana's Mercedes which had clipped a Uno before crashing in a Paris tunnel in August 1997. 

Those findings, coupled with question marks about an alibi Andanson gave to prove he was not in Paris on the night Diana died, have led to fears that his death may be connected to the Paris crash. For Elizabeth, the mystery surrounding his death has only added to the agonies she has suffered since losing her husband of more than 20 years. 

Reminders of him are everywhere in their home, built 10 years ago with the profits made from years of chasing stars and royals across Europe. 

On the edge of Lignieres village, the house called Le Manoir de la Bergerie has a Union flag fluttering in the garden, a symbol, his wife said, of Andanson's great affection for Britain. 

Mrs Andanson said she could not begin to understand the circumstances of his death and still waited for the police to provide some answers. 

The elegant, attractive widow said: "James came home on May 4 from a job in Paris and left almost at once for another job. That was not unusual and in all the years of our marriage I had got used to him dashing in and out without saying where he had been or where he was going. There were periods when we hardly saw each other. 

"I had assumed he was going back to Paris but the next day a gendarme came to see me and told me a body had been found inside a car in Nant, in southern France, and they thought it was James. 

"I was too shocked. My reaction was one of utter disbelief. There had been nothing unusual about James before he had left. Everything had been normal and now this awful news. 

"The next day the police came round once more and told me that they had identified the body in the car as being my husband's, from DNA results. The judge investigating the case in Millau has told me that she excludes no explanation for the tragedy but I have heard nothing for some time now. I am not sure what happened or why. My husband had been stressed for a while before he died but I put that down to the normal stresses of being a journalist. Did he have any enemies? There were none that I knew of but then, in his line of work, anything was possible." 

Andanson was well-known on the paparazzi circuit, which operates around the Mediterranean during the summer. Starting at St Tropez in southern France, it spreads round the coast to northern Italy, a haven for celebrities from May to August. 

While Andanson would photograph any celebrity, he had made a speciality of travelling around Europe snapping royals, in particular the British Royal Family, while working for the Sigma and lately the Sypa photographic agencies in France. 

It is rumoured that he once made GBP 100,000 from a picture of Prince Charles kissing royal nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke while they were skiing with his sons in Klosters. 

Andanson was at the head of the paparazzi chasing Diana around the Mediterranean in the weeks before she died, but his wife insisted that he was doing no more than he would have done in any summer. 

"James travelled to St Tropez every summer, it was part of his routine," she said. "He would always be photographing on that circuit and I would often travel down to see him and stay with him there. 

"He was not hounding Diana during that period - he spent two months in that area every year. 

"But I didn't keep a track of his movements as he was always rushing in and out. When he was at home, he was at home. When he was off on a job, he was on a job. Police have given me no hard evidence and until they do, I will have no firm opinion. There is no point in my trying to guess if it was suicide or murder." 

It will now be the task of Alain Durand, the public prosecutor at the High Court of Millau, to run an investigation that will seek to establish the true cause of his death. 

The location of Andanson's death is suspicious in itself. Instead of driving the 190 miles north to Paris, Andanson's car travelled in the opposite direction, ending up almost 400 miles south of his home, on the Larzac plateau near Montpellier. Taking a narrow, unmarked road, his car was driven to a tiny hamlet called Les Lassiques Basses where it turned off on to a dusty, pot-holed farm track. 

Two miles later, and surrounded by empty countryside, his car turned off the track and bounced almost a mile uphill across a cow field before crashing through dense forest to a clearing that few locals knew existed. 

Yesterday a trail of melted metal led to the huge patch of scorched earth and trees that marks the spot where Andanson's body was found. 

Farmer Julian Christian, 37, who owns the land, was one of the first at the scene after the alarm had been raised by a nearby army base, whose sentries spotted smoke on the horizon. The isolation of the location meant that by the time anyone arrived, the fire had gone out. Mr Christian said: "I came into this clearing and the car was badly melted. The glass had shattered, you could still feel the heat and the driver's body, well, it was hardly there." 

Police and justice officials are still refusing to commit themselves to an opinion on Andanson's death. A court official said: "We are considering the evidence before making up our minds." 

Mrs Andanson would not be drawn on making a connection between her husband's death and the crash which killed Diana. She said: "When our Fiat Uno was impounded by the police I was very worried about what might happen but James stayed calm. Eventually, the police said they were satisfied that the car was not the one that was supposed to have been involved in the crash." 

BUT ACCORDING to the reports seen by the Daily Express - and which eventually ruled out Andanson's car being the one involved in the Diana tragedy - there are distinct matches between his car and the samples salvaged from Diana's crashed Mercedes. 

A report says: "The comparative analysis of the infra-red spectra characterising the vehicle's original paint, reference Bianco 210, and the trace on the rear view mirror of the Mercedes shows that their absorption bands are identical." It goes on: "The comparative analysis between the infra-red spectra characterising the black polymer taken from the vehicle's fender, and the trace taken from the door of the Mercedes, shows that their absorption bands are identical." 

Question marks have also been raised about the alibi used by Andanson to prove that he was not in Paris on the night of the crash. Andanson told detectives that he had been at home until 3.45am on August 31, when he travelled to Orly airport and caught a flight to Corsica. 

His son James, now 20 - his daughter Kimberley is 12 - told police he thought his father was grape harvesting in Bordeaux and had phoned home that morning at about 4.30am. 

By contrast, Elizabeth Andanson gave a statement saying that she had been at home with her husband and he had left at 4am. 

Yesterday, she explained the inconsistencies by saying: "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." 

The doubts surrounding James Andanson's death have alerted Mohamed Al Fayed, whose son Dodi was killed in the Paris crash with Diana. 

Yesterday, the Harrods boss's head of security John Macnamara said: "Mr Al Fayed has never accepted that this was a simple traffic accident. 

"He believes that his son and the Princess of Wales were murdered and he is quite sure that the truth will emerge in the fullness of time. 

"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. 

"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." 

Copyright 2000 EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS 

http://web.archive.org/web/20051218141759/http://www.alfayed.com/details.asp?aid=57


Diana Inquest: Who Killed Princess Diana?
a book by John Morgan
2012 March

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





The Murder of Princess Diana
a book by Noel Botham



Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence
a book by Jon King & John Beveridge

The staggering new evidence contained in this book offers the most compelling argument yet that British and US Intelligence acted jointly to assassinate Princess Diana. Endorsed by HRH Prince Michael of Albany, plus many highly placed intelligence and government sources, this book reveals the frightening truth behind the death of the world's most adored princess.
� How British and US Intelligence monitored Diana's every move; and how, following her divorce from Prince Charles, MI5 chiefs resolved to 'remove' her in order to avert the biggest constitutional crisis in Britain since Henry VIII;
� Why MI5 chiefs were reluctant to assassinate Diana in Britain; thus why MI6 and the CIA resolved to kill her "on foreign soil"; and how Britain's BBC announced that Diana had been killed 'in a road traffic accident' before the crash in Paris occurred;
� How the secret services of both East and West favour the 'road traffic accident' as a deniable means of assassination; how this same method of assassination has been successful in previous 'deniable ops'; and thus why Diana died in a 'road traffic accident';
� How chauffeur Henri Paul worked for MI6; how his blood sample - which underpins the 'drink-drive accident' theory - was switched; and how all CCTV cameras at the crash scene were mysteriously switched off;
� How two secret letters written by Diana just before her death implicate the British Crown in "nefarious activities in Africa", specifically Angola; and how Diana threatened to expose the Crown's vested interests in Angola by pursuing her 'landmines campaign' in that country;
� How secret 'landmines' talks held at the White House precipitated the involvement of the CIA; and how these same talks engendered Bill Clinton's 'sex-at-work' problems and almost cost him the Presidency;
� Why Diana's love affair with Dodi Fayed simply could not be tolerated - why, according to a high-ranking British Foreign Office source, it was "the final nail in her coffin";
� How Diana's unique and hitherto unknown ancestry, together with her unprecedented popularity, almost toppled Britain's Monarchy; how the Royal Family finally ordered an MI6 action against Diana; indeed, how the British Royal Establishment conspired to have Diana assassinated.


Princess Diana’s Death and Memorial: The Occult Meaning

Apr 13th, 2009 | Category: Vigilant Reports

Why did Elton John dub Lady Di “England’s Rose”? Was it because she was beautiful or because the rose has a deep occult meaning? This article explores the numerous occult symbols used in the memorials to Diana’s memory. To occultists, Diana wasn’t simply a princess, she represents the Sacred Feminine.
diana_with_survivors2
Lady Diana was often considered by the media as the “People’s Princess”. Loving, caring and beautiful, she possessed all the attributes to become a subject of idolatry. And so she became. Images of her taking care of poor children in Africa or speaking against landmines have struck the imagination of the whole world. Time Magazine said about her:
“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.”
Similarly to the Virgin Mary, Diana had (and still has) legions of followers, worshipping her giving nature and her maternal energy. In other words, she seems to fulfil the almost inherent need in human beings to worship a female goddess, giver of life and filled with compassion. The media has been a key actor in the creation of this icon by documenting every detail of her fairytale wedding, her troubled marriage, her humanitarian activities and, finally, her untimely death. Was Diana picked and groomed to become a sort of a “modern day Goddess” to ultimately be sacrificed, in accordance with ancient pagan practices? This might sound preposterous to the average National Inquirer reader, but not to the connoisseur of the occult practices of the world elite. Furthermore, numerous clues and symbols have been placed by this group to subtly commemorate the occult nature of Lady Di’s death. We will not go into details concerning her assassination, there are tons of sites and books discussing it. We will rather focus on the symbols that have surrounded the events of her death and memorial, which are the signature of the occult elite. These are visible to everybody yet only recognizable by those who have “eyes to see and ears to hear”.
Diana has been elevated to the level of Goddess in order to become the object of ritual sacrifice. This practice has been carefully planed by a secret group of illuminated people, often referred to as the “Illuminati”.  It comprises world leaders such as the British Monarchy and they are known to be DEEPLY versed into dark occult rituals.  If you have difficulty believing this, remember that the Nazis were in full force less than 60 years ago, displaying everywhere the esoteric symbol of the swastika, organizing massive occult rituals and bringing back pagan Germanic imagery .

The Goddess Diana

In Roman mythology, Diana was the goddess of nature, childbirth, hunting and the protector of the weak. She is the equivalent of the Greek goddess Artemis and she represents the Sacred Feminine, the female aspect of deity. Princess Diana bore the same attributes by being a protector of the environment, taking care of the weak in her missions in third world countries and by giving birth to the future heirs of England’s throne. Oak tree groves were especially sacred to the Goddess Diana. In Roman times, Diana’s groves and sanctuaries were always in the wild, outside of the boundaries of the city. Such hidden temples were found all across Europe. To further the resemblance with the Goddess bearing her name, Lady Diana was buried in a grove in her home town (more on this later). The Goddess Diana is often depicted with deers and doves.
artemis2
The female principle is often represented by the moon, where the Moon goddess is opposite to the Sun god . The feminine energy is also commonly associated with the planet Venus, represented in symbolism by a five petal flower – the rose. The goddess figure appears unmistakably in all religions, even in Christianity as the Virgin Mary. These symbols representing the female deity exist since prehistoric times and were preserved and diffused through pagan mysteries and through mystic Judeo-Christian teachings. Today’s students of the occult easily recognize and interpret those symbols. We will later explain how they have been used to associate Lady Di with the concept of the sacred feminine.
 

Pont d’Alma Tunnel, the Sacrificial Site

As you might know, Princess Diana died in a limousine “accident” inside the Pont d’Alma tunnel, in Paris. Her vehicle was supposedly chased by paparazzi who caused the world-class chauffeur to lose control due to his inebriated state after consuming alcohol.   We can argue for days about the theories concerning these events, but this is not the purpose of this article. The truth lies in the symbols placed on purpose for the initiates to recognize. One of them is the actual site where Diana lost her life, the Pont D’Alma Tunnel.
The city of Paris was built by the Merovingians, a medieval dynasty which ruled France for numerous generations. Before converting to Christianity, the Merovingian religion was a mysterious brand of paganism.
“ …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 Pont D’Alma Tunnel was a sacred site dedicated to the Moon Goddess Diana, where they used to practice ritual sacrifices. During those ceremonies, it was of an utmost importance that the sacrificed victim died inside the underground temple. The assassination of Diana was a reenactment of this ancient pagan tradition. Shortly after Diana was killed, Rayelan Allan (a researcher of esoteric history since the early 1970′s, who was also married to Gunther Russbacher, a deep cover CIA/ONI operative) 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. The book states that in pre-Christian times, the Pont d’Alma area had been the site of a pagan temple of the goddess Diana and a direct gateway to heaven. Mindful of this safety net, the place was chosen by the Merovingian kings (AD500-751) to fight their duels, with the loser going directly to paradise.  ”Pont” means “bridge” and “Alma” means “soul” and for Merovingians, the site was a bridge across the “river of souls”. So, Pont de L’Alma, the site of the accident which killed Princess Diana, means “Bridge of the Soul.”

The Memorial Torch of Pont d’Alma

ditorch
If you know a little about occult symbolism, a torch mounted on a black pentagram might make your radar go off. The torch is the ultimate symbol of the illuminated (people that have acquired the secret knowledge of the occult order). This torch is an exact replica of the one being held by the Statue of Liberty and was placed there in 1989 as a gift. So this wasn’t placed as a tribute to Princess Diana but it has become, over time, the unofficial memorial. The torch has reached this status because of its location, which is right on top of the Pont d’Alma Tunnel. After Di’s death, several memorial notes and flowers were placed, encouraging the general population to adopt this occult landmark as a memorial. Some even say that this torch was placed on purpose as an indicator of the location of this planned assassination. Whatever the case be, the symbol of the torch or the eternal flame has been used in other high profile killings, i.e. the JFK tombstone.
jfk_grave1

Lady Di Memorials and Rose Symbolism

Located in London, England, the park dedicated to Princess Diana contains an oval shaped fountain and a sanctuary. The most significant symbol can however be found on the ground:
407626786_97d0eaeaa9
We see here Diana represented by a five petal flower (rose) , the classic occult symbol to represent female energy. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about it:
“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 five-petal flower, the rose, the five-pointed star, the moon and Venus can all represent the female principle when we study occult symbolism. The huge rose window of Notre-Dame de Chartres in Paris represents the Virgin Mary (Notre-Dame means “Our Lady”). The symbol of the planet Venus (♀) is also used to represent the female sex . The moon is also associated with the female principle because it absorbs light from the sun (receptacle) and it has an effect on the tides of water (humidity=femininity). Those associations have existed since the beginnings of time and take their roots in ancient paganism.
There is a blatant effort to associate Princess Diana with the symbols of female deity through the symbols used to commemorate her life. The rose is used to represent Diana in numerous instances:
Memorial coin from Royal Mint:
gb5pound1999
Memorial Garden in Paris
princess_diana_memorial_garden
February 14, 2001 — PARIS, France (CNN) — A garden dedicated to the memory of Britain’s Princess Diana has been officially opened in Paris. French officials say the flower beds — France’s official memorial to the Princess — will eventually bloom, providing a place for children to learn about flowers, plants, vegetables and respect for the environment. But critics have scoffed at the project, laid out in a school courtyard, dubbing it “1,000 square metres of leeks.” “Through this place I wanted to pay tribute to a woman whose generous heart showed her deep fondness for nature and human relations, particularly with children,” Paris mayor Jean Tiberi said as he opened the garden on Wednesday.
Diana — the former wife of Britain’s heir to the throne, Prince Charles — died in Paris in August 1997. She was in a car which crashed at high speed while being pursued by photographers. Her companion, Dodi Fayed, and their driver, Henri Paul, were also killed. But Diana’s name is the only one featured on a plaque outside the memorial garden, in the central Marais district of Paris. One local councillor complained that the princess deserved a grander honour than a “vegetable plot.” But British officials have enthusiastically endorsed the site. “There could be no better tribute to her memory than a garden where young children can play and learn about nature,” said Michael Jay, Britain’s ambassador to France.
Memorial Medallion
diana11diana2
So the association of Princess Diana’s memory with the rose, the occult symbol of female deity is used ad-nauseam. Maybe this is why Elton John has dubbed Lady Di “England’s rose”.  To regular-minded people, those associations are insignificant but to initiates of the occult, symbolism is EVERYTHING.

Diana’s Burial Site

The original plan was for Diana to be buried in the family vault at the local church in Great Brington but this was changed by her brother, Earl Spencer. He said he was concerned about public safety and security and wanted his sister to be buried where her grave could be looked after properly and visited in privacy by her sons. In actuality, Diana was buried in a grove to further her resemblance with the Goddess Diana.  The actual area for her burial is on an island in an ornamental lake known as The Oval within Althorp Park’s Pleasure Garden (is there any relation with the oval-shaped fountain in the Lady Di memorial Park?). An ancient arboretum stands nearby, which contains trees planted by Prince William and Prince Harry, other members of her family and the princess herself. Here are pictures of her burial site.
oval



diana1pa3108_468x702
Note the flaming torch on her tombstone. The burial site of Diana cements her association with the ancient Goddess Diana who was worshipped in recluse groves outside of urban areas.

Memorial at Harrod’s Store

This is the 1st memorial dedicated to the unfortunate couple, on display at Harrods – a huge department store located in London. The store also happens to be owned by Dodi’s father. The symbolism here is extremely esoteric and significant. It surely deserves an in-depth analysis.
800px-112407-harrods-diannadodimemorial2
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
First, we see pictures of Lady Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed in two interlocking circles. In occultism, the name for the two interlocking circles is “vesica piscis” and represents feminine energy. John Yarker  interprets this ancient symbol in his book “The Arcane Schools”:
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.
vulva
The pointed oval is a universal symbol of the Divine Feminine and in this context the vesica piscis is the vulva of the Goddess, surrounded by the crescents of the waxking and the waning moon. This is yet another powerful symbol to associate Princess Diana with the female goddess principle. The vesica piscis was used by ancient pagans to represent the goddess Venus and was found in churches.
Below the pictures we find a pyramid with a capstone flanked by two candles (pillars). Look closely inside the pyramid:
274823778kekxbe_fs
It contains the wine glass – still bearing lipstick traces – used by Lady Di on her last supper. The symbol of the empty vase within a pyramid is another powerful image representing the union of the masculine and feminine principles. The wine glass carries the same meaning as the Holy Grail: the sacred feminine.
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.
In more abstract symbolism, a triangle pointing upwards represents the phallus and masculinity while a triangle pointing downwards represents the vagina, the womb, the receptacle and femininity.  Therefore, in this memorial we have a feminine symbol within a phallic symbol. The Goddess Diana joining with the masculine  -  Dodi. This union is further represented by the engagement ring (given by Dodi the night before their death) placed underneath the wine glass.

Memorial Statue at Harrods

363px-112407-harrods-diannadodimemorial1
This bronze statue is very odd. If the official cause of death of Diana and Dodi is a car accident, why does it say “Innocent Victims”? What were they victims of? Drunk driving?  Or did we mean that they were innocent victims of a sick occult ritual? More probable. Notice under Dodi’s foot is a dead bird. What does it represent?
 

To Conclude

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.
This article has very summarily covered very deep and intricate symbols, each of which can be further studied. If you are unfamiliar with concepts discussed here, do yourself a favor and learn the language of the powerful.
 
Tags: 

 1596 298 141 15.1K 

Comments (147)

+9
cherokeehippe· 215 weeks ago
It explains why the ambulance stayed in the tunnel for a long time. I remembr watching it live and thinking...when are they going to hte hosptial? Why the delay. I now know why! They wanted her to die in the tunnel as part of the ritual.
+1
esther· 214 weeks ago
oh my God.....this might mean that the royal family is in some kinda occult thing, at least that's what's in my head...i think that's why this country is messed up. This is some crazy good info God bless u guys man..abundantly..:)
+3
Salma· 213 weeks ago
You did not explain the dead bird under Dodi's foot. I watched an interview with Al Fayed ( the father) saying he strongly believes his son and Diana were murdered by the royal family, and i think this is why it says (innocent victims). The bird on the other hand, i don't get. Can u please explain ?
1 reply · active 13 weeks ago
0
carl jhonson· 212 weeks ago
rik clay talked alot about diana and dodi before he died.(or suicided?) just thought i'd point that out. i remember my mom crying when this happened, which was weird because we are american.
+3
Cat Callahan· 206 weeks ago
FYI-George W. Bush is the grandson of Aliester Crowley-famous British satanist! His grandmother went through an occult Ipssimus ritual with 'the beast' in October and then took the ship home. Barbara was born the next June and as Dean Morton says "do the math!" Better yet-look at the pictures of them both! She is a dead-ringer for him! And just as evil!
+1
i was wondering, does this mean that Diana knew about her death all along? and Dodi also know?
+1
Nelson .A· 202 weeks ago
u have done well,I ran into this site,trying to no the meaning of Diana,after reading the Bible( Jeremiah 44 vs 17 to 22) Here the children of GOD,mostly the women offer sacriefies to to the queen of heaven,The queen of heaven means Diana"The Goddess".Read ur Bible well
+1
AgainstInfamy· 200 weeks ago
Vigilant Citizen,

Very interesting and provocative post. You forgot one important piece of evidence that very much helps your argument ... that would be composer John Tavener's "Song for Athene." Athene is an alternate spelling of Athena, the Greek goddess of which you speak, also known as Diana by the Romans. The song was commissioned by the BBC and performed at Princess Diana's funeral service. The song wasn't written specifically for Diana, it was in honor of a Greek woman named Athene, but it goes to show you what kind of occultic/pagan meaning the global elites saw in Princess Dian's life and death. Just through I would share that with you and your audience. You should look into it and possibly add it to this page.

The Wikipedia entry for what I'm talking about is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_for_Athene 

BTW, I just stumbled upon this website for great, unfiltered, REAL economic news that I encourage all your readers to visit: www.cbfe-econ.blogspot.com
1 reply · active 24 weeks ago
0
Bill Hicks is God· 198 weeks ago
In mythology, Diana was the Goddess of the Moon as well. Princess Diana also had the astrological sign Cancer, which is ruled by the moon. When combined with Alma meaning moon, that's some freaky coincidence...if indeed, that is what it is. I'm not so sure. When she died, the sun was in the astrological sign of Leo - ruled by the sun.
1 reply · active 1 week ago
0
Bill Hicks is God· 198 weeks ago
p.s. The sign Cancer is a feminine sign and Leo is masculine, btw.
1 reply · active 24 weeks ago
0
Lashanda· 198 weeks ago
Great article Vigilant!!

Speaking of symbols it might be of interest to find out about the emperor nero's antichrist symbol or a.k.a the "PEACE" symbol, the symbol looks like an upside down cross within a circle. The below link will show you the picture (its the first on the left)

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=Emperor+nero+... 

Most people assume this symbol means peace as it was used around the 1960's hippie era of peace and love. However this symbol represents the first persecutor of Christians and the killer of the Apostles Peter and Paul, by the emperor nero.
+1
When Diana, Emad (Dodi ~ or "Do Die") and Henri 'died', the Sun (or Apollo) was in the astrological house of VIRGO, not Leo.

Speaking through only one of her mediums, 'Diana' said that, in a past life, she was the grandmother of 'Jesus' ~ that would be the maternal grandmother, called by Roman Catholics, "Saint Anne"... actual name, 'Hannah'.

Incredibly, that being true, 'she' is then seen with her daughter Mary (Miryam) and grandson Jesus (Yehoshuah bin Yuself ~ Joshua the son of Joseph) in the world-famous "cartoon" (finished drawing) by the Great Master Da Vinci, that one numbered among those very, very many "possessions" owned by the Queen of England... identified by spirit guide Matthew [messagesfrommatthew suzy ward] as a major illuminatus, one unusual in that she is highly visible.

St Anne? Could then The Rose also have been Mary Magdalene? (whom Christ Jesus had intended to be a church leader) ~ entirely feasible.... in an anonymous channelled message, wrapped around a potted plant and laid on the ground amongst the hundreds of tributes at the gates of Kensington Palace in Kensington Gardens, London – on the first anniversary of her passing to spirit – 'Diana' said that she had been a Walk-in soul, and was previously Marilyn Monroe.

Spirit guides, by the way, have said that the rose was seeded on Earth from planet Venus.

Yes, DIANA endured a sacrificial death... but will YOU let hers be in vain? A long-time secret brotherhood were wont to say, "May the rose bloom on your cross"... to which I append (they won't mind) "May The Rose bloom in YOUR Heart" 

One of Diana's sons The Antichrist? ~ EXTREMELY improbable!
0
Seeker· 196 weeks ago
While it would be unfair to deem anyone the antichrist, I do find the power struggle over her children interesting. Also if you look at the changes prince Charles made to coat of arms, very weird. Another interesting fact Diana called the royal family "lizards" to her friends.
+1
Caveat Lector· 196 weeks ago
Princess Diana’s “accident” was not just an assassination, but a ritual sacrifice.

Even the place where Diana’s accident took place seems to have been especially chosen. The accident took place in a tunnel called Pont d'Alma. This is a huge coincidence under the circumstances. The place on which the Pont d’Alma is built is an ancient, pagan sacrificial site - sacred to the moon goddess (DIANA). In the pagan Roman religion before Christ, Diana was the triple goddess, the “Queen of Heaven”.

Additionally, since about the 6th century A.D., the Pont d’Alma has been associated with the Merovingian dynasty. Remember, those Merovingian kings were the ones supposedly possessing the blood of Jesus flowing through their veins. During this Merovingian period (c. 500 - 751 A.D.) if two kings had a dispute over property, it had to be settled by combat at Pont d’Alma. Legend says that anyone killed there goes to heaven to sit at God’s right hand, being able to look down and see all that happened on the earth, even their enemies. Thus, the person killed was actually the victor, because they became God’s eyes on earth and could manipulate humanity from heaven. Isn't it interesting that this is where Diana just happened to be killed? 

It is especially interesting in the light of the fact that Merovaeus, the founder of the Merovingian dynasty, was a devotee of the goddess Diana! 

Additionally, to create the rebirth of King Arthur in young Prince William Arthur Philip Louis Windsor (born Summer Solstice 1982) would require some extremely powerful magickal energy indeed; which could only be raised by the ritual murder of a “divine king” or a “royal” substitute. In the light of all this, it is entirely possible that Diana was sacrificed in substitute for Charles’ ritual murder. Also telling in this regard is that for the vicarious sacrifice to be effective, it would have to be done near - but before - the Harvest Home feast. August 31, the day of Diana’s accident does qualify.
0
Caveat Lector· 196 weeks ago
There are oddly “coincidental Masonic” elements to Diana' death as well.

Royal Arch Masonry is obsessed with bridge symbolism – Princess Diana was murdered under a covered bridge. In Paris, Diana died when the Mercedes she was in ploughed into the 13th pillar in a tunnel called Pont d’Alma on August 31 1997. Thirteen is very significant, both in Masonry and witchcraft. 

Above Pont d’Alma tunnel is a replica of the torch from the Statue of Liberty – a Masonic idol, sculpted by a French Freemason. That torch actually symbolizes the “light” of Lucifer. 

A final grisly Masonic “coincidence” which has been pointed out by more than one writer is what was done the course of supposedly trying to save Diana’s life (after the torturously slow ride to the hospital – it took all of forty minutes to travel 3.8 miles). To work on and massage her heart, her chest was cut open from collarbone to navel. This is the penalty of second degree in Masonry, to have your chest ripped open and your heart taken out. 

Remember that both Prince Charles and his mother, the Queen, are – by virtue of their leadership in the Order of the Garter – the highest ranking Masons in the world – even though neither is actually known to be a Mason. The Most Noble Order of the Garter is the most prestigious “chivalraic” order in the British Isles. The British monarch is – by virtue of his or her office – automatically the sovereign of the order. Queen Elizabeth was installed as a “lady” of the Order of the Garter on April 23, 1948 (her birthday) while still a princess. When she became queen, she became the sovereign of the Order. On July 26, 1958, Prince Charles became a knight of the Order. 

To this day, the Order of the Garter remains one of the most elite societies and appears to be at pinnacle of English-speaking Freemasonry, if not all Masonry. The Garter itself appears on the coat of arms of both the Queen and Prince Charles. This is why the strange “Masonic overtones” to Diana’s death are so significant. Many high-ranking Masons in government and the military of the United Kingdom might feel it was their duty to eliminate Diana; just as 110 years ago, high-ranking Masons in the royal court created the “Jack the Ripper” murders to cover up another troublesome woman.
+1
Truthisevident· 193 weeks ago
Who else noticed that August is also the month (according to wikipedia) in which sacrifices were offered to Diana? Same month princess D died. Rumors floating around that there was a member of the Rothschild family in the tunnel at that particular time to "complete the sacrifice" - Diana was held in the tunnel for about 1.5 hours after the crash! She wasn't rushed to hospital, who stays 1.5 hours in a crash site unless its in a remote valley where nobody can access them? But even then there is emergency airlift! Sheesh.
0
Guenevere· 192 weeks ago
Diana a walk-in soul who was Marilyn Monroe previously? Do the math. Diana was born on July 1, 1961. Monroe died August 5, 1962. So, Diana asumed Monroe's soul even before Monroe died? Rubbish.

Diana was a lost soul, subject to many traumas born of the generations-old occultism of the royals. Her bloodline was actually far more royal than Charles'. Many of the hard truths would shock you to death and will never be revealed by the occultists who live by them. And it is not farfetched that the Antichrist prophesied inScripture will hail from the House of Windsor. Actually, when you study prophecy and the House of Windsor, it seems less kooky of an idea. Go to www.prophecyhouse.com...this is where you can find THE absolute seminal work on the relationship of The House of Windsor and Charles to the coming world ruler. The information is shocking, well documented, and a must read. The Diana issue is addressed. It is not written in the oftimes sensationalist style of David Icke, but is true, well researched scholarship on the subject.
0
Guenevere· 192 weeks ago
Please note that the word 'this' was accidentally added by my poor typing to the 
www.prophecyhouse.com 
website and will cause problems accessing the page. Just use the above address with out the ...with added.
0
John Kenneth· 192 weeks ago
the address to find that book mentioned above is
www.prophecyhouse.com 

The book is called 'The Antichrist and A Cup of Tea' and is a real shocker in what it reveals about the royals and Charles' role in world destiny.
Мне понравился сайт. Много интересных и адекватных мнений. Благодарю автора
+2
Anders· 190 weeks ago
I think it should be noticed that the festival day of goddess Diana in Rome was August 13 - Princess Diana died on August 31; 31 is the mirror image of 13. The car crashed on the 13th pillar so we also have that number associated with her death.
0
reynold· 190 weeks ago
"In more abstract symbolism, a triangle pointing upwards represents the phallus and masculinity while a triangle pointing downwards represents the vagina, the womb" 

Does anyone else notices,that if you join BOTH TRIANGLES TOGETHER, they now take form of THE CENTER of the INTERLOCKING CIRCLES....the " YONI "?? 

i find it rather interesting....keep up the GREAT WORK Vigilant....
0
Angry O'Brien· 188 weeks ago
Caveat Lector: "Remember, those Merovingian kings were the ones supposedly possessing the blood of Jesus flowing through their veins."

Can you cite some sources for this, besides 'The Da Vinci Code.'

I should also note than any history of the Merovingian Dynasty is quite sketchy. It'd probably be impossible to confirm any of the speculations being put forth here in regards to that subject. 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merovingian_dynasty#...
0
Bystander· 188 weeks ago
Perhaps, all these signs and symbols used to Princess Diana's memorials have nothing to do with anything sinister. It is just as possible that her death was truly an accident, as it is that she were murdered, however the evidence which this article hinges upon can not be found anywhere but upon other sites which have the same copy and pasted information. Take this into consideration, because I have not be able to find any verification that the Pont D’Alma Tunnel was ever used for sacrifices.

Perhaps these really are memorials that simply are acknowledging Princess Diana's benevolence and similarities to the Goddess Diana. I agree that the symbolism is blatant, but shouldn't memorials be symbolic of how a person was revered in life?

And to answer your question, "Innocent victims of what?" I prefer to believe the theory that the Royal Family was trying to clear the way for Prince Charles to marry Camilla, and also spare the family the embarrassment of Diana marrying someone out of the family's race and having children with Dodi, as it was rumored Diana was pregnant at the time of her death.

0
+1
You are all paranoid.
+1
really· 186 weeks ago
^^^^^^^

spoken like an innocent BYSTANDER....you were going somewhere with the out of the family marriage...??

paranoid over what i can see with both of my eyes,

if your only looking with one, i guess you know what side your on.
0
Mr. Beck· 185 weeks ago
I do not understand why there seems to be a vilification of the old Pagan religions in Europe. What has Christianity done for mankind, nothing but cause war and conflict with the Jews and Muslims. Lets revert our ways back to the simple days.
http://www.wakeupproject.com/VList.asp?Series=1 
“I Warn You Against Him (the Dajjal Antichrist)

And There Was No Prophet But Warned His Nation Against Him…

But I Will Tell you Something of Which No Prophet Has Told His Nation Before Me… You Should Know That He is One Eyed” And Allah-God is Not One Eyed” as Quoted by: Prophet Mohammad (pbuh, peace be upon him)
0
spinner· 185 weeks ago
Great article. Just wanted to point out that the great cathedrals were built by the Knight's Templar & they were in dedication to Mary Magdalen NOT Blessed Virgin Mary. The Church attempted to & managed to cover-up that fact.
0
Angry O'Brien· 185 weeks ago
Can you religious folks keep your delusional bullshit out of the comments? If you ACTUALLY believe that God and/or Satan are genuinely real entities, you're out of your mind. Can you communicate with God? So can the homeless schizophrenic at the corner. Seriously, wake up. There is no God in Heaven - when you die, your consciousness expires, your mind stops, there is no more "you" - The TV turns off, for good. Accept that, and live, live how you'd like to, not how some ancient man-made scripture would dictate you do. When people speak of sheep, or "sheeple" - you guys are the perfect example.
0
Angry O'Brien· 185 weeks ago
Can we please keep the religious crap out of the comments and stick to discussing the articles? No one cares what God's plan is in the context of these events. God is rubbish, and so are all your ignorant comments. Perhaps you've heard of the term "sheeple" if you're familiar with sites similar to this one - well, it describes you religious folk perfectly. There is no God or Heaven. When you die, your consciousness expires, there is no more "you" - and there certainly is no goddamn fairyland in the sky to go and hang out in afterwards. The TV turns off, for good. No more no less. Accept that and live -- the way you'd like to -- not the way some ancient man-made (and thus prone to fallacy) scripture dictates you do.
+3
Kessbot· 183 weeks ago
@Angry; have you died before? You must have, since you know so much about the afterlife.

Anyway, I've also noticed that the phallus and yoni combined create the Masonic square and compass.
0
Kessbot· 183 weeks ago
Wow, also the star of David.
+1
i think the reason it says Innocent Victims on the Harrods memorial is cos Mohammed al fayed (Dodi's dad) has always, and still does belive they were murdered in a conspiracy by the Royal family (mohammed is the owner of harrods)
+1
truther· 182 weeks ago
But what has confused me for a long time is Mohammed Al Fayed's stance in all of this - his memorial to Dodi and Di is full of occult symbology yet he stands by his public proclamation that the Royal Family had a part to play in their deaths?! Is he trying to expose the truth or is he supposed to be the idiot loon figurehead for anyone who suspects anything other than the lies we are being fed?
0
Whitney· 182 weeks ago
Interesting. I'm surprised you haven't published anything regarding Michael Jackson's death. Or have you, and I just haven't found it?
+2
there is but only ONE GOD, the lord JESUSU CHRIST!! give ur lives to Him and be saved!!
+3
You said "The goddess figure appears unmistakably in all religions, even in Christianity as the Virgin Mary." CORRECTION: The goddess figure appears unmistakably in all religions, even CATHOLICISM (not true Biblical Christianity, which is following the Truth (Jesus, Jn 14:6) .......NOT A RELIGION! Religions are man's attempt to get to heaven on his own terms. Following the Truth who is Jesus Christ, the Word of God, is true Christianity. Huge difference! You also wrote "These symbols representing the female deity exist since prehistoric times and were preserved and diffused through pagan mysteries and through mystic Judeo-Christian teachings." "Mystic Judeo-Christian teachings" is GNOSTICISM, again NOT true Biblical Christianity. Please don't taint the precious name of the Lord Jesus Christ by lumping Him in the same category of man made religion which is all really Satan worship in disguise. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father (heaven) but by Me." John 14:6 That's a very narrow path. 

And last of all, a word to Angry O'Brien: "The fool hath said in his heart, 'there is no God." Psalm 14:1 You are in for a very rude awakening when you leave this present world, Angry.
1 reply · active 23 weeks ago
+2
LAURENT SORELL· 179 weeks ago
Is not this page a MEMORIAL? The way I read it, it is a place for the the most tender memories which we should only wisper. 

This one is the only shrine glorifying the love between a Christian and a Muslim, and as such, it is the only contemporary place dedicated to absolute peace and love.

Please, my Brothers and Sisters, understand that this is not the Hyde Park Speakers' Corner open for screaming all your frustrations and curses. 

You may think He is invented or real, but His commandment, that you love one another should be obeyed. At least during the few minutes of your stop in this place
+1
crystal9· 177 weeks ago
people.....!!!!!

i bet those who write stuff that is negative about God have actually looked around and not seen the marvelous creation He made-the wonderous acts that even science cannot explain.WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!!

the life you have is but given to you by God, and He can as well take it back from you once you despise Him.atleast read the Bible and see what he did to people who desipised Him and learn from that. dont be the fool who learns from His own mistakes.....
0
to all those atheists out there. the greatest trick that satan ever pulled of was to convince the world that he doesnt exist, once satan is removed from the equation then the concept of God and angels fall away without any resistance.
0
Ohh! This makes sense know, I was wondering why the old Queen of England wanted to meet Lady Gaga, obviously is cause she is working for them!
i didnt get the point
I heard she was killed becoz she wanted to reveal secrets
0
Very interesting. I think the author of this site knows what they are talking about. I think people who read these articles he or she writes should continue and do their own research.
0
ha-ha!· 175 weeks ago
religion is a sign of neurosis- Sigmund Freud. 'Angry O'Brien' I take my hat off to you. 

Ah yes.. the Christian fundamentalists... always turning everything into a debate about whether or not Fairies and Goblins exist! I'm so bloody glad i'm NOT american!
+1
Use Google Maps to view Althorpe and it's apparent that The Oval lake is an all-seeing eye: the grove Diana is buried in forms the pupil.
0
?????· 174 weeks ago
interesting topic, however one thing matters only

that no matter what symbols are visible, diana was an angel period.
You should check out one of Gaga's new songs called "Dance In The Dark"

at the bridge of the song she sings: "You will never fall apart Diana, you're still in our hearts, we'll never let you fall apart, together we'll dance in the dark¨"









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 its 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



HE DIANA ASSASSINATION
JUNE 2012 UPDATE: Please see the new website: -


Our dossier on the assassination of Princess Diana - whom was professionally and coldly murdered in Paris on the 31st August 1997.
As the evidence was covered up within minutes of the crash, it is difficult in our limited capacity to 'prove' anything definitive.
Our job with this archive is to simply do our best to put this into perspective and perhaps ask the right questions.
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'.
"She (Queen Elizabeth II) said that there are forces out there of which we have no knowledge. I think she meant there were people working in the country that -- listening to telephone conversations and watching people all the time. I'm sure they are. I'm sure they're watching this right now, just to make sure that I'm not saying anything I shouldn't be saying, because the world's a very dangerous place, isn't it? You don't think?" Paul Burrell (former butler of the Late Princess Diana) in a CNN interview with Larry King, 05th December 2002.
**********************************************
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: - 
'Handwriting expert says Diana murder prediction letter is NOT a forgery' - DIANA, Princess of Wales, predicted her own death in a car crash ten months before it happened, newly published correspondence showed yesterday. In a comment that is certain to fuel wild conspiracy theories, the Princess wrote that she was sure that an individual � thought to have been a serving police officer � was �planning� the accident. Diana wrote that she suspected that someone was plotting to sabotage the brakes of her car in order to �make the path clear� for the Prince of Wales to remarry.
Diana murder plot name in letter revealed to be Prince Charles - PRINCESS Diana believed Prince Charles wanted her killed in an accident when she was plagued by anxiety and feared for her safety. She told of her worries in her now infamous note which she handed to butler Paul Burrell as "insurance" on the day she wrote it in October 1996, 10 months before she died in a Paris car crash.
AL FAYEDS LATEST STRAW-MAN: New Fayed attack over Di - PRINCESS Diana was killed by a British secret agent posing as a photographer, Mohammed Fayed has sensationally claimed. The Harrods boss said in an amazing TV interview that security service MI6 engineered the car smash in Paris in which Diana and his son Dodi died � then covered it up.   (COMMENTARY: We must be cautious taking what Mohammed Al Fayed says, as he has seemingly been involved in previous attempts to publicly discredit the Diana assassination exposure.  'Everyone knows that Al Fayed is a fool... therefore what he says must be untrue!'... you can see how this works.

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)
  • Diana: Police Cannot Rule Out Murder
OUR COMMENTARY: It matters not, the outcome of any tests as to whether she was pregnant.  The point is that she was taken out at the time that she was, because IT WAS BELIEVED that she was pregnant with Dodi's child. This is confirmed to have been the case. 
So it is contributing to a well known 'straw-man' argument to say: "...because some test says that she wasn't pregnant, this proves that she wasn't murdered for that reason". We need to be aware of this element.
Covered by the UK Daily Express - 06th June 2005
No online link just yet
Covered by the UK Daily Express - 28th December 2005
No online link just yet
Covered by the UK Daily Express - 02nd January 2006
No online link just yet
STORY TO BE TAKEN WITH A PINCH OF SALT: Dodi 'real target' in Diana tragedy -PRINCESS Diana may have been led to her death at the hands of assassins who wanted to murder Dodi Fayed. The killers were believed to be mercenaries working for Arab arms dealers. They wanted her boyfriend Dodi to attend a meeting in a Paris office block. Diana had agreed to travel to the late-night rendezvous alongside Dodi. She would protect him against business enemies who might want to harm him. Instead, their saloon veered into an underpass pillar at high speed, killing them and their driver, Henri Paul. The well-sourced revelations have been described as being of �major interest� by those investigating the tragedy in August 1997. Until now nobody has been able to explain why the Mercedes the couple were travelling in took such a circuitous route from the Ritz Hotel to their presumed destination, Dodi�s apartment next to the Arc de Triomphe.
Spies cover up Diana 'murder' - THE Princess Diana inquiry is in danger of stalling after French spy chiefs blocked British detectives� attempts to establish the final hours of driver Henri Paul. The team led by former Metropolitan Police chief Lord Stevens has been trying to obtain the "agent handling" files on the chauffeur, who was working for several secret service agencies. The detectives are desperate to find out what Paul, deputy head of security at the Ritz in Paris, was doing between 7pm and 10pm on the night of the fatal car crash. The �4million inquiry, codenamed Operation Paget and launched in January 2004, has ground to a halt because of the reluctance of the French intelligence services to surrender all their documents on their contact, Paul. Well-placed sources say such blocking tactics cast serious doubt on the French police conclusion that the crash was a drink-driving accident � and strengthen fears of secret service involvement in a murder plot.  
New hitches in hunt for truth over Diana - FEAR of a cover-up over Princess Diana�s death deepened yesterday as it emerged that attempts to reach the truth have been delayed once again. The complexities of an increasingly difficult investigation mean that her full inquest will not now be heard until 2008, the Daily Express can reveal. So the public will have had to endure an agonising wait of more than 10 years for the truth to emerge � a decade marked by official attempts to cloak her mysterious death in secrecy.
Diana: Scandal of body mix-up - BUNGLING French officials mistook the body of Princess Diana�s lover for her driver in the hours after the fatal crash. The astonishing development, revealed for the first time by the Daily Express today, is one of a catalogue of blunders which plunged the inquiry into chaos from day one. Professor Dominique Lecomte � the pathologist who faces an investigation over the mix-up � registered driver Henri Paul with the number 2146. But this had already been assigned to Dodi Fayed�s body and Paul should have been given number 2147. The numbers were scribbled on bracelets attached to the right wrists of each corpse. Lawyers and medics fear blood samples which were said to prove that Paul was high on drink and drugs may in fact belong to someone not connected to the crash.
WHAT ARE YOUR BETS, HE SAID 'NO'?: Police ask Charles: Did you murder Diana? - PRINCE Charles was asked by police if he killed Princess Diana, a new secret dossier reveals. The question was posed by Lord Stevens, head of the probe into the Princess�s death. The explosive document is understood to contain extracts of a previously unpublished interview with Charles. His exact response is not known but the fact that the heir to the throne was even asked such a direct question sums up the complex nature of the inquiry.
DIANA: PHILIP HATES ME - PRINCESS Diana was haunted by fears she would be murdered, and told friends of her concerns about Prince Philip�s animosity to her. �He really hates me and would like to see me disappear,� she said. The Princess, who died in a Paris car crash in 1997, repeatedly made clear her belief that she would be the victim of an Establishment conspiracy. Her fashion designer friend Roberto Devorik explained that the Princess had spoken about how she would be killed in a fake accident.
DIANA DEATH: ANOTHER COVER-UP - CRUCIAL evidence which details what Princes Charles and Philip know about Princess Diana�s death will not be made public at her inquest. In a move likely to spark further accusations of a whitewash, the coroner, Baroness Butler-Sloss, yesterday ruled that she will retain tight control over the mass of documents from the �4million Operation Paget inquiry into the Princess�s death. While some information from the three-year investigation will be made available to the legal teams acting for Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed � whose son Dodi also died in the crash � Lady Butler-Sloss argued that other material would remain �personal and private�. She also implied that neither Charles nor Philip would have to give evidence at the hearing, ruling that it would be quite wrong to release any �personal or private� information to the public.

OTHER RELATED STORIES: -

FURTHER IMPORTANT RESEARCH: -
This excellent 250+ page book does one of the fairest and most sensible analysis of the 1997 Diana murder that I have seen.  Put into perspective, the author writes about the life, marriage, publicity and eventual murder of Diana.  
The author also looks at the strong evidence that the murder was caused by a high intensity flash beam from a motorcyclist traveling in the front of the Mercedes, causing the driver (and fall guy) Henri Paul to crash into the thirteenth pillar within the Pont D'Alma tunnel.  Similar to an un-used British Intel' assassination plot drafted for the murder of Slobodan Milosevic some years earlier.
"Personally, following my own two year investigation, I am convinced that Diana Princess of Wales was murdered and equally confident that the evidence to prove it is in the files of the British Secret Intelligence Service and the CIA" - Noel Botham
"Anyone who looks at the facts of Diana's death, even stripped down to their bare essentials, cannot emerge without at least the suspicion that she was murdered.  More than eighty percent of British people believe that she was" - Noel Botham
Available from most good bookshops in hardback and paperback formats.
Or Amazon in the UK by clickin






WAS MI6 INVOLVED IN A SERIES OF MURDERS THAT LEAD TO JEREMY BAMBER JAILED FOR LIFE Giovanni Di Stefano

http://eturnkeysec3340002378c9.users.site2you.com/content/read_more/complexInfobox/site_news/infobox/elements/template/default/active_id/2537

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:

 

  • ·     Did you shoot your family on August 7th 1985? – No
  • ·     Did you shoot five members of your family with an Anshutz rifle? No
  • ·     Were you present inside the house when they were shot with an Anshutz rifle? No
  • ·     Did you shoot your father Nevill? – No
  • ·     Did you shoot your mother June? – No
  • ·     Did you shoot your sister Sheila Caffell? – No
  • ·     Did you shoot your twin nephews Daniel and Nicholas? – No
  • ·     Did you climb out of a window of your parent’s home after shooting your family?  No
  • ·     Did you shoot your family in your father’s home? – No
  • ·     Did PC Bews radio in a report of seeing someone in an upstairs window around 4am on the morning of the shootings? – Yes
  • ·     Did you pay a professional hit man to shoot your family? – No



 

 

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 Hosting Companies