Hitman claim at Diana inquest
By Victoria Ward 16/10/2007
Related Articles
Diana crash witness saw 'major flash of light'
Princess Diana's Merc 'bumped' another large car
Who's who at the Diana inquest
Bikes chased 'feet behind' Princess Diana
More Top Stories
What are you talking about? Get published
A driver said yesterday he saw two biker "hitmen" cause the car crash that killed Princess Diana and then check that the victims were dead.
Francois Levistre, 63, claimed a blinding "white flash" was directed at Diana's Mercedes from the men's motorbike after it overtook in the Pont d'Alma tunnel, Paris. Seconds later the Mercedes ploughed into a pillar.
Mr Levistre said he then saw the bike's pillion passenger get off the machine, stroll over to the car, peer at the bodies of Diana, Dodi Fayed and driver Henri Paul and signal to his colleague that they were apparently dead before speeding off.
←previous next→ 1 2 3 4
Levistre claims he sees a flash in his rear-view mirror from a motorbike which has overtaken Diana's Mercedes in the tunnel
Before smashing into a pillar the Mercedes swerves "from left to right, left to right". Then it is plunged into darkness
Pillion passenger, all in black, gets off, looks at the car, then he gestures to pal with both hands like a boxing ref signalling KO
Passenger remounts and the bike roars off from the scene at high speed, passing Levistre who has stopped at the exit to the tunnel
Asked why he did not leave his car to help, Mr Levistre told a London inquest: "Fear...I thought they were hitmen. We thought the two cyclists had come to kill the people in the car." It was also claimed the Mercedes may have bumped another car.
Advertisement
Levistre said he then saw the bike's black-clothed pillion passenger climb off the machine, walk to the wrecked car and signal that Diana and Dodi Fayed were unconscious.
Mr Levistre, 63, who had pulled up in his own vehicle, said: "He looked at the car, then looked at the driver of the motorcycle and made a gesture with both hands."
As he spoke, he moved his hands like a boxing ref signalling a knockout. He went on: "They got back on the bike and drove past me looking at me clearly. They were driving very fast.
"I thought it could be like the South of France when you have gangs fighting together.
"I thought these guys could pass close - something could happen."
Asked why he did not get out to help, he replied: "Fear."
Asked what he had been afraid of, he added: "Like I said, I thought they were hitmen...
"We thought the two cyclists had come to kill the people in the car. We were scared." Mr Levistre was giving evidence by videolink from Paris to the inquest into the deaths of Diana, 36, and Dodi, 42.
Dodi's father Harrods boss Mohamed al Fayed claims the couple were murdered by MI6 who used a bright light to blind driver Henri Paul who also died.
Mr Levistre, from Normandy, was travelling with wife Roselyn in the Pont d'Alma tunnel, Paris, early on August 31, 1997. He said that in his mirror he saw the motorbike overtake Di's Mercedes.
He told the hearing at the High Court in London: "There was a major white flash in front of the car directed towards it.
"It was a big flash - very bright. It was like when you switch on the lights and you see clearly.
"I looked in my mirror and saw the car go from left to right, left to right to get within the pillar. Then the car had no light any longer, everything was switched off."
Mr Levistre stopped near the tunnel exit and watched the pillion passenger approach the car.
He then waited at the mouth of the tunnel for up to five minutes, leaving after the motorbike. The only other vehicle he saw was a small white car which went ahead of him in the tunnel and did not hit the Mercedes.
He could not confirm that it was a Fiat Uno. A white Uno is suspected of involvement in the crash but has never been traced.
Mr Levistre did not realise Diana and Dodi were in the car until he saw TV news early in the afternoon.
He said: "I could hear the word 'paparazzi, paparazzi'. But I knew there were no photographers. There was nobody else up there."
Mr Levistre admitted he did not contact police. Instead he phoned a British Sunday paper. He was put in contact with the Paris Ritz, where Diana was pictured in a lift shortly before she left on her fatal drive.
Mr Levistre was traced when a lawyer gave his name to police.
Asked by inquest counsel Ian Burnett why he had not contacted the authorities, he said: "The idea of being in the hands of the French police wasn't something I was looking forward to.
"The French police are very different from the English police."
His wife changed her mind about giving evidence "because she was frightened". Mr Levistre eventually made three different statements.
Repeatedly asked by Mr Burnett which was true, he claimed French police fabricated evidence.
Mr Levistre was jailed 20 years ago for possessing a weapon.
He was also suspected of offering a child to a German industrialist but released without charge. The matter related to an offer by his then wife to be a surrogate mum.
Diana's car may have "bumped" another dark car as it sped into the tunnel. Witness David Le Ny said: "As soon as the car disappeared from view we heard what sounded like bodywork bumping."
His wife Annick added: "We heard noises like two cars bumping each other." The hearing continues.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject: Diana inquest - Philip and Charles wanted her dead
It all seems so simple to me, Diana was about to rock the nation with evidence that the British not-so royal family are imposters and fraudsters. As well as that she was preparing to have Muslim half brothers and sisters for William and Harry. Though I fear the inquest jury has been fixed it seems we have all the evidence necessary to explain why so many in the British ruling elite wanted her murdered.
'My husband is planning an accident in my car': Diana's sensational letter is revealed in full
By TOM KELLY - 20th December 2007
Fears: In the letter, Diana suggested the Prince was plotting 'an accident'
A handwritten letter from Princess Diana claiming that Prince Charles was plotting to kill her was shown to her inquest yesterday.
In the note, sent to her butler Paul Burrell, Diana suggested that her husband was "planning an accident in my car".
She also made the astonishing suggestion that Camilla Parker Bowles was just a "decoy" while Charles's real desire was to marry William and Harry's nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke.
A copy of the letter has previously been published, but the references to "my husband" and to Miss Legge-Bourke were blacked out. The uncensored version was revealed to the public after being read to the London hearing into the death of Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed.
It was sent in October 1993, ten months after Charles and Diana's separation was announced. Handwritten in black pen, it reads: "I am sitting at my desk today longing for someone to hug me and encourage me to keep strong and hold my head high.
"This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous. My husband is planning an accident in my car, brake failure or some serious head injury in order to make the path clear for him to marry Tiggy. Camilla is nothing more than a decoy so we are being used by the man in every sense of the word."
Dodi's father, Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed, is convinced that the couple were killed by MI6 on the orders of Prince Philip because she was pregnant and they were about to announce their engagement......................
Key points
• Hereditary heir to British throne criticises those with 'ideas above their station'
• Such as former secretary, who is claiming unfair dismissal and sexual discrimination
• More unwelcome ructions from Clarence House for Monarchy
Key quote
"People think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history." - Prince Charles
PRINCE Charles’s latest pronouncement on British society - that its schools are imbued with a culture of "social utopianism" responsible for people getting ideas above their station - was laid bare at an employment tribunal yesterday.
In a scathing memo, written to a third party in response to a request from a former Clarence House secretary for more training at work, Charles complained that young people nowadays think they can be pop stars, high court judges or even heads of state without putting in the work or having the "natural ability".
The secretary in question, Elaine Day, was described in the memo by Charles as "so PC it frightens me rigid".
Ms Day, who is claiming sex discrimination and unfair dismissal against the prince’s household, described it as "hierarchical and elitist", an institution run in an "Edwardian fashion" where everyone knew their place and those who did not were punished.
A personal assistant to private secretaries at Clarence House for five years, Ms Day told the tribunal she was forced out earlier this year because she "rocked the boat at the palace". She said she was left "isolated and humiliated" after complaining about sexual harassment from her boss, assistant private secretary Paul Kefford.
Clarence House has said it will "vigorously" contest the case, which is being heard in Croydon, south London, and is expected to last three days.
The memo was written by the prince in response to a suggestion by Ms Day that personal assistants with university degrees should be given the opportunity to train to become private secretaries, the hearing was told.
In the memo, the prince wrote: "What is wrong with everyone nowadays?
"Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities?
"This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of a child-centred system which admits no failure.
"People think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability.
"This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history."
The memo concludes: "What on earth am I to tell Elaine? She is so PC it frightens me rigid."
The note, dated March 2003, was a response to a suggestion made by Ms Day to Mr Kefford.
Ruth Downing, counsel for Ms Day, asked her what she understood it to mean.
"I completely felt that people could not rise above their station," Ms Day replied.
The secretary, from Belvedere, Kent, said a campaign of discrimination had been launched against her in an attempt to "remind her of her place" at Clarence House.
Ms Day claimed the problems started after her former boss, Mark Bolland, then the prince’s deputy private secretary, left in August 2002 and she began working under Mr Kefford.
She said that she felt "uncomfortable" as soon as she started working for Mr Kefford.
"He would approach me from behind at the photocopier and put his hand on my back and rub it, He would also touch my arm and shoulders and that made me feel uneasy."
She told the tribunal she was one of three female members of staff who were sexually harassed by the prince’s assistant private secretary. After an event in August 2002, she said: "I didn’t ever want to be put in a position where I was alone with him, ie working late at night, going into his office and shutting the door."
She said that she first complained in August 2002 and made a formal complaint in October.
Ms Day said that when she raised her concerns to Prince Charles’s private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, he replied: "I thought he was gay."
Ms Day said that, after her complaint, she had been subject to "continuing acts of discrimination, victimisation, harassment and undermining behaviour" by senior staff.
She said that she experienced "ongoing discrimination" until she left in April this year.
She added: "I was aware of a culture in the household, which stemmed from His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, that the respondent [the prince’s household] would not welcome employees which it perceived rocked the boat. This was made ab
undantly clear to me."
She told the tribunal how she had been "put in her place" on a particular trip to Holyrood Palace in June 2003. On that occasion, she was given an attic room to sleep in alongside domestic servants rather than a room with the rest of the office staff.
She said: "I appreciate that the fact that I had been confined to the attic with the domestic staff may seem a trivial matter, but working in the household it’s all about status, hierarchy and knowing one’s place.
"Putting me up in the attic with domestic staff, away from the other office staff, has clearly been done to humiliate me and remind me of my place.
"At the end of the day I am not the first person to consider that if you go against the palace, steps will be taken to isolate you."
Ms Day added: "I simply felt that I had nowhere to turn, I felt totally isolated."
The tribunal continues.
letterDianaCharlesPhilip.jpg
Description:
Hand written letter in which Diana says Charles is going to have her killed in a car crash
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 3:07 am Post subject:
Errr... how exactly?
zennon wrote:
Tony, do you plan to follow up Martin Ball's story?
btw.
More from the Torygraph, the Scotsman was kind to him!!
And no wonder he sued the pants of the Daily Mail for publishing extracts from his 'Friends of Charles' mailings.
The Prince of Wales claimed in a memo that the modern education system went against natural selection and wrongly encouraged people to think they could rise "above their station".
Prince Charles said the system made people believe they could be "pop stars, High Court judges, TV presenters or heads of state" without putting in the effort or having the natural ability.
He said it was a result of the prevalent "social utopianism" which deems that people can be "genetically and socially re-engineered" in contradiction of the "lessons of history" and the "realities of nature"....
Charles is absolutely right here, I would personally love to read the whole memo, people should not rise above their b****y stations. This has nothing to do with crushing peoples´ dreams or denying aspirations and opportunity to poor children, more with the fact that many think they can and should achieve (and have a God-given right to) without putting in the hard work.
Well done, Charlie.
As for Miss Day, who "is claiming that she was dismissed unfairly on the grounds of sex discrimination". Have you seen her picture....?!!
By TONY JONES - 08 January 2008
A BUGGING device may have been found in the home of Diana, Princess of Wales, the London inquest into her death heard yesterday.
An electronic sweep of Diana's Kensington Palace apartments found a signal that might have been a listening device, the jury was told. The princess had serious concerns about being under surveillance by "dark forces" and believed that her home and car were fitted with devices, the inquest heard.
Her palace rooms were searched four times in four months in 1994 by Grahame Harding, a security expert and, on one occasion, a signal was found. He told the hearing that he had discovered the possible device in a wall that divided her rooms from one used by the Prince of Wales.
The security expert told the inquest that the signal could have been coming from equipment in another room.
He said: "It's very hard to say – it could be a number of things. Anything that concerns oscillators, that would give (off] radiation or transmission – the equipment could pick that up. At that time, I believe it was a particular device."
Asked by Nicholas Hilliard, for the coroner, about Diana talking of "dark forces" when discussing possible bugging, Mr Harding replied: "They were words she used to me."
Joined: 08 Jan 2008 Posts: 9 Location: Islington Green, North London
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject:
Impossible to deny Diana was being bugged so the easiest excuse as seen here is to pretend that was 'normal'. Like the Duke of Edinburgh was being bugged too.
Okay let's hear all the tape recordings of Prince Philip from the week before Diana's death.
Thursday January 10,2008
By Richard Palmer Royal Correspondent
THE Royal Family was routinely bugged by British secret services, the Princess Diana inquest heard yesterday.
The disclosure by Diana’s former police bodyguard, Ken Wharfe, prompted coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker to call for a report into widespread phone tapping of the Royals.
Mr Wharfe told the inquest that all the Royals had been bugged by the British intelligence listening station GCHQ, adding: “I am fairly confident in my own mind that this was routinely done.” In a day of drama at the High Court, Mr Wharfe said the publication of the so-called “Squidgygate” tapes was the result of Diana being bugged by intelligence chiefs.
The Royal Family, in my opinion, were incredibly jealous of her popularity
His spying claims were backed by a bodyguard to Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed who said the couple were under regular surveillance by British agents. It was also confirmed that Paul Burrell, Diana’s butler, will give evidence to the inquest next week during a crucial few days of testimony.
Mr Wharfe, who guarded the Princess between 1987 and 1993, blamed GCHQ for the “Squidgygate” tapes, in which Diana is famously referred to by James Gilbey as “Squidgy” and “Darling”. Mr Wharfe said: “It’s my belief GCHQ at that time were monitoring members of the Royal Family because of heightened IRA activity at the time.” He also believed that Cabinet ministers were under the same surveillance.
During the telephone chat, which was taped in 1989 but only published in 1992 as Diana’s marriage to Prince Charles was collapsing, Gilbey, the heir to a gin fortune, is heard telling Diana over and over again: “I love you.”
The conversation was picked up by two radio hams but Mr Wharfe said it was clear to him that GCHQ was responsible for the recording. Mr Wharfe, who left Scotland Yard’s royalty protection department in 2002, said: “It may well have been a loop from nearby Cheltenham, the GCHQ there, because it seems to be rather coincidental that two people independent of each other actually taped the same conversation.”
The former police inspector said Diana confirmed to him that she was the woman on the tape and even rang the newspaper phone line to listen to it. “Diana was more concerned purely from an embarrassment point of view that this was in the public domain,” he told the hearing.
The former police inspector said the Princess had also told him the Queen was “unhappy” and had ordered MI5 to report on the controversy. Michael Mansfield, QC for Dodi’s father Mohamed Al Fayed, asked the coroner to seek details of what action, if any, MI5 took.
Lord Justice Baker said he would look into the matter. Mr Al Fayed has claimed that Diana and Dodi were murdered in Paris in 1997 by British agents on the orders of Prince Philip because the Establishment was opposed to Diana marrying a Muslim. Mr Wharfe said Diana had told him she thought the security services were routinely spying on her and other members of the Royal Family.
He described how in May 1993 one of her butlers, either Paul Burrell or Harold Brown, called in four men from a Brighton-based company posing as carpet cleaners to debug the phones at Kensington Palace without telling the police. Their cover was blown and they were detained when they asked to check the mainframe telephone system.
Mr Wharfe told the jury he felt that Diana was right to mistrust other members of the Royal Family and their powerful private secretaries. “The Royal Family, in my opinion, were incredibly jealous of her popularity,” he said.
Mr Wharfe’s claims were backed at the hearing by Lee Sansum, one of Diana and Dodi’s bodyguards, who told the inquest that the Al Fayed family was constantly monitored by British agents. He said he often spotted surveillance teams trailing Dodi and Diana, and sometimes banged on their car windows to tell them to go away.
The hearing also heard that Paul Burrell will give evidence on Monday. Diana’s butler, who was accused of stealing £5million worth of the Princess’s possessions after her death but then cleared in October 2002, promises to be a key and explosive witness.
Burrell will be asked about the background to a letter in which Diana wrote that Prince Charles was plan- ning to have her killed. He will also face pressure to provide further details about his claim that the Queen once warned him about “dark forces” at work in the country.
Diana’s sister, Lady Sarah McCorquodale, is also due to appear next week. She will be asked about the alleged disappearance of letters in which Prince Philip is said to have threatened the Princess and called her a “harlot and a trollop”. The inquest, which is expected to last six months, continues today.
One of the more touching recollections contained in the document is Mr Burrell's memories of Princess Diana's kindness towards London prostitutes.
'It wasn't unusual for us to drive round Paddington Station to visit the prostitutes. The Princess became on first name terms with two or three of them.
'She would give them money, especially when it was cold and wet, and tell them to go home. I saw her give £50 notes on condition they went home and stopped working. She bought them clothes from Marks & Spencer.'
A spokesman for Prince Charles last night declined to comment on Mr Burrell's statement.
A legal document proving Diana, Princess of Wales, feared there was a plot to assassinate her in a car crash was kept secret for six years by Britain’s most senior police officers, her inquest heard today.
Lord Mishcon, the Princess’s lawyer, went to Scotland Yard nearly three weeks after her death in Paris to reveal that she had held a confidential meeting with her legal team to formally record her suspicions that her life was in danger.
But Sir Paul Condon, the then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, now Lord Condon of Langton Green, and Sir David Veness, the then Assistant Commissioner, Special Operations, decided not to hand Lord Mishcon’s memo listing Diana’s concerns to French detectives, English coroners or even the Lord Chancellor.
Instead the evidence was sat on for six years because the policemen decided the death was a “tragic accident”, Sir David told the High Court in London.
In 2003, Lord Condon’s successor, Sir John Stevens, decided to go public with the note when Paul Burrell, the Princess’s former butler, revealed that he had a hand written note from the Princess claiming her then husband, Prince Charles, was planning to kill her.
Under cross-examination by Michael Mansfield, QC, for Mohamed Al Fayed, Sir David eventually admitted that the note was “potentially relevant” to the French investigation and with “the benefit of hindsight it may have been wiser” to have considered handing it over........ _________________ --
zionists.blogspot.com/2007/04/mossad-in-iraq.html
Joined: 08 Jan 2008 Posts: 9 Location: Islington Green, North London
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:13 am Post subject: Inquest - Sir Richard Dearlove challenges Mohamed Al Fayed
Ex-MI6 chief will challenge al Fayed's death-plot claim
By TOM KELLY - Daily Mail - 11th February 2008
Sir Richard Dearlove: Denial
The former head of MI6 is to take the stand at the Diana inquest next week.
Retired spy chief Sir Richard Dearlove will challenge claims by Mohamed Al Fayed that MI6 orchestrated a plot to kill the princess and her lover, Dodi Fayed.
It is believed to be the first time the head of the Secret Intelligence Service has been called to testify at an inquest.
Sir Richard, who will appear before the hearing at the High Court in London next Wednesday, was director of operations at the agency when the couple died in a Paris car crash in August 1997.
Mr Fayed is due to appear at the inquest next Monday............... _________________ --
zionists.blogspot.com/2007/04/mossad-in-iraq.html
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:42 am Post subject: What Was MI6 Doing In Paris On The Night Diana Died?
What Was MI6 Doing In Paris On The Night Diana Died?
Richard Palmer – Daily Express February 12, 2008
MI6 had a team of agents operating at the British Embassy in Paris at the time of Princess Diana’s death, the former ambassador said yesterday.
But Lord Jay told the inquest into the deaths of Diana and her lover, Dodi Fayed, that he had no reason to believe that the intelligence service had anything to do with the car crash that claimed their lives on August 31, 1997.
The retired diplomat, who was then known as Sir Michael Jay, said he oversaw the spies’ activities and was briefed by the senior MI6 officers in Paris about anything sensitive they did.
He told the inquest jury: “I would hold regular meetings with the head of the section, as I would do with the heads of other sections of the embassy.
“He would keep me informed about the main work that they were doing and he would tell me of any particular operations that might be difficult or sensitive or raise, in particular, press interest.”
The work was concerned with issues such as terrorism and drugs.
But he admitted that he did not know all of the MI6 agents in the embassy operating under diplomatic cover and he was not kept abreast of all their operations.
Dodi’s father, Harrods tycoon Mohamed Al Fayed, has claimed that the couple were murdered by MI6 on the orders of Prince Philip amid fears that they were soon to marry and have a Muslim child.
But the former British ambassador to France said the first he knew of Diana being in Paris was when he was woken in the early hours with news of the crash.
Ian Burnett, QC, for the coroner, said: “You are aware, Lord Jay, that it has been suggested that you personally ordered the embalming of the body of the Princess of Wales on the instructions of MI6 to conceal the fact that she was pregnant with Dodi’s child.”
He replied: “There is no truth in that allegation whatsoever.”
Mr Al Fayed has claimed that Lord Jay conveyed the embalming order to French deputy prosecutor Maud Coujard.
But she has testified she had not been involved in authorising the embalming and had not spoken to anyone from the embassy about it. Jean Monceau, an embalmer, has testified that he told Britain’s consul-general Keith Moss that Diana’s body should be embalmed because it was not in a fit state to be seen by her ex-husband Prince Charles.
In court yesterday, Lord Jay also denied another part of the conspiracy theory involving Diana’s brother-in-law, Lord Fellowes, who was then the Queen’s private secretary. It has been alleged that Lord Fellowes, who will give evidence today, was in Paris at the time and commandeered the embassy operations room to oversee the plot.
Asked whether Lord Fellowes was in Paris that night, Lord Jay replied: “No, he was not.”
[PICTURE: Romauld Rat's photo]
The photo right was taken by Romauld Rat shortly after Diana's Mercedes crashed. Click here to see the version presented to the Coroner's inquest into her death. You will note that it is much bigger than that circulated by the mainstream media and more detailed. In fact in the photo presented to the Coroner's inquest there appears to be someone in the back seat of the dark Peugeot escaping over the crash debris.
As the reader who sent the photo in asks: we know John Scarlett was in Paris on the night of Diana's death, or at least had agents there operating under his orders. So that couldn't possibly be him in the back seat of the Peugeot, could it?
We leave readers to decide but this web site firmly believes that Princess Diana was murdered and the inquest into her death is simply being used to give the official seal of approval into the cover-up.
It's also worth noting that while towing the official line on Diana's death, Britain's former ambassador has been elevated from Sir to Lord Michael Jay. No doubt in recognition for services rendered to the Royal House of Windsor.
Last updated 12/02/2008
Former spy head to rebut claims about MI6 ‘role’ in Diana’s death
Michael Evans & Jack Malvern – Times Online February 12, 2008
Former MI6 officer Sir Richard Dearlove, was first implicated in knowing the real facts about Princess Diana's death in former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson's affidavit; where he cited a number of key MI6 men in Paris on the night of Diana's death. Dearlove was then promoted and knighted: a sure sign of approval for services rendered to the Royal House of Windsor.
Dearlove then went on to brief senior BBC executives on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Thereafter, BBC reports on Iraq repeatedly emphasised the threat pose by Saddam's WMD. However after much media speculation, none were ever found.
Given this history, Sir Richard Dearlove's word is not to be entirely trusted. Ed.
Former spy head to rebut claims about MI6 ‘role’ in Diana’s death
Michael Evans & Jack Malvern – Times Online February 12, 2008
Sir Richard Dearlove, who was director of operations at the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) at the time of their deaths in Paris, will appear on February 20 and is expected to be questioned about the presence of MI6 officers in the French capital on the day of their car crash.
Mohamed Al Fayed, the father of Dodi Fayed and owner of Harrods, claims his son and Princess Diana were the victims of a conspiracy and MI6 had been involved in their demise.
Both MI6 and MI5 cooperated in the investigation carried out by Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who concluded that Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed died as a result of the car accident, and dismissed the conspiracy allegations.
[PICTURE: Sir Richard Dearlove]
Sir Richard Dearlove was director of operations at MI6 between 1994 and 1999. In 1997 when the Princess died, he would have been responsible for all covert activities carried out by his service overseas.
Sir Richard was promoted to Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service in 1999. He retired in 2004 and was selected as Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge.
He has given public lectures on intelligence issues. However, this will be the first opportunity he has been given to comment on the allegations about his former service in relation to the death of Princess Diana.
At the inquest yesterday, it was claimed that the sole survivor of the crash in which Princess Diana was fatally wounded feared that he would be murdered if he ever regained his memory. Karen McKenzie, Mohamed Al Fayed’s housekeeper, said that Trevor Rees, who was acting as a bodyguard to the Princess and her lover, Dodi Fayed, confided in her when he was recovering from his injuries at Mr Al Fayed’s residence in Park Lane.
Ms McKenzie, wept in court as she recounted a conversation she said she had with Mr Rees weeks after the crash in the Alma Tunnel in Paris.
She said that Mr Rees had spoken to her as he was waiting for a lift, and said: “If I remember, they’ll kill me.”
(As other witnessess 'died' who could have revealed what really happened, like Jean-Paul Andanson. Ed.)
Mr Rees has previously told the inquest that he did not make any such remark. Ms McKenzie told the court that she did not have a chance to ask him what he meant as the doors of the lift closed and he disappeared. Although she said she could not remember the context of the remarks, she insisted she was certain of what he had said.
“I can see Trevor in front of me, telling me. It is not something I am ever going to forget,” she said.
Lord Jay, who was Britain’s ambassador to France when the car crash took place in August 1997, denied at the hearings ordering that the Princess’s body be embalmed to “conceal the fact she was pregnant” with Dodi Fayed’s child.
He also denied an allegation that Lord Fellowes, then the Queen’s private secretary, was in Paris on the night of the crash.
The allegations have come from Mr Al Fayed, who believes that his son’s death was the result of a conspiracy between the Duke of Edinburgh and British security services to kill the couple. He alleges that the Princess was pregnant and that she and Dodi were planning to announce their engagement.
Mr Al Fayed also believes that spies based at the British embassy were operating under the Duke of Edinburgh’s command.
Lord Jay confirmed that agents from MI6, were operating at the embassy at the time, as was a representative of the Security Service, MI5. He said he has no reason to believe it had anything to do with the crash.
Their purpose was “to liaise with the French authorities on issues such as counter-terrorism, antidrugs work, security issues and to share intelligence on matters of foreign policy”.
The jury also heard from Stuart Benson, Mr Fayed’s legal adviser, who said that he interpreted a telephone call from his client to mean that the couple had got engaged.
Mr Benson spoke to Mr Fayed two days before the crash, he said. “It was singularly short and pretty much the exact words [were], ‘Can’t really talk over the phone but ‘My friend and I have very exciting news. Are you around on Monday to have lunch as it will mean lots of issues to talk about and discuss?’”
No other details were given during the call. Mr Benson said that the “tone of voice” led him to believe that his client was speaking about engagement.
The hearings continue.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3353287.ece
Last updated 12/02/2008 _________________ LFJ is no antisemite or 9 11 truth critic He's anti Zionist Anti A Jones - its not his fault this heavily censored little forum has too many people calling themselves stupid titles & manufacturing self importance - any more than 2 people running this little audio less forum is absurd...
Last edited by LFJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:05 pm Post subject: Re: “If I remember, they’ll kill me.” Diana's bodyguard
LFJ wrote:
Lord Jay confirmed that agents from MI6, were operating at the embassy at the time, as was a representative of the Security Service, MI5. He said he has no reason to believe it had anything to do with the crash.
Their purpose was “to liaise with the French authorities on issues such as counter-terrorism, antidrugs work, security issues and to share intelligence on matters of foreign policy”.
I'll bet they were. As well as the Diana stuff, this was precisely one week after Shayler and I blew the whistle and fled to Europe. MI5 was hot on our heels, and we passed through Paris from Holland to SW France that very Saturday. _________________ All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing - Edmund Burke.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem Americanam appellant - Tacitus Redactus.
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:31 pm Post subject: Re: “If I remember, they’ll kill me.” Diana's bodyguard
Annie wrote:
I'll bet they were. As well as the Diana stuff, this was precisely one week after Shayler and I blew the whistle and fled to Europe. MI5 was hot on our heels, and we passed through Paris from Holland to SW France that very Saturday.
Well....IMHO This inquest is not quite the whitewash the PTB anticipated and there is potential for more twist's... The Times article is heavily spun but the fact that “If I remember, they’ll kill me.” was even spoken in the court room to be reported mean's there could be more ahead...
Most people don't realize Mohamed Alfayed is a "Billionaire" and has his own intelligence/security men if Im correct mostly ex French secret service.
In other words He is probably the worst possible grieving father the PTB could have picked... a very shrewd operator and could have something big up his sleeve!..... I would reckon its very much "stay tuned"
http://www.alfayed.com/news%20and%20features/the%20inquests.aspx _________________ LFJ is no antisemite or 9 11 truth critic He's anti Zionist Anti A Jones - its not his fault this heavily censored little forum has too many people calling themselves stupid titles & manufacturing self importance - any more than 2 people running this little audio less forum is absurd...
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:11 am Post subject:
In answer to the question posed in the headline.....
They were covering the Royal Family's ass from having to tolerate Muslim half-brothers and sisters to William and Harry, that would be bound to get messy.
Also eliminating a major embarassment for Prince Charles who had given Diana such a raw deal.
I agree with above. Certain parties were not about to let muslim blood get so close to the royal family line, which is after all part of the elite, though I believe they are as much controlled as the rest of us by the real powers in the world. All the Alex Jones stuff about them is deluded and entirely off course, intentionally or otherwise.
Car crash is pure spook wet work, in a tunnel to close down on witnesses. The cameas along the route failed as they always do when the elite are murdering people. Eye witnesses talk about two men on a motorbike stopping to check the scene and riding off, pure spook again. The couple were clearly about to be engaged, then married presumably. Diana may well have been pregnant, forcing the scum elites hand in slaughtering them both before she obviously started to show.
Al Fayed is has has been pointed out a billionaire. His insistence that this was a conspiracy surely now goes beyond natural grieving father reluctance to accept an accident. He has access to channels of information, possibly Egyptian intelligence and contacts around the world among the great and bad. If he says this was a hit, I tend to take his word as being worth something.
The filth that did this and so much else will pay eventually when enough people start to take an interest in the world they live in. Not enough of them are suffering the consequences yet, but when more feel the impact on their lives of the elite's Machiavellian control, in a depression for instance or when the draft begins to slaughter their children in the next illegal war, they'll start to question, as the two UK mothers have recently about Blair's illegal Iraq war killing their sons.
Most people don't give a stuff until it directly affects them. Until then it's just the likes of us holding the fort against vermin.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:47 am Post subject:
Assassin may have murdered Diana in plan mirroring Milosevic plot, admits former spy.
Princess Diana could have been murdered by security services in a plot that mirrored plans to kill Slobodan Milosevic, a former MI6 spy told the inquest into her death yesterday.
Richard Tomlinson said the way Diana died bore an "eerie similarity" to assassination plans he was shown in 1992.
He said documents shown to him by an MI6 officer suggested three ways that the Serbian President could be murdered....(........)
Here we go - this is arguably the key witness in this inquest.
No mention allowed of Tomlinson's SBS training in Poole, even though if you are lounging on the beach in Swanage, as I am wont to do, you can see them training out to sea and round about.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject:
'Diana: Death of a Goddess' by David Cohen is well worth reading, though I don't agree with his apparent conclusion (exploding nerve gas 'pearl'). There is a lot of good stuff in it (such as Prince Charles being linked with the 'Order of the Solar Temple', as was Princess Grace Kelly before her death in a 'car accident'), and he also mentions Gary Hunter, but his evidence is much better covered in 'Death of a Princess' by Sancton and MacLeod, where Hunter (a British solicitor) is quoted as saying he was in his hotel room when he heard the crash. He ran to the window, and saw a large Mercedes and a small car racing out from the direction of the tunnel exit (he couldn't actually see the exit from his room, but that was obviously where they had emerged from) and racing the wrong way up a one-way street, which just happened to be the shortest route towards the Brit Embassy. Richard Tomlinson is also quoted in both books, and his evidence about the Milosovic plan was in his book 'The Big Breech' which came out before the Diana murder. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Sworn Testimony by former MI6 Agent Richard 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.
Richard Tomlinson author of highly recommended book The Big Breach wrote:
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 on 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 Hervé 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 Hervé 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.
Joined: 08 Jan 2008 Posts: 9 Location: Islington Green, North London
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:16 pm Post subject:
Daily Express caves in to dark forces just like Private Eye and the rest - as if the British people believe a word of it!
If we'd have been allowed to hear any of the questions Michael Mansfield had for Prince Philip it would have been another story.
But can you imagine Prince Philip being locked up for murder - no he really does believe he's a god along with Prince Michael of Kent and therefore above the law.
Philip and Charles only had her killed to preserve the integrity of the nation, for reasons of national security.
And it only took them ten years to get an inquest together which would do the two main things.
Block the prime suspect from all questioning.
Direct the jury not to deliver a verdict of murder of unlawful killing.
Of course they can do but Worshipful Master Lord Justice Scott-Baker is using scare tactics to intimidate them into submission. Will he be outed in the months and years to come as a mega-pervert as many other judges have been?
A jury has finally begun deliberating on the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed 10-and-a-half years after the car crash in Paris in which they were killed.
Coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker sent the panel of six women and five men, sitting at the High Court in London, out to consider their verdicts at 11.55am.
An unprecedented six-month inquest at the High Court in London has heard the evidence of around 250 witnesses in the UK and by video link from France, the US, Nigeria, Kenya and Australia.
Diana and Dodi were killed alongside driver Henri Paul when the Mercedes they were travelling in crashed into a pillar in the Alma underpass in the early hours of August 31, 1997.
They were pursued by paparazzi after leaving the Fayed-owned Ritz Hotel where they had spent the evening, but accounts differ over whether the photographers were around them at the moment of the crash.
There is widespread evidence that Mr Paul - the hotel's acting head of security - was three times the French drink-drive limit and speeding at the time.
Seconds before striking the 13th pillar of the underpass the Mercedes also had a glancing contact with a white Fiat Uno as it passed, the court heard. The other car has never been conclusively traced.
The six-woman and five-man jury must now decide whether the smash was manslaughter, an accident or unexplained.
But, on the orders of the coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker, they can not return a verdict which supports any of the murder conspiracy theories which have surrounded the tragedy for 10 years.
He ruled this week that there was "not a shred of evidence" to back them.[/b] _________________ --
zionists.blogspot.com/2007/04/mossad-in-iraq.html
So, Lord Justice Scott Baker, you STILL have not explained how Henri Paul, the driver of Princess Diana's car whom you want your jury to blame for her death, came to have an abnormally large concentration of carbon monoxide in his blood? You STILL called it a "mystery" in your pathetically biassed summary of the case.
Well, leaving questions unexplained might be good enough for the likes of you, who had already made up your mind before the inquest started that Diana had died in a simple car accident. But it is not good enough for many of us, because the mystery is the key to the whole case.
You have been fobbed off yet again by the French authorities, whose lies about missing 6000-page dossiers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_ article_id=480112&in_page_id=1811&ct=5
you accept without a bat of the eyelid because your Lordship cannot bring himself to believe in 'conspiracies'. During that expensive charade you call a coroner's inquest, you ought to have called to the witness box Noel Botham, a former royal correspondent. HE could have told you whose blood was taken and given to the Paris forensic laboratory to be analyses. But of course you didn't, because, as the author of the book "The Murder of Princess Diana," he believes the crash that killed Diana was no accident, which is NOT the conclusion you want the jury to reach, is it?
The three samples supposedly taken from Henri Paul's blood contained a medicine called albendazole, which the driver's doctor said he was never prescribed. It is a drug taken to get rid of tapeworms and given to downandouts on the streets.
Could they have come from a dead Paris tramp lying in the public mortuary alongside Henri Paul? Yes, according to Noel Botham.
Equally puzzling is that the same clutch of blood samples revealed no sign of another medicine named acamprosate, which Paul had been prescribed. It is the only solid piece of evidence that he was a heavy drinker.
The driver was worried about his love of Ricard and had begged his doctor to give him the drug, designed to help alcoholics reduce their intake without cravings.
Pertinently, his doctor has since said that he felt Paul was worrying unnecessarily, as his drinking was moderate.
There is another dilemma, too.
The Henri Paul blood samples at the very heart of the Diana controversy reveal something else quite bizarre - that he had breathed in a very high quantity of carbon monoxide before his death: the same amount as a person committing suicide by putting a rubber hose from the exhaust through the window of his car.
Such a level would have left Paul visibly disorientated and almost certainly comatose. Yet at the Ritz that evening, minutes before he drove Diana, the CCTV cameras show him walking normally and even kneeling down to retie his shoe laces and gracefully standing up again.
It is now accepted that he never drew breath after the crash, ruling out the possibility that he inhaled poisonous exhaust fumes. Significantly, Dodi's blood was tested and was shown to contain no carbon monoxide.
The tainted blood samples remain - as Lord Stevens and toxicology experts say in the Operation Paget report - a complete mystery. One possible explanation is that they are not the driver's blood at all but come from someone else in the public mortuary who had committed suicide that weekend.
So were the samples tampered with? Were they mistakenly, or deliberately, swapped with those from another corpse?
The first samples of blood taken from the driver's body were left unattended and unlabelled in a fridge at the mortuary for more than a day until Monday, September 1. Did that give an opportunity for the MI6 agents who, according to ex-MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson,
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/pro-freedom.co.uk/r_tomlinson.html
were at the British Embassy in Paris at the time, to switch the samples with the suicide's blood by means of a simple break-in? Given, Lord Justice Scott Baker, that you don't intend to get to the bottom of this mystery, we shall never know, shall we?
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?
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 16-1. 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" (50.17-1. 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-. 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" (28.17-1. 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, 3.15-1.
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 to http://www.geocities.com/wellesley/6226/report.htm?200613.
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.
Quote:
UK German moronic monarchists - vicious brutal stupid and one of the same
England is probably the reason why the US behaves like a butcher who always resorts to violence or genocidal intervention across the free world. It is following England as its weak mother country as it has a history of colonial warmongering, stealing resources and wealth and subjecting populations to genocide to gain economic advantage in the middle east, India, Africa and more recently under the illustrious leader Margaret Thatcher in Indonesia, Burma and Haiti.............
England still has a monarch where its subjects have not even made it to being citizens and they serve German monarchs who were too cowardly to reveal their original name. Just for the English so they know their own history the rest of their German Nazi clan fled after things started to go wrong were called Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Hesse, Battenberg and Schleswig-Holstein. The are commonly called the Windsors by virtue of PR spin and the stupid English. The Queen of England (lets face it no one else would want this woman or any form of monarchy unless they had no self respect) is constantly greeting genocidal murderers such as Pinochet and Bush. She is favoured by the spy ridden BBC and the rest of the media have to endure them. The Queen is also related to Bush and I must say it shows in every way.
The House of Windsor came into being in 1917, when King George V, formerly of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, concerned that his Germanic sounding surname would alienate his British subjects at the height of German xenophobia during World War I, changed the name of his dynasty to the more English sounding Windsor. Declaring that At a meeting of the Privy Council on 17 July 1917, that 'all descendants in the male line of Queen Victoria, who are subjects of these realms, other than female descendants who marry or who have married, shall bear the name of Windsor'. The name Windsor has long been associated with the English monarchy through its connections with Windsor Castle.
The House of Windsor has produced four British sovereigns, George V (1910-1936), his son Edward VIII (1936) , who abdicated the throne to marry the twice divorced American Wallis Warfield Simpson in favour of his brother George VI (1936-52), and the present queen, Elizabeth II.
In 1960, the Queen and her husband the Duke of Edinburgh came to the joint decision that they would prefer their direct descendants to be distinguished from the rest of the Royal Family (without changing the name of the Royal House), declaring in the Privy Council that The Queen's descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, would bear the surname of Mountbatten-Windsor.
England's other great export is Scot Adam Smith, who was actually stupid enough to laud Oxford and the idiots who resided there and is responsible for creating free market libertarianism which has been roughly translated by people who are ironically described as honorable in the UK. Anyone who invades, misuses anything, causes a civil war and principally runs off with loot can apply. This is in fact capitalism and the birth of now multinational corporations a bit like Nike and GAP (Global Association of Plundering), BP (Blatant Plundering) are all about harming people and the environment, making lots of money and generally not caring and leaving you to clean up their mess. Some of these companies also hire mercenaries as with Shell and Thatchers son Mark also features trying to cause conflict in Equitorial New Guinea. Where there are resources, people or anything to exploit for wealth, you will find an English connection .. So whatof the UK, met some lovely Irish people who tell me how the Brits released prisoners into Ireland and these prisoners, they liked stealing, raping and behaving badly. Met some Scot people whose land has been ruled by English thugs for what seems like forever, when will they go? Can we start with Guy Ritchie. Guess what these people are very concerned about what is happening in Zimbabwe but less about their own banana republics via some very dodgy postal fraud.
The main interests of the English is military stuff be it reenactment, talking about exploits, invasions and England's position in the world (most other Europeans hate war because they are not by their nature willing to or good at Butchery but the barbaric English are proud of what they are and actually love it, it is odd how their stupid soldiers get very upset if people do not think that they are not brave for going out and killing people. Perhaps self-delusion is the reward for their penchant for killing and exploitation that shines). They also have an invented etiquette run at schools designed for the inbred stupids who need special schools paid for by people who need to hide their childrens poor intellect. English manners are curious as they are designed to hide the truth including their racism, they do not like to discuss serious or heated issues perhaps it exposes their simple minds and like their friends in the US - they quote cultural aspects of the French or the Italians to give themselves some self importance) bad food apart from fish and chips. Did you know their is no record of literature in England until the 12th century? The English did not bathe until the Romans and lets face it most cosmpolitans choose to live in London to get away from the inbred people who call themselves English.
The US and UK have a lot in common - support for NAFTA, GATTs ( it is where companies can take over your schools and hospitals under PFI schemes paid for by individuals) genetically modified foods, obesity, bad diets, lack of culture, Iraq, Afghanistan, killing, stealing land and the world's resources
At least the world has nothing to learn from the English with their monarchy, in a country that is owned and run by corporations that is inhabited by people who choose to call themselves subjects and have not even made it to being citizens but hey its probably what the England patriots deserve to have to love.
Viva Scotland, Ireland, Wales, other countries and peoples and anyone who never wants to be part of this descipable part of history that is the last refuge of the English scoundrel.
English manners are curious as they are designed to hide the truth including their racism
Whereas the author of that article is not in the least bit racist!! _________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:03 am Post subject:
Documentary that provides first-hand accounts of Diana Spencer as she was before, during and after her marriage to Prince Charles. Interviews with her nanny, cousin and teachers reveal that Diana was a happy young woman, who was thrilled to marry royalty. When her "fairy tale" marriage turned sour, Diana had an affair with Army officer James Hewitt, her riding instructor. The program features the most in-depth and extensive interview with Hewitt about his five-year affair with Diana and her unhappiness in the royal family.
"They" have SOMETHING TO HIDE, thus censor Diana letters.
The ONLY reason for censorship is FEAR OF IDEAS AND KNOWLEDGE.
No exceptions.
TG - please feel free (LMFAO) to move this to an appropriate thread. _________________ If you want to know who is really in control, ask yourself who you cannot criticise.
"The hunt for 'anti-semites' is a hunt for pockets of resistance to the NWO"-- Israel Shamir
"What we in America call terrorists are really groups of people that reject the international system..." - Heinz "Henry" Kissinger
Deputy Information Commissioner Graham Smith said: "It is important to draw a clear distinction between matters of public interest and matters about which the public may be merely curious."
Or "merely" interested in, or which "merely" serves the Public Interest.
Hilarious.
You can read the Information Commissioner's full report, with details of the FOI request, subsequent actions by the Cabinet Office and the ICO's decision here
The Information Commissioner wrote:
Case Ref: FS50142320
Date: 29/01/2009
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Cabinet Office for information relating to communications with Diana, Princess of Wales and/or her representatives. In response to the request the Cabinet Office disclosed a quantity of information but withheld further information under the exemptions in section 37(1)(a) (communication with Her Majesty, with other members of the Royal Family or with the Royal Household), section 40(2) (Personal information) and section 41(1) (Information provided in confidence). Having investigated the complaint, and having inspected the withheld information, the Commissioner is satisfied that the section 37(1)(a) and section 40(2) exemptions were correctly applied. Therefore the Commissioner has not undertaken an assessment of section 41(1). The Commissioner also found that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) of the Act by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days and by failing to cite exemptions on which it later sought to rely. It also breached section 17(1)(b) by failing to specify why section 40(2) applied and breached section 17(3) by failing to communicate its public interest determination to the complainant within a reasonable timescale.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding:
FOI 17 – Complaint upheld,
FOI 37 – Complaint not upheld,
FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
The Commissioner also found that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) of the Act by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days and by failing to cite exemptions on which it later sought to rely. It also breached section 17(1)(b) by failing to specify why section 40(2) applied and breached section 17(3) by failing to communicate its public interest determination to the complainant within a reasonable timescale.
But didn't . . . _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
. The Royal Coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, had pointed out that unlawful killing equates to manslaughter.
