31Aug1997 - Who Killed Princess Diana?

[Mark Gobell]

Last night's (30.7.7) Channel 5 programme Last Days of a Princess and tonight's Channel 5 programme: Charles and Diana's Wedding (31.7.7)

Lady Diana died on 31.8.1997

Either way, it's 9 years and 11 months since.

Or for the mathematically minded, 119 months


Princess Diana fake inquest. Top royals wanted her dead?
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=12875
This closely related thread on Diana assassination is now locked - all discussion here please

[Louise]

I remember the day when i first heard that Princess Diana died.

I couldn't quite belive it, and to be honest a small part of me still dosen't.

My first thoughts were that her death was some sort of stunt.

I know that Princess Diana was extremely high profile.

And the press hounded her mercylessly wherever she went ans she was getting fed up with it.

But pictures of Princess Diana was worth a lot of money to the papers.

So no matter what she did or what she said to the papers to get them to leave her alone they would not listern.

The only way that a person of that high profile could escape being hounded relentlessly by the press is to fake her own death.

Nobody is going to hunt you down if they think you're dead.

It was very moving to see all those people line the streets as her coffin was being transported, very sad.

[Samantha J Fox]

I was camping with a girlfriend at the time.. Had trouble sleeping so woke up and put my walkman radio on with my headphones to hear the news. Didn't really have an opinion so went back to sleep. Woke up the next day and as my girlfriend was waking up I told her that I had a really vivid dream that someone famous died in a car crash. She went off to the communual showers and came back convinced I had been given some kind of unearthly premonition. Never did tell her the truth.

As for the funeral, emotions are contagious. They weren't crying over Diana. They were all crying because it was the first time in years they had all been out around thousands of other people and felt comfortable with letting loose a few tears in front of strangers.

They probably all went home and felt quite good after it.

[karlos]

Diana's assasination is one of the biggest events of the modern era.
It is not altogether clear who was responsible but everyone from Jesuits to CIA and M15 may have carried it out.
The motives are crystal clea.
Diana was about to follow up her campaign against landmines by coming out publically in favour of the plight of the Palestinians. Diana was in all probability about to marry Dodi Al FAyed, a muslim, and was possibly pregnant by him. She had previously been in a 2 year relationship with a Dr Khan also a muslim. Her best friend Jemima Goldsmith had announced she had converted to Islam.
So it was a good bet that Diana may have come out as either a muslim or at the very least her child, the brother or sister of the future king William, will have been a muslim.
Ths would have created a wave of her fans worldwide joining her and converting. Much in the same way that several million black americans had converted following Mohammed Ali.
There are many historic precidents for this occurance.

So the zionist movement wqould consider her an active enemy. The Catholic church would have considered her a potential loss of millions of members. And the CIA/M15 would have considered the ongoing war against Islam as much harder to prosecute with such a high profile ambassador.

80% of Britons believe sincerely she was murdered.

[outsider]

31st August 1888 - first of 'Jack the Ripper' Murders - carried out, IMO and according to Stephen Knight in 'Jack the Ripper - The Final Solution' by the Masons to protect the Royal Family from scandal.

31st August 1997 - Princess Diana murdered - IMO by the Masons for the same reasons, to protect the Royal Family.

[Frazzel]

With recent allegations regarding MI6 and the SAS and the death of Princess Diana, here is an article written 2008:

Michel Chossudovsky, 14 February 2008

Diana inquest: MI6 ‘plotted tunnel murder’

By Nick Allen

Daily Telegraph. 13 February 2008

" MI6 plotted to murder Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic in a staged car accident in a tunnel five years before Diana, Princess of Wales died in a similar crash, a renegade former spy has told the inquest into her death.

Diana murder probe costs taxpayer £6m All the videos, pictures and testimony from the Diana inquest Richard Tomlinson, who worked for MI6 in the early 1990s, told the High Court he had seen a two page document, drawn up in 1992, detailing three plans to kill Mr Milosevic.

One plan was to use a strobe light to blind Mr Milosevic’s chauffeur The first involved using a Serb opposition paramilitary group, which was regarded as being the most “deniable” method.

The second involved using the “increment” – a small group from the SAS or SBS – to infiltrate Serbia and kill Mr Milosevic using a bomb or sniper ambush.

A third plan was to use a strobe light to blind Mr Milosevic’s chauffeur as his cavalcade passed through a motorway tunnel during peace talks in Geneva.

Mr Tomlinson said the plan was shown to him by a senior MI6 officer referred to as “A” who argued that a crash in a tunnel would mean fewer witnesses and a greater chance it would be fatal.

The former MI6 officer also said he had been shown a strobe light by members of the SBS during his training in Poole, Dorset.

He was told that the equipment, which was portable, was intended for blinding enemy helicopter pilots as they tried to land at night.

Mr Tomlinson gave evidence on a video link from Marseilles.

advertisementHe was called as a witness to the inquest after he told a French magistrate that the Paris car crash which killed the Princess, Dodi Fayed and chauffeur Henri Paul on Aug 31, 1997, bore an “eerie similarity” to an MI6 plot.

He told the inquest that “A” was a “very ambitious and diligent” MI6 section sub-head, aged in his early 30s.

He is referred to as “Fish” in Lord Stevens’ police inquiry into the crash. Mr Tomlinson said “A” showed him the plan in his office on the 11th floor of Century House.

It gave a justification for murdering Mr Milosevic because of his plans for a greater Serbia, a feared genocide of Albanians in Kosovo and his support for Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb leader.

The circulation list for the document included the private secretary to the head of MI6. “There was no doubt in my mind that A was entirely serious about his plan,” Mr Tomlinson said.

“He was an ambitious and serious officer who would not risk his career by making such a proposal in jest.”

Counsel to the inquest Nicholas Hilliard said “A” had revealed there was a document, written in March 1993, about someone else in the Balkans, not Mr Milosevic, and that it was a “contingency plan”.

The other figure was not named but among the likeliest targets would have been the warlord known as Arkan.

Mr Tomlinson also suggested that Henri Paul was passing information to MI6. When he was reading files on an operation to smuggle weapons out of the Soviet Union he came a across details of an unnamed French security officer at the Ritz Hotel who he later concluded that it was Mr Paul.

“There is no doubt Henri Paul would have been of interest to the intelligence services,” he said.

Mr Tomlinson said MI6 paid many people for information or access on an ad hoc basis including a member of the paparazzi and a barrister.

Mr Tomlinson was recruited by MI6 in 1991 after graduating from Cambridge University with a First Class degree in aeronautical engineering.. He was sacked in 1995 and jailed under the Official Secrets Act in 1997 after passing a proposal for a book to a publisher.

His book The Big Breach was eventually published in Moscow in 2001 and now lives in France.

Daily Telegraph 2008

[Frazzel]

Princess Diana assassination claim: SAS man ‘a reliable witness’

THE elite special forces officer behind a new claim that Princess Diana was killed by the SAS should be accepted as a credible witness, an expert on the circumstances of her death said last night.

By: Giles SheldrickPublished: Sat, August 24, 2013

he explosive new allegation that the Princess was killed by crack SAS soldiers acting on orders from MI6 emerged with the disclosure of a letter written by the officer’s mother-in-law. In it she claims he told his wife his crack unit “arranged” Diana’s death.

After extracts of the letter were published earlier this week, the officer was branded a “loose cannon” whose word could not be trusted. But now leading investigator John Morgan has come forward to insist the SAS man, known as Soldier N, will emerge as a “witness of truth” and that his allegations will be proved correct.

The author spoke out after the dramatic new allegation forced the Met Police to contact Prince Charles to notify him of their interest. It has prompted widespread calls for a fresh inquiry.

The seven-page letter by Soldier N’s mother-in-law was written around the time his marriage collapsed in September 2011. In the letter, the mother-in-law says Soldier N also boasted about killing women and children. She claimed he once threatened to “make his wife disappear”.Despite suggestions that Soldier N’s claims cannot now be relied upon, only weeks earlier he was regarded as a credible “witness of truth” whose sworn testimony was believed by the military tribunal that convicted his former housemate and fellow SAS sniper Danny Nightingale of illegally possessing a gun and ammunition.
Mr Morgan said: “One of the most interesting aspects is that the British authorities have known about this for two years.

“The letter from the mother-in-law of the SAS soldier was sent in September 2011 and its only now in August 2013 they are starting to look into it – it shows they don’t take this sort of thing seriously.

“The allegation is that Soldier N told his wife the SAS were involved in the assassination of Princes Diana and it’s been covered up. Does he dream it up out of thin air? I don’t think so. It’s hard to believe he would be making this up.

The truth will eventually come out, just not while The Queen is still alive. Prince William will want to know what occurred and he will be pushing for a proper investigation
Mr Morgan
“The other factor is that it does fit with overall picture of the evidence. There is substantial evidence that shows MI6 involvement in the assassination.”

Australian Mr Morgan, who has who has written a series of books on Diana’s death, said it was well documented that MI6 – now known as the Secret Intelligence Service – employed SAS operatives on secret missions abroad.

He said it was possible SAS assassins were disguised as motorbike riders following the car Australian Mr Morgan, who has who has written a series of books on Diana’s death, said it was well documented that MI6 – now known as the Secret Intelligence Service – employed SAS operatives on secret missions abroad.

He said it was possible SAS assassins were disguised as motorbike riders following the car in which Diana 36, and her lover Dodi Fayed, 42, the son of Mohamed Al Fayed, were killed. Their Mercedes crashed into a concrete pillar in the Pont de l’Alma underpass in central Paris on August 31,1997.

A jury in the 2008 inquest into their deaths blamed their driver, Henri Paul and paparazzi photographers following them on motorcycles. In his inquest summing up Lord Justice Scott Baker said there was not a shred of evidence to support conspiracy allegations. Operation Paget, a subsequent Met Police inquiry also concluded that the deaths were an accident.

Mr Morgan said: “The truth will eventually come out. It (just) won’t come out while The Queen is still alive. (Prince) William will want to know what occurred and he will be pushing to have a proper investigation.”
Last night a Yard spokesman said the Met was “scoping information recently received and assessing its relevance and credibility” but stressed it was not a re-investigation.

Related articles

[TonyGosling]

EXCLUSIVE: How David Cameron knew of Princess Diana 'murder plot'
DAVID CAMERON and the head of the Army knew the SAS were allegedly responsible for the murder of Princess Diana – but failed to tell police.
By: John Twomey
Published: Sat, September 14, 2013
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/429312/EXCLUSIVE-How-David-Cameron-kn ew-of-Princess-Diana-murder-plot

[Frazzel]

Also:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/429557/DONAL-MACINTYRE-INVESTIGATION- Spies-taped-Diana-s-crash-and-bugged-her-phone

DONAL MACINTYRE INVESTIGATION: 'Spies taped Diana's crash and bugged her phone'

BRITISH spies would have recorded the last moments of Princess Diana and her boyfriend Dodi Fayed by bugging their mobile phones, it is claimed.

By DONAL MACINTYRE EXCLUSIVE
PUBLISHED: 00:00, Sun, Sep 15, 2013





694

41
Diana using her mobile phone while in Sardinia in August 1997 the month she died Diana using her mobile phone while in Sardinia in August 1997, the month she died

A key UK security industry source who served in the military told the Sunday Express that GCHQ remotely switched on recorder modes right up to the moment the couple took their fatal Paris car trip.

If made public, the phone recordings could help throw light on sensational claims by former SAS serviceman Soldier N that Diana was murdered by an SAS assassination squad.

The bugging claim came as a separate Sunday Express investigation revealed that film footage of Diana’s last hours was “kept secret”. An exhaustive inquiry in the French capital has confirmed the existence of CCTV records of the night Diana died in August 1997.

Many belong to private companies who used France’s strict privacy laws to avoid having to hand them over to the police.

Just as crucially, a key traffic camera overlooking the scene of the crash in the Alma Tunnel was said to be switched off or malfunctioning.

However, one operator contacted 16 years on said: “Images would have been available if people wanted them to be. The truth is that every excuse possible was made to make sure that live film could be kept secret.

“This suited lots of powerful people, especially those who wanted to dismiss the crash as a simple traffic accident.”

The operator, who asked not to be identified because he “fears for my safety”, said he was convinced that all available film was “rounded up and hidden or destroyed”.

Military sources have claimed Diana’s driver, Henri Paul, was blinded with an intense flash of light forcing him to lose control of their Mercedes on an underpass after leaving the Ritz hotel.

diana car crash wreckThe wreck of the Mercedes that Diana was in as it crashed in a Paris underpass

An exhaustive inquiry in the French capital has confirmed the existence of CCTV records of the night Diana died in August 1997
Now the security source, a specialist operative who has engaged in “black ops”, is alleging that Diana’s phone was accessed remotely, even when switched off.

“There is no doubt that this technology was used on Diana and all around her, and for very human reasons she was regularly listened to live in the moment,” said the source.

GCHQ operatives spent a great deal of time recording and listening live because she was a priority intelligence target and a direct threat to the Crown, he said.

“More than that, she was an icon and the most famous woman in the world at the time and analysts are vulnerable to curiosity as much as anyone else and would have wanted and had the capacity to listen live to the conversations in the car as it sped away from the Ritz.”

As well as these claims, there are suspicions that CCTV cameras were tampered with on the night of the crash.


diana driver crashDiana in the back of the car with driver Henri Paul (right) who is said to have been dazzled

Pascal Poulain was the commander of the Paris Information and Control Centre which was ultimately responsible for the Alma Tunnel camera that night. Interviewed by British investigators, he said: “In view of the scale of the accident, we tried to see the scene of the accident, using the camera situated at Place de l’Alma.

“That was impossible. In fact the screen showed only a blurred yellow light. We tried to manipulate the camera, that is to use the zoom and manoeuvre it, in vain. We did not have the control.

“By that I mean that another section must have been using the camera and manipulating it and must have not released it.

“It had remained under remote control on another section’s control panel. But it could also have been due to it being out of order.”

IN PICTURES: DIANA PRINCESS OF WALES

Speaking further about the crash, Mr Poulain said that any order to record images taken by the camera would have to have been taken “at the highest level of authority and not by a police officer”.

A spokesman for Paris Urban Traffic Units said they stopped using the camera at 11pm, around an hour and 20 minutes before the crash. In the late Nineties, police officer Eric Gigou led a team given the task of collecting all CCTV images on the route from the Ritz to the Alma underpass.


Related articles
Have we been told the truth over what really happened to Princess Diana?
Army slated for not taking allegations of SAS-aided Diana death seriously
EXCLUSIVE: How David Cameron knew of Princess Diana 'murder plot'
EXCLUSIVE: SAS’s lamping unit 'used laser to dazzle Princess Diana's driver'
Many belonged to private businesses including hotels and restaurants, as well as a government department, which said that the cameras were facing away from the road, making the film useless.

In an official report, Lieutenant Gigou wrote: “The surveillance cameras on the private and public buildings along the route are only trained on the fronts of the buildings they protect.”

For this reason, and the fact that many of the private companies objected to anyone seeing the film, the CCTV images were not made available.

Lieutenant Marc Monot, of the Paris Criminal Brigade, said he visited the Ministry of Justice building next door to the Ritz and requested to see their CCTV footage.

According to the same official papers, “he reported that there were no images that contributed to the inquiry because cameras were positioned on ledges and did not provide any discernible detail”.

Sunday Express front pages highlight new twists

The use of the vague term “discernible detail” has particularly concerned those who think Diana may have been targeted by assassins, especially as it has effectively been used to keep the footage a secret.

Another part of the mystery is that the Mercedes Benz S-Class involved in the crash had been stolen from a restaurant several months earlier.

It was found after two weeks in a Paris suburb with some small but very specific electronic parts missing.

The parts came from devices within the car’s Electronic Management System and were found to control the electric windows, power steering rack and the anti-lock braking system.

[outsider]

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Yes, this one is really blowing up
Wonder what Phil the Nazi makes of it all?
Particularly excruciating for William & Harry.
That'll be Phil's fault then for behaving as if he's a medieval despotic monarch.
Donal Macintyre:
MI6 taped Princess Diana's crash & bugged her phone:
http://t.co/hU2IIt6pxI

[Frazzel]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/429799/Soldier-s-claim-SAS-ordered-to -kill-Princess-Diana-ups-pressure-for-murder-investigation

Daily Express Monday Sept 16th 2013 - More allegations about alleged plot to kill Diana. The Daily Express is putting up the pressure for the police to re-pen the case. Will the truth finally come out? or will it just be a cover up again?

[TonyGosling]

New official website about John Morgan's continuing investigation into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed in Paris on 31 August 1997:
http://princessdianadeaththeevidence.weebly.com/


THE VIDEOS & INTERVIEWS

Talk Radio Europe interview on 19 August 2013: Was the SAS involved?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8afAm4A69xA

Talk Radio Europe interview on 6 June 2013: Corruption at Scotland Yard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chs6bYMvWv0

Talk Radio Europe interview on 23 August 2012: The evidence of assassination
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w5C-cQMTPQ

High Time Brisbane TV interview November 2011: Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9pI7zJzCQE

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFAxvCOenBE

Bristol Radio BCfm interview in 2011: The evidence of assassination
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxbSGUQMIy4

Brisbane River Press Conference December 2010: Was the Mercedes driver drunk?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfqTJ9ZXLAg

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLgl_7xdS4Y

Brisbane River Press Conference December 2010: Q & A - Can justice prevail?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smzQUixlMes

Launch of Diana Inquest Part 3 - QUT TV December 2010: The French Cover-Up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweIHHelS34

Sunrise Channel 7 TV interview Michael Cole December 2010: The Untold Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1SV24gaFPI

A Current Affair Channel 9 TV interview December 2007: Cover-Up of a Royal Murder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj13wuxb28E

[fish5133]

another unexplained death on the horizon?

[TonyGosling]

Latest from John Morgan here

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEMW1zo2Lvw
Published on 16 Sep 2013

Interview on Australian Channel 7's Today Tonight with investigative writer John Morgan - aired on 16 August 2013. The author discusses the importance of the evidence from SAS soldier N and how it fits with already known evidence of MI6 involvement. The interviewer is Neil Doorley.
John Morgan has spent eight years investigating the circumstances of the 31 August 1997 crash in Paris that took the lives of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed.
He has written nine evidence-based books on the crash -- including a short. easy-to-read summary of the evidence, entitled Paris-London Connection: The Assassination of Princess Diana. His books are based on the official British police investigation report, the Paget Report, the 7,000 pages of transcripts from the 2007-8 London inquest and hundreds of documents provided to him in 2010 -- documents from within the Operation Paget police investigation but were withheld from the inquest jury.

[outsider]

'EXCLUSIVE: Sir Ranulph Fiennes’ book foretold Princess Diana’s death in tunnel

PRINCESS Diana was murdered using a method described in a 1991 book by adventurer Sir Ranulph Fiennes, it has been claimed..':
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/431298/EXCLUSIVE-Sir-Ranulph-Fiennes- book-foretold-Princess-Diana-s-death-in-tunnel

Yep, Express still pushing it. There are a few other Princess Di articles on the same page.

In my opinion, they used a belt and several pairs of braces: strobe light, 'Boston Brakes' and the 'coup-de-grace' in the slow, slow ambulance.
I have also read somewhere that Di's seat-belt was stuck and unusable.

[outsider]

Telegraph:
'Princess Diana's death: the conspiracy theories..':
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10250727/Princes s-Dianas-death-the-conspiracy-theories.html

'Seatbelt

Both Diana and Dodi were not restrained by their seatbelts at the time of the crash prompting some to suggest that they may have been sabotaged. French investigators declared all the seatbelts operational in 1998. Analysis of the wreckage of the car after its repatriation to England in 2005 found that all the seatbelts were in good working order bar Diana's, although it is thought that the damage took place after the accident...'

Yes, 'it is thought that the damage took place after the accident'.. Indeed!! 'It is thought...!!'

'..Analysis of the wreckage of the car after its repatriation to England in 2005..' Hmmm, I wonder why it took so long to get the car 'repatriated' (???) to England?

[outsider]

Serendipity:
Special Report:
http://www.serendipity.li/more/senderberl_diana2.htm

'Diana, cause of accident: due to the immediate and intense world-wide interest in our Diana - Cause of Death - old web page (http://www.senderberl.com/diana.htm), we thought it fitting to bring forth further points to ponder…':
'Why did Trevor Rees-Jones put on his seat belt just prior to the accident when Princess Diana, a devoted user of seat belts, did not? Why were two motorcycle policemen told to leave an ambulance taking one hour to reach a hospital, when 10 surgeons and an army of medical specialists were awaiting Diana's arrival? Is Henri Paul's behavior prior to the accident significantly inconsistent with published intoxication results? Why was there misinformation that the Mercedes was armor plated, supporting the further false assertion that it took emergency crews one hour to extract Diana from the car? Why did the French government reject the aid of Daimler Benz? Why didn't the Fiat stop and the driver and its occupants, if any, join the line of those seeking to file suit against the Ritz hotel? Why wasn't Diana put on a heart-lung bypass machine?..'

[outsider]

Dying Diana 'finished off by the SAS':

SAS hitmen on motorbikes swarmed around Princess Diana’s crashed car to ­“finish her off”, it was claimed yesterday:
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/343053/Dying-Diana-finishe d-off-by-the-SAS-


'But Morgan, who has written nine books about Diana, says they made one major mistake during their mission.

They rode “heavy duty” bikes rather than the light scooters favoured by the Paris paparazzi at the time...'


Diana 'assassin' silenced in suicide mystery

A KEY member of the Princess Diana “assassination team” was murdered, it was claimed last night...:

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/342791/Diana-assassin-sile nced-in-suicide-mystery


'Millionaire photographer James Andanson had been threatening to write an explosive book.

But Andanson, who had links with the Secret Service, died mysteriously after meeting author Fredieric Dard to discuss the book that would “blow the lid off a conspiracy”.

He was found in a torched car with two bullet wounds in his head, but the authorities ruled it was suicide.

In a bizarre twist, Frenchman Dard also died within a few weeks of their meeting. Last night top investigative writer John Morgan and friends of Mohamed Al Fayed urged police to reopen the investigation into Andanson’s death in 2000.

Aussie-based Morgan, who has written nine books about Diana’s death, is convinced Andanson “is a vital area” of inquiry for police...'


Princess Diana 'murder' author receives chilling death threats

ROYAL author Brian Watson received chilling death threats after claiming Princess Diana’s fatal crash was caused by assassins, he revealed last night:

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/342526/Princess-Diana-murd er-author-receives-chilling-death-threats


'The biographer says he was about to make his theory public when he got a phone call telling him: “Drop the idea if you value your family’s life.”

Mr Watson had planned to release a documentary film after his research convinced him that killers used a remote control device to take over the steering of Diana’s Mercedes and deliberately crashed it into a Paris tunnel pillar.

But after sending film studios the script for his movie Who Killed The Queen Of Hearts? the writer received the deadly threat, he claims.


“I recieved a phonecall saying: 'Drop the idea if you value your family’s life'”
Brian Watson
Now fears his admissions to the Daily Star could endanger his life again. He revealed: “I said to my co-writer: ‘Have I got too close to the truth?'”

Mr Watson believes assassins were following the Mercedes in a white Fiat Uno, which was seen by several witnesses but has never been found.

He says the killers tampered with the Merc’s computer to gain control, then followed her last journey across Paris before using the remote to smash the car, killing Diana in August 1997.

Mr Watson, a former advertising exec from Surrey, even researched how such a system could be installed. He said prior to the crash, the computer system was stolen from the Merc, which was off the road for two weeks.

“So I phoned up my local Mercedes dealership and asked how long it would take to put a new one in. They said about half an hour or so. Then I asked if you could perhaps control the car with the right computer. He said: ‘Yes, you could.’ When I told him why I was asking him he went cold.”



I suspect both methods were used, 'Boston Brakes' and an extremely bright strobe light.
And the French police MUST have known that the paprazzi used scooters rather than heavy motorbikes...yet kept up the charade.

[TonyGosling]

Princess Diana fake inquest. Top royals wanted her dead?
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=12875
That closely related thread on Diana assassination is now locked - all discussion here please

[TonyGosling]

NZ-based Uncensored magazine has dedicated its current issue’s cover story to John Morgan's latest book: How They Murdered Princess Diana: The Shocking Truth. The issue also includes a substantial review of the book.
https://www.uncensoredpublications.com/product/current-issue/

In February US-based Executive Intelligence Review published an extensive and significant article on royal-Saudi links, the Truth Lies Diana play and the How They Murdered Princess Diana book – entitled British Royals Feel Heat Over Diana’s Assassination.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2015/4207charles_saudi_diana.html

German publisher Kopp Verlag has translated and published the Paris-London Connection book. Entitled Die Paris-London-Connection: Wie Geheimdienste die Ermordung von Lady Diana geplant und durchgeführt haben, Kopp has opened up the German market and several thousand hard-cover copies have sold since the launch late last year.

An anonymous supporter printed a poster last month advertising the latest book How They Murdered Princess Diana … and attached it to the wall of Buckingham Palace – photo attached.

Investigation website: http://princessdianadeaththeevidence.weebly.com/

[TonyGosling]

Australian investigative writer John Morgan, who has written ten forensic books on the 1997 death of Princess Diana, has revealed he only has months to live.
Morgan, who is viewed by many as the world’s leading expert on the death of Princess Diana, has lived with the severe neurological illness Multiple System Atrophy, for the past 12 years.
In a statement released today the NZ-born author said:
“Recently symptoms of my illness have worsened considerably and I am now not expecting to live beyond the next few months.
“This month marks 18 years since the death of Princess Diana in Paris in August 1997.
“I wish to state categorically that I stand 100% by the results of my forensic investigation into the deaths of Diana and her lover, Dodi Fayed.
“I also state that after having named several people involved in the assassination and many Establishment-connected witnesses who have lied in their evidence, not one person has sought to sue me or clear their name.
"It is my sincere wish that Princes William and Harry will at some point seek justice for their mother, and that those involved in her murder – and in the subsequent massive cover-up – will finally be held to account for their crimes."

Investigation website:
http://princessdianadeaththeevidence.weebly.com/

[TonyGosling]

by Joe Vialls
Spanish version
9 January 2004
from Vialls Website
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_blacknobi l10.htm


During the evening of 29 January 1999, five hundred and sixteen days after the death of Princess Diana, various assorted camera crews stood assembled outside the Ritz Hotel in London.

Prince Charles was finally "coming out" with his mistress Camilla Parker-Bowles on his arm, and the London media had been primed in advance about the photo opportunity.

As the smiling pair happily descended the steps of the Ritz, flash bulbs predictably started popping all over the place. But then the unthinkable happened. From a location above and behind the media pack, someone fired a powerful Pulsed-Strobe "Less Than Lethal" optical weapon directly at the Prince and Camilla. Though slightly diffused by the flash bulbs below, the intense distinctive blue-white pulses were still powerful enough to make Camilla Parker-Bowles stumble slightly, and then turn pale.

Though taken from a slightly different angle, the remarkable photo shown above on the right was exposed at the exact second the Pulsed-Strobe LTL fired.

The PS-LTL is a narrow-beam weapon, and the photo clearly shows the intense blue-white glare directly on Camilla's right eye, and on the right side of Prince Charles' nose. Because the Prince had his face turned away from the weapon at the instant it fired, he escaped its neural effects.

No doubt there will be photographic "experts" out there who will claim this was merely a media flash gun. Any and all such claims can easily be disproved. The media pack was completely contained behind a barrier more than sixty feet away from the London Ritz Hotel, at which range no media flash gun ever invented can generate such an intense [and narrow] blue-white beam or pulse.

Adding to the mystery is the fact that the weapon used, was almost identical to one assumed to be used in the Pont de l' Alma tunnel against Princess Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed on 31 August 1997, just after they left the Paris Ritz hotel on their last journey. Only three weeks after that fatal crash, I wrote to Mohammed Al-Fayed about Pulsed-Strobe LTL Weapons.

This letter was sent to London by registered mail on 22 September 1997, long before any "official" reasons or misleading suggestions about the crash were published by the media:

"When this LTL weapon fires, it pulses high-intensity brilliant white light at brain frequencies, inducing complete neural confusion for between two and five seconds. Line-of-sight exposure is overwhelming and renders the target completely incapable of meaningful brain function. Exposure at oblique angles causes moderate to severe mental confusion.

"If this LTL system was deployed at the tunnel entrance in order to trigger a lethal event, the two-ton mass of the Mercedes colliding with a solid concrete wall at sixty mph, would have ensured lethality due to the car's inertia, which could be accurately calculated in advance.

"Although pulsed-strobe LTL by its very nature leaves little hard evidence of its use, there are indicators which might be useful in determining whether or not it was deployed at the Paris tunnel."
Before going on to examine who might have the motive and means to orchestrate the event outside the London Ritz, it might be instructive to examine how the media pack reacted to this extraordinary optical weapon at the time.

The BBC, obliged to transmit quite dangerous television footage of events at the Ritz, tried to blame it all on an over-abundance of flash guns:
"Some had been waiting for many hours to catch a glimpse of the couple. Many were tourists, and others had merely stopped to see what was going on as they made their way home from pubs and restaurants. Such was the ferocity of the flash guns, the British Epilepsy Association urged broadcasters not to transmit more than five seconds of the strobe-like effects, fearing that it would spark photosensitive seizures in some sufferers."
In fact the "strobe-like effects" had already done considerably more damage than that.

At one London TV station two editors became severely confused, and at another station, one editor became totally disorientated and collapsed across the control console. None of these personnel, or other who suffered lesser effects, had any history of epilepsy.

Working rapidly behind the scenes, The Independent Television Commission in London took a much harder line than the BBC, swiftly circulating an urgent directive to all TV networks.

The ITC warned that,
"the news footage [taken outside the London Ritz] appeared significantly to breach the ITC's guidelines on the use of flashing images," and called for subsequent broadcasts "to fall in line with the Commission's guidance notes."
In accordance with this directive, later transmissions had the footage slowed down, a fact reported openly by television networks across the world including Australia's ABC and SBS.

But despite the confusion, and the fact this was the first and only documented occasion on which television footage worldwide had to be slowed down to avoid neural damage, not one media outlet anywhere reported on the real reasons for this unique phenomena.

It was literally the scoop of the century. For the first time in history people were swooning all over the floor, and collapsing across television consoles, to the point where transmission speeds had to be altered to limit further physical and mental damage. At best George Orwell had come to town, and at worst the government's "Mind Controllers" had just turned up for work. It was a giant of a story begging to be reported to the viewers, but no one said a thing.

Are all media personnel stupid, or were they simply told to keep their mouths shut that day?

Possible motives for this deliberate event must also include the possible motives behind the deaths of Dodi Al-Fayed, and Diana, Princess of Wales. The links between Prince Charles, Princess Diana, Camilla Parker-Bowles and Dodi Al-Fayed overlap in several complex ways, to the point where any diligent investigator or analyst would ignore them at his peril.

The hotel name itself points to another or parallel link, which is unlikely to be mere coincidence. The Ritz Hotel in Paris is owned by Mohammed Al-Fayed, while the Ritz Hotel in London is jointly owned by Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, affectionately known in London circles as "The Reclusive Twins" because they shun limelight and controversy.

So far as is known, both Sir Barclays have always left the day-to-day running of the London Ritz entirely to its own management team, so we can confidently exclude any rivalry or conflict between the hotel owners themselves. What, then? The explanation is long and may get a little boring in places, but stay with me people, stay with me. The means justify the end of this story, and the end of this story is frightening.

Throughout history, a large number of powerful men [and pretenders who seek to be powerful men] have been inexorably drawn towards symbolism and anniversary dates. You see evidence of this all around you in everyday life. American Independence Day is celebrated on 4 July each year, which serves the dual role of symbolism [Independence] and a specific day on which to celebrate it.

On the other side of the Atlantic we have the Golden Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain.

Princess Elizabeth's father, King George VI, died on 6th February 1952. As required by tradition, the new monarch acceded to the throne instantly. At no time is Britain left without a monarch. It is for this reason that the monarch's flag, The Royal Standard, can never fly at half mast even though the public expected the 'Standard' to be at half mast at the time of Princess Diana's death.

Though the Queen's Golden Jubilee is officially celebrated in June 2002, it was actually on 6 February 2002 that Elizabeth the Second completed exactly fifty years as Monarch. There are other events and dates most people forgot long ago, which can still be used subversively for more discreet commemorative purposes.

Fine so far.

The owners of the two Ritz Hotels are not involved, but we still have a highly charged and very symbolic situation. The last time any of us saw Prince Charles' estranged wife Diana alive, is when she walked out of the back door of the Ritz Hotel in Paris with Dodi Al-Fayed. The first time we "officially" saw Prince Charles' mistress Camilla Parker-Bowles, is when she walked out of the front door of the Ritz Hotel in London.

So what does it all mean, and who was really pulling the symbolic strings in this strange subliminal tableaux? To answer this we need to back up a few years to 1992-3, when suddenly and without apparent reason, a person or persons unknown started "bugging" the telephones of Prince Charles, Princess Diana, and Camilla Parker-Bowles. Rumors circulated by the media insinuated that Prince Charles started it all, but why on earth would he bother?

Nowadays we all know that back in 1993 and much earlier, Prince Charles had both Protestant wife and Catholic mistress, i.e. the best of both worlds, and would most certainly not upset the apple cart himself. Princess Diana also had no motive, nor did Camilla Parker-Bowles.

Whoever ordered the bugging benefited hugely in terms of undermining the credibility of the Royal Family, and eventually the London Sunday Mirror newspaper pointed the finger thus:
"The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA) are holding a 1,056 page dossier made by bugging Princess Diana's phones and eavesdropping on her conversations. The CIA had mounted a surveillance operation on Diana at the request of British Intelligence Service MI6".
It would be a serious error of judgment to assume that MI6, home of the fictional James Bond, is actually controlled by the British Government. It would be an equally serious error of judgment to assume that MI6 goes out of its way to protect members of the Royal Family, because it does not do so.

Preserving national security and protecting the Royal Family are tasks handled jointly by MI5 and The Metropolitan Police Service.

More properly known by its correct title of the "Secret Intelligence Service" (SIS), MI6 was long ago penetrated by both the American Central Intelligence Agency and the Israeli Mossad. For at least the last two decades MI6 has danced to the tune of the CIA, which unfortunately over the same period of history has itself been subordinate to Mossad interests.

Therefore any international agenda followed by MI6 and the CIA, has been set by the Mossad.
"Why oh why", I hear you ask, "would the Mossad be interested in harming Prince Charles, Princess Diana or Camilla Parker-Bowles?"
Once again we have to delve back through the history books for the answer, and please note here this is a serious investigation, not an "anti-Semitic" witch hunt as many Jews are sure to claim. It is documented historical fact that for many centuries, Jewish financiers effectively controlled various British Kings and Queens, by funding wars and many other ventures that the occasionally extravagant British monarchs desired.

True, every now and then a King might, and in fact did, banish them all from Britain, but overall the Jews were the undisputed winners. It was not until the early 20th Century that disenchanted British bureaucrats finally knocked them off their perch. Then the Jews lost not only financial control of the British monarchy, but also the ear of the Royal Court.

It would be realistic to claim that the biggest grudge the Jews held against Britain in contemporary times was the latter's absolute refusal to hand over Palestine as the new "Jewish State". In the end the Jewish Zionists prevailed, but it was very hard going. Thereafter the Zionist Lobbies decided to pay more attention to Britain.

The colonies had vanished one by one over the years but, diplomatically speaking, Britain was still a powerhouse.

Though the British monarch has very little real power nowadays, he or she still wields enormous influence, and Prince Charles had already displayed a desire to be the "Defender of Faiths" when eventually crowned King, i.e. not be exclusively restricted to his traditional role as defender of the Church of England.

Ominously perhaps, in late May 1996, just over a year before Diana would later be murdered in a Paris tunnel, Britain's Prime Minister John Major took the odd step of publicly disapproving of Prince Charles' stand, while at the same time cleverly exposing the fact that "faiths" in the Royal plural sense did not include Judaism.

Interviewed on BBC Television, Major described the desire of the Prince of Wales to be seen as a figurehead for all religions in Britain, including Catholics, Muslims and Hindus, as "odd" and further suggested that such a move could be interpreted as an "empty gesture". It was a performance watched very closely by leading members of the Jewish community, who collectively had very bad vibes about any "King Charles."

Back in the Middle Ages, Charles I banned the Jews from Britain, and as a result was ruthlessly pursued by Oliver Cromwell, who can fairly be described on his actions and deeds as "Britain's first Communist leader", complete with a subservient proletariat. The Jews wanted back in, and Cromwell was their man body and soul.

Eventually fate and Oliver Cromwell caught up with Charles I, who faced his execution on the 30 January 1649 at Whitehall, where he was beheaded on a specially built scaffold. Then after a respectable interlude of just a few years, Oliver Cromwell graciously and obediently allowed the Jews back into Britain. Mark the 30th January 1649 well, because something extraordinary was to happen exactly three hundred and fifty years later in London, as we will shortly see.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the modern Prince Charles' nineties stand on religion can now be seen as reckless, if not downright dangerous. In the run-up to his statement about "faiths", Charles had payed several visits to Muslim communities, while apparently ignoring Judaism. In so doing, Prince Charles opened himself up as a target for Jewish fanatics, none of whom were prepared to run the risk of being ejected from Britain all over again.

It was finally considered much better [and far easier] to discredit Charles, and thus prevent him ever ascending the throne.

Naturally enough the Zionist lobby knew all about the exploitable skeleton in Charles' closet - Camilla Parker-Bowles - because they had full control of the earlier "bugging" sequences by Britain's MI6. But if the Zionists thought Prince Charles was a big problem, they were certainly not ready for the shattering events of 1997.

Quite suddenly a catastrophe happened. Instead of continuing to hang out with a relatively harmless wet-behind-the-ears British army officer, Princess Diana started a relationship with Dodi Al Fayed, son of Mohammed Al Fayed of Harrod's fame. And if there was one man in England the Zionist lobby loved to hate with a passion it was Mohammed Al Fayed.

So intense was their hatred that for more than twenty years, members of the Lobby had prevented Mohammed Al Fayed from obtaining British citizenship, a privilege handed out on a daily basis to any illegal immigrant who bothered to knock on Britain's back door.

It became instantly obvious to the Zionist Lobby that Dodi Al Fayed could not be controlled at all. This man was not a junior British officer who could be cowed by Whitehall or by "The Firm" at Buckingham Palace, but an independent Special FX Producer from Hollywood with the full backing of his immensely wealthy father.

Though the Lobby felt confident it could "influence" or even control the rather muddled relationship between Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles, and eventually use that relationship to undermine Prince Charles completely, the thought of a powerful Muslim influence being anywhere near Prince William or Prince Harry, drove its members to distraction.

Somehow the Zionist Lobby had to get rid of Dodi Al Fayed, and then once more arrogantly display its implicit "influence" over Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles. If Dodi Al Fayed was allowed to continue his relationship with Princess Diana, and perhaps marry her, then ultimately his discreet influence over Prince William and Prince Harry could well undermine all of their careful work, and preparations to guide the future King of England and his heirs.

But how could they get rid of him?

Suddenly, as if from nowhere, there was an answer to the Zionist prayers. With its driver suddenly blinded by a Pulsed-Strobe LTL Weapon, and amid an appalling screech of brakes and twisted metal, the Mercedes 600 SEL carrying Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed away from the Ritz Hotel in Paris, cannoned off the wall of the Pont de l' Alma tunnel and came to rest in the center lane. Dodi Al Fayed and driver Henri Paul were killed on impact. Princess Diana died shortly afterwards. The only survivor was bodyguard Trevor Rees Jones, though he was critically injured.

Most of Britain went into deep shock, mourning the death of Princess Diana.

Hundreds of wreaths took up acres of space outside her official residence, and every faith on earth sent a religious representative to her funeral in Westminster Abbey. Well, all faiths except one. The Chief Rabbi declined to attend, ostensibly because the funeral took place on Shabbat, the Jewish equivalent of Sunday in the Christian Church. It was odd behavior, because I can find no religious law stating that Jews may not enter a Christian Church on a Saturday.

In Jewish literature, poetry and music, Shabbat is described as a bride or queen, as in the popular Shabbat hymn Lecha Dodi Likrat Kallah (come, my beloved, to meet the [Sabbath] bride).

It is said,
"more than Israel has kept Shabbat, Shabbat has kept Israel."
Shabbat is not specifically a day of prayer.
"To say that Shabbat is a day of prayer is no more accurate than to say that Shabbat is a day of feasting: we eat every day, but on Shabbat, we eat more elaborately and in a more leisurely fashion."
To an outsider like me, the Chief Rabbi's refusal to attend seemed more like a deliberate snub.

Over the next year or so Prince Charles fought a rising tide of public hostility, as he tried to introduce Camilla Parker-Bowles as his consort. The British people barely concealed their resentment and indeed, several conspiracies started to do the rounds that tacitly accused the Prince of being directly involved in the murder of his young wife.

There was never any direct or indirect evidence to support these preposterous claims, and over the years they died away.

Eventually, in January 1999, arrangements were made for a party at the Ritz Hotel in London, apparently to celebrate the birthday of one of Camilla's many friends. It is most unlikely that Prince Charles or Camilla Parker-Bowles decided on the date, venue or the time, because traditionally junior staff take care of such details.

Put another way, suddenly deciding to have a party specifically at the London Ritz on 29 January was almost certainly not their own idea.

The media was discreetly told to be there, and when all were in place, the Prince strode down the steps of the Ritz with Camilla Parker-Bowles on his arm. Then the Pulsed-Strobe LTL Optical Weapon fired, and for a millionth of a second history stood perfectly still.

Exactly fifty years before, on 29 January 1949, the Crown had finally and very grudgingly granted diplomatic recognition to the State of Israel.

Leading Zionists in London celebrated this victory by partying all night and into the next day at the very same Ritz Hotel. Thus, unknown to the participants, Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles' party at the London Ritz on 29 January 1999, marked the Golden Jubilee of the greatest single Zionist victory over Great Britain.

And as the hands of the clock slipped past midnight, and the date advanced seamlessly to the 30th January 1999, the party also marked the 350th anniversary of the execution of Charles I.







Exactly Where is "Kennington Palace"?

The forgers of the "Diana Letter" made far less subtle mistakes than capital letters. According to the photographs in the Mirror newspaper, Diana wrote the horrible expose on her own stationary at Kennington Palace.

Where?




When she was alive, Diana lived at Kensington Palace, a well-known royal residence.

"Kennington Palace" used to be part of Lambeth Palace in southeast London, currently the London home of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

[TonyGosling]

Princess Diana and Dodi al-Fayed
Will Mossad finally hand over its secret files on Diana's death?

By Gordon Thomas Thursday, September 21, 2006
http://canadafreepress.com/2006/thomas092106.htm

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the retired High Court judge appointed to preside over the inquest in the New Year of Princess Diana and Dodi al-Fayed, faces a vital question. How can she persuade Mossad to hand over its own files on the deaths?

The 200-pages of reports could cast a new light on the 1,500 witness statements and 10,000 pages of documents the Stevens inquiry has gathered in the most expensive investigation conducted by Scotland Yard into any death.

Lord Stevens has sent his ten experienced detectives on a worldwide investigation to collect evidence. But Mossad has firmly refused to give them access to their files.

Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli government national security adviser, who claims he has seen the files said: "They explain many things about the intelligence presence around Diana. They reinforce her own claims she was the subject of intense scrutiny by Britain's security services, the CIA and French intelligence. The American National Security Agency, NSA, was also involved with satellite surveillance on her".

Lord Stevens has interviewed John Scarlett, head of MI6, and Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, director of MI5, and obtained their files which go some way to confirm Ben-Menashe's claim. NSA has also admitted it possesses some 1,050 satellite transcripts of Diana and Dodi made in the weeks before their deaths. The agency has reportedly refused to make the documents available on the grounds that "national security is involved".

Mossad was not interested in the relationship between Diana and Dodi. Their sole concern was to recruit Henri Paul, the assistant head of security at the Ritz Hotel in Paris from where he drove the couple to their deaths nine years ago last month.

The story of how Mossad set about recruiting Henri Paul began on June 29, 1997, exactly two months before Diana and Dodi died.

That afternoon a middle-aged man arrived in a Paris apartment near the Pompidou Centre in the lively 4th Arrondissement in Paris. The apartment was a Mossad safe house in the city.

His Swiss passport identified him as "Maurice Rubenstein", born in Geneva. He described himself as a "financial consultant". The details had been created by the Mossad department specialising in devising cover for its agents. Maurice was a specialist in recruiting informers.

He had come to Paris to recruit Henri Paul. To do so he was prepared to use a mixture of financial inducements, threats and blackmail.

Before coming to Paris, Maurice had spent weeks studying Mossad's file on Henri Paul. It had been opened after Jonathan Aitken, a former Conservative government minister in charge of arms sales, had built up a raft of contacts with Middle East arms dealers. Granada Television had published a damaging report on Aitken's activities. He has sued for libel. The case hinged on who had paid Aitken's hotel account when he stayed at the Ritz to meet some of his Arab contacts. In court, Aitken had sworn on oath that his wife had settled the account.

Through a third-party, Mossad had tipped-off investigators acting for the defendants that Mrs Aitken had not been in Paris. The case had collapsed. Mossad, who had long regarded Aitken's activities as a threat to Israel, had effectively destroyed him.

But Mossad needed an informer in the Ritz who would be able to report on the activities of the arms dealers. Henri Paul's responsibility for security made every area of the Ritz open to him. "There would be no questions asked if he wanted a copy of a person's hotel bill, no raised eyebrows if he asked to see the hotel's telephone log to obtain details of calls made by arms dealers and their contacts", said Ari Ben-Menashe.

"As chauffeur to VIPs, Paul would be in a good position to overhear their conversations, witness their behaviour, see where they went, whom they met", he added.

Henri Paul was a bachelor in no permanent relationship, but liked fast cars and had learned to fly. All expensive tastes outside his 31,000 euro salary.

A Mossad psychologist had concluded there was an "inherent vulnerability" about Henri Paul. The psychologist recommended that steadily increasing pressure, linked with the promise of substantial monetary reward to finance Paul's social life, could be the best way to recruit him.

Maurice had observed the relationship Paul had with the paparazzi. In return for cash, he provided details of the movements of celebrity guests.

The exchange of information for cash took place either in one of the bars or in the narrow Rue Cambon, where the Ritz staff entrance was situated. The meetings were secretly photographed by another Mossad agent who had joined Maurice.

By mid-August, 1997, paparazzi interest focused on the expected arrival at the Ritz of Diana and Dodi al-Fayed. They would stay in the hotel's fabled Imperial Suite.

Henri Paul continued to provide details of the forthcoming visit to several paparazzi. He received further sums of money.

Maurice decided the time had come to make his move.

The first contact was in Harry's Bar in the Rue Daunou. The Mossad agent struck up a conversation with Henri Paul. They arranged to meet in a few days over dinner. During the meal Paul spoke of his passion for fast cars and piloting a small aircraft. But it was difficult to enjoy those pleasures on his salary.

What followed then developed a rhythm of its own: Maurice laying down the bait and Henri Paul all too eager to take it. The hook in place, Maurice began to reel in the line.

"Maurice would have planted the idea he might be able to help, perhaps mentioning he worked for a company that was looking for ways to update its database and would pay good money to those who could help do so. This was a favourite opening gambit for Mossad recruiters on a cold-approach operation. From there, it would be a small step to tell Paul that many of the Ritz guests no doubt possessed the kind of information that would interest the company", Ari Ben-Menashe later claimed.

Another Mossad officer told the Sunday Express last week: "Henri Paul would have been on the hook".

He agreed Maurice's "undoubted skills would have the essential undertow of pressure on Paul. At some stage he would have let Paul know that Mossad had evidence of Paul taking money from the paparazzi. What Maurice would have offered was the opportunity to bolster that income".

Meantime Mossad had established the presence of MI6 and CIA agents in Paris waiting for Diana and Dodi to arrive.

"The Mossad files reveal those agents had been tracking Diana for some weeks. Their interest was to see Diana's next moves in her campaign to have landmines banned. There was huge opposition to her campaign in the United States, Britain and elsewhere", said Ari Ben-Menashe.

As the days drew closer to the arrival of Diana and Dodi in Paris, the pressure on Henri Paul increased to bug the Ritz for Mossad and provide details of the guests.

"Paul knew he could well end up in prison if he was found spying on the hotel's guests. Yet, if he went to the police what could they do? If he turned down the Mossad proposition, what then? If the hotel management learned he had already betrayed that most precious of all assets the Ritz offered -- confidentiality -- by informing the paparazzi, he could be fired, even prosecuted", suggested an intelligence source.

Henri Paul had been put in charge of Diana and Dodi's security while they were in the hotel, with particular responsibility for keeping away the paparazzi. At the same time photographers were calling him on his cell phone for information about the visit and offering large sums of money to provide details. The temptation to accept was another pressure. Everywhere he turned, there seemed to be pressure.

Though he managed to conceal it, Henri Paul was unravelling mentally. His combination of drugs could only have furthered the strain on his ability to make reasoned judgments.

On the night before Henri Paul drove Diana and Dodi to their deaths, Maurice had what turned out to be his final meeting with Henri Paul.

He threatened to expose the Ritz security man's contacts with Mossad to the service's own informers in the Arab world -- a virtual guarantee Henri Paul would be killed.

It was not the first time Mossad had used the ultimate sanction against someone who refused to cooperate.

The two men parted, leaving Henri Paul in no condition to drive his Mini -- let alone the Ritz's powerful Mercedes.

"You could say he was a dead man walking", said a Mossad source.

In Maurice's apartment near the Pompidou Centre, the agent was awoken by a telephone call on Sunday, August 31, 1997. The caller worked in the Paris gendarmerie accident unit and had been recruited by Mossad.

He said Henri Paul's Mercedes sedan had struck a reinforced concrete pillar on the westbound roadway of the underpass beneath the place de l'Alma, a notorious accident spot in the city.

The dead were Diana, Dodi al-Fayed and Henri Paul. The couple's bodyguard had been critically injured.

Hours after the accident, Maurice flew back to Tel Aviv, leaving in his wake questions that would remain unanswered.

Had Henri Paul lost control of the Mercedes because he could see no way of extricating himself from the clutches of Mossad? Was that pressure linked to the high level of prescribed drugs found in his bloodstream? When he had left the Ritz with his three passengers, had his mind continued to vacillate over what he should do about the pressure? Was he not only responsible for a terrible road accident, but also the victim of a ruthless intelligence operation?

It is those vital questions that Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss will have to address if there is to be a real closure to the story when her inquest finally opens next January.

[TonyGosling]

Worth a bump this

SAS gave me envelope stuffed with £500 to keep quiet about Diana, says ex-wife of sniper who claimed Princess was murdered by the regiment
Incredible story of key witness that has a terrifying ring of truth
SAS officer 'warned her that she would end up dead like Lee Rigby'
She has now gone into hiding claiming she fears for her own safety
Sniper husband claimed that the SAS was ‘behind’ Princess Diana’s death
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2541923/SAS-wifes-bombshell- Regiment-bribed-silent-Diana-murder-claims.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIIm0MJ3vRg

[TonyGosling]

Princess Diana crash: New book claims Queen said 'someone must have greased the brakes' after hearing news
09:09, 15 AUG 2015 UPDATED 10:07, 15 AUG 2015
BY RICHARD WHEATSTONE
A new book by royal biographer Ingrid Seward claims when the Queen made the remark after she initially heard news Diana had been injured in a crash
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/princess-diana-crash-new-book-625 5969

Shocking claims in a new royal biography claim the Queen responded to reports of Princess Diana's car crash in Paris by saying 'someone must have greased the brakes'.

Diana was killed in the crash in August 1997 - triggering national mourning and some criticism of the Royal Family's unemotional reaction to the tragedy.

A new book by royal biographer Ingrid Seward claims the Queen made the remark after she initially heard news Diana had been injured in a crash.

Seward wrote in the Daily Mail: "At first it was thought that, though the car crash in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel was serious, Diana had not been killed.

PAPrincess DianaTragic: Diana at the Ritz Hotel hours before her death
Princess Diana Car Crash WreckageShock: The crash triggered a period of national mourning
"According to one witness present when the Queen heard the initial news, she mused out loud: ‘Someone must have greased the brakes.’

"That astonishing remark reveals something of the extraordinary and complex relationship between her and Diana."

The book is also said to reveal the Queen's initial fondness of Diana before the princess' anxiousness resulted in their relationship becoming more cold.

New pictures released this week show unseen shots of Diana's wedding to Prince Charles in 1981.

Diana is also pictured alongside her new mother-in-law the Queen as she lets her hair down in Buckingham Palace but there appears to be little warmth between them.

Minutes earlier she wed Prince Charles in front of thousands of wellwishers at St Paul's Cathedral, while millions watched on TV screens across the globe.

A dozen snaps that were left out of Charles and Diana's wedding album will go up for sale at an American auction next month.

The pictures were taken by close relative Lord Lichfield, who was the only photographer allowed behind the scenes on the big day.

SplashPrincess Diana and Prince Charles' WeddingUnseen: New shots show Diana in the corridors of Buckingham Palace on her wedding day
Six of them show Princess Diana in her glorious wedding dress after the ceremony.

In two of the pictures, she is seen carrying her youngest bridesmaid, five-year-old Clementine Hambro, through the grand corridoors.

SplashPrincess Diana and Prince Charles' WeddingRoyal wave: Princess Diana and Charles step outside
Other photographs show Prince of Wales, the Princess Royal, Princess Margaret and the Duke of York as well as a backstage pass invitation to the throne room.

[TonyGosling]

John Morgan is an investigative journalist from Brisbane, Australia who has written eight books on the death of Princess Diana of which he recommends two as particularly accessible 'Paris-London Connection: The Assassination of Princess Diana (2012)'
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Paris-London-Connection-Assassination-Princess -Diana/dp/1479252107
and 'How They Murdered Princess Diana: The Shocking Truth (2014)'
http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-They-Murdered-Princess-Diana/dp/1505375061  /
In this 45 minute interview recorded on Thursday 15th October 2015 John Morgan dismisses the main reasons (Henri Paul drunk & Papparazi) for the August 1997 crash being an 'accident' and explains that Diana was reasonably healthy when put in the ambulance, by the time it eventually reached hospital she was almost dead and John believes she was killed in the ambulance ... in an operation conducted by Sherard Cowper-Coles of MI6 under the orders of the Way Ahead Group which includes the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. As John explains, once in a poweful cult like Diana was you can never be allowed to leave, particularly if you take up with a rich pro-Palestinian campaigner such as Dodi Al-Fayed. John's website is here http://princessdianadeaththeevidence.weebly.com/

http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/83200

[outsider]

Prince Charles, heir to Dracula's blood line:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/9656769/Prince-C harles-heir-to-Draculas-blood-line.html

'...The Prince himself appears in a video being used to promote the country in which he claims distant kinship with Vlad Tepes, the 15th–century Wallachian ruler on whom the Irish novelist Bram Stoker based his Dracula.

“Transylvania is in my blood,” he jokes in an interview first shown on satelite television last year. “The genealogy shows I am descended from Vlad the Impaler, so I do have a bit of a stake in the country.” ...'

But it isn't a joke; here again:

'.....According to Royal Highness, a book published in 1982 by Sir Iain Moncreiffe, the former chairman of Debrett’s, the Prince is a great grandson 16 times removed to Vlad III.

He can trace his lineage back through his great grandmother Queen Mary, the consort of George V, to Vlad IV, the half brother of the notorious ruler.

Another link to the country originated with Princess Marie of Edinburgh, a granddaughter of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, who went on to marry King Ferdinand 1 of Romania and ruled Romania after the First World War.

It has been claimed that porphyria, an iron deficiency which is thought to lie behind the vampire myth, has run in the Royal Family.

The Prince has made no secret of his love for Romania and is believed to travel there frequently.

In 2006, he purchased a farmhouse in Viscri, a village in rural Transylvania, which is available as a guest house at certain times of the year....'

'.... Transylvanian-born Vlad the Impaler is said to have dispatched more than 100,000 Turkish warriors in battle.

The vampire legend is said to have been inspired by his predilection for eating bread dipped in his victim’s blood. Dracula means “son of the devil” in Romanian.

The country’s alleged links to British royalty, however ghoulish, could prove a welcome boost to its tourist industry.

Thousands of tourists visit the town of Castle Bran, Transylvania, where Vlad III lived, every year......'

[scienceplease 2]

http://blogfactory.co.uk/archives/29732

[TonyGosling]

From antisemitism cases to #Brexit. A prominent law firm Mishcon de Reya, who in 2003 did work for the Israeli embassy and Ariel Sharon against the Independent newspaper regarding a cartoon and in 08 worked on behalf of Ronnie Fraser, a further education lecturer and founding director of Academic Friends of Israel who argued that the UCU university college union- was institutionally anti-Semitic is now taking pre-emptive legal action against the UK government, following the EU referendum result to try to ensure article 50 is not triggered without an act of parliament.
Acting on behalf of an anonymous group of clients, solicitors at Mishcon de Reya have been in contact with government lawyers to seek assurances over the process, and plan to pursue it through the courts if they are not satisfied. The law firm has retained the services of senior constitutional barristers, including Lord Pannick QC and Rhodri Thompson QC.

The articles on Mishcon de Reya's work previously mentioned. .
"Mishcon de Reya, Solicitors, complained to the Press Complaints Commission on behalf of the Embassy of Israel and Ariel Sharon that a cartoon published in The Independent on Monday 27 January 2003 was prejudicial and pejorative in breach of Clause 13 (Discrimination) of the Code of Practice. The complaint was rejected. "

...and in 2008 and again an anon group of litigants..
"The University and College Union (UCU) is facing a court threat if it doesn't retract its decision to encourage members to question the ethics of contacts with universities in Israel.
A group of as yet anonymous litigants, who are UCU members, are demanding repayment of any union funds spent on carrying out a national conference resolution which asked academics to consider the moral and political implications of their links with Israeli institutions.
Via their solicitors, Mishcon de Reya, the litigants warn UCU that they will sue its four trustees individually for recovery of the money."

They eventually, after a long drawn out process, lost the case as well.

[by email]