31Aug1997 - Who Killed Princess Diana?

[outsider]

Here it is (but for how long?):
''Unlawful Killing' Princess Diana Banned Documentary 2011 (FULL)':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP_y1ts62Ts

[WillWillWin]

it's gonna be 20 years next year and this whole thing still seems so messy...

[TonyGosling]

Camilla Maxild
I thought that they may have been taking turns beating her up and that is why the ambulance was rocking from side to side outside the French National Museeum for five minutes. Maybe they were aborting her, then outside the hospital jumped on her to give her injuries that would be consistent with a car accident but would kill her. There seems no other explanation why it took so long to get her to hospital ( 00:23-02:06 = 103 minutes or 01:43 minutes. Diana was in the tunnel from 00:23-01:44 = 81 minutes. She was in the ambulance from 01:06-02:06 = 60 minutes). Where they just waiting for her to die of her injuries or did they inject her with Suxamethonium chloride (INN), also known as suxamethonium or succinylcholine. That is virtually undetectable after death unless you test for it and know to test for it. So the question arises WHAT WERE THEY DOING IN THE AMBULANCE? Inflicting injuries? Raping her? There were not performing cardiac massage because according to medical student Jean Marc Martino, Diana hadnt arrested. Cardiac massage requieres total absence of movement. So again what were they doing? Was the rocking ambulance ever photographed or seized as a potential crime scene for forensic investigation? No it wasnt. Why wasnt it? Thierry Orban and Pierre Suu photographed the rocking ambulance but were refused to give any evidence, at the London Inquest. It doesn't add up that Diana would be transported to a French Military Hospital at all considering her status, wealth and foreign status. All VIP´s in France are taken to either Val de Grace or the American Hospital to highly specialized Hospitals, which are closer to the Alma Tunnel than La Pitie Salpetriere Hospital. The MI6 ambulance drove by five hospitals. Another matter is that Diana would have had Travel Insurance/Insurance and a treatment/medical plan should she become injured in another country- This is something most seasoned travelers and Royals, Wealthy, Public Figures and Celebrities think of particularly to countries like Asia or France, and also with countries that have either questionable hospital/health systems like ASIAN COUNTRIES & FRANCE or have non reciprocal Medicare/Health treatment with their own countries. That is also something I have never heard raised in court. What was Diana's Medical treatment Plan while overseas AND WHY WASN'T IT PUT INTO EFFECT? Surely she would carry that plan with her
Thanks Camilla...
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdzY-DW4leTPGI323dc3ZJg

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Diana, that SAS murder claim - and why it may not be as mad as you think: Sue Reid, who's studied all the evidence, has found tantalising new clues
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2407571/Princess-Diana-SAS-mur der-claim--mad-think-says-SUE-REID.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium= twitter

By Sue Reid for The Mail on Sunday - 23:13, 30 Aug 2013
The final, haunting photo of Princess Diana, taken on the night she died, shows her sitting with her boyfriend Dodi Fayed in the back of a Mercedes car as it roars away from the rear entrance of the Paris Ritz Hotel, heading for the couple’s secret love-nest near the Champs-Elysees.

Diana is twisting her head to peer out of the Mercedes’ rear window, anxiously looking to see if her car is being chased by the paparazzi who had besieged her and Dodi since their arrival in the French capital from a Mediterranean holiday eight hours earlier.

At the wheel is chauffeur Henri Paul. Dodi’s bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones is in the front passenger seat.

Scroll down for video

The haunting last picture taken of Diana shows her peering out the rear window to look for paparazzi. Trevor Ress and chauffeur Henri Paul are also pictured
The haunting last picture taken of Diana shows her peering out the rear window to look for paparazzi. Trevor Ress and chauffeur Henri Paul are also pictured
What happened over the next two minutes is central to a new probe by Scotland Yard into an astonishing claim from an SAS sniper, known as Soldier N, that members of his elite regiment assassinated Diana seconds after the Mercedes sped at 63mph into the notoriously dangerous Pont d’Alma road tunnel.

Many will dismiss Soldier N’s claims as yet another conspiracy theory. After all, millions of words have been written about Diana’s death at 12.20am on Sunday, August 31, 1997.

Two inquiries, by Scotland Yard and the French police, have found the deaths were a tragic accident.

Share this articleFacebook Twitter e-mail SMS WhatsApp
RELATED ARTICLES
'I fell in love with her': Naomi Watts reveals feelings for Diana as she goes from punk to princess in classy new shoot
'I might go into hiding': Naomi Watts gets a punk princess makeover and talks about the pressure of playing Diana
An official inquest, which ended five years ago, came to the same conclusion.

The world was led to believe the blame lay with the grossly negligent driving of an intoxicated Mr Paul and the pursuing paparazzi.

But — however unlikely they may seem at first glance — I am convinced there is something in Soldier N’s claims.

Ever since Diana’s death at the age of 36, I have investigated forensically the events that led up to the crash and what happened afterwards.

I have spoken to eye-witnesses, French and British intelligence officers, SAS soldiers and to friends of Diana and Dodi. And I have interviewed the Brittany-based parents of the 41-year-old chauffeur Henri Paul. They told me, with tears in their eyes, that their son was not a heavy drinker: his chosen potion was a bottle of beer or the occasional Ricard, a liquorice-flavoured aperitif.

The fact is that too many of these accounts suggest that Diana’s death was no accident.

Diana in a hotel lift with Dodi Fayed. Sue Reid believes there may be some truth in he Soldier N's claims
Diana in a hotel lift with Dodi Fayed. Sue Reid believes there may be some truth in he Soldier N's claims
Crucially, my investigations show that the paparazzi who supposedly hounded Diana to her death were not even in the Pont d’Alma tunnel at the time of the car crash.

They also reveal how a high-powered black motorbike — which did not belong to any of the paparazzi — shot past Diana’s Mercedes in the tunnel.

Eyewitnesses say its rider and pillion passenger deliberately caused the car to crash.

In addition, my inquiries unearthed the existence of a shadowy SAS unit that answers to MI6, as well as the names of two MI6 officers who were linked by a number of sources to Diana’s death.

Could the Establishment really have turned Henri Paul and the paparazzi into scapegoats? Could there have been a skilful cover-up by people in powerful places to hide exactly what did happen?

There is little doubt that Diana, recently divorced from Prince Charles, was a thorn in the side of the Royal Family. Her romance with Dodi, though only six weeks old, was serious.

The Princess had given her lover her ‘most precious possession’ — a pair of her deceased father’s cufflinks — and phoned friends, saying she had a ‘big surprise’ for them when she returned from Paris.

graphic
graphic
Dodi had slipped out of the Ritz Hotel, as Diana was having her hair done, to collect a jewel-encrusted ring adorned with the words ‘Tell Me Yes’ from a * Paris jeweller. It came from a collection of engagement rings.

Rumours were circulating, too, that the Princess was pregnant. Photographs of her in a leopard-print swimsuit, on holiday in the South of France 14 days earlier, show an unmistakable bump around her waistline.

And, as the Mail revealed after Diana’s death, she had visited — in the strictest secrecy — a leading London hospital for a pregnancy scan just before that photo was snapped.

To add to the disquiet, the mother of a future King of England and head of the Church of England was threatening to move abroad with her Muslim boyfriend and take the royal Princes, William and Harry, with her.

Crash site: footage of Princess Diana on the night she died
Loaded: 0%Progress: 0%0:00
Play
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration Time 1:08
Fullscreen
Dodi had bought an estate, once owned by film star Julie Andrews, by the beach in Malibu, California, and shown Diana a video of it. He told her the sumptuous house was where they would spend their married life.

Ostracised by the Royal Family and stripped of her HRH title, Diana was said to be excited by the prospect.

Dodi’s father, Mohamed Al Fayed, the multi-millionaire former owner of Harrods, insists Diana was pregnant by his son and preparing to tell the young Princes about her forthcoming marriage when she returned to Britain on September 1 — the day after the crash — before they went back to boarding school.

However far-fetched it sounds, all the Establishment concerns about Diana were genuine. But could this really have led to her assassination? And if so, how could it have been carried out?

These questions are partially answered by the compelling testimony of 14 independent eyewitnesses near the crash scene that night. They say Diana’s car was surrounded at the entrance to the Alma tunnel by a phalanx of cars and motorcycles, which sped after the Mercedes.

Crash: Conspiracy theories have long surrounded Diana's death in Paris in 1997 despite the official finding that it was an accident caused by paparazzi photographers
Crash: Conspiracy theories have long surrounded Diana's death in Paris in 1997 despite the official finding that it was an accident caused by paparazzi photographers
The assumption has always been that the cars and bikes were carrying the paparazzi. By the Monday morning after the crash, outside the Alma tunnel, a huge message had appeared. ‘Killer paparazzi’ had been sprayed in gold paint on the walls.

No one, to this day, knows who put it there — or why they were not stopped by the French authorities from doing so.

Yet the paparazzi following Diana did not reach the Pont d’Alma tunnel until at least one minute after the crash, so they cannot be to blame.

Indeed, two years later they were cleared of manslaughter charges after the French state prosecutor said there was ‘insufficient evidence’ of their involvement in Diana’s death.

What happened is that the paparazzi had been deceived. In a clever ploy devised by Henri Paul, the Ritz had placed a decoy Mercedes at the front of the hotel to confuse the photographers, which allowed the lovers to slip out of the back door into a similar car.

The last picture of Diana peering from the rear window was taken by a France-based photographer who had seen through the ruse and was standing on the pavement by the hotel’s rear entrance watching as the ‘real’ Mercedes sped off.

Claim: The allegation that Princess Diana was murdered by the SAS is under investigation
Claim: The allegation that Princess Diana was murdered by the SAS is under investigation
Yet that Mercedes was definitely being hotly pursued when in the tunnel. The independent witnesses insist it was being followed not only by the black motorbike, but by two speeding cars, a dark saloon and a white turbo Fiat Uno.

There is no evidence to link these cars or the motorcycle to the paparazzi who had been waiting at the Ritz.

The saloon tail-gated the Mercedes, which made the chauffeur — thinking, wrongly, he was being pursued by paparazzi — drive even faster and more erratically. Meanwhile, the Uno accelerated, clipping the side of the Mercedes to push it to one side.

This maneuver allowed the black motorbike to speed past Diana’s car, with its two riders wearing helmets that hid their faces.

Witnesses claim that when the bike was about 15ft in front of the car, there was a fierce flash of white light from the motorbike. The suggestion is that this came from a laser beam carried by the pillion passenger and directed at the car.

The witnesses’ view is that the flash of light blinded Henri Paul temporarily. It was followed by a loud bang as the limousine swerved violently before slamming into the 13th pillar in the tunnel and being reduced to a mass of wrecked metal.

One of those eyewitnesses, a French harbour pilot driving ahead of the Mercedes through the tunnel, watched the scene in his rear-view mirror.

Chillingly, he recalls the black motorbike stopping after the crash and one of the riders jumping off the bike before going to peer in the Mercedes window at the passengers.

The rider, who kept his helmet on, then turned to his compatriot on the bike and gave a gesture used informally in the military (where both arms are crossed over the body and then thrown out straight to each side) to indicate ‘mission accomplished’.

Afterwards, he climbed back on the motorcycle, which raced off out of the tunnel. The riders on the bike, and the vehicle itself, have never been identified.

The harbour pilot, whose wife was with him in the car, has described the horrifying scenario as resembling a ‘terrorist attack’.

So, who could have been driving the bike and the other vehicles that did follow Diana’s car into the Alma tunnel that night?

Princess Diana and with Dodi Fayed (pictured together on the night they died) were killed alongside Henri Paul when the car crashed in a Paris tunne
Princess Diana and with Dodi Fayed (pictured together on the night they died) were killed alongside Henri Paul when the car crashed in a Paris tunnel
Could they really have been part of the plot to get rid of Diana and her lover — a plot orchestrated by MI6 or the SAS regiment, as the latest sensational claims suggest?

After Diana’s death, I received a nine-line note in the post containing the names of two MI6 men who have spent their entire careers working at the heart of the British Establishment, representing the Government as senior diplomats, whom I will call X and Y.

Written in blue felt-tip pen on a flimsy piece of paper ripped from an A4 exercise book, the note said: ‘If you are brave enough, dig deeper to learn about X and Y. Both MI6. Both were involved at the highest level in the murder of the Princess.’ It signed off with the words: ‘Good luck.’

Of course, an unsigned note does not provide firm evidence, or anything like it, that MI6 spies were operating in Paris that evening or were connected with Diana’s death.

Yet their names came up again when I received a call from a well-placed source within the intelligence services.

The families of Henri Paul and Dodi al Fayed (pictured with Princess Diana) have always believed there was a murder plot
The families of Henri Paul and Dodi al Fayed (pictured with Princess Diana) have always believed there was a murder plot
He named the same two men, X and Y, who had overseen the ‘Paris operation’ and said the crash was designed to frighten Diana into halting her romance with Dodi because he was considered an unsuitable partner.

‘We hoped to break her arm or cause a minor injury,’ said my informant. ‘The operation was also overseen by a top MI6 officer known as the tall man, who is now retired and living on the Continent. He admits it went wrong. No one in MI6 wanted Diana to be killed.’

And this week the men’s names were mentioned again, this time by Moscow intelligence.

According to the author of a new book, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, the SVR, knew that X and Y were in Paris on the night Diana died. And after the car crash the SVR set out to find out why.

Gennady Sokolov, whose book The Kremlin vs The Windsors will be published next year, told me this week: ‘Of course our people were following your agents.

They were senior MI6 officers operating secretly in Paris that night, without the knowledge of even French counter-intelligence. They left again after she was dead.

‘Her relationship and possible marriage to Dodi was deeply worrying to senior royals in Britain. The Princess’s phone was constantly listened to and she was followed all the time.

‘After the crash, public opinion was deliberately led astray. Scapegoats were created, such as the paparazzi and the drunk driver. There was a dance around Henri Paul, saying he was an alcohol addict, a virtual kamikaze, who helped to destroy them all. It is total nonsense.

‘From the very beginning, it was clear to me it was not just an accident. My sources in the SVR and other Russian secret services are sure it was a very English murder.

‘They have talked to me about an SAS squad called The Increment, which is attached to MI6, being involved in the assassination.

‘These guys work on the top level without leaving a single trace, and — perhaps — one was on the motorbike following Diana’s car.’ But why did none of this extraordinary story come out at the inquest into Diana’s death, which should have been the final word on it?

It’s true that 14 tunnel witnesses were at least allowed to appear or send their testimonies. But much of their vital information was completely submerged by the sheer volume of evidence presented over the six months of the hearing.

We heard that chauffeur Henri Paul and Dodi Fayed were killed instantly; that the sole survivor was the bodyguard Trevor Rees Jones, who suffered such devastating facial injuries he has no memory of events in the tunnel, and that with the pulmonary vein in her chest torn, Diana died nearly four hours later of heart failure and blood loss at Paris’s Pitie Salpetriere hospital.

But we also know that the inquest never unravelled the full truth. More than 170 important witnesses, including the doctor who embalmed Diana’s body (a process that camouflages pregnancy in post-mortem blood tests) were never called to the inquest.

One radiologist from Pitie Salpetriere hospital, who said that she had seen a small foetus of perhaps six to ten weeks in the Princess’s womb during an X-ray and a later sonogram of her body, was not questioned.

Co-operation: Dodi's father, Mohammed Al Fayed, has apparently given his blessing to the film - pictured here with Diana in 1996
Co-operation: Dodi's father, Mohammed Al Fayed, has apparently given his blessing to the film - pictured here with Diana in 1996
Instead, she was allowed by the judge heading the inquest, Lord Justice Scott Baker, to send a statement giving her current address in America and no more details.

Crucially, the hearing was cruelly unfair to chauffeur Henri Paul, who was vilified from the beginning.

On the day after the crash, French authorities insisted that he was an alcoholic and ‘drunk as a pig’ when he left the Ritz that night to drive the lovers to Dodi’s Paris apartment near the Champs-Elysees.

It has since emerged that the blood tests on Paul’s body had not been completed when they made the announcement to journalists.

Furthermore, the chauffeur had passed an intensive medical examination for flying lessons three days before the crash — his liver showed no sign of alcohol abuse.

A string of witnesses at the Ritz say Paul drank two shots of his favourite Ricard at the bar before taking to the wheel, which was confirmed by bar receipts at the hotel.

However, after a shambolic mix- up over his blood samples (deliberate or otherwise), it was pronounced by a medical expert at the inquest that Paul had downed ten of the aperitifs, was twice over the British driving limit and three times over the French one, when he drove the Mercedes that night.

Today is the 16th anniversary of Diana’s death and there are bunches of fresh flowers on the gilded gates leading to her London home, Kensington Palace. The flowers to commemorate the Princess may be fewer now, but there are still as many questions into her death as ever.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Assassination of the Humanitarian Princess: The Killing of Diana
Saturday, March 18, 2017 21:05
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Stumbleupon Share on
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2017/03/assassination-of-the-huma nitarian-princess-the-killing-of-diana-3490770.html

By JOHN MORGAN (1957-2015)

1992 was the year that the relationship between Princess Diana and other senior British royals changed irreversibly. In June Diana collaborated with UK author Andrew Morton in a book which exposed Prince Charles’ relationship with his lover Camilla Parker-Bowles and Diana’s mistreatment by senior members of the royal family. The reaction was swift. Within 11 days of the book’s publication Diana received a bombshell letter from her father-in-law, Prince Philip. The letter alarmed her and Morton says that she sought out a solicitor to help draft a reply.1

Within months the Queen had moved to set up the royal Way Ahead Group – a committee dedicated to helping the royal family deal with major issues and planning the way forward. Its first meeting was held in November 1992 and in the following month the Queen requested the formal separation between Charles and Diana. This was announced in the House of Commons on 9 December.

In October 1995 Princess Diana penned a note in which she stated that she feared for her life and believed Prince Charles was “planning ‘an accident’ in my car.”2 She left the note with her butler, Paul Burrell, for safe-keeping. Later that month Diana met with her lawyer, Lord Victor Mishcon. He wrote the next morning that Diana had told him efforts could be made to “get rid of her… by some accident in her car such as pre-prepared brake failure.”3 Mishcon had this note typed up and kept it in his safe.

Five days after that lawyer’s meeting Diana pre-recorded the famous ‘Panorama’ interview with BBC journalist Martin Bashir. In the program – which went to air on 20 November – Diana declared “there were three of us in this marriage,” that she doubted Charles could adapt to being King, recounted her mistreatment by the royals, and stated she was a “very strong person” who would “fight to the end.”4

Diana also told several friends and family that she feared for her life and believed she could be killed in “an accident.”

Later that month her fears were vindicated when the brakes in her regularly-serviced Audi failed as she drove through the streets of London. She wrote about it to her close friends. Simone Simmons said she received a letter that said: “The brakes on my car have been tampered with. If something does happen to me it will be MI5 or MI6.”5

The month following the ‘Panorama’ interview, just seven days before Christmas, Diana received a hand-written letter from the Queen requesting her to divorce Prince Charles.

The decree absolute came into effect on 28 August 1996, but it was much more than a marital divorce. The Queen also moved to strip the princess of her HRH title and effectively remove her from the royal family.

Earlier, in March, Diana had been driving in London when she was hit by an out of control Fiat Uno. Her driver’s door was smashed in and witnesses said it was amazing she escaped unhurt. Although the police investigated this crash, their report has never been released.

Diana Starts Campaigning to Eradicate Landmines

Then around July 1996 Diana started taking an interest in the worldwide scourge of unexploded landmines and began collecting information and building a dossier on the industry. Her primary concern was humanitarian – to help the victims and to campaign for the eradication of all landmines.

In January 1997, launching her involvement in the campaign, Diana made a highly-publicised visit to Angola – this was the nation with the highest number of victims. She was filmed walking through minefields and stated that she sought to “focus world attention on this… largely neglected issue.”6

The following month she received a high-profile death threat. During a phone call from Nicholas Soames, Britain’s Minister of the Armed Forces, Diana was told to drop her anti-landmines campaign. Soames went on to say: “You never know when an accident is going to happen.”7

Although shaken, Diana told her friend Simone Simmons – who witnessed the call – that she was undeterred: “We must do something. We cannot allow this slaughter to continue.”8

Diana’s anti-landmine dossier grew in size to become several inches thick and she left copies with Simmons and another friend, Elsa Bowker. Her butler Paul Burrell said it contained “every fact of the landmine mission.”9

On 12 June 1997, just under 12 weeks before she died, Diana delivered a landmark speech at the Royal Geographic Society in London. She outlined the nature and scope of the landmine problem, she talked about the “evil that men do” and spoke about her vision to “end this plague on Earth.”10

Meeting the Al Fayeds

It was around this time Princess Diana accepted an offer from long-time family friend and owner of Harrods, Mohamed Al Fayed, to holiday with his family at his St Tropez villa in mid-July. The offer extended to Diana and her two sons, William and Harry. At that time Al Fayed was viewed by the British Establishment as a person of ill-repute – he had recently been heavily involved in the “cash for questions” scandal that helped bring about the downfall of Britain’s Tory Government in May 1997.

Both these actions – Diana’s increasingly public determination to eradicate the mines and taking William, the future King of England, on holiday with the Al Fayeds – were seen as a major challenge to the Establishment.

In the following days two critical high-level decisions were made.

First, senior royals called a special unscheduled meeting of the Way Ahead Group (WAG), chaired by the Queen. This meeting took place on 23 July and was preceded two weeks earlier by a special preparatory meeting attended by senior royal household officials, including the Queen’s private secretary, Robert Fellowes. The preparatory meeting was held on 8 July – three days before Diana and the princes left on the contentious Al Fayed holiday – and the full WAG meeting occurred on 23 July – three days after the holiday had concluded.

The second decision was for an arrangement to be made for friend of Diana, Rosa Monckton, to organise a holiday with Princess Diana. Monckton was a person who had two very close connections to MI6 – her brother Anthony was a MI6 officer working in Zagreb and her husband Dominic Lawson was a MI6 agent who was editor of the Sunday Telegraph.

Whilst in Hong Kong Monckton called Diana and arranged a one-on-one yachting holiday around the Greek islands, to take place in mid-August.

Diana, William and Harry left for the St Tropez holiday on 11 July, amidst a storm of controversy. Following their return nine days later, a romance developed between Diana and Mohamed Al Fayed’s son, Dodi.

On 30 July Diana broke off her nearly two year relationship with boyfriend Hasnat Khan and the following day left with Dodi on a week-long Mediterranean cruise.

Their romance blossomed throughout August, interrupted only by two events – the pre-arranged Monckton cruise and Diana’s three-day anti-landmine visit to Bosnia on 8 August.

Monckton Cruises with Diana for Intel

Diana and Monckton left for the Greek islands on the 15th – “it was just the two of us” Monckton later told the inquest.11 What she didn’t say was that their hired 20 metre boat, the Della Grazia, was shadowed by three super-yachts chartered by MI6, the Marala, the Sunrise and the Sea Sedan. These were used as decoys to distract the media – who were not looking for a smaller vessel, and despite a massive search, never actually found the boat Monckton and Diana were on.12

This strategy provided Monckton with five uninterrupted days on the ocean – time to seek inside information on Diana’s thoughts and intentions, to satisfy her intelligence masters.

Diana and Monckton returned from that holiday on 20 August – and 11 days later Diana lay dead in a Paris hospital.

On 22 August Diana and Dodi departed from Stansted airport headed for their final Mediterranean cruise. The two lovers would never see England again.

The following day they visited Repossi’s jewellery store in Monte Carlo. Diana saw and liked an engagement ring from the “Tell Me Yes” range. Dodi later arranged for that same ring to be transferred to Repossi’s Paris – he purchased it from there just hours before the couple died.

Diana and Dodi finished up their cruise in Sardinia and on the afternoon of Saturday, 30 August, they flew from Olbia to Paris, landing at Le Bourget airport at 3.20pm.

They were met by French police who provided an escort for the initial part of the journey into the city.13 The police later denied they were aware of Diana’s presence in France, falsely claiming the first they knew she was there was when they heard about the crash that occurred later that night.14

Threatened by Large, Dark Motorbikes

During that journey and other travels through the streets of Paris that evening the couple’s Mercedes was threatened by large, dark motorbikes, some carrying pillions. Witnesses in the car and back-up Range Rover described these bikes as “behaving dangerously.”15 The Mercedes driver, Philippe Dourneau, said they were “coming from all angles, from front and behind – they were all over the place.”16 They took many flash photos on these trips – none of which have ever been published. The evidence indicates they were operating as fake paparazzi, helping to create an environment where later the real paparazzi could be falsely held culpable for the crash.

Initially the couple travelled to Villa Windsor and then into the city, arriving at the Ritz Hotel – owned by Mohamed Al Fayed – at 4.35pm. Whilst there Diana made phone calls and had her hair done and Dodi visited Repossi’s and purchased the engagement ring.

They left the hotel at 7pm, heading for Dodi’s apartment near the Arc de Triomphe. Once in the apartment – where their luggage had earlier been taken from the airport – the couple relaxed, showered and prepared to leave for dinner, which was to be back at the Ritz.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

They left for the hotel at 9.30pm. Didier Gamblin was on security at the apartment and said the fake paparazzi went “completely crazy” and “set off like lunatics to follow the car.”17

Ritz CCTV records Diana and Dodi arriving at the front entrance of the hotel at 9.50pm. They initially went to the restaurant for dinner, but were stressed from the intimidating actions of the fake paparazzi and soon moved themselves upstairs to the sanctuary of the Imperial Suite.

The Decoy Plan – But Who Planned It?

It is after this that a decoy plan surfaced – a plan to leave for the return trip to the apartment from the rear of the hotel in a third car, whilst the primary Mercedes and the back-up Range Rover sat outside the front entrance, acting as decoys to divert the paparazzi.

Dodi approved a plan for the use of a third car to leave from the rear – but he was not told there would be no back-up car, only one bodyguard and a driver who was not licensed to chauffeur.

The evidence indicates the plan was devised by intelligence officers working from outside the hotel, employing two of the Ritz’s senior staff as agents – Henri Paul, the acting head of security and Claude Roulet, the vice-president of the hotel.

Henri Paul was the designated chauffeur – but he was not a driver, had never driven any Ritz guests in his 11 years at the hotel, and did not possess the required chauffeur’s ‘Grande Remise’ licence. To top it off, his best friend, Claude Garrec, told the police Henri didn’t like driving and “If he could avoid [it] he would.”18

Henri Paul had been receiving large sums of money from sources unknown in the months leading up to the crash. He had links to French and British intelligence agencies and on the night of his death was carrying 12,565FF ($2,500) on his person.

The third car was the only other car available – a Mercedes S280 with untinted windows, whose regular driver was Olivier Lafaye. Every evening Lafaye would finish work, return to the Ritz and park his vehicle in the same section of the Vendôme car park. He told the police that the other chauffeurs took their vehicles home – he was the only one without a garage.19

On that Saturday evening Lafaye parked his Mercedes S280 at 8.15pm. At 8.20 Claude Roulet is shown on CCTV leaving the Ritz Hotel. It is likely Roulet pointed out this Mercedes to other agents, who then had ample time to tamper with the vehicle prior to its final departure after midnight. Later evidence revealed that Diana – a person who many witnesses said always wore her seat belt – was sitting in the right rear seat with a jammed belt.20

Henri Paul departed from the hotel at 7.01pm, but quickly returned at 10.06 following the couple’s arrival. After 11pm he made four separate visits to the paparazzi waiting out the front of the Ritz. Henri was providing regular updates on how long it would be before the couple appeared. It was essential to the MI6 plan that the paparazzi were still present when Diana and Dodi departed – they would try to follow the car and later be falsely blamed for the behaviour of the fake paparazzi, the assassins.

Detailed Account of Diana’s Final Fatal Journey

The Mercedes S280 departed from the rear of the Ritz Hotel at 12.18am – there was no back-up car, only one bodyguard, untinted windows and at least one jammed seat belt in the back.

Some paparazzi were outside the rear and they immediately followed. Those out the front were quickly alerted and some of them joined the pursuit at the Place de la Concorde, where the Mercedes was held up by red lights.

Large unidentified motorbikes also joined in from around the Concorde. The Mercedes was pressured by constant flashing of cameras – many photos were taken but they have never been published.

The principal car left quickly from Concorde and witnesses on the riverside expressway saw a speeding Mercedes surrounded by several large, dark motorbikes. As the vehicle approached the exit it would take to head for Dodi’s apartment, a blocking motorbike was seen on its right.

Failure to make the appropriate exit forced the Mercedes S280 towards the Alma Tunnel. As it neared the tunnel one witness saw the motorbikes “in a cluster, like a swarm around the Mercedes.”21 People saw photos being taken – again unpublished.

Two separate witnesses saw the Mercedes – which was already in the left lane – overtaken on the left by one of the motorbikes carrying a pillion. At the same time, just as Henri entered the tunnel, he was confronted on the right by a slow-moving white Fiat Uno straddling the two lanes.

As the motorbike got in front, a bright flash was seen and Henri immediately lost control of the Mercedes. A split-second later the Mercedes side-swiped the Uno and then zig-zagged left, right and left before crashing into the 13th central pillar of the tunnel, at around 100 kph.

The car bounced back from the pillar, swung around 180 degrees and came to rest near the wall, facing the tunnel entrance.

It was 12.23am on Sunday, 31 August 1997.

Witnesses saw motorbikes and cars fleeing the tunnel – even though it is against the law in France to not stop and render assistance. None of the fleeing vehicles – including the white Fiat Uno – has ever officially been identified. And none of the drivers or riders have ever come forward.

The two people on the driver’s side – Henri Paul and Dodi Fayed – died on impact, and the two on the passenger’s side – Princess Diana and bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones – survived the crash.

The French ambulance service (SAMU) immediately started receiving calls from passers-by. Dr. Arnaud Derossi was manning the phones and he allocated an ambulance carrying Dr. Jean-Marc Martino.

That ambulance left the Necker Hospital base at 12.28am and arrived at the crash scene at 12.40am. It took 12 minutes to travel 2.3 km – Diana’s ambulance travelled to the scene at around 11½ kph.

Upon arriving Martino straightaway phoned the base and spoke to Dr. Derossi, who then immediately left the base heading to the crash scene. It was left to an auxiliary to notify the base’s off-duty doctor, Marc Lejay, who was asleep at the time.22

Death by Doctors?

Princess Diana was heard talking by several witnesses, saying “Oh my God” and “what’s happened?”23 When the doctor performed the standard Glasgow Coma test to assess her condition in the car, she scored very well – 14 on a scale of 15.24

However there was reason to suggest there could be an internal injury – Diana had been involved in a fatal, high speed crash and wasn’t wearing a seat belt. This possibility was confirmed after Diana was finally transferred into the ambulance, 43 minutes after the crash. The initial examination revealed there was thoracic trauma bruising.25

From that point it became even more imperative that Diana was transferred immediately to a hospital – the thoracic trauma was a clear sign there could be a life-threatening internal injury.

Instead though, these two doctors – Martino and Derossi – tarried. The ambulance remained in the Alma Tunnel until 1.41am, one hour and 18 minutes after the crash.

And worse, they poured catecholamine into her to increase her blood pressure (BP), even though the BP was 70 and high enough to comfortably make the 5 km trip to the hospital.

And on top of that, Dr. Derossi informed the base there was “nothing for the thorax,” twice, even though he already was aware of the thoracic trauma.26 This ensured the hospital would not have a thoracic specialist on hand when Diana arrived.

After leaving the scene the ambulance travelled at what one witness described as “walking pace.”27 Then within sight of the hospital gates it stopped for five minutes. A journalist who followed the ambulance described it as “rocking” while stationary.28 He also witnessed a doctor transferring from the front to the back.29

Whatever they were doing inside the ambulance, it required four people – Drs Martino, Derossi and two interns (Barbara Kapfer and a person called “Fadi”).

There has never been a credible explanation for a stoppage so close to the hospital.

Martino delivered Diana to the La Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital at 2.06am – it was now one hour and 43 minutes since the crash.

Six minutes after arriving Princess Diana stopped breathing. She would never breathe again, despite the best efforts of the hospital’s doctors.

Dr. Bruno Riou ticked the suspicious death box on the death certificate.30 The public prosecutor’s office was then forced to order an autopsy, which was conducted by Professor Dominique Lecomte. She found no suspicious circumstances.

Dr. Riou was never asked why he was suspicious.

Conflicting Evidence Points to the Cover-Up

Later that morning Professor Lecomte carried out an autopsy on the driver, Henri Paul. Samples taken were tested early the following day – the results indicated the driver had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 1.74, three times over the French limit.

This conflicted with evidence in the hotel prior to the departure of the Mercedes. Many witnesses testified that Henri was not drunk and this was supported by the CCTV footage, which showed him walking and acting normally.

Later testing revealed the blood had a carbon monoxide (CO) level of 20.7%. The combination of elevated BAC and CO meant Henri would have been incoherent, had a migraine headache and found it impossible to stay upright.

Yet that is not what the CCTV and witnesses saw.

A close analysis of Professor Lecomte’s autopsy of Henri Paul reveals she made at least 58 errors in her conduct and documentation.31 The police files reveal there were two lots of documentation for the one autopsy – each recording different samples taken and differing body measurements, weight and height.32

The evidence points to two bodies being in the room at the time of the autopsy – one was Henri Paul’s and the other was a person who had died in a fire with smoke inhalation.

Samples were taken from both bodies, but kept separate. The other person’s samples were used for the BAC testing and years later Henri’s true samples were used for DNA testing. The DNA-tested samples were never BAC tested and the BAC-tested samples were never DNA tested.

The paparazzi and Henri Paul were fraudulently set up to take the blame for the death of Princess Diana.

The truth is that the crash was orchestrated by MI6 (with assistance from the CIA and France’s DGSE and DST) on the orders of senior members of the British royal family, with the acquiescence of Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac and Bill Clinton – the leaders of the three leading Western arms-dealing nations.

Diana Princess of Wales – our humanitarian princess – was murdered in one of the most shocking inter-governmental operations followed by one of the most extensive cover-ups of our time.

If you appreciate this article, please consider a digital subscription to New Dawn.

The late John Morgan wrote two explosive books exposing the conspiracy to murder Princess Diana. Information on How They Murdered Princess Diana: The Shocking Truth, and Paris-London Connection: The Assassination of Princess Diana, can be found at princessdianadeaththeevidence.weebly.com. Both books can be purchased from Amazon.com.

Footnotes

Andrew Morton, Diana: In Pursuit of Love, Michael O’Mara Books, 2004, 76
Inquest evidence: INQ0010117
Inquest evidence: INQ0006335
‘The Panorama Interview’, BBC, 20 November 1995, www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/panorama.html
Simone Simmons with Ingrid Seward, Diana: The Last Word, St Martin’s Press, 2005, 179
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU0APrqxUxc
Diana: The Last Word, 178-180
Ibid., 180
Inquest transcripts: 16 Jan 08: 27.11
‘Responding To Landmines: A Modern Tragedy And Its Consequences’ by Diana, Princess Of Wales. Keynote Address at a one day seminar co-hosted by the Mines Advisory Group and the Landmine Survivors Network, London, 12 June 1997, http://gos.sbc.edu/d/diana.html
Inquest transcripts: 13 Dec 07: 139.18
‘The Media Swarm Greek Isles, In Search Of Diana’, Philadelphia Inquirer, 18 August 1997
Rene Delorm, Diana & Dodi: A Love Story, Tallfellow Press, 1998, 154
Inquest transcripts: 14 Nov 06 statement read out 21 Nov 07: 57.22
Inquest transcripts: Kez Wingfield: 2 Sep 97 Statement read out 18 Dec 07: 145.9
Inquest transcripts: 3 Sep 97 Statement read out 29 Oct 07: 67.17
Inquest transcripts: 3 Oct 97 Statement read out 7 Mar 08: 103.14
Paget Report, 14 December 2006, 162-3
Paget Report, 14 December 2006, 244-5
Paget Report, 14 December 2006, 421
Paget Report, 14 December 2006, 439
Inquest transcripts: 11 Dec 07: 7.13
An example: Xavier Gourmelon: Paget Report, 14 December 2006, 513
Inquest evidence: INQ0004774
Inquest transcripts: 24 Jan 08:124.16; Inquest evidence: INQ0004774
Inquest transcripts: 11 Dec 07: 14.9, 28.23
Inquest transcripts: Pierre Suu: 28 Feb 06 Statement read out 11 Mar 08: 150.4
Inquest transcripts: Thierry Orban: 23 Sep 97 Statement read out 17 Oct 07: 13.7
Inquest transcripts: Thierry Orban: 23 Sep 97 Statement read out 17 Oct 07: 13.3; Pierre Suu:28 Feb 06 Statement read out 11 Mar 08: 150.22
Prof. Bruno Riou, Witness Statement, 7 March 2006, reproduced in Diana Inquest: The Documents the Jury Never Saw, edited by John Morgan, 2010, 375-6
John Morgan, Cover-Up of a Royal Murder: Hundreds of Errors in the Paget Report, 2007, 188-194
John Morgan, Diana Inquest: The French Cover-Up, 2010, 50-68
.
JOHN MORGAN (1957-2015) started researching and writing about the death of Princess Diana in 2005. He was the world’s leading expert on the 1997 Paris crash. Leading QC Michael Mansfield, who served at the London inquest: “I have no doubt that the volumes written by John Morgan will come to be regarded as the ‘Magnum Opus’ on the crash in the tunnel that resulted in the unlawful killing of Diana, Princess of Wales.” Mohamed Al Fayed, whose son Dodi died in the crash: “John Morgan has done more to expose the facts of this case than the police in France and Britain.” For more on John’s work, research and books go to http://princessdianadeaththeevidence.weebly.com

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Princess Diana: Paris car she travelling in when killed was a 'hugely dangerous' rebuilt wreck, say reports
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/princess-diana-paris-car -killed-in-travelling-hugely-dangerous-rebuilt-wreck-reports-henri-pau l-a7765356.html

Mercedes had been crashed and declared a write-off, two years before fatal accident

Ben Kentish @BenKentish 25 mins ago0 comments

The Mercedes was crashed at speeds of up to 120mph AFP/Getty
The car carrying Princess Diana when she was killed was a “hugely dangerous” rebuilt wreck that was not safe for use, a French TV programme has claimed.

The Mercedes was said to have been involved in another crash just two years before the one involving the princess.

The car was part of a pool provided by the Paris Ritz hotel and owned by a limousine company called Etoile Limousines.

Pascal Rostain, a photographer and co-author of a book called “Who Killed Lady Di?” told the M6 programme that the “hugely dangerous” car had been stolen and crashed at high speeds in 1995 - two years before Lady Diana's death.

“This Ritz car was a wreck”, he said. “It had crashed before, and been rolled over several times”.

The vehicle was due to be scrapped after its initial crash, but the then owner received permission to rebuild it.

Mr Rostain said one of his friends, a driver at the Ritz, had warned the hotel's manager, Frank Klein, that the car was unsafe two months before the accident.

He said "that it was necessary to get rid of this wagon”, the photographer claimed. “At more than 60 kilometres an hour (37 miles per hour) it didn't hold.”

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads
The Ritz driver, named only as Karim, told him the car “was not reliable on the road”, he said.

“We were afraid to use it at any speed”, he added. “I told my manager that we had to sell this vehicle.”

The Diana theories in full
10
show all
The car originally belonged to an advertising executive called Eric Bousquet, who said he purchased it in 1994 – three years before Princess Diana’s death.

Mr Bousquet said that, in January 1995, the vehicle was stolen and taken on a joyride around Paris. The car was crashed at 100 miles per hour and ended up upside down in a field.

The Mercedes was deemed to be non-repairable and was earmarked to be scrapped.

“It was considered a dangerous car”, Mr Bouquet said. “I would have liked to take it back, but I was told no, it was not possible”.

READ MORE
Princess Diana’s former lover, James Hewitt, suffers heart attack
Prince Harry voices 'regret' at not talking about his mother's death
Taj Mahal: William and Kate seek to banish memory of Diana's visit
Princess Diana stayed in Kurt Russell's home to escape paparazzi
However, the vehicle was recovered by a mechanic who patched it up and then sold it to Etoile Limousines.

A 2008 inquest in the UK found Princess Diana was unlawfully killed as a result of “grossly negligent” driving by her chauffeur, Henri Paul, who lost control of the vehicle at speeds of up to 120 miles per hour in the Alma Tunnel in Paris.

Mr Paul, who was killed in the accident, was found to be drunk at the time of the crash and was attempting to flee pursuing paparazzi photographers.

The car is now owned by Jean-Francois Musa, the former boss of Etoile Limousines. He is locked in a battle with British police, who seized the car around 15 years ago in order to carry out forensic tests.

It is now believed to be in a compound in the UK, according to the MailOnline.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

'I was happy to give it all up to go off and live with him': New tapes reveal how Diana fell 'deeply in love' with her 6ft 'Jack the Lad' police bodyguard before he died in a car crash (and she was sure he'd been 'bumped off')

By Richard Kay and Geoffrey Levy for the Daily Mail
22:15, 28 Jul 2017,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4740926/New-tapes-Diana-deeply -love-police-bodyguard.html

Princess Diana poured her heart to her voice coach on soon-to-be aired videos
In them, she said Prince Charles only wanted to have sex once every three weeks
Confessed to falling 'madly in love' with her police bodyguard Barry Mannakee
Diana would only talk about him as 'somebody who worked in this environment'
'He was the greatest fellow I have ever had ,' she told voice coach Peter Settelen
Princess Diana is said to have fallen in love with her police bodyguard, Sergeant Barry Mannakee +15
Princess Diana is said to have fallen in love with her police bodyguard, Sergeant Barry Mannakee
For a young woman whose troubled life had become the focus of the world, the lure must have been irresistible. 'I want to bring a camera,' actor Peter Settelen told Princess Diana as he gave her voice-coaching sessions. 'I want you to see you and we will do your story. You can tell me your story, then you can watch.'

The video exercise would, he explained, 'show you who you are'.

No doubt the charming Settelen, who trained at the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art, meant what he said. And in shooting a total of 16 videos of his pupil at Kensington Palace, the former Coronation Street actor undoubtedly achieved what Diana was after — more confidence and authority in her public speaking on issues such as Aids and eating disorders.

These were private £50 lessons at her London home, and the tapes are understood to have been kept under lock and key by Diana. But after her death, the tapes, containing five hours of footage, were discovered in the possession of her former butler, Paul Burrell.

Understandably, Settelen was concerned. He embarked on a legal battle over the material and won ownership of the tapes in September 2003.

Yet a few months later, most unchivalrously, he did a deal for an undisclosed sum of money for them to be shown on the American TV network, NBC.

Although NBC was universally condemned for the purchase, it broadcast the tapes in 2004. Critics described the programme as a 'ghoulish striptease' and said those involved were no better than 'grave robbers'.

In the videos, Diana tells actor Peter Settelen that her sex life with Prince Charles (pictured with Diana on their last official trip in Korea in 1992) deteriorated after the birth of Prince Harry +15
In the videos, Diana tells actor Peter Settelen that her sex life with Prince Charles (pictured with Diana on their last official trip in Korea in 1992) deteriorated after the birth of Prince Harry


EXCLUSIVE: Princess Diana¿s lover Dodi Fayed was a cocaine fiend who trawled Studio 54 and illegal gay clubs at dawn with celeb pals Liza Minnelli, Roy Halston and Robin Williams, new book reveals
How Charles failed Diana, by her closest Palace aide: Former private secretary berates Royal Family for failing to treat her with respect
Is guilt the reason Earl Spencer is reopening old wounds? RICHARD KAY and GEOFFREY LEVY on how the Royals and Diana's family still don't seem to have settled their differences
Now, 13 years on, Settelen has done another deal, this time with Channel 4, for the tapes to be seen for the first time in Britain. The programme, Diana: In Her Own Words, will be broadcast on Sunday, August 6, at 8pm.

Watching the Princess, many viewers are bound to wonder what the subject material had to do with voice coaching.

They will see a vulnerable Diana in January 1993, just a month after her separation from the Prince of Wales, talking openly about some of the most intimate aspects of her life: her relationship with Prince Charles (in particular the scarcity of lovemaking with him), his affair with Camilla Parker Bowles, and her police bodyguard Sergeant Barry Mannakee, with whom she admits she fell 'deeply in love'.

She tells Settelen that after the birth of Prince Harry her sex life with Charles had deteriorated: 'There was never a requirement for it from him — once every three weeks, about — and I kept thinking it followed a pattern. He used to see his lady [Camilla] once every three weeks before we got married.'

Describing her thoughts as the marriage moved to crisis point, Diana told her voice coach: 'If I could write my own script I would have my husband go away with his woman and never come back.'

Of course, it must be stressed that these tapes were never intended to be made public. But her mention of Sgt Mannakee is most telling.

Diana (centre) refers to Mannakee (pictured in the background) as 'somebody who worked in this environment', telling Settelen: 'He was the greatest fellow I have ever had' +15
Diana (centre) refers to Mannakee (pictured in the background) as 'somebody who worked in this environment', telling Settelen: 'He was the greatest fellow I have ever had'
The policeman is one of the most intriguing figures in Diana's life. A burly, 6ft tall East End 'Jack the lad' whose father was a Ford car worker at Dagenham, Mannakee was 37 when he was posted to work as a personal protection officer at Kensington Palace in 1985, a year after the birth of Prince Harry, when the royal marriage was already in difficulty.

Diana doesn't name Mannakee on the tape but refers to him as 'somebody who worked in this environment', telling Settelen: 'He was the greatest fellow I have ever had. I was always waiting around trying to see him. Um, I just, you know, wore my heart on my sleeve. I was only happy when he was around.'

Diana does not name Mannakee on the tape +15
Diana does not name Mannakee on the tape
Asked by Settelen if he provided 'the intimacy you weren't getting', she replies: 'Yeah.'


The Princess adds: 'I was quite happy to give it all up (her royal life), just to go off and live with him. Can you believe it?'

Laughing at the memory, she goes on: 'And he kept saying he thought it was a good idea, too.'

But Diana also says she saw Mannakee as a 'father figure'. She explains: 'I was like a little girl in front of him the whole time. Desperate for praise. Desperate.'

As for Mannakee, who was married with two children, he had an easy familiarity with the Princess that irritated other police bodyguards. Soon this evolved into a closeness that made his colleagues feel 'quite uncomfortable'.

'We could see she liked him,' says a former colleague. 'It was 'Barry this' and 'Barry that'. But we never dreamt there was anything between them because Barry was a blabbermouth about such things. We assumed he'd have boasted about it. But he didn't.'

At a time of mounting turmoil for the Princess, Mannakee was a good listener who became an unexpected confidant, especially on their 90-minute drives taking William and Harry to Highgrove in Gloucestershire for the weekend. The pair referred to them as their 'M4 chats'.

The tapes show a vulnerable Diana in January 1993, just a month after her separation from the Prince of Wales +15
The tapes show a vulnerable Diana in January 1993, just a month after her separation from the Prince of Wales
He would also often accompany her when she took William from Kensington Palace to his nursery school in Notting Hill.

Mannakee's relationship with the Princess also infuriated palace domestic staff. 'Diana was forever asking his opinion of just about everything and they saw this as Mannakee encroaching on their territory,' says one close figure.

Brazenly confident, Mannakee flirted with Diana in front of servants. Once, when she had dressed for a dinner engagement in a tight mini-skirt, she playfully wiggled her bottom at him. 'Do I look all right?' she asked him.

Apparently, Mannakee replied: 'Sensational, as you know you do.' Then he added: 'I could quite fancy you myself.' Diana giggled and retorted: 'But you already do, don't you?'

Yet could Diana have been merely indulging in a fantasy about an affair with the entertaining police officer?

On the tape, as Channel 4 viewers will see, she denies having a full affair with him. Asked by Settelen if there was a sexual relationship between them, her reply is 'No'.


In later years, when emboldened to discuss her relationships with men more freely, although she spoke about James Hewitt, her Household Cavalry officer lover, Mannakee's name as a lover never passed her lips.

Settelen also tape-recorded Diana (pictured with Princes Harry and William in 1993) saying, shockingly: 'I think he [Mannakee] was bumped off' +15
Settelen also tape-recorded Diana (pictured with Princes Harry and William in 1993) saying, shockingly: 'I think he [Mannakee] was bumped off'
William and Harry talk about their childhood with mother Diana
Loaded: 0%Progress: 0%0:00
Play
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration Time 1:37
Fullscreen
In 1986, after Mannakee had worked for the Princess for a year, he was called before his superiors and challenged about being 'over-familiar' with her. They decided he should be put back in uniform and transferred from royal to diplomatic protection. A year later he was killed in a road crash, as a pillion passenger on a Suzuki motorcycle that collided with a car driven by a girl of 17.

It was Prince Charles who broke the news of his death to Diana, as they were travelling to the 1987 Cannes Film Festival on an official engagement.

The Princess is said to have wept uncontrollably and torn at her clothes in the car en route to RAF Northolt for their flight to the South of France. She suggested the Prince was cruel in breaking the news to her at that time.

'Charles 'just jumped it on me like that,' she said, 'and I wasn't able to do anything'. Within minutes she had to put on her public face. 'I just sat there all day going through this huge high-profile visit to Cannes,' she later recalled. 'Thousands of Press. Just devastated. Just devastated.'

Reflecting on the matter to Settelen six years later, she said: 'I should never have played with fire, but I did, and I got burned.'

He tape-recorded her saying, shockingly: 'I think he was bumped off.' Of course, there have been conspiracy theories that the car crash in Paris which led to Diana's own death was staged deliberately because she was with the 'unsuitable' Dodi Fayed.

There have been conspiracy theories that the car crash in Paris which led to Diana's own death was staged deliberately because she was with the 'unsuitable' Dodi Fayed (left, with Diana in 1997) +15
There have been conspiracy theories that the car crash in Paris which led to Diana's own death was staged deliberately because she was with the 'unsuitable' Dodi Fayed (left, with Diana in 1997)
But the allegation that Mannakee's death was anything other than an accident has never been taken seriously. After these remarks were first broadcast in 2004, Scotland Yard considered re-opening the investigation into the policeman's death.

Claims had surfaced over the years that Mannakee had been deliberately killed by intelligence officers, presumably because of fears of a scandal. But they were never substantiated and the Yard inquiry went nowhere.

For her part, Diana continued to be haunted by the relationship. 'I used to have really disturbing dreams about him,' she said in the tapes used by NBC.

'He was really unhappy, wherever he's gone to. And I went and found out where he was buried. I went to put some flowers on his grave.'

According to Diana, that was when she realised he had been cremated. 'He was just chucked over the ground,' she recalled.

'That absolutely appalled me, but there we were. I wasn't in any position to do anything about it. The day I did that (left flowers), the dreams stopped. It's strange, isn't it?'

Claims had surfaced over the years that Mannakee had been deliberately killed by intelligence officers, presumably because of fears of a scandal. Pictured: Diana with Princes Harry and William in 1986 +15
Claims had surfaced over the years that Mannakee had been deliberately killed by intelligence officers, presumably because of fears of a scandal. Pictured: Diana with Princes Harry and William in 1986
William and Harry discuss the rawness of talking about mother Diana
Loaded: 0%Progress: 0%0:00
Play
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration Time 1:06
Fullscreen
In an attempt to quash the conspiracy theories, Joy Chopp, the mother of the 17-year-old novice driver whose car collided with Mannakee, has said 'it was just an accident'.

Princess Diana also relates on tape the story of her first meeting with Charles.

He 'followed me around like a puppy', she says, and made a fumbling attempt to kiss her, which she repelled.

'He was all over me like a rash. He'd ring me up every day for a week, and then he wouldn't speak to me for three weeks. Very odd. And the thrill when he used to ring up was so immense and intense.'

Diana also recalls how she confronted Charles over Camilla.

'I remember saying to my husband: 'Why, why is this lady around?' and he said: 'Well, I refuse to be the only Prince of Wales who never had a mistress.' '

Diana had been introduced to Peter Settelen by her fitness instructor Carolan Brown, who had worked with him on exercise videos. He had played the Duke of Windsor in an ITV comedy series, a prince in an episode of Jackanory Playhouse and a commando in the World War II epic A Bridge Too Far.

When he encountered Diana, she was a princess suffering from low self-esteem, full of ideas about her public responsibilities but with little idea how to marshal them.

On one occasion, when Settelen accompanied her to make a speech, he used a bizarre technique, telling her to see herself as a prostitute whose life had hit rock bottom but who had turned things around. Afterwards, Settelen has recalled, as her car arrived she 'opened the door, kicked her leg out and said: 'Not bad for a hooker, eh?' '

Having clients talk freely about themselves was part of Settelen's technique. He explained that it was a key to injecting passion into the spoken word.

He taught Diana how to breathe properly and appear more conversational in her delivery. His unorthodox approach also included placing marbles in clients' mouths as he massaged their shoulders, though he didn't do this to Diana.

All the same, he is credited with giving her a new assertiveness. Certainly, some weeks after these sessions began, Diana surprised an audience she was addressing on issues such as Aids with dramatic language and flourishes as she talked of the 'aching loneliness and rejection' of sufferers.

But from the very beginning of his coaching, there was unease about him filming Princess Diana and encouraging her to open up about her life.

For hour after hour, over the weeks, she sat on her pink drawing room sofa facing Settelen and his camera mounted on a tripod.

One senior palace figure became very concerned about Diana being videoed and recalls asking her where the tapes were.

'She told me: 'Oh, Peter's got them,' he says. 'And I said: 'What! You must get them back. They could be his pension.' '

But such confessionals were not new to Diana. She had secretly talked to writer Andrew Morton, who first revealed the problems in her marriage. Later there was her raw, confessional BBC Panorama interview.

Today, living in a modest semi in Twickenham, South-West London, Settelen, 65, is a director of Chakra Productions Ltd, which provides 'support activities to performing arts'. His wife Sarah resigned as a director in 2014.

Mrs Settelen is director of a charity called The Promise, helping children with special needs in Russia, which was set up following the death of their 'profoundly disabled' daughter Ellie in 2000.

Over the years, Settelen has continued to offer 'motivational mentoring', public speaking training and 'crisis communications' advice.

He has one recent acting credit, in a short 2015 European crime film called Schwarzwald.

His website lists previous corporate clients including the Metropolitan Police, the Labour Party as well as journalists from the BBC, ITV and Channel 4.

Describing what he does, it says: 'Peter's work originally came to public attention through the help he gave to Diana, Princess of Wales.

'During the most difficult period in her all-too-short life, he helped her to move from 'Shy Di' to become a confident and passionate public speaker, able to express what she really wanted and needed to say.

'As her adviser, speech coach and speechwriter, he worked with her on subjects ranging from Aids to eating disorders through to women's mental health.'

Undaunted by the controversy about the planned broadcast on Channel 4, Settelen's lawyer, Marcus Rutherford, said last night: 'His view has always been that the tapes were as much private to him as they were to Diana. Had she still been with us, I have no doubt they would have remained private as long as both Peter and Diana wanted it.

'It took a lot of persuading for Peter to accept that the time had come to let people in the UK look at the material itself and form their own views.'

For its part, Channel 4 says: 'This unique portrait of Diana gives her a voice and places it front and centre at a time when the nation will be reflecting on her life and death.' True, it was hardly becoming of the Princess to talk so liberally about her sex life. But even so, how many people will excuse Peter Settelen — and Channel 4 — for airing these private thoughts so publicly?

Additional reporting: Emily Kent Smith

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Earl Spencer: I was lied to over princes’ wish to follow Diana’s coffin
Princess Diana's brother says he was lied to over princes following coffin
Earl Spencer claims royal officials told him William and Harry wanted to join funeral cortege but later found this was untrue
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/26/diana-brother-earl-spe ncer-speaks-of-tidal-wave-of-grief
Press Association
Wednesday 26 July 2017 08.31 BST Last modified on Wednesday 26 July 2017 14.55 BST

The brother of Diana, Princess of Wales, has claimed he was lied to about the desire of William and Harry to walk behind their mother’s coffin.

Earl Spencer said he raised objections with royal officials before being told her sons wanted to do it, adding he later realised this was not the case.

He also described the feeling of walking behind Diana’s coffin in the funeral cortege as the “most horrifying half hour of my life”, acknowledging he still has nightmares about the “harrowing” event from 20 years ago.

But Spencer said he believed the experience was a “million times worse” for Diana’s sons.

William, now the Duke of Cambridge, was 15 and Prince Harry 12 when their mother was killed in a car crash in Paris on 31 August 1997.

A huge outpouring of grief followed her death, which shocked the world. Spencer paid tribute to his sister during the funeral service at Westminster Abbey, in a highly personal speech which highlighted her difficulties with the media and the royal family.

He promised to care for William and Harry, with his reference to the Spencers as Diana’s “blood family” seen as deeply wounding to the Windsors.

Spencer said he understood the Queen believed he had “every right to say whatever he felt” and recalled keeping the speech secret to prevent anyone else having a say in it.

(From left) Prince William, Earl Spencer, Prince Harry and Prince Charles during the funeral procession
(From left) Prince William, Earl Spencer, Prince Harry and Prince Charles during the funeral procession. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/AFP/Getty Images
As the 20th anniversary of Diana’s death nears, Spencer told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme it was a “very bizarre and cruel thing” for Diana’s two sons to be asked to walk behind her body.

He said his sister would not have wanted it and told officials of his objection, adding: “Eventually I was lied to and told they wanted to do it, which of course they didn’t but I didn’t realise that.”

Spencer described the feeling of walking behind Diana’s coffin as the “worst part of the day by a considerable margin”.

He said: “The feeling, the sort of absolute crashing tidal wave of grief coming at you as you went down this sort of tunnel of deep emotion, it was really harrowing and I still have nightmares about it now.

“So there was the inner turmoil of thinking, ‘My God this is ghastly’, but then the point of thinking these two boys are doing this and it must be a million times worse for them.

“It was truly horrifying, actually.

“We would walk a hundred yards and hear people sobbing and then walk round a corner and somebody wailing and shouting out messages of love to Diana or William and Harry, and it was a very, very tricky time.”

William and Harry remember mother Diana in ITV documentary
Spencer said he saw the eulogy for his sister as a chance to “speak for somebody who had no longer got a voice”, adding: “I don’t feel I said many pointed things. I believe that every word I said was true and it was important for me to be honest.

“I wasn’t looking to make any jabs at anyone actually. I was trying to celebrate Diana – and if by doing that it showed up particularly the press, I think, in a bad way, well, they had that coming.”

He said he had reread the eulogy speech for the first time in 20 years before the BBC interview.

Asked if the Queen or anyone else had said anything to him about the speech, Spencer replied: “Somebody I know very well said to her: ‘What do you think?’ and she said: ‘He had every right to say whatever he felt. It was his sister’s funeral.’ So that’s all.”

Spencer said the highly personal nature of the eulogy meant he wanted to “protect it before delivering it” so no one else could have a say in it.

He added he had read the speech to Diana’s body in St James’s Palace chapel a couple of days before she was buried, saying: “I know people will think I’m some sort of fruitcake but I do remember hearing almost some sort of approval then, and then I realised actually I had probably got the thoughts in order.”

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Earl Spencer pleads with Channel 4 to block broadcast of Princess Diana's 'video diaries' criticising royals
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/earl-spencer-pleads-channel-4-108 98779

In the bombshell recordings, the late Princess reveals intimate details of her failed marriage to Prince Charles

COMMENTS BY KEITH PERRY

Earl Spencer has pleaded with Channel 4 in an effort to try and stop Princess Diana’s explosive ‘video diaries’ being broadcast next week.

In the bombshell recordings, Diana reveals intimate details of her failed marriage to Prince Charles and criticises the royal family.

She also admits she considered running away with her police bodyguard.

Friends of the Earl said he believes the 90-minute programme, Diana: In Her Own Words, due to be screened next Sunday, three weeks before the 20th anniversary of her death, is a betrayal of her memory and privacy.

It reveals Diana at her most vulnerable and lowest ebb.

Her marriage had just collapsed and she appears haunted by episodes from her past.

The tapes are said to reveal Diana at her lowest ebb

Princess Diana reveals Charles was 'all over her like a rash' in early dating days during candid interview
The Mail on Sunday reports that the Earl, acting for the Spencer family, contacted Channel 4 warning that broadcasting the tapes for the first time on British television would cause profound distress, particularly to William and Harry.

But Channel 4 refused to back down and sent the Earl a detailed response explaining the importance of the film and why it was pressing ahead with the broadcast.

The prospect of millions watching Diana rdisclosing the most personal aspects of her life has troubled St James’s Palace and

The Spencer family, who fought an unsuccessful legal battle to seize control of the tapes.

Dodi Fayed's father hits back at 'cheap and tawdry' book claims as 20th anniversary of Princess Diana's death approaches
They were recorded by her voice coach Peter Settelen at Kensington Palace when her marriage had already broken down and she was trying to start a new life away from Charles.

Rosa Monckton, one of Diana’s closest friends, said: "I think it’s completely inappropriate that they are being shown publicly.

"The tapes should have been sent to the boys. They should definitely have been sent to her sons.

"I just think it is absolutely disgusting."

In all there were 12 video tapes – dubbed the ‘dynamite diaries’ – and Channel 4 has based its documentary on seven of them. Five are said to be missing.

[TonyGosling]

Brand new documentary of Diana at her most candid, natural and charismatic which provides valuable insight into one of the most iconic women of the late 20th century
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/diana-in-her-own-words/on-demand/65 314-001

Diana In Her Own Words tapes: Former aide claims Royals said Princess was 'mentally ill'

PRINCESS DIANA’s controversial tapes will be broadcast for the first time on UK television this weekend in Channel 4’s documentary Diana In Her Own Words.
http://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/835366/Princess-Diana-Tapes- Documentary-Diana-In-Her-Own-Words-Patrick-Jephson-Spencer-Royal-C4

By RORY O'CONNOR
PUBLISHED: 18:45, Sun, Aug 6, 2017 | UPDATED: 19:58, Sun, Aug 6, 2017

Now the Princess of Wales’s former aide says Channel 4 is right to show her private tapes to mark the 20th anniversary of her death.

Patrick Jephson was equerry and private secretary to Diana between 1988 and 1996, and revealed that the Royal family claimed the late Princess was “mentally ill” as their "weapon of choice".

Speaking on the hype surrounding the broadcast, Jephson said: “I find it difficult to share some critics’ well-aired outrage over its use of videotape shot by Diana’s voice coach during their practice sessions.

“These are definitely not sneaky snapshots of a woman caught unawares, but instead show a professional public figure, methodically honing her speaking skills in front of the voice coach’s camera.

RELATED ARTICLES
Princess Diana In Her Own Words: Channel 4 DEFEND controversial tapes
Diana In Her Own Words tapes: NEW Channel 4 clip tells rebellious side
Diana In Her Own Words tapes Former aide claims Royals said Princess was 'mentally ill'GETTY
Diana In Her Own Words tapes: Former aide claims Royals said Princess was 'mentally ill'
Princess Diana: 55 beautiful candid moments captured

1991, Wimbledon Lawn Tennis Championships, H,R,H, Princess Diana of Wales, looks lovingly at her son Prince William
Diana, William & Harry At Thorpe Park
Prince Charles looks on as Diana, Princess of Wales holds their baby son, Prince William at Kensington Palace
Princess Diana talks to Prince Charles as he takes a break from his Polo match at Windsor in 1984
Diana, Princess of Wales enjoying a ride in a stagecoach whilst visiting Australia in 1983

These are definitely not sneaky snapshots of a woman caught unawares, but instead show a professional public figure
Patrick Jephson
“Bewitchingly, they reveal a thoughtful and often funny Princess finding her voice as the teller of her own story. It was this rare ability to infuse her public speeches with disarming personal candour that made Diana such an effective communicator.”

He added to Radio Times: “It was a time when, with good reason, Diana felt herself to be under attack from advisers and friends of her estranged husband, who had chosen as their main weapon the accusation that she was mentally ill. Classy.

“She had every reason to be angry, trapped with the knowledge that her husband loved another woman.

“What Diana fans should find wonderfully appealing about this film – and her critics find naggingly disconcerting – is that the figure we see on screen is unmistakably articulate, realistic, modest and fun.

Princess Diana's iconic fashion moments
Tue, August 1, 2017
The most memorable and iconic fashion moments from Princess Diana.




PLAY SLIDESHOW
Prince Charles and Princess Diana on board a Royal flight to Australia GETTY IMAGES
1 of 58
Prince Charles and Princess Diana on board a Royal flight to Australia
Prince Charles and Princess Diana on board a Royal flight to Australia
Princess Diana, wearing an evening dress designed by Victor Edelstein, dances with movie star John Travolta during her visit to America at the White House on November 9, 1985
Princess Diana in The Alazhar Mosque in Cairo, Egypt in 1992
Prince Charles and Princess Diana pose by the River Dee while on their honeymoon
A Catherine Walker dress that was worn by Princess Diana
Princess Diana wowed in this iconic black off the shoulder velvet dress
Diana & Charles Engagement
'Let her rest' Royal writer furious with Diana documentary
Play Video
The latest issue of Radio Times is available nowThe latest issue of Radio Times is available now [RADIO TIMES]

“And if it takes a little longer to digest, at least it won’t have you reaching for the sick bag.”

It comes as Channel 4 defended its decision to air the controversial tapes after facing a backlash from royalists and Diana’s brother Earl Charles Spencer.

A Channel 4 spokesperson told Express.co.uk: “The excerpts from the tapes recorded with Peter Settelen have never been shown before on British television and are an important historical source."

Kensington Palace declined to comment on the Diana tapes when approached for comment by Express.co.uk.

The full interview is available to read in the latest edition of Radio Times, which is out now.

Diana: In her Own Words airs this Sunday on Channel 4 at 8pm.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

More good stuff on the royal family from
Who are the Windsors? - Webster Tarpley

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSNDb-FsO8A

[TonyGosling]

Here, in a nutshell, is the assassin's line - from Nick Pope

[outsider]

'Firefighter who heard Princess Diana’s final words tells how he thought he’d saved her life after giving her CPR':
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4349760/princess-dianas-last-words-firem an-cpr-xavier-gourmelon-first-interview/

'A HERO firefighter who heard Princess Diana’s final words has told how he thought he had saved her life by giving her CPR moments after her fatal Paris car crash.

Xavier Gourmelon, 50, said the princess was conscious and had her eyes open as he pulled her from a wrecked Mercedes — only to suffer a cardiac arrest as she was placed gently on a stretcher.

He managed to resuscitate her and was convinced when her heart started beating again and her breathing resumed that she would survive.

But he was horrified when told later that the 36-year-old princess had died at 4am in hospital despite surgeons’ frantic efforts to revive her.

Xavier, who spent 22 years as a Paris firefighter before returning to his native Brittany, has spoken in public of the crash only once be­fore — in evidence to Diana’s inquest in 2007.

But he said he felt able to give his first newspaper interview 20 years on from the August 1997 horror as he is no longer with the fire service.

Xavier said he initially had no idea he was treating the princess at the crash scene inside the Pont de l’Alma tunnel, close to the Malar fire station where he was duty officer.

The dad of two said: “We were very close to there and it took less than three minutes to reach it.
“My ten-man team was in two trucks and we were first to arrive.

“The car was in a mess and we just dealt with it like any road accident. We got straight to work to see who needed help and who was alive.

‘Diana said to me, My God, what’s happened?’

“The woman, who I later found out was Princess Diana, was on the floor in the back. She was moving very slightly and I could see she was alive.

“I could see she had a slight injury to her right shoulder but, other than that, there was nothing significant. There was no blood on her at all.

“I held her hand and told her to be calm and keep still, I said I was there to help and reassured her. She said, ‘My God, what’s happened?’

“I gave her some oxygen and my team and I stayed by her side as she was taken out of the car. It was very quick because we didn’t have to cut any of the wreckage.’’

But moments later the stricken princess stopped breathing.

Xavier, now in charge of emergency services at Brest airport, said: “We are all trained to give first aid and I saw that she suffered a cardiac arrest and stopped breathing.

“I massaged her heart and a few seconds later she started breathing again. It was a relief of course because, as a first responder, you want to save lives — and that’s what I thought I had done.

“To be honest I thought she would live. As far as I knew when she was in the ambulance she was alive and I expected her to live. But I found out later she had died in hospital. It was very upsetting.

“I know now that there were serious internal injuries, but the whole episode is still very much in my mind. And the memory of that night will stay with me forever.

“I had no idea then that it was Princess Diana. It was only when she had been put into the ambulance that one of the paramedics told me it was her.....'

So the firemen were there about 3 minutes after the crash; she did not need to be 'cut free', but was removed onto a stretcher.
Then there is the wait for the ambulance, the extremely slow ambulance trip, the bypassing of the normal and most suitable hospital for VIP's, the stopping of the ambulance within sight of the hospital,, the violent bouncing of the ambulance, then her arrival at the hospital, almost immediately to be pronounced dead.

[outsider]

Keeps getting removed, but here it is for now (suggest people can download it): ''Unlawful Killing' Princess Diana Banned Documentary 2011 (FULL)':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmsfh_FQWG0

[TonyGosling]

38% of Brits think Princess Diana's death 'NOT an accident'
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/09/17/38-brits-princess-dianas-death-wa s-not-accident/

Fewer than half of Britons think Princess Diana's death was accidental, and many believe the conspiracy theories about the car crash that killed her

In advance of the opening this Friday of a movie version of Princess Diana's life, The Daily Express and The Sunday Express have recently published a string of new claims regarding her death, including some that appear to support the theory that the SAS was involved in arranging her death. Now, a YouGov poll finds that a surprising number of Britons believe the conspiracy theories.

The princess died in a car crash in Paris along with her boyfriend Dodi al Fayed and the driver of the car, Henri Paul, on August 31st, 1997. In the years after, alternative accounts of the crash emerged, including one advanced by al Fayed's own father which alleged that the couple's death was arranged as part of a conspiracy to prevent their marriage. An investigation by the Metropolitan Police concluded in 2008 that the theories were unfounded – the deaths the result of a tragic accident and nothing more – but many conspiracy theories have persisted nevertheless.

Now a YouGov poll shows nearly four in ten Britons nowadays think Diana’s death was not an accident (38%) – nearly the same number that think it was an accident (41%). A further 21% say they don't know.

When asked more specifically about some of the conspiracy theories related to the crash, a majority of Britons remain sceptical but large proportions are believers.

Fully one third (33%) say it was at least 'probably true' that Princess Diana was assassinated, while one quarter (25%) also believe that the MI6 was involved and another quarter (25%) believe that Diana was pregnant with Dodi al Fayed’s child at the time of her death.

19% believe that Henri Paul, who died driving the car Diana was in when she also died, was in the pay of a national security service.

Fewer people think that the SAS was involved (16%) or that Diana’s seatbelt was sabotaged (14%).

In August it was reported that the Metropolitan Police had received new information about the couple’s death and was ‘assessing its relevance and credibility’. However, Scotland Yard also stated that it was not conducting a ‘re-investigation’ of the deaths.

The Princess Diana biopic, Diana, stars Naomi Watts as the princess and arrives in cinemas nationwide on September 20th.

[TonyGosling]

By email
Winchester University Diana death study
- massaging the data to show false results
- suggesting people who believe Diana was murdered
- are incoherent and even crazy?



Hi Tony

Here is the dataset from Dr Michael Wood. I've also attached his paper.

Check the study 1 raw data for yourself.
No individual 2nd yr psychology undergraduate (av. age 20.3 yrs, 4/5ths female) student of the 137 students surveyed believed in mutually contradictory

Princess Di – Dead AND alive conclusion of the paper.

S Mcintyre's analysis appears to be completely correct.

https://climateaudit.org/2013/11/07/more-false-claims-from-lewandowsky  /

As far as I'm aware, this is the only paper that has this conclusion.

Best Regards

Barry Woods

Looking at the other results, I'd be a bit concerned about all the conspiracies these students do believe in!


From: Michael.Wood
Sent: 18 January 2016 13:13
To: Barry Woods
Subject: RE: Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories.

Ah, apologies, didn't see the request for the data in your first email – here it is.

Best regards,

Dr. Michael Wood
Department of Psychology
University of Winchester
office: HJB 211



From: Barry Woods
Sent: 18 January 2016 12:03
To: Michael Wood
Subject: Re: Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories.

Many Thanks

Can I download the responses to both studies from an archive somewhere?
If not could you send me an official copy of both studies responses?

I recently looked up a Yougov survey on the Diana conspiracy, and was actually rather surprised to find a very high percentage of UK public (across demographics, ages, genders) ‘believed’ in a Diana conspiracy.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/09/17/38-brits-princess-dianas-death-wa s-not-accident/

And, I also wondered how psychology undergraduates compared with general public.

And with reference to one of your other papers there might be a hypothesis to why sometimes a 'conspiracy theorist' label are damaging and some not. Because of relative belief amongst the general public. If say 40-50% of public think Diana conspiracy at least plausible even if not believe it likely themselves, then not against the public opinion, and not damaging to be called a conspiracy theorist.

Whereas someone saying the moon landing (or 911, chemtrails, fluoride, etc) was a conspiracy – the label ‘conspiracy theorists’ sticks as damaging, because those people in the public view are obviously nuts (ie a very low % of public believe that conspiracy, or that it is remotely plausible)

There is a danger of course, random members of public when presented with question like these may be casually responding in a manner of that it is plausible, but not an actual belief.

So your paper, which has a 7 point scale might suggest a 7 would be a very strong believer in a conspiracy, vs someone answering with a 5 as a ‘plausible’. Exit interviews would help of course, sometime people tick the wrong box, or think they can’t put all 4s, etc,etc

Thanks again

Barry Woods


From: Michael.Wood
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 11:33 AM
To: Barry Woods
Subject: RE: Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories.

Dear Mr Woods,

Please find attached the study materials, as requested (Study 1 on pages 1-3, Study 2 on pages 4-5). There was also a consent form attached but I don’t have a copy handy at the moment. The wording was fairly generic, in any case, and didn’t have any specific instructions for answering the questions.

Best regards,

Dr. Michael Wood
Department of Psychology
University of Winchester
office: HJB 211
t: +44 (0)1962 826390





From: Barry Woods
Sent: 14 January 2016 16:35
To: Michael.Wood
Subject: Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories.

Dear Dr Wood

I am in the process of obtaining data to submit a comment to the journal Psychological Science, at the invitation of Prof Stephen Lindsay the current editor.

The paper in Psychological Science that I’m responding cites your paper - Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories.

Would it be possible for you to supply me with the material provided to the students in Study 1 and Study 2, ie the actual questionnaire as shown to the students in Study 1, any advice given to both sets of students and the Bin Laden articles mentioned in the paper. As these materials may, or may not support a possibility I am considering to include in my response.

The actual responses to Study 1 and Study 2 would also be very useful.

Best Regards and thanks in advance

Barry Woods



University of Winchester, a private charitable company limited by guarantee in England and Wales number 5969256.
Registered Office: Sparkford Road, Winchester, Hampshire SO22 4NR
175th Signature

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Best mainstream TV doc in a long time
National Geographic | Diana: In Her Own Words | Full documentary | English | 2017

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6M_vYUUx20

[TonyGosling]

More on the iffy-looking reports of Professor Lewandowsky
cc-ing this onto the main climate change thread


Prof Lewandowsky published a paper called NASA faked the Moon Landing therefore (climate Science is a hoax.

This got a lot of media attention, the Guardian’s take on it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/jul/27/climate-scept ics-conspiracy-theorists

Monbiot of course loved it.



Whether or not climate sceptic blog readers are more/less likely to believe in conspiracy theories than the general public, is not my point. It is whether this paper, with this data, actually show it…


The title was very provocative, despite only 3 people ‘believing; the title (an anon internet survey) Even if you ignore the all criticism of the paper entirely, and take it at face value– 99.7% of people that read those climate blogs did NOT believe in the moon conspiracy.. and had very low numbers for Diana, Aids and other conspiracies. In fact lower % believing conspiracies than the general public.



There were years worth of blog battles about this, including Lewandowsky own blog, but let’s put that to one side.



Some social scientist did have a look at it, and used it as an example (amongst others) of what is wrong with social psychology.



Prof Lee Jussim (Rutgers, social Psychology)..
(peer reviewed paper)

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/Jussim%20et%20al,%202016,%20High%20 Moral%20Purposes,%20Sydney.pdf



"The implication that climate skeptics believe in the faking of the moon landing is another phantom fact. Out of over 1,145 respondents, there was a grand total of 10 who believed the moon landing was faked. Among the 134 participants that 'rejected climate science" only THREE people 2% endorsed the moon landing hoax. The link asserted in the title of the paper did not exists in the sample."



"...The notion that skeptics believed something so silly as faking of the moon landing is yet another myth essentially concocted by the researchers" – Jussim



Another paper

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/Interps%20and%20Methods,%20JESP.pdf

(extracts)

98% of climate skeptics did not believe the Moon Landing was a hoax. Latent variable modeling masked the invalidity of the titular implication that climate skeptics tend to believe in silly conspiracy theories. The invalidity of this conclusion cannot be found in the structural equation model results; it can, however, be found in the simple distribution of responses. In the sample of 1145, only ten participants endorsed the moon-landing hoax. Of the 134 who believed climate science was a hoax, only three endorsed the moon-landing hoax (on a four-point scale of Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agree, we are treating both “agree” and “strongly agree” responses as agreement). Thus, almost no one, including those who rejected climate science, believed the moon landing was a hoax. The abstract reported that “Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.” However, only 16 participants in their sample of 1145 rejected the fact that HIV causes AIDS, and only 11 participants rejected the fact that smoking causes lung cancer. There were 176 free market endorsers in their sample. Nine of them rejected the HIV–AIDS link, and seven of them rejected the smoking–lung cancer link. Thus, 95% and 96% of free market endorsers agreed with those scientific facts. The structural equation modeling performed was a sophisticated set of analyses (Lewandowsky et al., 2013). Interpretations of such analyses as evidence that climate skeptics believe in silly conspiracy theories conflate the sign of the correlational results with participants' actual placement on the items. “



There is no evidence here that people who believe global warming is a hoax were also more likely to believe the moon landing was faked. Also, these data are so skewed, and have so few response options, that it is not clear that the type of structural equation models used in the original report are appropriate.



but too few people actually believed in hoaxes to warrant reaching any conclusions about them. Similar patterns occurred for the other conspiracy beliefs



Prof Lee Jussim

https://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/lee-jussim-phd



Quillete article about this here:

http://quillette.com/2015/12/04/rebellious-scientist-surprising-truth- about-stereotypes/



"...Jussim pointed out that the level of obfuscation the authors went to, in order to disguise their actual data, was intense. Statistical techniques appeared to have been chosen that would hide the study’s true results. And it appeared that no peer reviewers, or journal editors, took the time, or went to the effort of scrutinizing the study in a way that was sufficient to identify the bold misrepresentations.



While the authors’ political motivations for publishing the paper were obvious, it was the lax attitude on behalf of peer reviewers – Jussim suggested – that was at the heart of of the problems within social psychology." – Quillete



Social psychologist Dr Jose Duarte's wrote a less tactful criticism of the Nasa faked the moon landing paper, prior to the above papers (he is a co-author on Lee’s papers above) It is well worth a read to get how shocked how bad he thought the paper was.

http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/more-fraud



Duarte:

“Therefore, the title is false. That's a big problem. (We shouldn't decompose those 10 people, and I do so only out of illustrative necessity – the title would be nuts even if the majority of the 10 believed climate science was a hoax.) The title is not only false, it declares the opposite relationship suggested by the authors' trivial data for it. If the authors meant to say something about moon hoaxism based those 10 people, a more accurate title, given their data, would be: "NASA Faked the Moon Landing–Therefore (Climate) Science is Reliable."

The title being wildly false is bad enough, but it's made worse by the fact that it slanders millions of people as believing that the moon landing was a hoax. They don't believe any such thing, according to the authors' own data. Slandering one's participants is a serious ethical breach.

That should be enough to retract – it was just made up. No scientist should ever get away with that, with just making stuff up under the banner of science. But there's more...”



In 2012, the paper had lot's of media coverage, not surprising sceptics made lots of critical comments, which prompted Prof Lewandowsky to amend his ethics approval and research the responses of his critics, for a paper called Recursive Fury, this had lots of complaints, mainly ethical and was retracted. A new paper was then published called Recurrent Fury.  (but those two papers stories are even longer)

[TonyGosling]

Prince William and Prince Harry also open up about their mother's death in Diana, 7 Days, 20 years on.
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/what-queen-said-tony-blai r-13537595
The Duke of Cambridge says his father Prince Charles and mother both brought him and Harry up to be "responsible" for their country.

However, he was never expecting to have to attend his mother's funeral aged just 15.

He said: "Both our parents have brought us up to understand that, as best we can, that there is this element of duty and responsibility, and you have to do things you don't want to do.
Read More
Diana: 7 Days documentary to air on BBC - what you need to know

"But when it becomes as personal as walking behind your mother's funeral cortege, it goes to another level of duty."

William explained how the only thing that got him through the traumatic day was imagining his mum was there with them.
ADVERTISEMENT


He said: "I just kept thinking about what she'd want and she'd be proud of Harry and I going through it.

"Effectively, she was there with us.

"I felt like she was almost walking alongside us to get us through it."

[TonyGosling]

'British police told me Princess Diana was murdered': Death crash driver's dad claims son was 'collateral damage' in plot

Henri Paul's dad, Jean, says he fears he will go to his grave without knowing the full story behind the crash

By Andy Lines
22:18, 6 AUG 2017

Henri Paul was behind the wheel of Princess Diana's car when it crashed in 1997 (Image: Johann Rauch / Daily Mirror)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/father-dianas-death-crash-driver- 10942998


The dad of Diana’s death crash driver Henri Paul claims UK police told him she was murdered.

Jean, 85, said: “Inside Scotland Yard, some believe there was a secret plot to kill Diana.”
ADVERTISEMENT


In an exclusive interview with The Mirror, Jean has told how he fears he will go to his grave without knowing the full story behind the crash that killed his son Henri , Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed.

But he remains convinced the royal and her lover were deliberately killed in a bid to stop the future king of Britain’s mum marrying a Muslim – and the couple’s chauffeur was “collateral damage”.

Despite a string of official enquiries ruling Diana and Dodi died in a tragic accident when French driver Henri crashed their car while drunk in a Paris tunnel, Jean insists they were targeted in an Establishment plot.

And he claims some British police investigating the smash also believe the pair were “bumped off”.
LOADING

Jean Paul says he is convinced his son was murdered in the car crash (Image: Johann Rauch / Daily Mirror)
Read More
Public split over whether secret tapes of Princess Diana should have ever been aired in documentary Diana: In Her Own Words

In an emotional interview at his home in Lorient, Brittany, Jean – who has studied the evidence and seen classified information surrounding the tragedy over the past 20 years – said: “Diana was killed and my son was killed. I believe they were both murdered. My son was simply collateral damage of a plot to kill Diana and they killed him as well.

“I am 100% sure he was not involved in this plot. He was too honourable and too honest. The English police came here to visit me and sat exactly where you are sitting now.

“Even inside Scotland Yard there are two sides. One believes there was a secret plot to kill Diana, the other believes it was a genuine accident.

“Even today there are too many classified secrets with this incident.

“I have no real hope to know what really happened. Perhaps it will be known in 30 or 50 years. But I would really like to know before I die. But I don’t think it will happen.”

And the former council worker angrily hit back at claims Henri, 41, was boozed up at the time of the crash in August 1997. He added: “He was not an alcoholic. He was not a drug addict. That’s just lies.”

Video Loading
Diana: In Her Own Words - TRAILER
LOADING

A bearded Henri Paul in a world exclusive picture (Image: Johann Rauch / Daily Mirror)

He claimed his son’s blood sample could have been swapped or tampered with to make it appear he had drink in his system.

Jean, who saw Henri’s body at a hospital, said: “On that day there were over 20 autopsies that took place and it was easy for the authorities to switch blood samples to show alcohol was present in the sample they said was Henri’s.

“That is what I believe happened.”

The jury at Diana’s inquest, which heard from 250 witnesses and lasted three months found the 36-year-old and Dodi, 42, had been unlawfully killed and the deaths were the result of “gross negligence” on the part of Henri and paparazzi who were following their Mercedes on motorbikes.
Read More
Diana documentary

Princes share intimate photos

Heartbreak at cutting short final call

Diana's lost letters

Di introduced Wills to supermodels

Emotional toll of split on boys

Queen's concern for Diana at break-up

Emotional, raw, irresistible viewing

Naughty Di's advice to Harry

And in 2013, the Met dismissed reports claiming SAS troops were behind the couple’s death, insisting there was “no credible evidence” of secret service involvement.

There were also allegations a mystery white Fiat Uno could have collided with Diana and Dodi’s car.

But frail Jean said: “It took them over an hour to get Princess Diana to hospital and that is when they made arrangements to make up the story about the Fiat Uno, the white car. It was a diversion and a decoy.
LOADING

CCTV footage showing Henri Paul (left), Diana, Princess of Wales (centre) with Dodi Fayed (right) inside the Ritz Hotel before the crash (Image: PA)
Read More
Princess Diana reveals that something Prince Charles said about their relationship left her "traumatised"

“This was just one of the many things that do not add up. For example I still cannot believe a street cleaning vehicle was going through the tunnel cleaning up just a few hours after the accident. That is shocking.”

Dodi’s dad Mohamed al Fayed also believes his son and Diana were murdered by an Establishment appalled at the idea of having a Muslim wed a royal.

A friend of the Harrods owner reportedly said last week: “Mohamed remains confident that information will emerge confirming his belief that Dodi and Diana were deliberately killed by the security services.

“He always says, ‘My son was slaughtered’, and he believes that was because the Establishment would not allow a Muslim to be married to the woman who would be the mother of the future king.”

Diana’s former lover James Hewitt told an inquiry into her death that he was “warned off” and received phone calls telling him to end their liaison, which lasted from 1989 to 1990.

But he denied reports he had been warned by MI5 that if he did not stop seeing her he would die in a car crash.
LOADING

The jury at Diana’s inquest found the 36-year-old and Dodi, 42, had been unlawfully killed and the deaths were the result of “gross negligence” on the part of Henri and paparazzi who were following their Mercedes on motorbikes (Image: PA)

Diana’s first lover after her marriage to Prince Charles, bodyguard Barry Mannakee, was killed in a 1987 road smash. Some of his family believe the secret services were behind the death, but that has never been proven.

His brother-in-law Richard Emmins reportedly claimed: “First, he had this accident, then Diana dies in a Paris car crash...however getting to the truth will probably be impossible. We are up against the Establishment. They only let you know as much as they want you to know.” On Saturday the Mirror told how chauffeur Karim Kazi claimed the Mercedes was a “death-trap” and should never have been allowed on the road after it was written off and parts stolen.

And Jean added his thoughts to the state of the Mercedes the princess and Dodi died in. He said: “The truth is the car was old and it was dangerous and it should not have been driven.

“The brakes were dangerous. They discovered 6% water in the brake fluid. How did that happen?
LOADING

Jean Paul, the dad of Princess Diana death crash driver Henri Paul, with The Mirror's chief reporter Andy Lines (Image: Johann Rauch / Daily Mirror)

“There was a piece of metal found at the scene, but nobody knows what it was. There are too many unanswered questions. But I do know my son is dead.” Jean still lives in the in the house where he and wife Giselle raised their five sons.

Former teacher Giselle, 87, was traumatised by Henri’s death and is now very ill living in a care home.

Jean told of the terrible moment they were informed their son had died.

He said: “I was here at home and the phone went in the middle of the night.

“It was about 3am, it was a colleague of Henri. He told me Henri was dead.

“The Chief of French Police should have called me to tell me the news but he didn’t, but did apologise later. It didn’t matter really as it didn’t change anything. Henri was dead.”

But it was not the only tragedy to hit the family – as Jean and Giselle have outlived all but one of their five sons.
LOADING

Dodi Al Fayed and Princess Diana during their holiday together in St Tropez in August 1997 (Image: Big Pictures)

He added: “Henri was still alive and attended the funeral of his brother Pascal who died of cancer. Then Henri died in Paris, then Jean-Luc who died from a heart attack. Then the youngest Sylvan died. He died suddenly. It was an aneurysm he was only 51.”

Henri was buried but then exhumed and cremated. His ashes were placed with those of his brothers.

Jean paid tribute to his chauffeur son and said it was time the world knew “the real Henri Paul”. He said: “Henri was a loyal and generous man.
ADVERTISEMENT


“I remember we received many letters of support from all over the world, one in particular from Australia and another from an English milkman.

“They both said, ‘We know your son is innocent.’ And that is what my son’s friends put on a wreath for his funeral.

“The very last thing I want to say about this incident is: Someone killed my son. Someone killed my son.”

[TonyGosling]

Was Princess Diana Murdered by her Royal Inlaws and British Military Industrial Complex?

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSNfIE5vijw
This video provides a summary of evidence that shows that Princess Diana may have been the victim of a conspiracy by Prince Philip and Prince Charles with the aide of the British Military Industrial Establishment?

Did she die in the tunnel in Paris because the Royal Family wanted to get rid of her? She was trouble for them by protesting against land mines and the possibility of Diana and Dodi having a Muslim half brother to Will and Harry was too much.

[outsider]

[outsider]

[TonyGosling]

“I was probably one of the first five or ten people in the world that knew what had happened.
“We just thought the princess was concussed with a broken arm at the time.”

Princess Diana: Photographer reveals he has 'VERY SECRET' pictures of fatal Paris crash
VETERAN paparazzo Darryn Lyons has revealed he owns photographs taken at the scene of the car crash that killed Princess Diana, but insisted he would "never" publish them.
By JAMIE MACWHIRTER
PUBLISHED: 07:16, Wed, Jul 25, 2018
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/993781/Princess-Diana-death-video -crash-Prince-Charles-al-Fayed-Prince-Harry-Prince-William


A French doctor who was driving through the tunnel was one of the first people on the scene, calling the emergency services and giving an initial medical assessment.
He described Diana as unconscious, but breathing. He reported just a few drops of blood on her forehead, but said her face appeared otherwise uninjured.
Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul were pronounced dead at the scene.
Diana was treated for nearly 40 minutes by the ambulance medical team at the scene of the crash, before being driven to Pitie-Salpetriere hospital.

Everything we know about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales
As we near the anniversary of Diana's death, Sky News looks at all we know about the accident that killed the 'People's Princess'.
https://news.sky.com/story/everything-we-know-about-the-death-of-diana -princess-of-wales-10988168

[TonyGosling]

Assassination of the Humanitarian Princess: The Killing of Diana
https://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/assassination-of-the-humanita rian-princess-the-killing-of-diana

BY JOHN MORGAN

1992 was the year that the relationship between Princess Diana and other senior British royals changed irreversibly. In June Diana collaborated with UK author Andrew Morton in a book which exposed Prince Charles’ relationship with his lover Camilla Parker-Bowles and Diana’s mistreatment by senior members of the royal family. The reaction was swift. Within 11 days of the book’s publication Diana received a bombshell letter from her father-in-law, Prince Philip. The letter alarmed her and Morton says that she sought out a solicitor to help draft a reply.1

Within months the Queen had moved to set up the royal Way Ahead Group – a committee dedicated to helping the royal family deal with major issues and planning the way forward. Its first meeting was held in November 1992 and in the following month the Queen requested the formal separation between Charles and Diana. This was announced in the House of Commons on 9 December.

In October 1995 Princess Diana penned a note in which she stated that she feared for her life and believed Prince Charles was “planning ‘an accident’ in my car.”2 She left the note with her butler, Paul Burrell, for safe-keeping. Later that month Diana met with her lawyer, Lord Victor Mishcon. He wrote the next morning that Diana had told him efforts could be made to “get rid of her… by some accident in her car such as pre-prepared brake failure.”3 Mishcon had this note typed up and kept it in his safe.

Five days after that lawyer’s meeting Diana pre-recorded the famous ‘Panorama’ interview with BBC journalist Martin Bashir. In the program – which went to air on 20 November – Diana declared “there were three of us in this marriage,” that she doubted Charles could adapt to being King, recounted her mistreatment by the royals, and stated she was a “very strong person” who would “fight to the end.”4

Diana also told several friends and family that she feared for her life and believed she could be killed in “an accident.”

Later that month her fears were vindicated when the brakes in her regularly-serviced Audi failed as she drove through the streets of London. She wrote about it to her close friends. Simone Simmons said she received a letter that said: “The brakes on my car have been tampered with. If something does happen to me it will be MI5 or MI6.”5

The month following the ‘Panorama’ interview, just seven days before Christmas, Diana received a hand-written letter from the Queen requesting her to divorce Prince Charles.

The decree absolute came into effect on 28 August 1996, but it was much more than a marital divorce. The Queen also moved to strip the princess of her HRH title and effectively remove her from the royal family.

Earlier, in March, Diana had been driving in London when she was hit by an out of control Fiat Uno. Her driver’s door was smashed in and witnesses said it was amazing she escaped unhurt. Although the police investigated this crash, their report has never been released.

Diana Starts Campaigning to Eradicate Landmines

Then around July 1996 Diana started taking an interest in the worldwide scourge of unexploded landmines and began collecting information and building a dossier on the industry. Her primary concern was humanitarian – to help the victims and to campaign for the eradication of all landmines.

In January 1997, launching her involvement in the campaign, Diana made a highly-publicised visit to Angola – this was the nation with the highest number of victims. She was filmed walking through minefields and stated that she sought to “focus world attention on this… largely neglected issue.”6

The following month she received a high-profile death threat. During a phone call from Nicholas Soames, Britain’s Minister of the Armed Forces, Diana was told to drop her anti-landmines campaign. Soames went on to say: “You never know when an accident is going to happen.”7

Although shaken, Diana told her friend Simone Simmons – who witnessed the call – that she was undeterred: “We must do something. We cannot allow this slaughter to continue.”8

Diana’s anti-landmine dossier grew in size to become several inches thick and she left copies with Simmons and another friend, Elsa Bowker. Her butler Paul Burrell said it contained “every fact of the landmine mission.”9

On 12 June 1997, just under 12 weeks before she died, Diana delivered a landmark speech at the Royal Geographic Society in London. She outlined the nature and scope of the landmine problem, she talked about the “evil that men do” and spoke about her vision to “end this plague on Earth.”10

Meeting the Al Fayeds

It was around this time Princess Diana accepted an offer from long-time family friend and owner of Harrods, Mohamed Al Fayed, to holiday with his family at his St Tropez villa in mid-July. The offer extended to Diana and her two sons, William and Harry. At that time Al Fayed was viewed by the British Establishment as a person of ill-repute – he had recently been heavily involved in the “cash for questions” scandal that helped bring about the downfall of Britain’s Tory Government in May 1997.

Both these actions – Diana’s increasingly public determination to eradicate the mines and taking William, the future King of England, on holiday with the Al Fayeds – were seen as a major challenge to the Establishment.

In the following days two critical high-level decisions were made.

First, senior royals called a special unscheduled meeting of the Way Ahead Group (WAG), chaired by the Queen. This meeting took place on 23 July and was preceded two weeks earlier by a special preparatory meeting attended by senior royal household officials, including the Queen’s private secretary, Robert Fellowes. The preparatory meeting was held on 8 July – three days before Diana and the princes left on the contentious Al Fayed holiday – and the full WAG meeting occurred on 23 July – three days after the holiday had concluded.

The second decision was for an arrangement to be made for friend of Diana, Rosa Monckton, to organise a holiday with Princess Diana. Monckton was a person who had two very close connections to MI6 – her brother Anthony was a MI6 officer working in Zagreb and her husband Dominic Lawson was a MI6 agent who was editor of the Sunday Telegraph.

Whilst in Hong Kong Monckton called Diana and arranged a one-on-one yachting holiday around the Greek islands, to take place in mid-August.

Diana, William and Harry left for the St Tropez holiday on 11 July, amidst a storm of controversy. Following their return nine days later, a romance developed between Diana and Mohamed Al Fayed’s son, Dodi.

On 30 July Diana broke off her nearly two year relationship with boyfriend Hasnat Khan and the following day left with Dodi on a week-long Mediterranean cruise.

Their romance blossomed throughout August, interrupted only by two events – the pre-arranged Monckton cruise and Diana’s three-day anti-landmine visit to Bosnia on 8 August.
If you appreciate this article, please consider a subscription to New Dawn magazine.
Monckton Cruises with Diana for Intel

Diana and Monckton left for the Greek islands on the 15th – “it was just the two of us” Monckton later told the inquest.11 What she didn’t say was that their hired 20 metre boat, the Della Grazia, was shadowed by three super-yachts chartered by MI6, the Marala, the Sunrise and the Sea Sedan. These were used as decoys to distract the media – who were not looking for a smaller vessel, and despite a massive search, never actually found the boat Monckton and Diana were on.12

This strategy provided Monckton with five uninterrupted days on the ocean – time to seek inside information on Diana’s thoughts and intentions, to satisfy her intelligence masters.

Diana and Monckton returned from that holiday on 20 August – and 11 days later Diana lay dead in a Paris hospital.

On 22 August Diana and Dodi departed from Stansted airport headed for their final Mediterranean cruise. The two lovers would never see England again.

The following day they visited Repossi’s jewellery store in Monte Carlo. Diana saw and liked an engagement ring from the “Tell Me Yes” range. Dodi later arranged for that same ring to be transferred to Repossi’s Paris – he purchased it from there just hours before the couple died.

Diana and Dodi finished up their cruise in Sardinia and on the afternoon of Saturday, 30 August, they flew from Olbia to Paris, landing at Le Bourget airport at 3.20pm.

They were met by French police who provided an escort for the initial part of the journey into the city.13 The police later denied they were aware of Diana’s presence in France, falsely claiming the first they knew she was there was when they heard about the crash that occurred later that night.14

Threatened by Large, Dark Motorbikes

During that journey and other travels through the streets of Paris that evening the couple’s Mercedes was threatened by large, dark motorbikes, some carrying pillions. Witnesses in the car and back-up Range Rover described these bikes as “behaving dangerously.”15 The Mercedes driver, Philippe Dourneau, said they were “coming from all angles, from front and behind – they were all over the place.”16 They took many flash photos on these trips – none of which have ever been published. The evidence indicates they were operating as fake paparazzi, helping to create an environment where later the real paparazzi could be falsely held culpable for the crash.

Initially the couple travelled to Villa Windsor and then into the city, arriving at the Ritz Hotel – owned by Mohamed Al Fayed – at 4.35pm. Whilst there Diana made phone calls and had her hair done and Dodi visited Repossi’s and purchased the engagement ring.

They left the hotel at 7pm, heading for Dodi’s apartment near the Arc de Triomphe. Once in the apartment – where their luggage had earlier been taken from the airport – the couple relaxed, showered and prepared to leave for dinner, which was to be back at the Ritz.

They left for the hotel at 9.30pm. Didier Gamblin was on security at the apartment and said the fake paparazzi went “completely crazy” and “set off like lunatics to follow the car.”17

Ritz CCTV records Diana and Dodi arriving at the front entrance of the hotel at 9.50pm. They initially went to the restaurant for dinner, but were stressed from the intimidating actions of the fake paparazzi and soon moved themselves upstairs to the sanctuary of the Imperial Suite.

The Decoy Plan – But Who Planned It?

It is after this that a decoy plan surfaced – a plan to leave for the return trip to the apartment from the rear of the hotel in a third car, whilst the primary Mercedes and the back-up Range Rover sat outside the front entrance, acting as decoys to divert the paparazzi.

Dodi approved a plan for the use of a third car to leave from the rear – but he was not told there would be no back-up car, only one bodyguard and a driver who was not licensed to chauffeur.

The evidence indicates the plan was devised by intelligence officers working from outside the hotel, employing two of the Ritz’s senior staff as agents – Henri Paul, the acting head of security and Claude Roulet, the vice-president of the hotel.

Henri Paul was the designated chauffeur – but he was not a driver, had never driven any Ritz guests in his 11 years at the hotel, and did not possess the required chauffeur’s ‘Grande Remise’ licence. To top it off, his best friend, Claude Garrec, told the police Henri didn’t like driving and “If he could avoid [it] he would.”18

Henri Paul had been receiving large sums of money from sources unknown in the months leading up to the crash. He had links to French and British intelligence agencies and on the night of his death was carrying 12,565FF ($2,500) on his person.

The third car was the only other car available – a Mercedes S280 with untinted windows, whose regular driver was Olivier Lafaye. Every evening Lafaye would finish work, return to the Ritz and park his vehicle in the same section of the Vendôme car park. He told the police that the other chauffeurs took their vehicles home – he was the only one without a garage.19

On that Saturday evening Lafaye parked his Mercedes S280 at 8.15pm. At 8.20 Claude Roulet is shown on CCTV leaving the Ritz Hotel. It is likely Roulet pointed out this Mercedes to other agents, who then had ample time to tamper with the vehicle prior to its final departure after midnight. Later evidence revealed that Diana – a person who many witnesses said always wore her seat belt – was sitting in the right rear seat with a jammed belt.20

Henri Paul departed from the hotel at 7.01pm, but quickly returned at 10.06 following the couple’s arrival. After 11pm he made four separate visits to the paparazzi waiting out the front of the Ritz. Henri was providing regular updates on how long it would be before the couple appeared. It was essential to the MI6 plan that the paparazzi were still present when Diana and Dodi departed – they would try to follow the car and later be falsely blamed for the behaviour of the fake paparazzi, the assassins.

Detailed Account of Diana’s Final Fatal Journey

The Mercedes S280 departed from the rear of the Ritz Hotel at 12.18am – there was no back-up car, only one bodyguard, untinted windows and at least one jammed seat belt in the back.

Some paparazzi were outside the rear and they immediately followed. Those out the front were quickly alerted and some of them joined the pursuit at the Place de la Concorde, where the Mercedes was held up by red lights.

Large unidentified motorbikes also joined in from around the Concorde. The Mercedes was pressured by constant flashing of cameras – many photos were taken but they have never been published.

The principal car left quickly from Concorde and witnesses on the riverside expressway saw a speeding Mercedes surrounded by several large, dark motorbikes. As the vehicle approached the exit it would take to head for Dodi’s apartment, a blocking motorbike was seen on its right.

Failure to make the appropriate exit forced the Mercedes S280 towards the Alma Tunnel. As it neared the tunnel one witness saw the motorbikes “in a cluster, like a swarm around the Mercedes.”21 People saw photos being taken – again unpublished.

Two separate witnesses saw the Mercedes – which was already in the left lane – overtaken on the left by one of the motorbikes carrying a pillion. At the same time, just as Henri entered the tunnel, he was confronted on the right by a slow-moving white Fiat Uno straddling the two lanes.

As the motorbike got in front, a bright flash was seen and Henri immediately lost control of the Mercedes. A split-second later the Mercedes side-swiped the Uno and then zig-zagged left, right and left before crashing into the 13th central pillar of the tunnel, at around 100 kph.

The car bounced back from the pillar, swung around 180 degrees and came to rest near the wall, facing the tunnel entrance.

It was 12.23am on Sunday, 31 August 1997.

Witnesses saw motorbikes and cars fleeing the tunnel – even though it is against the law in France to not stop and render assistance. None of the fleeing vehicles – including the white Fiat Uno – has ever officially been identified. And none of the drivers or riders have ever come forward.

The two people on the driver’s side – Henri Paul and Dodi Fayed – died on impact, and the two on the passenger’s side – Princess Diana and bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones – survived the crash.

The French ambulance service (SAMU) immediately started receiving calls from passers-by. Dr. Arnaud Derossi was manning the phones and he allocated an ambulance carrying Dr. Jean-Marc Martino.

That ambulance left the Necker Hospital base at 12.28am and arrived at the crash scene at 12.40am. It took 12 minutes to travel 2.3 km – Diana’s ambulance travelled to the scene at around 11½ kph.

Upon arriving Martino straightaway phoned the base and spoke to Dr. Derossi, who then immediately left the base heading to the crash scene. It was left to an auxiliary to notify the base’s off-duty doctor, Marc Lejay, who was asleep at the time.22

Death by Doctors?

Princess Diana was heard talking by several witnesses, saying “Oh my God” and “what’s happened?”23 When the doctor performed the standard Glasgow Coma test to assess her condition in the car, she scored very well – 14 on a scale of 15.24

However there was reason to suggest there could be an internal injury – Diana had been involved in a fatal, high speed crash and wasn’t wearing a seat belt. This possibility was confirmed after Diana was finally transferred into the ambulance, 43 minutes after the crash. The initial examination revealed there was thoracic trauma bruising.25

From that point it became even more imperative that Diana was transferred immediately to a hospital – the thoracic trauma was a clear sign there could be a life-threatening internal injury.

Instead though, these two doctors – Martino and Derossi – tarried. The ambulance remained in the Alma Tunnel until 1.41am, one hour and 18 minutes after the crash.

And worse, they poured catecholamine into her to increase her blood pressure (BP), even though the BP was 70 and high enough to comfortably make the 5 km trip to the hospital.

And on top of that, Dr. Derossi informed the base there was “nothing for the thorax,” twice, even though he already was aware of the thoracic trauma.26 This ensured the hospital would not have a thoracic specialist on hand when Diana arrived.

After leaving the scene the ambulance travelled at what one witness described as “walking pace.”27 Then within sight of the hospital gates it stopped for five minutes. A journalist who followed the ambulance described it as “rocking” while stationary.28 He also witnessed a doctor transferring from the front to the back.29

Whatever they were doing inside the ambulance, it required four people – Drs Martino, Derossi and two interns (Barbara Kapfer and a person called “Fadi”).

There has never been a credible explanation for a stoppage so close to the hospital.

Martino delivered Diana to the La Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital at 2.06am – it was now one hour and 43 minutes since the crash.

Six minutes after arriving Princess Diana stopped breathing. She would never breathe again, despite the best efforts of the hospital’s doctors.

Dr. Bruno Riou ticked the suspicious death box on the death certificate.30 The public prosecutor’s office was then forced to order an autopsy, which was conducted by Professor Dominique Lecomte. She found no suspicious circumstances.

Dr. Riou was never asked why he was suspicious.

Conflicting Evidence Points to the Cover-Up

Later that morning Professor Lecomte carried out an autopsy on the driver, Henri Paul. Samples taken were tested early the following day – the results indicated the driver had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 1.74, three times over the French limit.

This conflicted with evidence in the hotel prior to the departure of the Mercedes. Many witnesses testified that Henri was not drunk and this was supported by the CCTV footage, which showed him walking and acting normally.

Later testing revealed the blood had a carbon monoxide (CO) level of 20.7%. The combination of elevated BAC and CO meant Henri would have been incoherent, had a migraine headache and found it impossible to stay upright.

Yet that is not what the CCTV and witnesses saw.

A close analysis of Professor Lecomte’s autopsy of Henri Paul reveals she made at least 58 errors in her conduct and documentation.31 The police files reveal there were two lots of documentation for the one autopsy – each recording different samples taken and differing body measurements, weight and height.32

The evidence points to two bodies being in the room at the time of the autopsy – one was Henri Paul’s and the other was a person who had died in a fire with smoke inhalation.

Samples were taken from both bodies, but kept separate. The other person’s samples were used for the BAC testing and years later Henri’s true samples were used for DNA testing. The DNA-tested samples were never BAC tested and the BAC-tested samples were never DNA tested.

The paparazzi and Henri Paul were fraudulently set up to take the blame for the death of Princess Diana.

The truth is that the crash was orchestrated by MI6 (with assistance from the CIA and France’s DGSE and DST) on the orders of senior members of the British royal family, with the acquiescence of Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac and Bill Clinton – the leaders of the three leading Western arms-dealing nations.

Diana Princess of Wales – our humanitarian princess – was murdered in one of the most shocking inter-governmental operations followed by one of the most extensive cover-ups of our time.

The late John Morgan wrote two explosive books exposing the conspiracy to murder Princess Diana. Information on How They Murdered Princess Diana: The Shocking Truth, and Paris-London Connection: The Assassination of Princess Diana, can be found at princessdianadeaththeevidence.weebly.com. Both books can be purchased from Amazon.com.

This article was published in New Dawn Special Issue Vol 9 No 1.
If you appreciate this article, please consider a contribution to help maintain this website.
Footnotes

Andrew Morton, Diana: In Pursuit of Love, Michael O’Mara Books, 2004, 76
Inquest evidence: INQ0010117
Inquest evidence: INQ0006335
‘The Panorama Interview’, BBC, 20 November 1995, www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/panorama.html
Simone Simmons with Ingrid Seward, Diana: The Last Word, St Martin’s Press, 2005, 179
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU0APrqxUxc
Diana: The Last Word, 178-180
Ibid., 180
Inquest transcripts: 16 Jan 08: 27.11
‘Responding To Landmines: A Modern Tragedy And Its Consequences’ by Diana, Princess Of Wales. Keynote Address at a one day seminar co-hosted by the Mines Advisory Group and the Landmine Survivors Network, London, 12 June 1997, gos.sbc.edu/d/diana.html
Inquest transcripts: 13 Dec 07: 139.18
‘The Media Swarm Greek Isles, In Search Of Diana’, Philadelphia Inquirer, 18 August 1997
Rene Delorm, Diana & Dodi: A Love Story, Tallfellow Press, 1998, 154
Inquest transcripts: 14 Nov 06 statement read out 21 Nov 07: 57.22
Inquest transcripts: Kez Wingfield: 2 Sep 97 Statement read out 18 Dec 07: 145.9
Inquest transcripts: 3 Sep 97 Statement read out 29 Oct 07: 67.17
Inquest transcripts: 3 Oct 97 Statement read out 7 Mar 08: 103.14
Paget Report, 14 December 2006, 162-3
Paget Report, 14 December 2006, 244-5
Paget Report, 14 December 2006, 421
Paget Report, 14 December 2006, 439
Inquest transcripts: 11 Dec 07: 7.13
An example: Xavier Gourmelon: Paget Report, 14 December 2006, 513
Inquest evidence: INQ0004774
Inquest transcripts: 24 Jan 08:124.16; Inquest evidence: INQ0004774
Inquest transcripts: 11 Dec 07: 14.9, 28.23
Inquest transcripts: Pierre Suu: 28 Feb 06 Statement read out 11 Mar 08: 150.4
Inquest transcripts: Thierry Orban: 23 Sep 97 Statement read out 17 Oct 07: 13.7
Inquest transcripts: Thierry Orban: 23 Sep 97 Statement read out 17 Oct 07: 13.3; Pierre Suu:28 Feb 06 Statement read out 11 Mar 08: 150.22
Prof. Bruno Riou, Witness Statement, 7 March 2006, reproduced in Diana Inquest: The Documents the Jury Never Saw, edited by John Morgan, 2010, 375-6
John Morgan, Cover-Up of a Royal Murder: Hundreds of Errors in the Paget Report, 2007, 188-194
John Morgan, Diana Inquest: The French Cover-Up, 2010, 50-68
© New Dawn Magazine and the respective author.
For our reproduction notice, click here.

Share this

FACEBOOKTWITTERSTUMBLEUPONEMAIL
Support New Dawn

Minimal Ads, No Paywall, No Clickbait – help us
keep this website free with new articles regularly posted.
Show your appreciation & gratitude.

PayPal – The safer, easier way to pay online!
About the Author


JOHN MORGAN (1957-2015) started researching and writing about the death of Princess Diana in 2005. He was the world’s leading expert on the 1997 Paris crash. Leading QC Michael Mansfield, who served at the London inquest: “I have no doubt that the volumes written by John Morgan will come to be regarded as the ‘Magnum Opus’ on the crash in the tunnel that resulted in the unlawful killing of Diana, Princess of Wales.” Mohamed Al Fayed, whose son Dodi died in the crash: “John Morgan has done more to expose the facts of this case than the police in France and Britain.” For more on John's work, research and books go to http://princessdianadeaththeevidence.weebly.com

[TonyGosling]

Princess Diana 'murdered by our military'
Police were last night investigating claims that Princess Diana was murdered
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/333202/Princess-Diana-mur dered-by-our-military

By Deborah Sherwood / Published 18th August 2013
diana, princess, murder, army, sas, military, spy, killed, conspiracy, theory,Princess Diana herself made predictions about her own death, claiming there was a plot to tamper with the brakes of her car
New information reportedly handed to Scotland Yard by military police allege she was killed by British military personnel with SAS links.

The dossier is believed to include the claim that at least one soldier was sent to France to assassinate Diana.

PROMOTED STORY
It also alludes to the Princess’s own murder fears in her secret diary discovered after the Paris crash nearly 16 years ago this month.

Police remove the crumpled wreck of the Mercedez-Benz which was carrying Princess Diana in Paris in this August 31, 1997Police remove the crumpled wreck of the Mercedez-Benz which was carrying Princess Diana in Paris in this August 31, 1997
“The dossier is believed to include the claim that at least one soldier was sent to France to assassinate Diana”
Information given to Scotland Yard
The information was passed on by the parents-in-law of a former soldier who was serving in 1997.

This weekend the Yard is assessing the reliability and credibility of the information that is believed to make references to the SAS.

A sergeant from the original police investigation, who is now more senior, is leading the new inquiry into the death of divorced Diana, 36, and boyfriend Dodi Al Fayed, 42.

Henri Paul, 41, the drunk driver of the Mercedes, also died in the accident in a tunnel at the Pont d’Alma on August 31, 1997.

Diana’s death has been surrounded by conspiracy theories and claims she was murdered.

But they were rejected after an £8million inquiry led by Lord Stevens.

Diana herself made predictions about her own death.

She wrote to her butler Paul Burrell ten months before she died claiming there was a plot to tamper with the brakes of her car.

Sensational claims of murder plot have been handed to Scotland YardSensational claims of murder plot have been handed to Scotland Yard
An inquest jury in 2008 recorded a verdict she and Dodi were “unlawfully killed” and blamed the “negligent driving” of Henri Paul and of the vehicles following the Mercedes.

The new information has come in over the last few days as the anniversary of the deaths approaches.

Former Harrods boss and Dodi’s dad Mohamed, 84, is said to be “watching with interest and will be interested in the outcome”.

In a statement, police said: “The Metropolitan Police Service is scoping information that has recently been received in relation to the deaths and assessing its relevance and credibility.

“The assessment will be carried out by officers from the Specialist Crime and Operations Command. “This is not a re-investigation and does not come under Operation Paget.”

Police say the deaths of Diana and Dodi were “thoroughly investigated” by British and French authorities.

Last night security sources revealed that MI5 and MI6 have not been involved in the new development.

Diana’s former bodyguard Ken Wharfe thought the new claims would not stack up.

He told us: “The fact the Yard is not re-investigating means there is nothing to suggest new evidence about an allegation of murder.

“The evidence leaned heavily towards a drunk man, Henri Paul, driving over the limit.

“The Yard will listen to this new information.

“They will not reopen it as they have no new evidence.

“Someone needs to put evidence on the table for us all to see.”

A royal spokesman said: “There will be no comment on the matter from Prince William or Prince Harry or from Clarence House.”

Buckingham Palace official sources would not comment.

The Ministry of Defence also said last night that it was not commenting on the matter.

[Life]

I have one question only.....

"is there any evidence at all that Diana was indeed killed?"

I have seen much evidence to show she has been removed from the game, but nothing to evidence an actual death.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

PRINCESS DIANA DEATH
THE EVIDENCE
JOHN MORGAN'S INVESTIGATION
THE VIDEOS & INTERVIEWS

Talk Radio Europe interview on 22 January 2015: The shocking truth

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCXsVc_QWIw

Australian TV Channel 7 interview on 16 September 2013: The SAS were in the Alma Tunnel

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEMW1zo2Lvw

Talk Radio Europe interview on 19 August 2013: Was the SAS involved?

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8afAm4A69xA

Talk Radio Europe interview on 6 June 2013: Corruption at Scotland Yard

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chs6bYMvWv0

Talk Radio Europe interview on 23 August 2012: The evidence of assassination

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w5C-cQMTPQ

High Time Brisbane TV interview November 2011: Part 1

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9pI7zJzCQE

Part 2

Link

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

Bristol Radio BCfm interview in 2011: The evidence of assassination

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxbSGUQMIy4

Brisbane River Press Conference December 2010: Was the Mercedes driver drunk?

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfqTJ9ZXLAg

Part 2

Link

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

Brisbane River Press Conference December 2010: Q & A - Can justice prevail?

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smzQUixlMes

Launch of Diana Inquest Part 3 - QUT TV December 2010: The French Cover-Up

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweIHHelS34

Sunrise Channel 7 TV interview Michael Cole December 2010: The Untold Story

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1SV24gaFPI

A Current Affair Channel 9 TV interview December 2007: Cover-Up of a Royal Murder

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj13wuxb28E


LAURENCE DE MELLO INVESTIGATION
Investigative journalist and film-maker Laurence De Mello conducted an earlier investigation into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed. She was warned off and received death threats....

This is her story and also her account of what occurred in Paris in 1997: Part 1

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9sD-Qb0S4

Part 2

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRG0uZJzZiU


OTHER INTERVIEWS
In conversation with Hits Dhanak on 27 December 2014 An Overview

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsLJ5Jc9R-c

[TonyGosling]

The documentary Prince Charles tried to ban
Princess Diana - The Witnesses in the Tunnel - HD - Documentary

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1YtUqz0xNY