" Hello Everyone,
In keeping with my personal site intending to be a factual encyclopedia of my life, I feel it
necessary to see important documents presented so by example the one featured below written by
Mohamed al - Fayed.
Whilst recognising there has now been the Judicial Enquiry that he initially requested, a
request falling on deaf ears, never the less some very valid points are made by him which need
documenting.
The results of the investigation already being known I will conclude in saying this: Andrew
has it on very good authority, namely from someone who was told this from a High Court Judge
themselves, that the most successful criminals are in fact corrupt Judges, Lawyers, barristers and
solicitors all over the world which gives serious food for thought, doesn't it ! "
With love from,
Diana xx
MI6 Murdered the People's Princess
Open Letter from Mohammed al - Fayed
Most people are profoundly shocked, and rightly so, by the idea that Dodi and Diana were murdered. Yet it is my firm
belief that Britain's racist establishment found their relationship utterly unacceptable, and so conspired with the
intelligence services to have them killed. My repeated appeals for a full public inquiry in Britain into the Paris tragedy
have been rejected out of hand by the prime minister, Tony Blair and the home secretary, Jack Straw but I shall never
abandon my fight for disclosure of the full facts. The following open letter explains why.
Since the 31st August 1997, the terrible day that my son Dodi and Princess Diana died in Paris, I have tried by all
means that I know to get answers to the many questions left hanging in the air. I have been thwarted at every turn.
The official French investigation has so far failed to resolve many key questions. The British government still refuses
to hold a public inquiry. The intelligence services in France, Britain and the USA have stonewalled – though we know
that intelligence services had Diana under surveillance on the fateful night in Paris. And, as we have seen only too
clearly following the publication of the book by Trevor Rees-Jones (but one example), there has been a concerted
campaign to discredit my attempts to get at the truth.
I know that I am bitterly resented by some members of the British establishment. There are those who cannot accept
that an Egyptian from a modest background should have become the owner of Harrods, a shop they considered a
part of their heritage. Others reckon me beyond the pale because of my part in revealing corruption in the highest
places. For a few, I suspect, it is simply a matter of racism; though they would never dream of saying so in public,
they despise foreigners – especially those with crinkly hair and dark skins. Behind the scenes, the extreme right-wing
in Britain still wields enormous influence particularly in the press and the corridors of unelected power. In my
experience these people are ruthless in their determination and will stop at nothing to achieve their ends.
Certainly my attempts to make progress through the official channels are blocked consistently by a brick wall of
silence and secrecy.
When I met Mr Blair in May 1999 at a reception hosted by the Muslim Council, I gave him this paper which set out my
concerns and asked for his help, and a copy of this memo which I had given to the Council. I heard nothing. Then my
lawyers wrote to him. Again, nothing. The same wall of silence greeted my letters to the Foreign Secretary, the Home
Secretary and the Heads of MI5 and MI6. Such silence is rude and discourteous to me personally. I have given 35
years of my life to this country, paying hundreds of millions in taxes and employing tens of thousands of people. I
have helped to win British firms overseas contracts worth billions of pounds. After making such a contribution to the
country, I think I've earned the right to some answers. But more importantly, the people of Britain deserve answers:
Diana was – in Tony Blair's words – "The People's Princess". A blanket refusal to answer legitimate questions can
only fuel suspicion of foul play.
These concerns were taken up in Parliament by the Conservative MP Charles Wardle. He did so of his own volition. In
an adjournment debate in July 1999 he set out with great force and clarity the many reasons for holding a full inquiry
in Britain into the Paris crash, conducted openly for all to see and follow. He requested a formal response from the
Home Office; none has been forthcoming.
I have pursued information in the United States under their Freedom of Information Act. The Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) have confirmed that they hold 39 documents consisting of
1,056 pages of information relating to Diana and Dodi but they refuse to reveal it on the grounds of national security.
My American lawyers have been fighting for access to this vital information for the last year. A court in Washington
DC has ordered the CIA to hand over the documents, but they have not complied. Recently we sought a subpoena to
force the production of the documents – only to have the judge rule that, under the statute which allows subpoenas
to be issued in connection with foreign proceedings, he did not have jurisdiction to issue a subpoena against the
federal government. We have appealed and hope to get some movement soon, but it is a very slow business.
The attitude of the British government was well-illustrated recently. On 27 February The Sunday Times published an
article headlined "Spy agencies listened in on Diana". In this article, "former intelligence officials" confirmed to the
newspaper that spy agencies in Britain and America "eavesdropped on Diana". The very next day, in response to my
earlier demands for an official statement on this matter, I received a letter from the Treasury Solicitor, categorically
denying any such activity by the security services, or those working on their behalf. Given that Diana was mother to
the future King, and was often at odds with the Royal Family, it is frankly unbelievable that the security forces were
taking no interest in her – but the official line attempts to deny the obvious.
According to Stephen Dorril's newly published history of Britain's overseas intelligence service, "MI6: Fifty Years of
Special Operations" (p788): "... the late Princess of Wales had clearly been under some kind of surveillance, as
evidenced by the 1,050-page dossier held by the US National Security Agency detailing private telephone
conversations between Diana and American friends intercepted at MI6's request ". (emphasis added)
It is hardly surprising that my efforts to uncover the truth about the Paris crash have made me a lot of enemies. But I
have been shocked at the lengths that these people will go to in their attempts to discredit me. The Daily and Sunday
Telegraph newspapers, considered by many to be the heart of reactionary opinion in Britain, have mounted an
extraordinarily vicious and sustained campaign. Since the crash they have printed a never-ending stream of hostile
articles – about 150 in all – accusing me of everything from tax evasion to sexual harassment. Their fellow-travellers,
The Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday and the London Evening Standard have joined in the fun. (For a more detailed
account, see Mohamed Al Fayed and the Press). While seeking to portray me as some kind of fantasist, they show
no interest themselves in establishing the facts. If they are able to prove me wrong, why don't they do so?
The most recent attack on me was The Daily Telegraph's publication of extracts from the book "The Bodyguard's
Story" by Trevor Rees-Jones. This account was, in fact, compiled by a committee and crafted by a ghostwriter. It is
based substantially on the recollections of others because Rees-Jones himself has no memory of the crash itself and
only partial recall of much else. He has simply been used as a vehicle to sensationalise a book which peddles the lies
of those hell-bent on silencing me. And he has clearly forgotten completely about the confidentiality clause in his
contract of employment with me.
The motives behind the book are plain: they are to clear Trevor and his friend Kez Wingfield, the other bodyguard
that night, of all responsibility for the tragedy and also to get "some recompense for what's happened." Everything in
the book is shaped by these twin objectives of shifting the blame and selling the book. Trevor is consistently
portrayed as a saint while I am relentlessly cast as the evil genius trying to manipulate his memories to support wild
conspiracy theories. It is all rubbish and deeply ironic when it is Trevor and those who collaborated with him who are
manipulating the truth for their own ends. Trevor has admitted that they – lawyers included – are all part of the book
deal and so will share the profits. Like everyone else, I have the greatest sympathy for Trevor. He went through hell.
But I cannot overlook the fact that, on the night, he failed to carry out established security procedures. Had he done
so, the couple might be alive today.
Interestingly, the ghostwriter Moira Johnston is best-known for a book on a famous court case concerning so-called
"recovered memories." In her third-person narrative, individuals have a startling recall of precisely what they were
thinking and saying more than two and a half years ago and, even more remarkable, an exact knowledge of what
other people were thinking and saying when key events took place!
Every trick in the book, every tabloid technique known to man, has been employed to fashion a fiction that parades
as the truth. I bitterly resent this malicious book and its intrusion on my private family life and security arrangements. I
simply cannot understand why I was refused an injunction when Tony Blair was awarded one to stop a book about his
family written by a well-intentioned nanny who is a friend of the family! Sometimes the law really is an ass.
The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers have claimed quite wrongly that "The Bodyguard's Story" demolishes
many of my theories. In fact, it contains no new information and actually lends weight to my conviction that Henri Paul
was not drunk at all. Both Trevor and Kez continue to insist that Paul gave no indication whatsoever of being drunk
before he got behind the wheel. They had been with him for extended periods that evening and still maintain that
there was nothing in his behaviour or general conduct to suggest that he had been drinking. If this is the case, how
then do they account for the inquiry finding that, within three minutes of leaving the hotel, he was more than three
times over the drink-drive limit?
The book makes several claims (about the engagement ring and the reported last words of Diana) which are wrong,
but otherwise it consists of little more than gossip and innuendo designed to clear the bodyguards of any
responsibility for what happened. Despite this, the Establishment has hailed it as a work of great significance. Like
the recent revelation that the brother-in-law of The Sunday Telegraph editor is a senior MI6 officer , it shows how far
the influence of the Establishment extends.
I remain convinced that most fair-minded people believe there was foul play in Paris. Even The Daily Telegraph Home
Affairs Editor Philip Johnston was recently forced to acknowledge: "Since the serialisation began, this newspaper and
others connected with the book have been contacted by people who just cannot come to terms with the banal
circumstances of the Princess's death. One caller yesterday berated The Daily Telegraph for 'covering up what
everyone knows is the truth' ".
Like Trevor Rees-Jones, I too would like to move on and lead a normal life but the Establishment is making that
impossible. It is their constant refusal to answer perfectly straightforward questions that drives me on. They should
know that the efforts to discredit and destroy me will not succeed and that I will never give up my fight to discover the
full facts about the deaths of Dodi and Diana. I am not alone in wanting answers. There is widespread public unease
about the circumstances of the tragedy. Very many ordinary people in this country want answers and they deserve
them. In my own mind I must be certain that what happened in Paris was truly God's will and not the will of others. I
have great faith that God will guide and protect me in my search and I fear no one. I am equally sure that one day the
truth will be known.
In keeping with my personal site intending to be a factual encyclopedia of my life, I feel it
necessary to see important documents presented so by example the one featured below written by
Mohamed al - Fayed.
Whilst recognising there has now been the Judicial Enquiry that he initially requested, a
request falling on deaf ears, never the less some very valid points are made by him which need
documenting.
The results of the investigation already being known I will conclude in saying this: Andrew
has it on very good authority, namely from someone who was told this from a High Court Judge
themselves, that the most successful criminals are in fact corrupt Judges, Lawyers, barristers and
solicitors all over the world which gives serious food for thought, doesn't it ! "
With love from,
Diana xx
MI6 Murdered the People's Princess
Open Letter from Mohammed al - Fayed
Most people are profoundly shocked, and rightly so, by the idea that Dodi and Diana were murdered. Yet it is my firm
belief that Britain's racist establishment found their relationship utterly unacceptable, and so conspired with the
intelligence services to have them killed. My repeated appeals for a full public inquiry in Britain into the Paris tragedy
have been rejected out of hand by the prime minister, Tony Blair and the home secretary, Jack Straw but I shall never
abandon my fight for disclosure of the full facts. The following open letter explains why.
Since the 31st August 1997, the terrible day that my son Dodi and Princess Diana died in Paris, I have tried by all
means that I know to get answers to the many questions left hanging in the air. I have been thwarted at every turn.
The official French investigation has so far failed to resolve many key questions. The British government still refuses
to hold a public inquiry. The intelligence services in France, Britain and the USA have stonewalled – though we know
that intelligence services had Diana under surveillance on the fateful night in Paris. And, as we have seen only too
clearly following the publication of the book by Trevor Rees-Jones (but one example), there has been a concerted
campaign to discredit my attempts to get at the truth.
I know that I am bitterly resented by some members of the British establishment. There are those who cannot accept
that an Egyptian from a modest background should have become the owner of Harrods, a shop they considered a
part of their heritage. Others reckon me beyond the pale because of my part in revealing corruption in the highest
places. For a few, I suspect, it is simply a matter of racism; though they would never dream of saying so in public,
they despise foreigners – especially those with crinkly hair and dark skins. Behind the scenes, the extreme right-wing
in Britain still wields enormous influence particularly in the press and the corridors of unelected power. In my
experience these people are ruthless in their determination and will stop at nothing to achieve their ends.
Certainly my attempts to make progress through the official channels are blocked consistently by a brick wall of
silence and secrecy.
When I met Mr Blair in May 1999 at a reception hosted by the Muslim Council, I gave him this paper which set out my
concerns and asked for his help, and a copy of this memo which I had given to the Council. I heard nothing. Then my
lawyers wrote to him. Again, nothing. The same wall of silence greeted my letters to the Foreign Secretary, the Home
Secretary and the Heads of MI5 and MI6. Such silence is rude and discourteous to me personally. I have given 35
years of my life to this country, paying hundreds of millions in taxes and employing tens of thousands of people. I
have helped to win British firms overseas contracts worth billions of pounds. After making such a contribution to the
country, I think I've earned the right to some answers. But more importantly, the people of Britain deserve answers:
Diana was – in Tony Blair's words – "The People's Princess". A blanket refusal to answer legitimate questions can
only fuel suspicion of foul play.
These concerns were taken up in Parliament by the Conservative MP Charles Wardle. He did so of his own volition. In
an adjournment debate in July 1999 he set out with great force and clarity the many reasons for holding a full inquiry
in Britain into the Paris crash, conducted openly for all to see and follow. He requested a formal response from the
Home Office; none has been forthcoming.
I have pursued information in the United States under their Freedom of Information Act. The Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) have confirmed that they hold 39 documents consisting of
1,056 pages of information relating to Diana and Dodi but they refuse to reveal it on the grounds of national security.
My American lawyers have been fighting for access to this vital information for the last year. A court in Washington
DC has ordered the CIA to hand over the documents, but they have not complied. Recently we sought a subpoena to
force the production of the documents – only to have the judge rule that, under the statute which allows subpoenas
to be issued in connection with foreign proceedings, he did not have jurisdiction to issue a subpoena against the
federal government. We have appealed and hope to get some movement soon, but it is a very slow business.
The attitude of the British government was well-illustrated recently. On 27 February The Sunday Times published an
article headlined "Spy agencies listened in on Diana". In this article, "former intelligence officials" confirmed to the
newspaper that spy agencies in Britain and America "eavesdropped on Diana". The very next day, in response to my
earlier demands for an official statement on this matter, I received a letter from the Treasury Solicitor, categorically
denying any such activity by the security services, or those working on their behalf. Given that Diana was mother to
the future King, and was often at odds with the Royal Family, it is frankly unbelievable that the security forces were
taking no interest in her – but the official line attempts to deny the obvious.
According to Stephen Dorril's newly published history of Britain's overseas intelligence service, "MI6: Fifty Years of
Special Operations" (p788): "... the late Princess of Wales had clearly been under some kind of surveillance, as
evidenced by the 1,050-page dossier held by the US National Security Agency detailing private telephone
conversations between Diana and American friends intercepted at MI6's request ". (emphasis added)
It is hardly surprising that my efforts to uncover the truth about the Paris crash have made me a lot of enemies. But I
have been shocked at the lengths that these people will go to in their attempts to discredit me. The Daily and Sunday
Telegraph newspapers, considered by many to be the heart of reactionary opinion in Britain, have mounted an
extraordinarily vicious and sustained campaign. Since the crash they have printed a never-ending stream of hostile
articles – about 150 in all – accusing me of everything from tax evasion to sexual harassment. Their fellow-travellers,
The Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday and the London Evening Standard have joined in the fun. (For a more detailed
account, see Mohamed Al Fayed and the Press). While seeking to portray me as some kind of fantasist, they show
no interest themselves in establishing the facts. If they are able to prove me wrong, why don't they do so?
The most recent attack on me was The Daily Telegraph's publication of extracts from the book "The Bodyguard's
Story" by Trevor Rees-Jones. This account was, in fact, compiled by a committee and crafted by a ghostwriter. It is
based substantially on the recollections of others because Rees-Jones himself has no memory of the crash itself and
only partial recall of much else. He has simply been used as a vehicle to sensationalise a book which peddles the lies
of those hell-bent on silencing me. And he has clearly forgotten completely about the confidentiality clause in his
contract of employment with me.
The motives behind the book are plain: they are to clear Trevor and his friend Kez Wingfield, the other bodyguard
that night, of all responsibility for the tragedy and also to get "some recompense for what's happened." Everything in
the book is shaped by these twin objectives of shifting the blame and selling the book. Trevor is consistently
portrayed as a saint while I am relentlessly cast as the evil genius trying to manipulate his memories to support wild
conspiracy theories. It is all rubbish and deeply ironic when it is Trevor and those who collaborated with him who are
manipulating the truth for their own ends. Trevor has admitted that they – lawyers included – are all part of the book
deal and so will share the profits. Like everyone else, I have the greatest sympathy for Trevor. He went through hell.
But I cannot overlook the fact that, on the night, he failed to carry out established security procedures. Had he done
so, the couple might be alive today.
Interestingly, the ghostwriter Moira Johnston is best-known for a book on a famous court case concerning so-called
"recovered memories." In her third-person narrative, individuals have a startling recall of precisely what they were
thinking and saying more than two and a half years ago and, even more remarkable, an exact knowledge of what
other people were thinking and saying when key events took place!
Every trick in the book, every tabloid technique known to man, has been employed to fashion a fiction that parades
as the truth. I bitterly resent this malicious book and its intrusion on my private family life and security arrangements. I
simply cannot understand why I was refused an injunction when Tony Blair was awarded one to stop a book about his
family written by a well-intentioned nanny who is a friend of the family! Sometimes the law really is an ass.
The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers have claimed quite wrongly that "The Bodyguard's Story" demolishes
many of my theories. In fact, it contains no new information and actually lends weight to my conviction that Henri Paul
was not drunk at all. Both Trevor and Kez continue to insist that Paul gave no indication whatsoever of being drunk
before he got behind the wheel. They had been with him for extended periods that evening and still maintain that
there was nothing in his behaviour or general conduct to suggest that he had been drinking. If this is the case, how
then do they account for the inquiry finding that, within three minutes of leaving the hotel, he was more than three
times over the drink-drive limit?
The book makes several claims (about the engagement ring and the reported last words of Diana) which are wrong,
but otherwise it consists of little more than gossip and innuendo designed to clear the bodyguards of any
responsibility for what happened. Despite this, the Establishment has hailed it as a work of great significance. Like
the recent revelation that the brother-in-law of The Sunday Telegraph editor is a senior MI6 officer , it shows how far
the influence of the Establishment extends.
I remain convinced that most fair-minded people believe there was foul play in Paris. Even The Daily Telegraph Home
Affairs Editor Philip Johnston was recently forced to acknowledge: "Since the serialisation began, this newspaper and
others connected with the book have been contacted by people who just cannot come to terms with the banal
circumstances of the Princess's death. One caller yesterday berated The Daily Telegraph for 'covering up what
everyone knows is the truth' ".
Like Trevor Rees-Jones, I too would like to move on and lead a normal life but the Establishment is making that
impossible. It is their constant refusal to answer perfectly straightforward questions that drives me on. They should
know that the efforts to discredit and destroy me will not succeed and that I will never give up my fight to discover the
full facts about the deaths of Dodi and Diana. I am not alone in wanting answers. There is widespread public unease
about the circumstances of the tragedy. Very many ordinary people in this country want answers and they deserve
them. In my own mind I must be certain that what happened in Paris was truly God's will and not the will of others. I
have great faith that God will guide and protect me in my search and I fear no one. I am equally sure that one day the
truth will be known.
