Date Posted 03-23-13
19th March 2013
The midnight blue velvet gown designed by Victor Edelstein and worn by
Diana, Princess of Wales to the White House for a State Dinner during the
official visit with H.R.H. The Prince of Wales in 1985 (This is the gown in
which it she danced with John Travolta to an instrumental version of the
hit from the film "Grease" .. "You're the one that I want") was sold at auction for £240,000 on Tuesday to an
anonymous bidder who said he wanted to surprise his wife.
The dress was the star lot in a sale of ten dresses at vintage Fashon auctioneers; Kerry Taylor Auctions in London.
Auctioneer Kerry Taylor said: "It was bought by a British gentleman who said he wanted to buy it as a surprise to
cheer up his wife. I hope that the sale has really made someone's day." She added that the new owner of the gown,
which reached the top price of the sale, was a "lucky woman".
The dresses were originally sold, along with a number of others, by Diana after her divorce from "H.R.H. Prince
Charles" to raise money for charity upon the suggestion of her eldest son Prince William; now the Duke of
Cambridge. American Maureen Rorech Dunkel, from the U.S.A. initially bought the dresses as a long-term investment
but after Diana's death in 1997 she decided to exhibit them to raise money for good causes. The collection titled "Fit
For a Princess" raised £862,800. Kerry Taylor described the dresses as "a little history of Diana's life through her
Bidders came from as far afield as Australia and the U.S.A. but there were British buyers for several of the dresses,
including an "important" museum which bought two gowns, something Taylor said she was particularly pleased about.
"It's important for the generations to come," she said. "Diana was the people's princess, so the people should be able
to see these dresses. This is our heritage, our history.".
The sequinned sea-green Catherine Walker evening gown, illustrated below, was worn by the then "H.R.H. Princess
of Wales" for a state visit to Austria in 1989 and sold for £90,000 being bought by suitably an Austrian bidder.
Date posted 03-23-13
In my life I was not daunted by courting controversy, sticking my neck out or as some people said meddling
in affairs that I knew nothing about which of course was wrong as I always did my homework about subjects which
gained my attention, support and ultimately active intervention. So finding this photo and deliberately drawing
attention to it is very much in keeping with what I was profficient at doing, upsetting the status quo of things.
Many photographs of the Paris incident have been published but not as I have noted this one and it being
the first taken after the incident, just moments afterwards actually so the car still steaming and the emergency services
as yet not at the scene but what do we see? An occupied car driving right past the mercedes and clearly neither it's
driver or passenger seem intent on stopping to assist in helping at all which seems rather odd as clearly they must have
surely witnessed the event happening or certainly the immediate aftermath for their car to be there at such precise
I just thought that I would therefore draw attention to this particular photograph for people seeing it to
draw their own conclusions!"
With love from,
Interesting to note that two witnesses, neither called to present their evidence personally (one of whom has vanished
and the other since died) both speak about seeing a small dark car involved in the incident happening on August 31st
1997 in Paris!
1) Gary Hunter:
This London-based lawyer observed, from his third floor hotel room overlooking the Point d'Alma
tunnel (less than 100 yards distance) two vehicles zooming away from the tunnel shortly after the crash.
This is his account as cited by Agence-France-Presse on September 22, 1997: "I was in my hotel room over
looking the tunnel and heard a car speeding from that direction…I jumped up and saw a small dark-colored car
drive up the street with another car practically stuck to its back bumper…the first car looked like a Fiat Uno
or a Renault Clio. The white car was a Mercedes…they both spun round together and sped off down the street at
a suicidal pace, more than 100 miles per hour…I thought it was very strange that they were traveling so
dangerously close to each other…their behavior made me wonder what exactly they had been up to in the tunnel
when the crash happened!"
"My own feeling is that these were people in a hurry not to be there. I am confident that the car was
getting off the scene, it looked quite sinister."
2) Brenda Wells:
The secretary from London who "reportedly went missing" following her statement to the
French police. She told them that on her way home from a party with friends, she was forced off the road by
a large and powerful motorbike ridden by two individuals as she approached the tunnel. The motorbike was
tailing Princess Diana's limo at high speed, in conjunction with another smaller car (Fiat Uno? Although her
account describes this car as dark colored). In her own words: "After a party with my friends, I was
returning to my home. A motorbike with two men forced me off the road. It was following a big car.
Afterwards in the tunnel there were very strong lights like flashes. After that, a black car arrived.
The big car had come off the road. I stopped and five or six motorbikes arrived and started taking
The whereabouts of Brenda Wells are currently unknown but what is known is that soon after giving
her statement to the French Police and after both she and her husband were warned to go into
hiding and never speak about what they had witnessed… Just like that she vanished…fell off the
face of the earth!
People have asked the inevitable. American conspiracy theorists have asked, as they always do, 'Is there a
conspiracy?' You bet your life there is. Let me fill in you in on how and why MI6 were able to terminate Diana, and
why they needed to.
Diana has always been a worry to the British Royal family. She was selected by Buckingham Palace, to be little more
than the 'surrogate mother' to Prince Charles' role as constitutional 'stud'. Although she undoubtedly cared for
Charles, maybe even loved him, she knew at her marriage that Charles' affections to her were eclipsed by his
affections for Camilla Parker-Bowles, a woman of a minor aristocratic family. Camillia is two years older than Charles.
A woman of Camilla‘s age would have been in her late thirties at the time that Charles married Diana. A woman more
of Charles‘ age would not have had bodily-clock with the same ample mileage left that Diana's did. A marriage was
forced between Charles - a man selfishly prepossessed with becoming King and providing heirs - and Diana, a young
bedazzled girl caught in the web of one of the most devious women in Britain - The Queen Of England.
Charles was always far more unpopular with the British people than Diana and he resented this, resented this a lot.
Charles was the important one, it was he who was to head the British State, and yet this shy, inarticulate girl was
beguiling to to the British people and later the world. From the start of the marriage, Diana knew that she would have
to 'make' Charles love her, she knew full-well that he didn't already. She knew he still loved Camillia. 'There were
always three of us in our marriage', she said on BBC's Panorama. But throughout this unhappy time, she'd managed
to do her job - she'd provided two healthy boys, she'd provided the all-important heirs.
Although the Queen's plan had been an immense success, she couldn't help but be horribly cruel towards Diana. The
Princess of Wales was not given ladies in waiting - she was always a pseudo-Royal in the eyes of the Queen. This,
understandably, took it's toll on Diana. She descended into bouts of bulimia, became psychologically scarred. Yet,
even in her frailty she was being a pain in the arse to the Queen and her darling Charles. She was as popular as
ever. While Charles played the grouse-shooting Aristocrat and was alienating the British people from the Monarchy,
Diana was transcending such matters and was developing herself into a formidable force. More and more the world
saw her as the House of Windsor's Cinderella, who was fighting her way to the ball. Yet, Charles, the envious little
creature that he is, could not take pleasure in the asset of Diana. She outshone him and he hated it. He didn't love
her, resented her, maybe privately despised her - he really wanted her out of his life. Throughout this time Charles
was having a relationship with Camilla. Diana had tried to make him love or even like her. She had failed. She would
have to start to live her own life. This she did.....
It was when she began to acknowledge that she had no real future with Charles she inevitably looked for other love-
interests. This she found for a time with the swashbuckling Capt. James Hewitt. However the Establishment, sensing
that Diana had given her first two-fingers to the House of Windsor, was in for trouble. Now not only a target of the
Queen, she was now a target of Britain's domestic intelligence agency - MI5. Behind closed doors, the establishment
of Aristocratic Elites and related Conservative politicians (up to the moment of her death, Conservative politicians
were mounting a venomous assault of words, accusing her of being party-political, 'A loose cannon') decided to
launch a campaign to discredit her in the eyes of Britain. The unaccountable, secretive and often down-right evil MI5
were called in to monitor Diana, tap-her phones, dig the dirt. This they did, and their greatest triumph came with the
'Squidgy' tapes (intimate calls between Diana and another male friend, 'Gilby', proving adultery) which were leaked
into the press by M15. And yet, British opinion was not as conservative as the growing conspiracy had thought.
People were not too bothered, they saw Diana as a victim, they excused the affair, they were more angry that
someone had tapped the woman's phone. The establishment plot was failing. The British Monarchy was looking bad,
the future King was looking bad, the whole British constitutional system was slowly being viewed with resentment by a
larger portion of the population than ever before. Yet through all this Diana was shining, bringing a fairy-tale magic in
fleeting moments to AIDs victims, the homeless, the war torn. If the British establishment was showing worrying
subsidence cracks, the mythological fairy-tale Diana was certainly not.
Although often emotionally fragile, Diana had shifted from the plain but pretty, slightly gormless young girl into
someone now bolstered by a powerful network of friends and colleagues. She was now beginning to play the Queen
at her own game. She was getting her own back, fighting deviousness with deviousness. Through her band of
advisors she was making Charles look more and more the bad guy. She was also the greatest influence over her two
boys and the Queen and Charles found this infuriating. While Charles was seen taking the Princes out for Blood-
sports, Diana was trying to give them as many 'ordinary' experiences as she possibly could. Charles encouraged the
Princes to look on others as inferiors, while their mother encouraged them to look on others as equals.
Towards her divorce, and after, she was orchestrating the media to present her as the more favourable of the two. To
a large extent, she was succeeding. While she had started out as a constitutional liability, Diana was now actively
attacking the constitutional elite. She was threatening to destroy the horrible British constitutional system which had
done her so much harm and treated her as merely a slab of meat, an incubator of heirs, a stooge of the House of
But not only was Diana now seen to be attacking the Public State, she was now doing something far, far more
dangerous - she was attacking the most evil sector of the Private State - the Arms industry. Diana was speaking out
against land-mines and calling for a total worldwide ban on their manufacture and sale. This was at a time when the
Private state was doing a pretty good job of smothering centrist and left-of-centre calls within the New Labour party
for a ban. Here was Diana, stirring it all up, jet-setting around the world, mingling with more ethical world-leaders,
getting very good support. She was even able to get Hillary to make Bill reconsider his position on the issue. World-
wide Diana was quietly making many enemies. Her actions were particularly upsetting to the Arms Barons in Britain,
where lower-tech weaponry such as land mines is a big industrial deal. And of course, Arms Exporters are monitored
and aided by secret security services, occasionally in 'legitimate intelligence gathering', most often in the protection of
Western puppet-dictatorships, which provide markets for killing machines and provide an excuse for Western Armed
Forces to stay tooled-up. Diana had been the target of intelligence attacks before at the hands of Britain's bumbling
MI5, now she was to be targeted on a much higher level - she was to cross the path of the world-wide secret
government where intelligence agencies, big corporations, Royal Houses, powerful individuals, neo-Chivalraic
Orders, and powerful secret societies merge into a blur. The British wing was to act on both worldwide and domestic
concerns through the infamous MI6. With Diana's death, Charles and his mother would be set to gain complete
control over the Princes, the increasing popularity of Diana over Charles could be curtailed, the British Arms Industry
could lance an irritating boil.
Yet Diana was not alone in getting up the nose of the British system. Another individual was up to the same thing -
Muhammad al-Fayed. al-Fayed is the controller of a huge business network and, like most self-made billionaires, had
the attitude 'Well, I've made it! Up yours!'. The darling of Margaret Thatcher, al-Fayed epitomised the right-libertarian
philosophy - do what you you like and tread on as many toes as you like in the pursuit of wealth. This type of attitude
leads to an ethical vacuum, nothing is a barrier to making money. al-Fayed was soon slipping bungs to high-ranking
Tory Party figures such as Neil Hamiliton and Jonathon Aitkin and countless others proven and unproven. This
Egyptian fellow was happily undermining democracy in Britain. When news of the bribes broke, al-Fayed was only to
happy to own up and was willing to expose many others as bribe-takers. These 'sleaze' incidents were further nails in
the coffin of the Establishment's political place-men, The Conservative Party, who were to lose heavily at the next
election (although, the establishment, devious as ever, had infiltrated Bilgerburger Tony Blair's new right-wing Labour
party as a contingency measure). This was an Egyptian citizen who had power to destroy a British Government. The
once ally of the British establishment was now it's victorious enemy.
al-Fayed, in his former days as establishment darling, had struck up an association with Diana. This was very much
renewed after Labour won the election and Diana and her Sons took a holiday with Al-fayed on his substantial yacht.
This was really rubbing the establishment's nose in it! It was saying, 'I've undermined you, now I've taken your
country's most prized woman. The heir to your throne sees me as an Uncle'. al-Fayed encouraged his playboy son,
Dodi, to strike up relations with the Princess and soon there was a much publicised romance.
It had now gone too far for the establishment. Diana had undermined the British constitutional system and was
threatening a key industry, and, to top it all, this Johnny Foreigner had made them look like fools. Not only this, a
possible Al-Fayed half-brother to the Heir would have been just too unsettling for the Establishment. Diana had to be
terminated. If they could get Al-Fayed too, so much the better.
And so all MI6 needed to do was pick it's moment. Diana's Merc may well have been tampered with in some way to
ensure she is killed (stunt teams alter the structure of cars all the time). The Merc leaves the Ritz hotel at *high
speed*, before any Paparazzi follow. It's just after midnight - a fair few people about on a Paris night, but too many as
it's quite late. The paparazzi are fairly *amiable*, not an evil horde as they're being portrayed on the news at the
moment (this is almost certainly now a cover-story). Diana smiles at the cameras, she's sparkling. Diana and Dodi sit
in the back of the car. Dodi's 'Security Man' drives. A front seat passenger who may be British intelligence also rides,
possibly in some sort of shielding to protect him from the forthcoming impact. The car speeds away along on it's way
to a private house. The paparazzi follow on hair-dryer motorcycles but do to adversely interfere with the car. The
Merc enters tunnel with little or no traffic. There are few possible witnesses about - the dark tunnel provides good
cover. The Motorcycles follow behind, not causing too much trouble. Possibly, a 'British Agent' (either Rees-Jones or
an external obstructor) forces crash, car crumples, as it may have been set-up to. The concrete tunnel is an ideal
place to smash up a car. Britain's Queen of Hearts is injured, later to die. al-Fayed's son is dead on scene. Driver is
dead. Paparazzi on bike are rounded up by French Police. Ambulance is somewhat late. Only a few witnesses.
Information implicating paparazzi is disseminated by British intelligence through the BBC. Paparazzi are possible
witnesses to some of the the actual events. Their film-roles are taken from them.
MI6, I believe, accomplished mission...
In the first section I outlined why it is unlikely that this was just your random car crash. I gave a brief outline of the
politics of Diana's interactions with the British and World Establishments. The next sections explain the course of of
the conspiracy as new information - and more importantly, disinformation - become available to the world.
A major anomaly was the BBC's treatment of the surviving passenger, initially described as 'British Special Branch',
and called Trevor Rees-Jones. This information 'came from French Police' and was reported mid-morning on the
Sunday. It is likely that French police found an identity badge of some sort on Trevor-Rees Jones' person, although
this is speculation. A little later, the same day BBC announce that Scotland Yard deny that he works for them. Was he
posing as Scotland Yard, but working for a much higher agency? The BBC later announce he's an Al-Fayed 'security
man' or 'body-guard', and some report him as Diana's 'bodyguard'. Later announcements, (11.00 Sept. 1st)
described Rees-Jones as a 29 year old ex-Soldier. We are given no description of his rank or regiment. Is he an ex-
Officer? SAS? The television news does not tell us. Is he someone who might be recruited by MI6? My American
contacts tell me that some earlier reports describe him as 'ex-Special-Branch' rather than an ex-soldier. An email
respondent made me aware of a unit called 'Army Special Branch' which as well as accounting for some of the
confusions, would also reinforce the idea Rees-Jones as a potential MI6 recruit. Remember, he's only 29 - are we to
believe he's been a soldier of some sort, a member of Scotland Yard's Special Branch and a top Al-Fayed security
Several British Newspapers have given more of the background of Trevor Rees-Jones. If we are to believe these
reports we can construct the following picture of the man. Rees-Jones served in the 1st
Battalion of the Parachute Regiment from 1987 until 1992. He had served in the Gulf and in Northern Ireland,
reaching the Army rank of Lance-Corporal until his retirement in 1992. An email respondent suggested that I check
this information in a volume called The Army List‘ available in large reference libraries. This I haven't had time to do,
but at the moment I'll run with the information from the newspapers. Again, this tends to support the idea of Rees-
Jones as someone who may have been chosen to infiltrate the Al-Fayed security team.
Early reports of Rees-Jones' condition conflict markedly to what is being said now. Early reports state that 'the front
seat passenger' is 'in no danger'. One of his family was shown on BBC in a calm, relieved state. Later reports state
he is 'critical' and in 'intensive care'. At this point, it seems as if he may not, officially, be in a fit state to talk. Again, we
might not necessarily be being given the true state of play regarding the man's condition. My guess is he's maybe
talking already and British intelligence are deciding how to handle what he's saying. Maybe he's more cut-up than
expected? Maybe he'll want to blow the whistle, blow the whole evil operation. Maybe he is genuinely not a 'British
Agent', maybe he's just a victim who knows a truth more terrible than the 'truth' the Big Media is feeding us. I have by
no means ruled out that Trevor Rees Jones is a British Agent who has earlier infiltrated the Al-Fayed security set-up
ready for when 'the time comes'.
A curious nugget of information surfaced in the Britain's centrist Observer newspaper on the 7th September 1997.
We had been led to believe that Rees-Jones was in an absolutely desperate condition He had suffered severe facial
injuries, had been Brain damaged and his tongue had been severed. In fact, it would seem that anything that might
have prevented him from speaking has indeed happened to him. According to the Observer, 'a source close to the
family' had revealed that Rees-Jones said he was feeling 'guilty about the tragedy, but he says he could not have
prevented the tragedy'. According to this 'close family source' Rees-Jones gave these utterances in a period of
consciousness. This alleged utterance was given to his mother and stepfather just a day after the crash.
Furthermore, Rees-Jones said he felt close to the Princess and Dodi and was devastated by their deaths. If true, and
I believe this is information which has 'slipped through the net' it would seem that Rees-Jones is not half as badly
injured as the world has been being conditioned to think. Obviously, we have to ask if Rees-Jones could speak all this
to his family, why are the French Magistrates who are supposedly leading the operation almost seeming to want Rees-
Jones to lie silent for as long as possible. It's as if they don't want his testimony, as if they don't want to hear any
contradictory revelation until they've massaged and moulded their own version of the truth. On 12th September 1997,
the popular Mirror newspaper was spewing out this false propaganda with a front page article claiming that Rees-
Jones 'hasn't been told of the deaths'. This is obviously complete nonsense.
Look out for a freak relapse.
Also of interest in the Observer article was the the description of Trevor Rees-Jones as 'secretive'. According to the
Observer, Rees-Jones joined the Al-Fayed security set-up after leaving the Parachute Regiment and, interestingly,
'the elite Royal Protection Squad'. His grandmother, Mrs. Sarah Ann Rees was quoted in the article as saying, 'We
didn't know anything about his jobs, although I've had a lot to do with him as we are a close family. We knew he was a
bodyguard, but we didn't know who he worked for. It was no good asking him about anything he didn't want to tell you.
On Monday Trevor's stepfather rang me and told me Trevor was going to live and make it back as he was - as
Trevor.'. This rather confirms many of my initial feelings. Of course, secret service are encouraged to maintain
secrecy surrounding their employment.
Leaving the Ritz Hotel
A man from Britain's Daily Express paper described, early on the Sunday, that the press outside the Ritz Hotel was
calm. Diana smiles at camera calmly gets into car. The car speeds off before Papperazzi apparently follow on
motorcycles. This revelation has only been heard once on the BBC. The Big Media story is that Diana and Dodi were
to exit at the front door, saw the mob of papperazzi and sneaked out the 'back way' into the Mercedes-Benz.
Apparently, we are to believe that Henri Paul was beckoned by someone to 'be the Driver'. Although Paul is also one
of al-Fayed's security team we are being led to believe he's little more than some sort of drugged-up, drunken,
unqualified Ritz 'bell-boy'.
Of course, the shock revelation came that he was Three-times over the French Drink-drive limit, two times the British
limit. This has opened up a can of worms. People who knew Paul, are now coming forward to say he wasn't the sort of
drink much, and that that he often refused to drive if he had had even a small amount to drink. His family and the
Fayed's demanded a second blood test, which unsurprisingly confirmed the earlier tests and also revealed that Henri
Paul was also using Prozac. One French Doctor quoted in the Independent on Sunday 7th September 1997
suggested that the picture being given of Paul is that of a man on the edge, hardly someone able to keep down an
important job at one of the Worlds Top Hotels.
Why did the car speed away from the Ritz when the Papperazzi were being fairly restrained? Were the Papperazzi
such a big deal? What scraps of treasure would fall through the Merc's blacked-out windows? Why the need for high
speed? Wouldn't the Papperazzi have dispersed when it became clear that there was no pictures on offer? It's now
becoming clear that a drunken Paul who taunts the papperazzi and then drives off at 100mph with such important
people in his care is completely untenable. What did Trevor Rees-Jones think about this 'drunk' getting in to drive?
Was he plastered too? There are gaping holes in the whole episode, it's too unlikely. Something is badly wrong.
It may well be - in fact it is highly likely - that Henri Paul‘s blood-sample has been tampered with so as to give the
impression that he was drunk and drugged-up on anti-depressants. If MI6 could discredit Paul, and lay much of the
blame for the accident at the door of Muhammad Al-Fayed, then this may smother al-Fayed‘s own investigations. The
last thing MI6 want is for another investigation to undermine their own carefully constructed truth‘. If the al-Fayeds,
with all their private resources, are to launch a major private inquiry into what happened this could well present a
problem for the establishment plot? Would Al-Fayed punish them one more time? Well, there's already a big Media
campaign to implicate the Ritz and al-Fayed, as well as a campaign to undermine his key spokesman, Michael Cole.
Although the paparazzi is being blamed world-wide, it was nearly two days after the event that the papperazzi were
charged with anything. At the time I wondered, 'Are they looking for their Lee Harvey Oswald?'. Now this has been
blown out of the water - it's gone totally surreal. They've charged the whole seven of them with Manslaughter! One of
the seven isn't even a paparazzi - he's just a motorcycle courier on his way home. Another of of the seven told the
BBC that he feels as if he's 'fallen into a net'. Of course, those accused of a crime, say all kinds of things, whether
guilty or innocent. But it's a curious thing for him to have said, 'fallen into a net'. What have the 'French Police' done
to these wretches?
Well, perhaps someone in the French Police force is feeling very guilty about what's been going on behind those
closed doors. On Tuesday night Sept. 2nd a Police report was leaked accusing the seven of the most appalling
things - obstructing the emergency services for one. Is the Policeman responsible for this leak guilty that his
colleagues are taking part in a set-up, and so wants to undermine the trial by leaking documents? A French
Policeman claims that these paparazzi pushed him out of the way as he tried to assist the victims. Yet, this conflicts
greatly with the testimony of the French Doctor who was on the scene within minutes of the crash. He said that
although there were men with cameras there, they caused no obstruction to him in his work. Is the Policeman a
It now also transpires that these paparazzis were riding what can be classed as little more than hair-dryers‘, rather
than higher-speed sports bikes. They wouldn‘t touch a Mercedes-Banz tearing away at 100mph+.
It seems as if the whole case against the paparazzi is a nonsense. The manslaughter charges are a complete joke,
whether Paul was drunk or not. The Magistrates' investigation is now centered on discrediting Henri Paul. This is an
understandable position. After, all the dead can't be heard to complain.
We have already mentioned the witnesses of the paparazzi, the French Doctor, and the French policeman.
Other key witnesses we are being told about are those who have claimed to see the crash or the events surrounding it
‘s immediate aftermath. Bizarrely, these are almost completely made up of American tourists! It would be easy, but
sloppy, to suggest that the CIA had lent their British cousins a few spooks for the afternoon, but it does merit bearing
in mind. This evil incident was a immaculately organised affair - anything is possible. One American family described
the Paparazzi swarming over the car talking pictures‘, but did not see the paparazzi cause‘ the crash.
There is major conflicting testimony emerging from some witnesses. Many people saw the Mercedes car travelling at
90, 100, 120mph. Yet, police are interviewing someone who claims to have seen a Motorcycle 'zig-zagging' in front of
the car. Zig-zagging at 90, 100mph on a hair-dryer‘ motorcycle? Come on! Well, it seems as if this early witness was
again completely spurious, one Francois Levi who telephoned the Reuters News agency with this information.
Although I initially wondered that Levi may have been a witness to the 'hit', it seems he's either an MI6, 'manufactured
witness' created to confuse the Media, or else is some lone nut trying to 'help' by implicating the paparazzi.
Very early reports quoted witnesses as seeing/hearing an explosion, rather like a terrorist attack. Several w witnesses
that were in the proximity of the tunnel just before the crash said they heard two distinct explosions, the first being
louder than the second. An American email respondent, echoing many others, spoke of an American woman who was
unable but to repeat the word 'explosion' almost as if searching for a different word, trying to say 'crashing' but aware
of the dishonesty in saying so. In frustration, she again said 'explosions'. Many people saw this America Couple on
CNN, and it was reported the day-after the crash on ITV's Teletext Service but this testimony was not heard again -
ever. According to my Email respondent, it was reported in a local North Californian Newspaper that the couple's is
home in San Diego and that it seems as if no one wants to talk to them about their sensational experience.
The 'CNN witnesses' also said that immediately after the event some people were around the car and that one man in
a three piece suit screamed at them in French and that there was 'liquid on the ground'. Understandably, the
witnesses were afraid of another explosion, and so backed away as instructed. Furthermore, it seems as if three men
in Paris for one guys birthday were on the same road and saw the same men around the car and the same man in a
three piece suit screaming in French.
A great many people have emailed me asking why I neglected to mention the Americans seen on CNN in very early
reports who described someone leaving the tunnel telling them to 'get back' only moments after the actual crash. I
haven't mentioned this until now because I was unable to verify it at the time, but I'm now convinced that many saw
these witnesses on CNN, so I'm now running with it. Of course, if there was some in the tunnel just moments after the
crash, clearing away witnesses, he's almost certainly part of the assassination, an MI6 agent.
It is interesting to note that a few days after the incident the French police were said to be looking for a smaller, darkly
coloured seen car leaving the tunnel by several witnesses. It now seems they have completely abandoned this line of
enquiry. Of course, it may well be that this car and the 'man shouting in French' are connected. It is likely that the
French police are well aware now of the suspicious nature of this crash, and their superiors and French Intelligence
are involved in high-level clandestine meetings with the British Government and/or MI6. I mean, what does the 'Officer
in charge' do when confronted with the terrible truth? He must think to himself, 'Christ! The bloody roast-beef have
bumped off their Princess. How the hell do I handle this one?'. It would seems as if there maybe a conflict between the
rank-and-file Police officers and 'higher-forces'. It's obvious that certain sections of the police are trying to get to
something near the truth. On 13th September 1997 there is to be a 'reconstruction' of events for example, although
sadly this may to be window-dressing, another attempt to present a false truth. Who can say? If it is indeed true that
this was an MI6 termination than the British Government would sooner cover it up than have to admit that they have
no control over British intelligence, even if they are privately appalled. And imagine those millions of mourners in
Great Britain - they'd be a minor revolution if the truth became widely known.
Diana Injury Anomaly
It is now clear that early reports of the crash suggested Diana was injured, but that her life wasn‘t threatened. The
French Doctor treated her for some time at the scene before an Ambulance took her to the French Hospital. The
crash occurred at just past midnight, but Diana was not declared dead until 4am. I‘m not sure what to make of this.
There is now question as to what hospital Diana would be taken to. Someone has said she would have been quicker
treated taken to an American hospital. I have not been able to verify this at this point.
Many respondents, world-wide, have told me that early interviews with the French doctor - Frederic Mailliez - on the
scene say he saw the Princess 'thrashing about', 'groaning and moaning' and that her condition 'did not seem
desperate', while other reports describe her motionless with her head on her shoulder. Thrashing about? If she was
this could have been for all sorts of reasons, but did the agent who caused the crash, inject her with something - just
to make sure? Was it the 'man shouting in French' the man who cleared the 'CNN couple' from the area? Also, Al-
Fayed claims that in hospital Diana was able to give a last message to an unknown person in England following the
crash, so obviously she was fairly conscious for a time. Also, what was this message and who was it to? Did it
implicate someone perhaps?
Incredibly, there is no mention whatever of a Diana post-mortem. And of course, the body was taken straight back to
the UK and is now firmly buried in the ground.
The Establishment React
For me - although some would cry too subjective‘ - the reaction of British Political leaders is telling. Bilderberger Blair
of New Labour and Paddy Ashdown of the Liberal Democrats both looked and sounded genuinely upset, Blair's voice
cracking with emotion. William Hague, the Conservative Leader, seemed unmoved, unaffected, disinterested, trying to
sound concerned but failing. Did Hague suspect what was going to happen to Diana? Are the Conservative old guard
privately relieved that the 'loose cannon' has been finally silenced? Has Mr. Soames shown his face in public?
The Queen's reaction is telling, seeming to lend support my initial claims. The Queen seems to have adopted the
most insidious of 'life goes on' attitudes. The Union Jack over Buckingham Palace was not lowered to half mast, unlike
most other British institutional buildings. The boys were taken, as per, to Church by the Queen as if nothing had
happened, exposing the grieving Princes to minor public attention. It was reported on the Channel 4 News that Diana
was first placed in a small private morgue rather than a Royal palace, not because it was standard procedure in a
Royal death abroad as the spin-doctored reports had stated, but because the Queen was so scathing about Diana
that no-way did she want 'her' placed in one of her buildings. According to the Channel 4 report, it was largely due to
public outcry and the pleading of Charles that she was eventually moved to a Royal Building. The Queen obviously
did not want the People's Princess to get a Royal funeral in any shape or form. And of course, it was the Queen who
was instrumental in removing HRH from Diana's title. The Queen is now being to subjected to a barrage of public
outpouring. She is having to shift ground fast. She was forced to give a completely stale address the Nation on Friday
evening before the funeral - this is unprecedented to see the head of state being buffeted on the waves of public
outcry. Has the whole mess got too big for the House of Windsor?
What of the Paparazzi films?
It was revealed that a day later, the 'French Police' (who we are being led to believe is leading this investigation)
decide to develop the photos apparently taken by the paparazzi on motorcycles. If any photographs exist they will
have been developed straight away and are now being vetted. Telling photos may well be removed by MI6.
How can we know what is true and what is not?
People have been asking me 'how' I know the media is moulding and remoulding the truth to some covert plan?
People are so trusting of these 'respectable' institutions like CNN or the BBC. But Britons - look how the BBC
presented a completely skewed image of the Falkland‘s War, the Gulf War, the Minor's Strike, the Poll Tax riots, the
Criminal Justice Act riots, or the Sea Empress disaster in a way which was far from what actually happened. This is
not by journalistic chance or quirk. And Americans - see how the Big Media massaged and remoulded the News of the
'Blacks/Syphilis' scandal and the 'CIA/Drugs' scandal through different news bulletins.
Look at the Media with any possibility in your mind, not just the one they want to furtively push into your mind. The
First Report is often the least doctored, the least massaged.
What has Col. Gaddafi got to do with it?
The BBC went out of their way on September 3rd 1997 to mention the comments of Col. Gaddafi of Libya. The
Dictator claims, along with many Arab nations that Diana and Dodi were killed by British and French Intelligence.
Although it is easy to call this a Dictator‘s propaganda‘, we must bear in mind that British Intelligence have been all
over Libya, Gaddafi would know much about how they operate.
But, more importantly, why the hell did the BBC bother telling the Nation about the comments of an Arab who hasn‘t
been in the British News for ages? I say it is do undermine Westerners who are close to the truth. For example, at the
start of the Vietnam War, every self-respecting right-wing American was anti sending American Boys out there to fight
for a load of Gooks‘ thousands of miles away. But of course, when being anti-war became associated with left-wing
subversives‘, Joe Reactionary had to be seen to support the war, helping to prolong the American losses.
The same sort of currents are operating here. MI6 want to paint Intelligence Job‘ theorists as being in league with
the Arabs! Magic eh?
Mr. and Mrs. Dodi Fayed
Rumours abound in the UK, that al-Fayed was to help Diana set-up a Charitable Foundation, which obviously would
be seen to be strengthening their bond. Other rumours suggested she was to retire from Public life in the Winter,
possibly marrying Dodi.
The marriage rumours are now near fact. A close friend of Dodi told a British Arabic newspaper that the couple did
indeed intend to marry this year. Also, Diana and Dodi had visited a top Paris jeweller on the fateful day - a £130,000
ring was purchased. This must surly be an engagement ring. Dodi told the jeweller how much he was in love with the
Princess. If Establishment moles had discovered that a wedding announcement was imminent, they would have had to
act immediately. If she was topped after this announcement, too many people would be suspicious. They could not
allow this announcement - no way, not no how.
Ok, just how do you suppose MI6 set this up?
People have asked me, quite reasonably, 'Why did MI6 top her in such a built up area? Why did they not kill her by a
more definite method?' Well, if they'd gone for the 'mad gunman' acting alone, the schizoid lunge in the street, the car
crash in the isolated country lane, the 'suicide' then the whole world would be screaming, 'MI6! MI6! MI6!' No, that
would be far too obvious. It had to look like a believable random accident.
It is now clear that no one bar two, and I'll repeat that, NO ONE bar two, can claim to have been a witness to the
actual crash, not even the famed, 'American Tourists'. The Paparazzi, the French police now have to admit, did not
appear on the seen until a short time later. NONE of the Paparazzi saw the crash! NONE of the pedestrian witnesses
saw the crash. Trevor Rees-Jones is the one of two people alive who likely saw what happened. Trevor Rees-Jones, I
now believe, will suffer a relapse and die, or he'll be too cabbaged to divulge any facts. I'd like to see exactly what's
going on in that hospital room, exactly what's going into that man's drip.
I haven't discounted that Trevor Rees-Jones was in on it in some way.
If MI6 couldn't have run them off the road under the bridge, no doubt there would have been a crash somewhere else.
If anyone is truly squirming in their graves at this time, it's Henri Paul, until his death the Deputy head of security at
the Ritz and the driver on the night of the assassination. The news media's treatment of this poor fellow is getting to
be blackly comic. It's got to the stage that it seems there wasn't a man in France less suitable to have driven Dodi and
Diana on that night. Not only have we been given the impression of Paul as a hopeless alcoholic, but also a man not
qualified to drive a limo and a man hooked on Prozac. One French doctor quoted in the Times 11th September 1997,
suggested the level of intoxication apparently riddling Paul's body paints a picture of a man on the edge, a man in the
final desperate throws of life, someone in need of institutional care. And yet, this man not only keeps down an
important job at the Ritz but is unfeasibly able to mask his problems from his workmates, the Ritz security cameras
and Trevor Rees-Jones who we are led to believe is Dodi's shadow. This just does not add up.
It seems as if the case against the chasing paperazzi was always going to be weak and was always going to crumble.
It seems as if the drunk driver was a contingency measure which has now risen to become the focal point of the cover-
up's false truth. The initial blood tests on Paul were surprisingly late, coming nearly 3 days after the crash. And,
remarkably, the third blood-test as demanded by Paul's family and the al-Fayed's was nearly five days incoming. This
smacks of behind the scenes scheming. It's as if the police and whoever are truly controlling them are plotting away
as to how to proceed. They are deciding how to fake evidence, how to present evidence, what to reveal, what not to
reveal. It seems that the cover-up fears the al-Fayeds and any independent investigation they may instigate. By
thoroughly discrediting Paul, MI6 are laying much of the blame on al-Fayed. In fact, there is even talk of prosecuting
the Ritz! al-Fayed is not a stupid man. He must know everything is skewed. He's trying to get to grips with the
situation, trying to plan his next move. He must know the whole weight of secret government is against him. I'm no
natural fan of the Rich, 'self-made' or otherwise, but I dearly hope al-Fayed can stick one on them, shame them to
The Evil of the Intelligence Agencies
Some of you have had difficulty with the idea of Western Intelligence Services committing such an appalling act of
terrorism. It's as if most of us have some child-like ideas of heroic James Bonds protecting us from evil empires and
marauding 'Islamic fundamentalist terrorists' or some other manufactured threat. Some have tried to tell me that our
good old MI6 boys aren't like those mind-controlling drugs-dealing CIA goons. Well, I tell you never is the phrase 'our
American cousins' so fondly used as between these agencies.
The way many view it, it's as if MI6 are good old cuddly Brits keeping us all safe, saving the day for freedom and
democracy, and we should be grateful. It as if were meant to be grateful that 'the powers that be' have selected us for
'freedom' rather and 'dictatorship'. That's rather like the Slave who's grateful for receiving ten lashings rather than
twenty at the hands of his Feudal master.
Sure, there's a real role whereby intelligence agencies are engaged in what we might call 'legitimate' activities, but
there is a whole other layer that you'll seldom if ever read about in your 'popular memoirs'. There's a whole upper
echelon that won't be read in your 'Spycatcher' or your 'Inside Intelligence'.
If anyone has any glowing notions of western Intelligence than they need only remember Yvonne Fletcher, a young
policewoman slaughtered in the prime of her life, not by stray bullets from the London's Libyan Embassy as we had
been told, but by an unknown gunman linked to American and British intelligence. These revelations quietly slipped
onto British Television screens in a Channel 4 Dispatches expose, and prompted a Commons debate of which
nothing much came (those interested in the Yvonne Fletcher killing should look out for a police report said by Home
Secretary Jack Straw to be appearing at the end of September 1997). Is this to be the true legacy of the Diana
assassination, an obscure TV documentary twenty years later? Let's hope not.
Of course, British intelligence has harassed Diana for many years before they actually killed her. This was most
apparent when MI5 were exposed as the originators of the so-called 'Squidgygate tapes', with revealed intimate
phone-calls between Diana and her lover. But it doesn't stop there by any means.
It is highly likely that Diana's one-time bodyguard and illicit lover Barry Mannakee, who died a few years back in a
'motorcycle accident', was an MI5 termination. In a fit of grief Diana stated so herself, believing MI5 to be the
perpetrators although she was later to 'calm down' and retract. It stands as a testament to Diana's immense strength
that she was able to withstand the Intelligence barrage for as long as she did, so much so, that they finally had to
physically kill her to remove the 'Diana problem'.
It was interesting to note that the Daily Mail on 6th September 1997 mentioned that Diana's ex-lover James Hewitt had
deposited his collection of love-letters in a bank vault lest the should be seized by the 'security services'.
Who gave the nod?
From the politics of Diana's dealings with the British Establishment, it would seem most likely that a purely domestic
termination was planned and executed on the Orders of those concerned with the British Constitutional System.
Years ago it was decided to orchestrate an intelligence campaign against Diana, through phone-taps, media
maulings the termination of her one-time friend / bodyguard, Barry Mannakee. This had failed, and throughout this
time Diana was getting more and more dangerous. It seems bizarre now that before her death the Media was full of
how devastating was her effect on the Monarchy, now the media has fallen silent, as if she was nothing but a Royal
asset. The destablisation campaign had failed, it doesn't take to much thinking to devise a possible next-step,
namely, 'death'.From Diana's past problems with the Intelligence services it's clear that there was a sizable plot to
undermine her, a course of action decided by MI5/6, the Royal Family and certain old-guard Conservative politicians.
Therefore, it would seems likely that from these the 'nod' came.
David Charles Hammonds 14th September 1997
Date Posted 03-27-13
The article below featured in the British tabloid "The Daily Star" and is interesting as the father of Henri Paul acting as
chauffeur for Diana and Dodi in Paris on August 31st 1997 and who was also killed in the incident claiming the lives of
Diana, Princess of Wales and her companion Dodi Fayed draws attention to some vital points that I have now read for
the first time so felt needed to be shared.
OCTOBER 15TH 2007
BY Tom Hutchison
THE truth about Princess Diana’s death could “spell the ruination of Britain”, it was claimed last night. The allegation
was made by the father of Henri Paul, who was driving Diana’s car on the night of the Paris crash. Jean Paul says his
son is being made a scapegoat by the authorities for the crash that killed him, Diana, 36 yrs old and her lover Dodi
Fayed, 42 yrs old
With the six-month inquest on Diana set to continue today, Mr Paul claimed Henri, 41 yrs old had to discreetly eject a
mystery intruder at the Ritz minutes before he took to the road – proving he could not have been drunk at the wheel.
And he says French police are refusing to hand back some of Henri’s blood-covered possessions because they do
not want him to have access to his blood from that night.
Jean Paul also says that claims his son was in the pay of secret services are rubbish as the broke security chief had
asked him for a £1,000 loan for a deposit on a flat. Mr Paul Snr, 76 yrs old said a treasured photo ID card his son
was carrying in his wallet during the 1997 crash had never been returned. He suggested the authorities did not want
him to have the blood-stained card because he would be able to prove through lab tests that his son was not drunk at
He added: “We were also told Henri had no wallet on him. I don’t believe that.” Mr Paul said a lot of things did not add
up about the whole case.
but he said: “In my heart there is a flame of hope that, one day, the truth will come out and it could spell the ruination
of Great Britain.”
A spokesman for Dodi’s father, Mohamed al Fayed, has urged dad-of-five Mr Paul to address the inquest with his
French police would not comment on his claims last night.