(Date Posted:09/02/2007 09:13:37)                         

"Diana: The Hidden Evidence"

Jon King and John Beveridge's book

"Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence"

which blamed the CIA and FBI for her death. reviewed below:

In its pre-launch promotional blurb, this book was billed as 'a serious literary inquiry' into 'the political and historical
motives behind the death of "Diana, Princess of Wales" and in its own uncompromising way, that is precisely what it

Incredibly, "Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence" claims foreknowledge of an MI6 plot to "eliminate one of the most
prominent figures on the world stage...within days from now". According to the authors this information came from a
"US Special Forces veteran and CIA contract agent" (with whom they had already forged a working relationship) one
week prior to the crash in Paris.

Even more incredibly, this claim is then corroborated by an MI5 source and a second source inside "British Military
Intelligence."Doubtful? Inconclusive? OK, but that is where any doubts regarding the authenticity of this book begin
and end. The authors are quick to point out that their findings do not depend on this information. It is included, they
say, purely to explain their reasons for investigating Diana's death in the first place.

The full interview with the "US Special Forces veteran" is included in the book, and is very revealing indeed. That is
only the beginning ! This book is the product of a 2-year investigation, and includes testimonies from many other
highly respected sources - crash experts, security and intelligence experts, medical experts, constitutional and
historical experts - all of whom offer threads of evidence which the authors string together into a very coherent and
compelling case and when, on occasion, evidence is gleaned from an 'unnamed' source, the authors are quick to
substantiate that evidence with the testimony of at least one 'named' source. Often more than one !

One such 'unnamed' source - a former SAS sergeant - reveals that the 'accident' in which Diana died bore all the
tell-tail signs of a known special forces assassination technique known as the 'Boston brakes'. Agreed, on first
hearing, this sounds a bit James Bond - contrived. But bear with it. Because then you go on to read the testimony of
former SAS officer and world famous explorer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, who confirms that the 'Boston brakes' is indeed
a commonly employed assassination technique used by hired 'hit squads', and that it involves the use of a device
which remotely controls the target-vehicle's steering and brakes. Fiennes goes on to say that this method has been
used at least once in England, and in this regard describes in some detail the assassination of one Major Michael
Marman, who was killed in a 'car crash' near Stonehenge in 1986. There's no doubt that the operation that killed
Major Marman, as described by Fiennes, as well as by former Equerry to the Queen, Air Marshall Sir Peter Horsley,
was chillingly identical to the series of events that killed Diana.

Once again I have to say that the way the authors are able to continually corroborate their evidence in this way,
throughout the book, is very impressive. Another thing that impressed me about this book was its format. From the
outset the authors make no bones about the fact that they believe Diana was murdered; hence they present their
findings in the form of a courtroom trial - the authors assume the role of prosecuting counsels while the reader
assumes the role of jury. In the dock, accused of 'conspiracy to murder', are MI6 and the CIA, together with the
British Royal Establishment and I have to say that the case brought against them is both disturbing and convincing.
No wonder the authors were forced to go to the U.S.A. in order to get this book published!

Book review by Stephen Reid


(Date Posted:09/03/2007 01:51:10)
Diana: The MI6 Mystery

Tucked inside a plastic file at Scotland Yard is an explosive nine-line note from an anonymous informant concerning
the untimely death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Written in a blue felt-tip pen on a flimsy piece of paper ripped from
an A4 exercise book, the note is central to the British police investigation into how the Princess was killed in a Paris
road crash nine years ago.

It has been examined for clues to authenticity and authorship since it was passed last summer to the team of senior
detectives who are trying to unravel the myriad of conspiracy theories, the facts and the fiction which surround the
Princess's death at the age of 36 years old.

The potentially explosive note contains the names of two highly respected men who have spent their entire careers
working at the heart of the British Establishment - representing the Government as diplomats. They are both in their
early 40s, happily married with children. One plays a senior role at a key "Whitehall Department" while the other
holds a glittering posting as a counsellor at the British embassy of a major capital city in southern Europe. Yet,
according to the mystery note, the two men are not what they appear. Although neither can be named due to
matters of security (we will call them 'X' and 'Y') both are accused of being shadowy officers in our secret intelligence
service MI6 and operating in Paris during late August 1997.

"If you are brave enough, dig deeper to learn about X and Y," says the note. "Both MI6. Both were involved at the
highest level in the murder of the Princess." It is signed off with the words: "Good Luck."

The address at the top of the piece of paper is simply 'Langley', the headquarters of the CIA, America's intelligence
agency, in Virginia, USA. An intriguing note, it's content easily verified by a thorough, disciplined investigation; which
was first sent to a leading British newspaper and then handed on to New Scotland Yard!


( "Whitehall" being the seat of the British Establishment...opposite the Cenotaph Monument in London...home of the
Parliamentary Counsel of which my father was a senior member.  ~~ Andrew Russell - Davis )


(Date Posted:18/06/2007 20:07:33)

Another Valuable "Anonymous" Viewpoint.

During the evening of 29 January 1999, five hundred and sixteen days after the death of Princess Diana, various
assorted camera crews stood assembled outside the Ritz Hotel in London. Prince Charles was finally "coming out"
with his mistress Camilla Parker-Bowles on his arm, and the London media had been primed in advance about the
photo opportunity. As the smiling pair happily descended the steps of the Ritz, flash bulbs predictably started
popping all over the place but then the unthinkable happened.

From a location above and behind the media pack, someone fired a powerful Pulsed-Strobe "Less Than Lethal"
optical weapon directly at the Prince and Camilla. Though slightly diffused by the flash bulbs below, the intense
distinctive blue-white pulses were still powerful enough to make Camilla Parker-Bowles stumble slightly, and then
turn pale. Though taken from a slightly different angle, the remarkable photo shown was exposed at the exact
second the Pulsed-Strobe LTL fired.

The PS-LTL is a narrow-beam weapon,  the intense blue-white glare aimed directly on Camilla's right eye, and on
the right side of Prince Charles' nose. The Prince had his face turned away from the weapon at the instant it fired so
he escaped its neural effects. No doubt there will be photographic "experts" out there who will claim this was merely a
media flash gun. Any and all such claims can easily be disproved. The media pack was completely contained behind
a barrier more than sixty feet away from the London Ritz Hotel, at which range no media flash gun ever invented can
generate such an intense [and narrow] blue-white beam or pulse. Adding to the mystery is the fact that the weapon
used, was almost identical to one assumed to be used in the Pont de l' Alma tunnel against Princess Diana and Dodi
Fayed on 31 August 1997, just after they left the Paris Ritz hotel on their last journey.

Only three weeks after that fatal crash, I wrote to Mohammed al - Fayed about Pulsed-Strobe LTL Weapons. This
letter was sent to London by registered mail on 22 September 1997, long before any "official" reasons or misleading
suggestions about the crash were published by the media ... "When this LTL weapon fires, it pulses high-intensity
brilliant white light at brain frequencies, inducing complete neural confusion for between two and five seconds.
Line-of-sight exposure is overwhelming and renders the target completely incapable of meaningful brain function.
Exposure at oblique angles causes moderate to severe mental confusion. "  If this LTL system was deployed at the
tunnel entrance in order to trigger a lethal event, the two-ton mass of the Mercedes colliding with a solid concrete
wall at sixty mph, would have ensured lethality due to the car's inertia, which could be accurately calculated in

"Although pulsed-strobe LTL by its very nature leaves little hard evidence of its use, there are indicators which might
be useful in determining whether or not it was deployed at the Paris tunnel." EQ.   Before going on to examine who
might have the motive and means to orchestrate the event outside the London Ritz, it might be instructive to examine
how the media pack reacted to this extraordinary optical weapon at the time. The BBC, obliged to transmit quite
dangerous television footage of events at the Ritz, tried to blame it all on an over-abundance of flash guns: "Some
had been waiting for many hours to catch a glimpse of the couple. Many were tourists, and others had merely
stopped to see what was going on as they made their way home from pubs and restaurants."

Such was the ferocity of the flash guns, the British Epilepsy Association urged broadcasters not to transmit more
than five seconds of the strobe-like effects, fearing that it would spark photo sensitive seizures in some sufferers." In
fact the "strobe-like effects" had already done considerably more damage than that. At one London TV station two
editors became severely confused, and at another station, one editor became totally disorientated and collapsed
across the control console. None of these personnel, or other who suffered lesser effects, had any history of
epilepsy. Working rapidly behind the scenes, The Independent Television Commission in London took a much
harder line than the BBC, swiftly circulating an urgent directive to all TV networks. The ITC warned that "the news
footage [taken outside the London Ritz] appeared significantly to breach the ITC's guidelines on the use of flashing
images," and called for subsequent broadcasts "to fall in line with the Commission's guidance notes." In accordance
with this directive, later transmissions had the footage slowed down, a fact reported openly by television networks
across the world including Australia's ABC and SBS.

Despite the confusion, and the fact this was the first and only documented occasion on which television footage
worldwide had to be slowed down to avoid neural damage, not one media outlet anywhere reported on the real
reasons for this unique phenomena. It was literally the scoop of the century. For the first time in history people were
swooning all over the floor, and collapsing across television consoles, to the point where transmission speeds had to
be altered to limit further physical and mental damage. At best George Orwell had come to town, and at worst the
government's "Mind Controllers" had just turned up for work. It was a giant of a story begging to be reported to the
viewers, but no one said a thing. Are all media personnel stupid, or were they simply told to keep their mouths shut
that day?

Possible motives for this deliberate event must also include the possible motives behind the deaths of Dodi Fayed,
and Diana, Princess of Wales. The links between Prince Charles, Princess Diana, Camilla Parker-Bowles and Dodi
Fayed overlap in several complex ways, to the point where any diligent investigator or analyst would ignore them at
his peril. The hotel name itself points to another or parallel link, which is unlikely to be mere coincidence. The Ritz
Hotel in Paris is owned by Mohammed al -Fayed, while the Ritz Hotel in London is jointly owned by Sir David and Sir
Frederick Barclay, affectionately known in London circles as "The Reclusive Twins" because they shun limelight and
controversy. So far as is known, both Sir Barclays have always left the day-to-day running of the London Ritz entirely
to its own management team, so we can confidently exclude any rivalry or conflict between the hotel owners

What, then? The explanation is long and may get a little boring in places, but stay with me people, stay with me. The
means justify the end of this story, and the end of this story is frightening. Throughout history, a large number of
powerful men [and pretenders who seek to be powerful men] have been inexorably drawn towards symbolism and
anniversary dates. You see evidence of this all around you in everyday life!

American Independence Day is celebrated on 4 July each year, which serves the dual role of symbolism
[Independence] and a specific day on which to celebrate it. On the other side of the Atlantic we have the Golden
Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain. Princess Elizabeth's father, King George VI, died on 6th February
1952. As required by tradition, the new monarch acceded to the throne instantly. At no time is Britain left without a
monarch. It is for this reason that the monarch's flag, The Royal Standard, can never fly at half mast even though
the public expected the 'Standard' to be at half mast at the time of Princess Diana's death.

Though the Queen's Golden Jubilee is officially celebrated in June 2002, it was actually on 6th February 2002 that
Elizabeth the Second completed exactly fifty years as Monarch. There are other events and dates most people
forgot long ago, which can still be used subversively for more discreet commemorative purposes. Fine so far. The
owners of the two Ritz Hotels are not involved, but we still have a highly charged and very symbolic situation.

The last time any of us saw Prince Charles' estranged wife Diana alive, is when she walked out of the back door of
the Ritz Hotel in Paris with Dodi Fayed. The first time we "officially" saw Prince Charles' mistress Camilla
Parker-Bowles, is when she walked out of the front door of the Ritz Hotel in London. So what does it all mean, and
who was really pulling the symbolic strings in this strange subliminal tableaux? To answer this we need to back up a
few years to 1992-3, when suddenly and without apparent reason, a person or persons unknown started "bugging"
the telephones of Prince Charles, Princess Diana, and Camilla Parker-Bowles. Rumors circulated by the media
insinuated that Prince Charles started it all, but why on earth would he bother?

Nowadays we all know that back in 1993 and much earlier, Prince Charles had both Protestant wife and Catholic
mistress, i.e. the best of both worlds, and would most certainly not upset the apple cart himself. Princess Diana also
had no motive, nor did Camilla Parker-Bowles. Whoever ordered the bugging benefited hugely in terms of
undermining the credibility of the Royal Family, and eventually the London Sunday Mirror newspaper pointed the
finger thus: "The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA) are holding a 1,056 page
dossier made by bugging Princess Diana's phones and eavesdropping on her conversations. The CIA had mounted
a surveillance operation on Diana at the request of British Intelligence Service MI6". It would be a serious error of
judgement to assume that MI6, home of the fictional James Bond, is actually controlled by the British Government.

It would be an equally serious error of judgement to assume that MI6 goes out of its way to protect members of the
Royal Family, because it does not do so. Preserving national security and protecting the Royal Family are tasks
handled jointly by MI5 and The Metropolitan Police Service. More properly known by its correct title of the "Secret
Intelligence Service" (SIS), MI6 was long ago penetrated by both the American Central Intelligence Agency and the
Israeli Mossad. For at least the last two decades MI6 has danced to the tune of the CIA, which unfortunately over the
same period of history has itself been subordinate to Mossad interests. Therefore any international agenda followed
by MI6 and the CIA, has been set by the Mossad.

"Why oh why", I hear you ask, "would the Mossad be interested in harming Prince Charles, Princess Diana or Camilla
Parker-Bowles?" Once again we have to delve back through the history books for the answer, and please note here
this is a serious investigation, not an "anti-Semitic" witch hunt as many Jews are sure to claim. It is documented
historical fact that for many centuries, Jewish financiers effectively controlled various British Kings and Queens, by
funding wars and many other ventures that the occasionally extravagant British monarchs desired. True, every now
and then a King might, and in fact did, banish them all from Britain, but overall the Jews were the undisputed winners.

It was not until the early 20th Century that disenchanted British bureaucrats finally knocked them off their perch.
Then the Jews lost not only financial control of the British monarchy, but also the ear of the Royal Court. It would be
realistic to claim that the biggest grudge the Jews held against Britain in contemporary times was the latter's absolute
refusal to hand over Palestine as the new "Jewish State". In the end the Jewish Zionists prevailed, but it was very
hard going. Thereafter the Zionist Lobbies decided to pay more attention to Britain. The colonies had vanished one
by one over the years but, diplomatically speaking, Britain was still a powerhouse. Though the British monarch has
very little real power nowadays, he or she still wields enormous influence, and Prince Charles had already displayed
a desire to be the "Defender of Faiths" when eventually crowned King, i.e. not be exclusively restricted to his
traditional role as defender of the Church of England.

Ominously perhaps, in late May 1996, just over a year before Diana would later be murdered in a Paris tunnel,
Britain's Prime Minister John Major took the odd step of publicly disapproving of Prince Charles' stand, while at the
same time cleverly exposing the fact that "faiths" in the Royal plural sense did not include Judaism. Interviewed on
BBC Television, Major described the desire of the Prince of Wales to be seen as a figurehead for all religions in
Britain, including Catholics, Muslims and Hindus, as "odd" and further suggested that such a move could be
interpreted as an "empty gesture". It was a performance watched very closely by leading members of the Jewish
community, who collectively had very bad vibes about any "King Charles."

Back in the Middle Ages, Charles I banned the Jews from Britain, and as a result was ruthlessly pursued by Oliver
Cromwell, who can fairly be described on his actions and deeds as "Britain's first Communist leader", complete with a
subservient proletariat. The Jews wanted back in, and Cromwell was their man-- body and soul. Eventually fate and
Oliver Cromwell caught up with Charles I, who faced his execution on the 30 January 1649 at Whitehall, where he
was beheaded on a specially built scaffold. Then after a respectable interlude of just a few years, Oliver Cromwell
graciously and obediently allowed the Jews back into Britain. Mark the 30th January 1649 well, because something
extraordinary was to happen exactly three hundred and fifty years later in London, as we will shortly see.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the modern Prince Charles' nineties stand on religion can now be seen as
reckless, if not downright dangerous. In the run-up to his statement about "faiths", Charles had payed several visits
to Muslim communities, while apparently ignoring Judaism. In so doing, Prince Charles opened himself up as a target
for Jewish fanatics, none of whom were prepared to run the risk of being ejected from Britain all over again. It was
finally considered much better [and far easier] to discredit Charles, and thus prevent him ever ascending the throne.
Naturally enough the Zionist lobby knew all about the exploitable skeleton in Charles' closet - Camilla Parker-Bowles
because they had full control of the earlier "bugging" sequences by Britain's MI6. But if the Zionists thought Prince
Charles was a big problem, they were certainly not ready for the shattering events of 1997.

Quite suddenly a catastrophe happened. Instead of continuing to hang out with a relatively harmless
wet-behind-the-ears British army officer, Princess Diana started a relationship with Dodi Fayed, son of Mohamed al
-Fayed of Harrod's fame. If there was one man in England the Zionist lobby loved to hate with a passion it was
Mohamed al - Fayed. So intense was their hatred that for more than twenty years, members of the Lobby had
prevented Mohamed al - Fayed from obtaining British citizenship, a privilege handed out on a daily basis to any
illegal immigrant who bothered to knock on Britain's back door. It became instantly obvious to the Zionist Lobby that
Dodi Fayed could not be controlled at all.

This man was not a junior British officer who could be cowed by Whitehall or by "The Firm" at Buckingham Palace,
but an independent Special FX Producer from Hollywood with the full backing of his immensely wealthy father.
Though the Lobby felt confident it could "influence" or even control the rather muddled relationship between Prince
Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles, and eventually use that relationship to undermine Prince Charles completely,
the thought of a powerful Muslim influence being anywhere near Prince William or Prince Harry, drove its members to
distraction. Somehow the Zionist Lobby had to get rid of Dodi Fayed, and then once more arrogantly display its
implicit "influence" over Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles.

If Dodi Fayed was allowed to continue his relationship with Princess Diana, and perhaps marry her, then ultimately
his discreet influence over Prince William and Prince Harry could well undermine all of their careful work, and
preparations to guide the future King of England and his heirs.  How could they get rid of him? Suddenly, as if from
nowhere, there was an answer to the Zionist prayers.

With its driver suddenly blinded by a Pulsed-Strobe LTL Weapon, and amid an appalling screech of brakes and
twisted metal, the Mercedes carrying Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed away from the Ritz Hotel in Paris, cannoned off
the wall of the Pont de l' Alma tunnel and came to rest in the center lane. Dodi Fayed and driver Henri - Paul were
killed on impact. Princess Diana died shortly afterwards. The only survivor was bodyguard Trevor Rees Jones,
though he was critically injured. Most of Britain went into deep shock, mourning the death of Princess Diana.
Hundreds of wreaths took up acres of space outside her official residence, and every faith on earth sent a religious
representative to her funeral in Westminster Abbey. Well, all faiths except one.

The Chief Rabbi declined to attend, ostensibly because the funeral took place on Shabbat, the Jewish equivalent of
Sunday in the Christian Church. It was odd behavior, because I can find no religious law stating that Jews may not
enter a Christian Church on a Saturday. In Jewish literature, poetry and music, Shabbat is described as a bride or
Queen, as in the popular Shabbat hymn Lecha Dodi Likrat Kallah (come, my beloved, to meet the [Sabbath] bride). It
is said "more than Israel has kept Shabbat, Shabbat has kept Israel." Shabbat is not specifically a day of prayer. "To
say that Shabbat is a day of prayer is no more accurate than to say that Shabbat is a day of feasting: we eat every
day, but on Shabbat, we eat more elaborately and in a more leisurely fashion." To an outsider like me, the Chief
Rabbi's refusal to attend seemed more like a deliberate snub.

Over the next year or so Prince Charles fought a rising tide of public hostility, as he tried to introduce Camilla
Parker-Bowles as his consort. The British people barely concealed their resentment and indeed, several
conspiracies started to do the rounds that tacitly accused the Prince of being directly involved in the murder of his
young wife. There was never any direct or indirect evidence to support these preposterous claims, and over the
years they died away. Eventually, in January 1999, arrangements were made for a party at the Ritz Hotel in London,
apparently to celebrate the birthday of one of Camilla's many friends. It is most unlikely that Prince Charles or
Camilla Parker-Bowles decided on the date, venue or the time, because traditionally junior staff take care of such
details. Put another way, suddenly deciding to have a party specifically at the London Ritz on 29 January was almost
certainly not their own idea.

The media was discreetly told to be there, and when all were in place, the Prince strode down the steps of the Ritz
with Camilla Parker-Bowles on his arm. Then the Pulsed-Strobe LTL Optical Weapon fired, and for a millionth of a
second history stood perfectly still. Exactly fifty years before, on 29 January 1949, the Crown had finally and very
grudgingly granted diplomatic recognition to the State of Israel.


(Rose's note: Whoever "Anonymous" might be he/she does seem an intelligent and well informed person. However it
seems they feel that Dodi was the main target of the "accident" that transpired in the Alma tunnel. Since Diana has
maintained in her book, channeled messages and via pod casts that she was the target and Dodi a victim I pondered
upon this assertion for a good long time and I have come to believe that both were a target and a victim. I can agree
with what is said by "Anonymous" here above...it makes sense that certain factions could not want a Muslim joined in
familial connection to the Monarchy. However, let us not forget that since Diana had determined that she would next
go into Palestine to swivel world focus there on the plight of those people that for the same reasons certain factions
could very well shudder at the thought. Add the idea of these two people joining in a league called marriage and you
have some very large goose bumps upon the arms of those who have agendas concerning the Palestinian state.
The Zionists have longed had an agenda to rid the area of Muslim "encampments" and so I truly think that this
"accident" was what we in America call a "two-fer" -- Two (eradicated) for the price of one.)